Laserfiche WebLink
sr.( k v <br /> i.y <br /> d I <br /> • <br /> 18 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. [OCT. <br /> Just v.Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. <br /> lands and swamps to the damage of the general public <br /> by upsetting the natural environment and the natural <br /> relationship is not a reasonable use of that land which <br /> is protected from police power regulation. Changes and <br /> filling to some ex rmitted because t ire extent <br /> of suc changes and filling does not cause arm. e <br /> realize no case in Wisconsin has yet dealt with shoreland <br /> regulations and there are several cases in other states <br /> which seem to hold such regulations unconstitutional; but <br /> nothing this court has said or held in prior cases indicates <br /> that destroying the natural character of a swamp or a <br /> wetland so as to make that location available for human <br /> habitation is a reasonable use of that land when the new <br /> use, although of a more economical value to the owner, <br /> causes a harm to the general public. <br /> Wisconsin has long held that laws and regulations to <br /> prevent pollution and to protect the waters of this state <br /> from degradation are valid police-power enactments. <br /> State ex rel. Martin v. Juneau (1941), 238 Wis. 564, 300 <br /> N. W. 187; State ex rel. La Follette v. Reuter (1967), 33 <br /> w ! I Wis. 2d 384, 147 N. W. 2d 304; Reuter v. Department of <br /> Natural Resources (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 272, 168 N. W. 2d <br /> 860. The active public trust duty of the state of Wisconsin <br /> in respect to navigable waters requires the state not <br /> only to promote navigation but also to protect and pre- <br /> serve those waters for fishing, recreation, and scenic <br /> beauty. Muench v. Public Service Comm. (1952), 261 <br /> Wis. 492, 53 N. W. 2d 514, 55 N. W. 2d 40. To further <br /> this duty, the legislature may delegate authority to local <br /> units of the government, which the state did by requir- <br /> ing counties to pass shoreland zoning ordinances. Menzer <br /> v. Elkhart Lake (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 70, 186 N. W. 2d 290. <br /> Th, not a case of an_isolated_swamp unrelated tg <br /> } vi able lake or stream, th n e of which would <br /> caul no arm o pu is rights. Lands a jacent to or <br /> near navigable waters exist in a special relationship to <br /> ii the state. They have been held subject to special taxation, <br />