When I first supported Connecticut’s Environmental Rights Amendment at the Capitol, what struck me was not how radical it sounded, but how overdue it was.
As legislators, we debate policies every session. We argue over funding levels, agency authority and enforcement mechanisms. Environmental protection is often discussed in terms of permits, mitigation and compliance. But constitutions are different. A constitution is where we define first principles. It is where we declare what is fundamental.
Senate Joint Resolution 37 proposes adding to Article First of the Connecticut Constitution an individual right to clean and healthy air, water, soil and ecosystems, a clean and healthy environment, and a safe and stable climate. It would place those rights alongside our other inalienable rights, the rights already recognized as fundamental, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection under the law. It also imposes an affirmative duty on the state to conserve, manage, protect and maintain natural resources for present and future generations.
That language matters.
The resolution is not a regulatory tweak. It is constitutional architecture. It recognizes that environmental integrity is not a luxury, not a policy preference, but a condition of life itself, tied directly to public health, safety and the general welfare.
Leadership and Stewardship
This effort has had a steady and principled champion in State Representative Mary Mushinsky, the dean of the House, who announced just last week that this will be her final year in office. From the first introduction of the amendment, she has led the charge while remaining firm on strong constitutional language, resisting efforts to dilute its core protections. Her leadership reflects decades of environmental stewardship and a clear understanding that some protections belong not merely in statute, but in the Constitution itself. Supporting that effort has been both a privilege and a responsibility.
The proposal now moves through the Government Administration and Elections Committee, chaired by State Representative Matt Blumenthal, who confirmed that the resolution would receive a public hearing.
A National Movement, A Connecticut Moment
Kim Stoner, who has worked diligently to advance this amendment in Connecticut, has written that the right to a clean and healthy environment should be as fundamental as the right to free speech or freedom of religion. That framing is exactly right. When a right is elevated to constitutional status, the lens through which government decisions are made shifts. The question becomes not how much harm can be tolerated, but how harm can be prevented.
Maya K. van Rossum, founder of Green Amendments For The Generations and national leader of the Green Amendment movement, has advanced this constitutional approach across the country. As the Delaware Riverkeeper and author of The Green Amendment: The People’s Fight for a Clean, Safe & Healthy Environment, she has demonstrated how environmental rights can be recognized as inherent and inalienable, deserving of the same protection afforded to other core liberties. Constitutional recognition does not invent these rights. It affirms them.
Addressing the Lawsuit Question
Critics raise concerns about lawsuits. This argument surfaces whenever meaningful rights are strengthened. But experience in states that have adopted environmental rights amendments does not show a parade of frivolous litigation. Courts remain courts. Judges apply established standards. Lawyers invest their time in cases with legal merit. A constitutional amendment does not dissolve judicial discipline.
Importantly, this amendment governs the state. It does not create neighbor against neighbor constitutional battles. It holds government accountable. It requires that state action, or inaction, not result in avoidable degradation, significant environmental harm or an unsustainable environment. It affirms that present and future generations are beneficiaries of the state’s natural resources.
Some have suggested that the Office of the Attorney General could face capacity challenges. That concern should be addressed through honest dialogue about resources, not by weakening constitutional rights. If environmental protection is fundamental, institutions must align to meet that responsibility rather than retreat from it.
A Durable Commitment
We are living in a moment of federal retrenchment. Environmental protections are being rolled back, enforcement diminished and climate science sidelined. States must be anchors of stability. Connecticut has made progress in areas such as waste policy and certain climate planning measures, yet it has also struggled to enact the kind of strong, durable environmental justice framework many communities deserve. Institutional inertia, uneven agency performance and the growing complexity of regulating in an era of accelerating climate change have slowed necessary action. Embedding environmental rights in the Declaration of Rights would provide constitutional clarity and direction, ensuring that future legislatures and agencies operate from a firm mandate to prevent harm rather than merely manage it.
For legislators, supporting SJ 37 is not a final step. It is a democratic one. Constitutional amendments require broad legislative support and ultimately the consent of the people. Passing this resolution allows voters to decide whether these rights deserve constitutional standing. That is democracy functioning as designed.
For the public, environmental health is not abstract. It is the air children breathe, the water drawn from aquifers, the resilience of shoreline communities and the stability of the climate.
Governor Ned Lamont has consistently spoken about climate responsibility and public health. Supporting an Environmental Rights Amendment, alongside a Climate Superfund, would reinforce that commitment in durable constitutional form. Leadership is measured not only by programs passed, but by principles embedded.
A constitution is more than a legal document. It is a moral covenant between generations.
Clean air. Clean water. Healthy soil. Stable climate.
These are not partisan aspirations. They are the foundation of life in Connecticut. If that is believed to be true, it should be stated clearly, in the highest law of the state.
—
David Michel previously represented Stamford as a member of the State House of Representatives