Laserfiche WebLink
I► ,. <br /> 31] AUGUST TERM, 1972. 19 ,E <br /> Just v. Marinette County,56 Wis.2d 7. ■ r <br /> 1 <br /> Soens v. Racine (1860), 10 Wis. 214 (*271), and are ° . <br /> subject to the state public trust powers, Wisconsin Power <br /> J p <br /> & Light Co. v. Public Service Comm. (1958), 5 Wis. 2d , <br /> 167, 92 N. W. 2d 241; and since the Laws of 1935, ch. �' <br /> 303, counties have been authorized to create special zon- l <br /> ing districts along waterways and zone them for re- x <br /> strictive conservancy purposes.5 The restrictions in the i' , <br /> Marinette county ordinance upon wetlands within 1,000 ' <br /> feet of Lake Noquebay which prevent the placing of <br /> excess fill upon such land without a permit is not con- <br /> fiscatory or unreasonable. k ; <br /> • <br /> Cases wherein a confiscation was found cannot be <br /> relied upon by the Justs. In State v. Herwig (1962), 17 >4 <br /> Wis. 2d 442, 117 N. W. 2d 335, a "taking" was found <br /> 4 k S <br /> where a regulation which prohibited hunting on farm- , <br /> land had the effect of establishing a game refuge and <br /> resulted in an unnatural, concentrated foraging of the <br /> owner's land by waterfowl. In State v. Becker, supra, the = <br /> court held void a law which established a wildlife refuge." <br /> (and prohibited hunting) on private property. In Benkag <br /> v. Consolidated Water Power Co. (1929), 198 Wis. 472, r <br /> 224 N. W. 718, the court held if damages to plaintiff's ' _-. <br /> property were in fact caused by flooding from a dam <br /> constructed by a public utility, those damages constituted <br /> a "taking" within the meaning of the condemnation 4 P <br /> statutes. In Bina v. Hurley , <br /> y (1956) 273 Wis. 10, 76 N. <br /> W. 2d 571, the court held unconstitutional as a "taking" : � , <br /> without compensation an ordinance which, in attempting I i <br /> to prevent pollution, prohibited the owners of land sur- s r . <br /> rounding a lake from bathing, boating, or swimming in '! ", z' <br /> the lake. In Piper v. Ekern (1923), 180 Wis. 586, 593, ' c 4 <br /> a In Jefferson County v. Timmel (1952), 261 Wis. 39, 51 N. W. 4 `x <br /> 2d 518, the constitutionality of a conservancy district use restric- i'` �`" 4, <br /> tion was upheld as being based on a valid exercise of police power. <br /> The purpose for this conservancy district, however, was for high- <br /> way safety and not for the prevention of pollution and the pro- <br /> tection of the public trust in navigable waters. <br /> t t 4 y <br /> 3 .i4' <br /> y1 8 <br /> .5 <br /> i, <br /> r' <br /> rt <br /> i <br /> f S'''�^ R S 4 r,j <br />