## Facts

- Paul Munninghoff owned riparian land on the Wisconsin River, including portions submerged beneath navigable waters.
- Wisconsin law (sec. 29.575, Stats.) authorized the Wisconsin Conservation Commission to license persons in possession of “suitable land” to operate muskrat farms to breed, propagate, trap, and deal in muskrats.
- Muskrat farming could involve devices such as float traps anchored to the riverbed with the trap floating at the surface.
- Munninghoff applied for a muskrat-farm license for the portion of his privately owned land lying under the river’s navigable waters.
- The Commission denied the application, asserting (1) the statute did not authorize licensing for navigable waters and (2) muskrat trapping in navigable waters was an incident to the public right of navigation and could not be made exclusive by license.
- Munninghoff sought judicial review under Wisconsin’s administrative review statute (ch. 227, Stats.), and the circuit court reversed the denial.

## Issues

1. Whether sec. 29.575 authorizes the Conservation Commission to license muskrat farming on privately owned lands lying under navigable waters.
2. Whether muskrat farming and trapping conducted in navigable waters is an incident to navigation that constitutes a public right precluding an exclusive license to a private landowner.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s reversal of the Commission’s denial.
- The court held that sec. 29.575 permits licensing of muskrat farms on privately owned lands even if those lands lie under navigable waters.
- The court rejected the Commission’s position that muskrat farming in navigable waters is necessarily an incident to navigation that cannot be licensed to an individual.
- The Commission was required to act consistently with the statute as construed by the court.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory authorization to license use of “suitable land” may include privately owned submerged lands beneath navigable waters absent a textual exclusion.
- Under Wisconsin public-trust doctrine, not every activity conducted in navigable waters is a public incident of navigation; an activity may be treated as a private, licensable use if it does not materially impair public navigation rights.
- A regulatory license for a use of privately owned submerged land does not, by itself, transfer ownership of the waterway or extinguish the public’s navigation rights.
- Courts need not accept an agency’s restrictive statutory interpretation when inconsistent with statutory language and purpose.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judicial reversal of the agency’s denial and ruled that Wisconsin’s muskrat-farm licensing statute extends to privately owned lands under navigable waters, because licensed muskrat farming was not deemed a public incident of navigation that categorically bars exclusive licensing.


Munninghoff v. Wisconsin Conservation Comm’n, 255 Wis. 252, 38 N.W.2d 712 (Wis. 1949)