| OCR Text |
Show 178 CONNECTICUT number of State tax credits for waste treatment and pollution abate- ment facilities.32 Apart from the statutory water control measures, the Connecticut courts have held that a riparian owner is entitled to have a stream preserved in quality as well as quantity,33 and the discharge of wastes into waters may be an unreasonable riparian use that amounts to a nuisance.34 However, a small amount of pollution or degradation of a stream may be a reasonable riparian use, especially if all the treat- ment processes reasonably available have been used on the dis- charges.35 Since unreasonable waste discharges into a stream con- stitute nuisances, no prescriptive right can be acquired to continue the pollution.36 But the court has sustained the acquisition of a right to pollute by eminent domain when it was for a public use.37 b. OTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE LEVEL In addition to those agencies discussed above, the State Health Department has jurisdiction over all matters concerning the purity of any source of water or ice supply for public use.38 The Attorney General, with the approval of the Governor, is auth- orized to take such action as deemed necessary to protect the state from damage by diversion or other interference with streams which flow into the state; and may negotiate and contract with agencies in other states for the allocation of water from interstate streams.39 C. AGENCIES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL The following agencies have certain responsibilities relating to water use, conservation, or disposal: (1) Municipal flood control boards40 (2) Water companies41 (3) Lake authorities.42 3. Surface Waters The Connecticut Court has stated that in order for there to be a watercourse, it must be shown that the water usually flows in a cer- tain direction and by a regular channel with banks and sides.43 The riparian right may attach to "regular" flood waters which overflow the banks and channel of a stream as well as to waters in a water- course.44 MConn. Gen. Stat., sees. 12-217 (b) and (d), 12-247 (b), 12-258 (a) and (c), 12-270 (a) and (b), and 12-412(a). 33 Harvey Realty Company v. Walling ford, 111 Con. 352, 150 Atl. 60 (1930). MLawton v. Hervick, 83 Conn. 417, 76 Atl. 986 (1910) ; Noleon v. New Britten, 69 Conn. 668, 38 Atl. 703 (1897). 35 Stamford Extract Manufacturing Oo. V. Stamford Rolling Mills Company, 101 Conn. 310, 125 Atl. 623 (1924). 36 See Lawton v. New Hervick and Noleon v. New Britten, note 2 above. 37 Kellog v. New Britten, 62 Conn. 232, 24 Atl. 996 (1862) ; Morgan v. Danbury. 67 Conn. 484, 35 Atl. 499 (1896). 38 Conn. Gen. Stat., sec. 25-32 to 25-54. 39 Conn. Gen. Stat., sec. 3-126, 127. *° Conn. Gen. Stat., sec. 25-84. «Conn. Gen. Stat., sec. 2-20(a). « Conn. Gen. Stat.. sec. 7-15(a). *» Chamberlain v. Hemingway, 65 Conn. 182, 158 Atl. 239 (1893). ** Thompson v. New Haven Water Company, 86 Conn. 597, 86 Atl. 585 (1913). |
