A loss for the PTD

[Forkyfinder]

i think as is brutally and painfully obvious, it just comes down to defining navigable. which it seems this court has further defined, for now.

i just can't see how that is an attack on the wisconsin water resources public trust. painting at as such, and questioning how western public lands advocates could possibly see it any other way, is disingenuous and not rational discussion. even worse to use it to suggest individuals are not pro public trust doctrine.

again, in colorado water resources is not a public trust. it is a public resource, but not a public trust, and the that distinction is not subtle, not subtle at all when it comes to the law and our 150 years of title 37 statutes. my first and original comment in this thread was just that, us westerners perspectives are gonna be a little different due to that and we're not anti PTD because of that.

Stream access laws | Fishing Wisconsin | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

Keep your feet wet procedure

A quick lesson on what to do and what not to do before you visit a wilderness waterfall

www.waterfallswisconsin.com

Its certainly a degredation of it based on a little google time.

 

[TOGIE]

Stream access laws | Fishing Wisconsin | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

Keep your feet wet procedure

A quick lesson on what to do and what not to do before you visit a wilderness waterfall

www.waterfallswisconsin.com

Its certainly a degredation of it based on a little google time.

Is it a degradation of the public trust doctrine? Or is it a degradation of access? Are those the same the thing?

Is one stakeholder being disproportionately affected? Favored?

Honest questions.

 

[Steelsearchin]

Too bad Rookie's closed up years ago, or we could discuss this over a PBR. Southern Gemma K's just ain't the same.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Is it a degradation of the public trust doctrine? Or is it a degradation of access? Are those the same the thing?

Is one stakeholder being disproportionately affected? Favored?

Honest questions.

I would say yes, to all of the questions. But i am speaking a lot on inference and ignorance.

I see the larger issue in how it may be applied elsewhere, outside of the property in dispute. Depending on how the legal cookies crumble.

 

[Bonasababy]

This picture is a great example the can of worms I was thinking about. For some properties, it’s easy to tell where the riverbank is and the lawn begins.

But the property you posted, and a ton up here along the Wolf, are basically islands of flooded timber. The “shore” location changes hourly sometimes. No idea how those property lines would be defined.

This is more feasible than you think, in fact wetland delineation is and has been going on for a long time.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Here is his property. The water levels in this photo aren't at the high mark - he lives on an island in a lowland area along the river. So you tell me, what does this ruling do in terms of what water here is public and what is private?

View attachment 330773

So this jackass resides in what is an island and well within the accepted flood plain. Zoning exists to keep white people from fighting Nature. Someone in WI should have brought up just how in hell that house was allowed.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So this jackass resides in what is an island and well within the accepted flood plain. Zoning exists to keep white people from fighting Nature. Someone in WI should have brought up just how in hell that house was allowed.

looks like it is *barely* outside of the floodplain - you can build anything you want in one - as far as i know, you just cant finance or insure it very well.

 

[Gellar]

looks like it is *barely* outside of the floodplain - you can build anything you want in one - as far as i know, you just cant finance or insure it very well.

Negative. Jefferson County has ordinances regarding building in the floodplain and shoreline protection.

https://cms4files.revize.com/jeffersoncountynew/County%20Board/Ordinances/Floodplain%20Ordinance.pdf

https://cms4files.revize.com/jeffersoncountynew/Forms/Zoning/Floodplain%20Improvement%20Worksheet.pdf

Wisconsin also has state code on building in the floodplain and shoreland protection.

Wisconsin Legislature: Chapter NR 116

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

So then if this residence was built after the State code was on the books, it’s not permissible as a house. Don’t know if it matters in the bench decision.

 

[seeth07]

So then if this residence was built after the State code was on the books, it’s not permissible as a house. Don’t know if it matters in the bench decision.

The home itself is out of the flood plain on an "island". They did have to get a permit to make the driveway I'm sure since it's basically a man made dike.

It's also not really a home. It's a mega mansion...

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

The home itself is out of the flood plain on an "island". They did have to get a permit to make the driveway I'm sure since it's basically a man made dike.

It's also not really a home. It's a mega mansion...

View attachment 331027

Did any other property owners on those other island patches build a residence?

 

[MTGomer]

Oh boy… nothing like a healthy internet discussion about riparian rights and real property boundaries.

 

[BAKPAKR]

So much for my idea to release a bunch of beavers near the Elk Mountain Ranch. Now what am I going to do with that kayak?

 

[BAKPAKR]

There are those who believe the whole world flooded at one point.

But, I suppose we have bigger problems than trespassing if that were to happen again.

If that happens, I just hope they round up a pair of elk from a spot @The Hedgehog hunts, a pair of bighorn sheep from Wild Horse Island, a pair of…