Just v. Marinette County
201 N.W.2d 761 (1972) 56 Wis. 2d 7 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government regulation that seeks to prevent public harm by restricting the use of private land to its natural state does not constitute a constructive taking of property for which compensation is required.
Facts:
- In April 1961, Ronald and Laggie Just purchased 36.4 acres of land along the shore of Lake Noquebay, a navigable lake in Marinette County.
- The Justs intended to use the property partially for personal use and partially for resale.
- Between 1964 and 1967, the Justs sold five parcels of the land, leaving them with a remaining property that had 366.7 feet of lake frontage.
- A significant portion of the Justs' remaining property was classified as 'wetlands' due to the presence of aquatic plants and its location within a designated swamp or marsh area on U.S. Geological Survey maps.
- In 1967, Marinette County enacted a shoreland zoning ordinance that placed the Justs' property in a 'conservancy district' and prohibited the filling of more than 500 square feet of wetlands without a conditional use permit.
- In February and March of 1968, six months after the ordinance took effect, Ronald Just, without obtaining a permit, hauled 1,040 square yards of sand onto the property, filling a large area of the designated wetlands.
Procedural Posture:
- The Justs filed an action in trial court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Marinette County shoreland zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to their property.
- Marinette County commenced a separate action against the Justs, seeking an injunction and forfeitures for violating the ordinance.
- The two actions were consolidated for trial in the local trial court.
- The trial court found that the Justs had violated the ordinance, declared the ordinance constitutional, dismissed the Justs' action, and entered a judgment of forfeiture against them.
- The Justs appealed both judgments to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a shoreland zoning ordinance that limits the use of wetlands to their natural state, thereby preventing the owner from filling the land for development, constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Hallows, C. J.
No, the shoreland zoning ordinance does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property. The ordinance is a valid exercise of the state's police power to prevent a public harm, rather than an act of eminent domain to create a public benefit. The court reasoned that the state, under the public trust doctrine, has a duty to protect navigable waters from pollution and degradation. Restrictions on land use that prevent the destruction of the natural character of wetlands, which are crucial to the ecological health of those waters, are designed to prevent harm to the public interest. An owner of land has no absolute right to change the essential natural character of their land for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state, especially when that change injures the rights of the public. The depreciation in the property's value is not controlling, as the value should be assessed based on its natural uses, not on a potential, environmentally harmful use.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark in environmental law, establishing a crucial distinction between regulations that prevent public harm and those that create a public benefit in takings jurisprudence. By framing the protection of natural resources as harm prevention, the decision grants the state broad authority under its police power to restrict the use of private property without providing compensation. This 'harm/benefit' analysis significantly strengthens the government's ability to enact environmental regulations for sensitive lands like wetlands. The case provides a foundational legal theory for modern shoreland and wetland protection statutes, influencing takings law for decades.
Unlock the full brief for Just v. Marinette County