This year’s session of the legislature is winding down, with the session ending on this Wednesday, May 4.  There have been 3 bills that the CTPA board has been watching closely.  Here is a quick update:

Bill 231 – An Act Concerning Pollinator Health – has already passed both the House and the Senate and is just awaiting the Governor’s signature.  This bill includes several provisions regarding pollinators, including requirements regarding the establishment of model pollinator habitat and the creation, by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, of a Pollinator Advisory Committee.  Perhaps of most interest to Connecticut’s arborists is that this bill makes the neonicotinoids restricted use pesticides.  The bill defines the neonicotinoids as, “any pesticide that acts selectively on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of an organism, including clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and any other such pesticide that the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, after consultation with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, determines will result in the death of fifty per cent or more of a population of bees when two micrograms or less of such pesticide is applied to each bee within such population.”

The bill also prohibits the application of neonicotinoids to lindens and basswood trees.

Bill 5150 – An Act Concerning Tree Wardens’ Notices on Trees and Shrubs Prior to Removal, Tree Removal Along State Highways and Clean-up by Public Utility Corporations Following Certain Tree Removal – has gone through some interesting twists and turns before getting to where it is now.  Originally, the bill contained some broad reaching language that, among other things, would have required tree wardens to post all trees and shrubs for which they have received a request for a permit to allow the pruning or removal of those trees before he or she could issue the permit.  The bill also originally required DOT to submit a plan the legislature’s Environment Committee and DEEP before conducting any tree removal along state highways, and for utilities to remove any debris generated from utility requested tree removals or pruning that occurred within the utility protection zone.

That last section remains in the current bill.  As for the first requirement, that has been changed substantially, until now it has become a requirement for utilities to inform the tree warden in each town as to where and when it plans to conduct tree removals and pruning over the following year, and for the towns to publish that information in electronic form.

The provision requiring DOT to notify the legislature and DEEP regarding its plans for tree removals was first removed from the bill, and then almost reinserted through an amendment just before the House voted last week.  However, this amendment was withdrawn and the House voted 145-1 in favor of the bill, which has now gone to the Senate.  Thes Senate must vote favorably by Wednesday for this bill to survive.

The final bill – Bill 5258, An Act Concerning a Property Owner’s Liability for the Expenses of Removing a Fallen Tree or Limb – is still alive but is lagging behind.  That is not a hopeful sign when the session has so little time left.  But there still is time for the bill to pass and, if so, be signed by the Governor.

Further updates will be forthcoming as the dust settles.

 

A public hearing on Bill 5258 will be held before the CT General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 2 at 1 pm. Here are details on the public hearing.

Full details on this bill, including the text of the bill and public hearing testimony, can be found on the bill’s web page.

Bill 5258 would establish a procedure by which one neighbor would be able to recover clean-up costs from a second neighbor should a tree from the second neighbor’s property fall onto the first neighbor’s property.  Part of the process involves inspection of the tree by an arborist (as defined by Section 23-61a of the General Statutes).  Presumably, this inspection would be paid for by the first neighbor.

This bill is very similar to a bill passed by the General Assembly in 2014 and then vetoed by the Governor.  This is discussed in a letter from the bill’s sponsor discussing what has changed between that earlier bill and this one.  This letter is included as part of the Public Hearing Testimony on the bill’s web page.

There are currently two bills in particular before the Connecticut General Assembly that may be of interest to arborists, tree wardens, tree workers and others involved with caring for trees.

The first bill, #5150, is entitled “AN ACT CONCERNING TREE WARDENS’ NOTICES ON TREES AND SHRUBS PRIOR TO REMOVAL, TREE REMOVAL ALONG STATE HIGHWAYS AND CLEAN-UP BY PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATIONS FOLLOWING CERTAIN TREE REMOVAL.”  The bill has four sections.  The first section slightly re-words the posting language in CGS 23-59, the state statute that describes the tree warden’s duties.  The second section would require that a tree warden post trees and shrubs under consideration before deciding upon a permit requested by a third party for the pruning or removal of trees or shrubs under the tree warden’s care and control (CGS 23-65).  The third section places a reporting requirement, to the legislature and DEEP, on DOT regarding the removal of trees along state highways.  The final section requires the utilities remove debris following roadside tree work.

The full bill can be read on the CGA website.

A public hearing on this bill is being held before the Environment Committee today, Friday, February 19.  Extensive comments on this bill have already been posted on the CGA website.

The second bill is something of a recurring event, as it has also been raised in similar form in the two previous legislative sessions.  This bill, #5258, is titled, “AN ACT CONCERNING A PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY FOR THE EXPENSES OF REMOVING A FALLEN TREE OR LIMB” and will be heard before the Judiciary Committee, although no date has been set as of yet.

The 2014 version of this bill actually passed the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Malloy.  It would establish requirements regarding financial liability for removal of a tree that falls from one private property onto another.

This bill may also be viewed on the CGA website.