April 17, 2006
Zawistowski Decision
On April 5, 2006, Circuit Court Judge John Anderson (Bayfield County) decided a case brought by the State of Wisconsin and twelve private landowners against William Zawistowski, claiming that his Sawyer County cranberry marshes were causing a nuisance by discharging phosphorus into nearby Musky Bay. After a two week trial, the Judge found that there was no nuisance, and ruled for Mr. Zawistowski.
Zawistowski Decision
On April 5, 2006, Circuit Court Judge John Anderson (Bayfield County)
decided a case brought by the State of Wisconsin and twelve private
landowners against William Zawistowski, claiming that his Sawyer County
cranberry marshes were causing a nuisance by discharging phosphorus into
nearby Musky Bay. After a two week trial, the Judge found that there was
no nuisance, and ruled for Mr. Zawistowski.
Mr. Zawistowski operates two cranberry marshes that were started by
his father in the late 1930's and have been run by the family ever
since. Like all cranberry growers, he uses fertilizer with phosphorus.
The marshes draw water from Musky Bay on Lac Courte Oreilles and
discharge it back during typical operations such as the harvest
flood.
There was no allegation that Mr. Zawistowski violated any statute or
regulation and there was no enforcement effort brought by the Wisconsin
Department of Natrual Resources. Nonetheless, the State Attorney General
joined with private plaintiffs (a group of out-of-state seasonal lake
property owners) and claimed that phosphorus from fertilizer was getting
into the Bay and was promoting the growth of weeds and algae thereby
creating a public and private nuisance. The Plaintiffs sought to force
Mr. Zawistowski to dredge the Bay and to enjoin him from using water
from the Bay for his farming operation.
This case involved Wis. Stat. s. 823.08, commonly referred to the
"Right to Farm Act" and a host of factual and legal issues. Multiple
experts were called by both sides. Judge Anderson found that there was
no ecological damage to the Bay; that there was no threat to human
health from the weed and algae growth; that any interference with
recreational uses was not unreasonable; and, therefore, there was no
nuisance, either public or private.
Agricultural/Agribusiness
Law Section