The statutory scheme set up by Section 22a-19 is an excellent example of a rational and valid exercise of the police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Sec. 22a-19. Its obvious purpose is to assure that private acts do not unnecessarily impair the public good. Where reasonably available alternatives are available, there is simply no compelling reason to allow injurious private acts to prevail.
The Commissioner’s question raises an important concern for the interplay between the valid regulations of Section 22a-19 and the law of riparian rights. Does the statutory scheme necessarily diminish or extinguish the Applicant’s riparian rights?
Again, the answer to this question is no. It is not the statute that limits the “size” of a riparian landowner’s rights but the unique circumstances of his/her property. As stated by our Supreme Court in Richards v. New York, N.H. & N.R. Co., 70 Conn. 501(1905), a landowner
“must take their riparian rights as they find them, and they are entitled only to such as the condition of the cove and the situation of their land with respect to the cove will afford.” (at 505).
In addition, the statute will never fully extinguish a riparian landowner’s rights. A riparian landowner will always have preferred access to the river by virtue of owning the frontage. It is his/her right to “wharf out” beyond that frontage into public waters that is and has always been limited by its impact on the public good, most obviously the public’s superior right of navigation. State v. Sargent and Company, 45 Conn. 358, 372 (1877).
Section 22a-19 and the “alternatives” analysis that it requires takes nothing from the applicants. By virtue of the unique characteristics of their property, the “size” of their right to wharf out has always been, at best, minimal. Their property is simply too shallow to allow construction of a powerboat dock without infringing on the superior right of small craft owners to freely navigate the safe shallows where the proposed dock would be located. A structure such as that proposed has the additional problem of being plainly visible to thousands who look upon this portion of the riverfront from the public access points that surround it. This is not the “fault” of the legislature or the DEP. The applicants “must take their riparian rights as they find them” and suffer the consequences. Richards, id. Fortunately for these applicants, if they wish to dock a powerboat, there are numerous “reasonably available alternatives” just minutes away.

OBJECTIONS RAISED BY INTERVENOR PUBLIC TRUST1. The Proposed Final Decision ignores the sworn testimony and writings of dozens of citizens.
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the Proposed Final Decision is that it utterly ignores the citizen input that the unprecedented public hearing procedure employed by the Commissioner was ostensibly designed to solicit, including but not limited to the sworn testimony and writings of:
- Dozens of citizens who actually paddle the precise area where the proposed dock would be located.
- An expert in paddling safety (Worthington).
- A commercial riverboat captain who operates regularly in the precise location in question.(Lee)
- A Certified Captain who paddles the precise area in question on a regular basis.(Bermann)
- A professional photographer who prepared exhibits accurately depicting the visual impact of the proposed dock and its accompanying boat.(Goff)
- Dozens of citizens who expressed the view that the project would significantly alter the existing vistas and viewpoints of the highly used and historically unaltered location in question.
Indeed, from the text of the proposed final decision, it would be impossible to discern that the input of these citizens was in any way a significant part of the record. A review of the following charts makes this “oversight” powerfully clear:

*It is worth noting that in the present case, DEP has found that there are segments of the frontage that are not protected by the Tidal Wetlands Act and do not contain protected Sub Aquatic Vegetation. As a result, the Applicants would be able to launch paddle or other small craft from the shore without endangering important ecological features of the riverfront.