Laserfiche WebLink
i 1 <br /> a r <br /> • � t� & <br /> get <br /> #{ fir <br /> ` <br /> • 16 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. <br /> [OCT. <br /> Just v.Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> be a reasonable exercise of the police power, but if the <br /> damage is so great to the individual that he ought not <br /> to bear it under contemporary standards, then courts <br /> are inclined to treat it as a `taking' of the property or <br /> an unreasonable exercise of the police power." <br /> Many years ago, Professor Freund stated in his work <br /> on The Police Power, sec. 511, at 546, 547, ". . . it may <br /> be said that the state takes property by eminent domain <br /> because it is useful to the public, and under the police <br /> power because it is harmful . . . . From this results the <br /> difference between the power of eminent domain and <br /> the police power, that the former recognizes a right to <br /> j ! compensation, while the latter on principle does not." <br /> Thus the necessity for monetary compensation for loss <br /> suffered to an owner by police power restriction arises <br /> when restrictions are placed on property in order to <br /> create a public benefit rather than to prevent a public <br /> IL_harm. 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planni <br /> ch. 6, p. 6-7. n9', <br /> This case causes us to re-examine the concepts of pub- <br /> lic benefit in contrast to public harm and the scope of <br /> an owner's right to use of his property. In the instant <br /> case we have a restriction on the use of a citizens' prop- <br /> erty, not to secure a benefit for the public, but to prevent <br /> a harm from the change in the natural character of the <br /> citizens' property. We start with the premise that lakes <br /> and rivers in their natural state are unpolluted and the <br /> pollution which now exists is man made.' The state of <br /> Wisconsin under the trust doctrine has a duty to eradi- <br /> cate the present pollution and to prevent further pollution <br /> in its navigable waters. This is not, in a legal sense, a <br /> gain or a securing of a benefit by the maintaining of the <br /> natural status quo of the environment. W makes this <br /> c.-e different from most condemnation or police po <br /> z. .•• cases is e i• "sam . . . <br /> swamps and • • natural environm- • $f <br /> hor : . .s to <br /> • <br />