Bolinsky Looks to Clarify Invasive Bamboo Plant Law

NEWTOWN- State Rep. Mitch Bolinsky (R-106) testified against a proposed bill today in the Environment committee which does not address the current key concerns regarding the planting of bamboo in Connecticut.

According to Rep. Bolinsky, House Bill 6032 An Act Clarifying Provisions of the General Statutes Concerning the Use of Barrier Systems for Certain Plantings, should expand the scope of the current law beyond restricting the planting of this fast-growing invasive species, to include the spread of this invasive species into the 40-foot “buffer” between abutting properties or public rights of way.

HB 6032 does little to define the mechanism or primary agencies authorized to enforce the law, which he testified should be the local municipalities, where complaints are typically fielded.  Bolinsky also expressed his concern that the current law has no teeth and needs clarification of how violators of the current statute shall be held accountable for not heeding the law and subsequent efforts of enforcement officials.

Rep Bolinsky elicited a chuckle from the committee in his conclusion by advocating the committee bill be replaced or amended to his own legislation on the subject, HB-6043, An Act Clarifying the Running Bamboo Law and Providing for Local Enforcement of Such Law and the Award of Attorney’s Fees and Court Costs for Civil Suits Brought to Enforce Such Planting Restrictions, which he reported does a much more comprehensive job of addressing the concerns of many local conservation board members.  Testimony was also submitted by Newtown’s former Chair of the Conservation Commission, Mary Gaudet-Wilson.

Rep. Bolinsky said, “It is my belief that local land-use officers are the most appropriate persons to investigate and rule on local complaints, most of which come to them as a matter of course.  That said, it is also necessary to ensure that any and all fines, enforcement costs, court or prosecutorial and remediation expenses that result from violations which result from an enforcement action, be paid wholly to the municipality, rather than being swept into the state’s general fund. If the municipality does the work, it’s only right that it be compensated fully for its efforts.”