803 N.W.2d 853
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- DNR set water levels for Lake Koshkonong; District petitioned to raise levels and end winter drawdown.
- DNR denied petition; ALJ sustained denial; circuit court affirmed, and District appealed.
- Statutory issue concerns Wis. Stat. § 31.02(1) authority to regulate navigable waters to protect public rights, safety, life, health and property.
- District challenges three facets: economic impact on property values; impacts on non-navigable wetlands above OHWM; and use of NR 103 wetland quality standards.
- ALJ found higher levels would harm wetlands, water quality, and riparian access; DNR order maintained 1991 summer levels with modest winter drawdown adjustment.
- Court reviews de novo interpretation of § 31.02(1) and upholds DNR’s consideration of wetlands and NR 103 standards; holds no requirement to consider economic effects on property values under § 31.02(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 31.02(1) require considering economic effects on property values? | District: protect property includes economic effects; must assess values and tax impacts. | DNR: 'protect ... property' limits to direct hydrologic impacts and riparian rights. | No; economic effects need not be considered. |
| Did DNR exceed authority by considering impacts on adjacent wetlands above OHWM? | District: public rights confined below OHWM; wetlands above OHWM not within § 31.02(1). | Just doctrine and public trust allow consideration of lands adjacent to navigable waters regardless of OHWM. | No; DNR may consider adjacent privately-held wetlands. |
| May DNR reference NR 103 wetland water quality standards when setting water levels under § 31.02(1)? | District: § 281.92 restricts cross-use of ch. 281 standards. | Interpreting § 281.92 to preclude NR 103 would create absurd results; harmonization allowed. | No; NR 103 standards may be referenced in § 31.02(1) determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. 1972) (public trust protects wetlands adjacent to navigable waters)
- City of Lisbon v. Harebo, 271 N.W.2d 659 (Wis. 1937) (limits of 'endangerments to property' doctrine in dam context; supports narrow reading of 'protect property')
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning if unambiguous)
- Harnischfeger Corp. v. LIRC, 539 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1995) (de novo review vs agency deference; statutory interpretation standard)
- State v. Schwarz, 279 Wis.2d 223 (Wis. 2005) (levels of deference to agency decisions; great/due/no weight)
- Froebel v. DNR, 579 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) (proper scope of judicial review of agency determinations)