## Facts

- Ronald and Kathryn Just bought 36.4 acres on the south shore of Lake Noquebay in 1961.
- In 1967 Marinette County adopted Shoreland Zoning Ordinance No. 24 under Wisconsin’s shoreland statutes, regulating land near navigable waters to protect water quality and public rights.
- The Justs’ lakeshore parcel was mapped as swamp or marsh and placed in a conservancy district, restricting filling or altering wetlands without a conditional-use permit.
- In early 1968, after the ordinance took effect, the Justs brought in about 1,040 square yards of sand and filled a strip roughly 20 feet wide and nearly 600 feet long along the shoreline without obtaining a permit.
- The county sought an injunction and forfeiture; the Justs filed a declaratory action challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality and disputing that their land was “wetlands.” The matters were consolidated.
- The trial court upheld the ordinance, found the property to be wetlands, found an ordinance violation, dismissed the declaratory action, and imposed a forfeiture.

## Issues

1. Whether the shoreland-wetlands zoning restrictions were a valid exercise of the police power (informed by the public trust doctrine) or an unconstitutional taking without compensation.
2. Whether the Justs’ parcel qualified as wetlands within the ordinance’s conservancy district so that filling without a permit violated the ordinance.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held the ordinance constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the police power to protect navigable waters and related public rights.
- The court affirmed the finding that the property was wetlands subject to the conservancy restrictions and that the unpermitted fill violated the ordinance.
- The court rejected the claim that the restrictions constituted a compensable taking because the regulation did not confiscate the property or render it useless for all reasonable purposes.
- The court modified the judgment to expressly declare the ordinance constitutional and otherwise affirmed the forfeiture judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Lands adjacent to navigable waters bear a special relationship to the state because navigable waters are held in trust for the public; regulation of shorelands may be justified to protect those trust interests.
- Regulations aimed at preventing harm to public rights and natural resources are within the police power and do not require compensation unless they go so far as to amount to confiscation.
- A land-use restriction is not a compensable taking merely because it reduces economic value or limits development expectations; the focus is whether all reasonable use is effectively eliminated.
- Wetlands classifications and conservancy restrictions tied to protection of navigable waters may be sustained when supported by evidence and implemented pursuant to statewide shoreland standards.

## Conclusion

The court sustained shoreland-wetlands zoning that restricted filling near navigable waters, treating it as harm-prevention consistent with the public trust doctrine and holding that compensation is not required unless the regulation effectively confiscates all reasonable use of the property.


Just v. Marinette Cnty., 56 Wis. 2d 7, 201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. 1972)