Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 1.11 (2026)

Governmental consideration of environmental impact

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1.111.11 Governmental consideration of environmental impact. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible:

1.11(1)(1) The policies and regulations shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this section and chapter 274, laws of 1971, section 1; and

1.11(2)(2) All agencies of the state shall:

1.11(2)(c)(c) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement, substantially following the guidelines issued by the United States council on environmental quality under P.L. 91-190, 42 USC 4331, by the responsible official on:

1.11(2)(c)1.1. The environmental impact of the proposed action;

1.11(2)(c)2.2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;

1.11(2)(c)3.3. Alternatives to the proposed action;

1.11(2)(c)4.4. The relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity;

1.11(2)(c)5.5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; and

1.11(2)(c)6.6. Such statement shall also contain details of the beneficial aspects of the proposed project, both short term and long term, and the economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal.

1.11(2)(d)(d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any agency which has jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards shall be made available to the governor, the department of natural resources and to the public. Every proposal other than for legislation shall receive a public hearing before a final decision is made. Holding a public hearing as required by another statute fulfills this section. If no public hearing is otherwise required, the responsible agency shall hold the hearing in the area affected. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publishing a class 1 notice, under ch. 985, at least 15 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper covering the affected area. If the proposal has statewide significance, notice shall be published in the official state newspaper;

1.11(2)(e)(e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;

1.11(2)(h)(h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects.

1.11(2)(j)(j) Annually, no later than September 15, submit a report to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature for distribution to the legislature under s. 13.172 (2), including the number of proposed actions for which the agency conducted an assessment of whether an impact statement was required under par. (c) and the number of impact statements prepared under par. (c).

1.11(4)(4) Nothing in this section affects the specific statutory obligations of any agency:

1.11(4)(a)(a) To comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality;

1.11(4)(b)(b) To coordinate or consult with any other state or federal agency; or

1.11(4)(c)(c) To act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other state or federal agency.

1.11(5)(5) The policies and goals set forth in this section are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of agencies.

1.11 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 274; 1973 c. 204; 1979 c. 89, 262; 1985 a. 29, 332; 1991 a. 273; 1993 a. 184, 213; 2001 a. 103.

1.11 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also chs. NR 150, PSC 4, TCS 4, and Trans 400 and ss. Adm 60.01, ATCP 3.07, DOC 335.01, DHS 18.01, NR 2.085, and SPS 301.01, Wis. adm. code.

1.11 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, while not creating a public trust analogous to the public trust in the state’s navigable waters, recognizes an interest sufficient to grant a person standing to question compliance with its provisions when it is alleged that agency action will harm the environment in the area where the person resides. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975). But see Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

1.11 AnnotationCounties are not “agencies of the state” within the meaning of sub. (2) (c). Robinson v. Kunach, 76 Wis. 2d 436, 251 N.W.2d 449 (1977).

1.11 AnnotationSub. (2) (e) is applicable to proceedings involving authorization of priority systems for the curtailment of natural gas service. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 161, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977).

1.11 AnnotationOn judicial review of a state agency’s decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement, the agency has the burden of producing a reviewable record reflecting a preliminary factual investigation into relevant areas of environmental concern and of showing a reasonable determination based on the same. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977).

1.11 AnnotationThe lack of a Department of Natural Resources prepared environmental impact statement did not invalidate a department order to close a landfill site. Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 198, 270 N.W.2d 409 (1978).

1.11 AnnotationThe Department of Natural Resources’ decision to limit the scope of a threshold decision to consideration of the impact of a segment of a proposed sewer interceptor was reasonable when the segment had: 1) independent utility; 2) a main purpose of fulfilling a local need; 3) logical termini; and 4) construction of the first segment did not compel construction of the second segment. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 263, 288 N.W.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1979).

1.11 AnnotationAn agency determination that an environmental impact statement was adequately prepared is reviewed under s. 227.20 [now s. 227.57]. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 98 Wis. 2d 682, 298 N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1980).

1.11 AnnotationThe court erred in finding that this section applied to the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations’ code compliance review procedure. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DILHR, 104 Wis. 2d 640, 312 N.W.2d 749 (1981).

1.11 AnnotationAn order establishing depreciation rates for a utility’s nuclear plant did not require an environmental impact statement. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 105 Wis. 2d 457, 313 N.W.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1981).

1.11 AnnotationStanding to challenge a final environmental impact statement requires that the agency decision directly cause injury to the interest of the petitioner, which must be an interest recognized by law. Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).

1.11 AnnotationAn environmental impact statement is not required when the project will have minor impacts on the environment but will have possible socio-economic impacts. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 340 N.W.2d 722 (1983).

1.11 AnnotationWhile the indirect secondary environmental effects may be influential in the content of an environmental impact statement, they are not necessarily controlling in determining the threshold question of whether an environmental impact statement is to be prepared. The presence of significant indirect effects or cumulative effects only increases the need for an environmental impact statement. Their presence alone does not require an environmental impact statement. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 340 N.W.2d 722 (1983). But see Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2021 WI 26, 396 Wis. 2d 69, 955 N.W.2d 793, 18-1239.

1.11 AnnotationIncreased traffic congestion was a sufficient allegation of injury to acquire standing to challenge a final environmental impact statement. Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. DHSS, 130 Wis. 2d 56, 387 N.W.2d 245 (1986).

1.11 AnnotationWhen a state action did not come within an action type listed in Department of Administration rules, an environmental assessment was required. A determination following an assessment that an environmental impact statement was not required for a building constructed for the state by a private developer under a lease/purchase agreement was reasonable under the circumstances. Larsen v. Munz Corp., 167 Wis. 2d 583, 482 N.W.2d 332 (1992).

1.11 AnnotationThe test as to whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be conducted is one of reasonableness and good faith. When conditions for approval that compensate for any adverse environmental impacts are imposed, the statutory threshold of significant environmental impact is not crossed, and no EIS is required. State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993).

1.11 AnnotationSection 227.42 (1) does not grant a right to a contested case hearing regarding the need for an environmental impact statement. North Lake Management District v. DNR, 182 Wis. 2d 500, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1994).

1.11 AnnotationWhen the legislature has selected a specific project site, consideration of alternative sites is too remote and speculative and not reasonably related to the proposed project. Shoreline Park Preservation, Inc. v. DOA, 195 Wis. 2d 750, 537 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2512.

1.11 AnnotationDiscussing the burden of proving the adequacy of an environmental impact statement. Citizens’ Utility Board v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-0867.

1.11 AnnotationIt was reasonable to suspend the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement and the corresponding comment period when legislatively imposed time constraints could not have been met if they were not suspended. Responsible Use of Rural & Agricultural Land v. PSC, 2000 WI 129, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619 N.W.2d 888, 99-2430.

1.11 AnnotationA court must assess an environmental impact statement (EIS) in light of the rule of reason, which requires an EIS to furnish only such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than to be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either fruitless or well nigh impossible. While reasonable alternatives are to be considered, every potentiality need not be evaluated. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.

1.11 AnnotationThe environmental impact statement is an informational tool that does not compel a particular decision by the agency or prevent the agency from concluding that other values outweigh the environmental consequences of a proposed action. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.

1.11 AnnotationIn Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc., 115 Wis. 2d 381 (1983), the court held that alone, the alleged non-environmental effects of the project did not necessitate an environmental impact statement (EIS). However, that holding does not undermine the principle that indirect environmental effects may on their own become “significant” and necessitate an EIS. Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2021 WI 26, 396 Wis. 2d 69, 955 N.W.2d 793, 18-1239.

1.11 AnnotationThe public hearing requirement under sub. (2) (d) is not a requirement for a contested case hearing under s. 227.42. Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. DNR, 2025 WI App 63, 418 Wis. 2d. 450, 27 N.W.3d 228, 24-0577.

1.11 AnnotationAgency Decisionmaking Under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. Hanson. 1977 WLR 111.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 38× “Simultaneously, the PSC must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 1.11 (2) and Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.”

Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 23× “ķ17 Simultaneously, the PSC must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 1.11 (2) and Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.”

Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2021 WI 26 (Wis. 2021). · cites it 17× “The Defendants failed to fulfill their independent duties under WEPA, Wis. Stat. § 1.11 , to evaluate the environmental impact of excluding permanent conservation easements from Tax 18.”

Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 312 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 1981). · cites it 19× “The issue in this case is whether the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), sec. 1.11, Stats. 1979, requires the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR), to take environmental factors into account when reviewing the plans of a building project for code…”

Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 340 N.W.2d 722 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 20× “) The scheme of WEPA is not proposed to control agency direction, but to require that agencies consider and evaluate the environmental consequences of alternatives available to them in the exercise of that consideration in the framework provided by sec. 1.11, Stats. WED III, 79…”

Citizens' Util. Bd. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 21× “, does it fulfill the requirements of § 1.11, Stats.?" 7 CUB emphasizes the statutory directive that a reviewing court is to "separately treat .”

Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 387 N.W.2d 254 (Wis. 1986). · cites it 10× “In contrast, challengers to other prison sites are able to obtain such relief from a reviewing court upon "... such terms as it [the court] deems proper.”

Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 288 N.W.2d 168 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 26× “274, Laws of 1971, created sec. 1.11, Stats. [1] Section 1.11 (2) (c) requires a state agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if a proposed action is a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

Milwaukee Brewers v. DH&SS, 387 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. 1986). · cites it 10× “Section 1.11(2)(c)3 and 5, Stats., provides that the FEIS should include "[a]lternatives to the proposed action" and "[a]ny irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action.”

Gottsacker v. Monnier, 2005 WI 69 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 4× “at § 1.11. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of flexibility and freedom of contract, which is reflected throughout the provisions of the WLLCL.”

Larsen v. Munz Corp., 480 N.W.2d 800 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 15× “Larsen sought a declaration that the department is required to file an *754 environmental impact statement under sec. 1.11, Stats., the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), before constructing the proposed state administration building at 101 East Wilson Street in the City…”

Town of Holland v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 913 N.W.2d 914 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “§ 1.11(2)(c). A draft of the EIS for the Project as prepared by the PSC was published in August 2014; the PSC accepted comments on the draft EIS for forty-five days after its publication.”

Show all 51 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(1) — 2 cases

Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2021 WI 26 (Wis. 2021). “The Defendants failed to fulfill their independent duties under WEPA, Wis. Stat. § 1.11 , to evaluate the environmental impact of excluding permanent conservation easements from Tax 18.”

Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow-Madison v. Regents of Universtity of Wisconsin Sys., 820 F. Supp. 2d 932 (W.D. Wis. 2011).

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2) — 11 cases

Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 288 N.W.2d 168 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “274, Laws of 1971, created sec. 1.11, Stats. [1] Section 1.11 (2) (c) requires a state agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if a proposed action is a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 340 N.W.2d 722 (Wis. 1983). “) The scheme of WEPA is not proposed to control agency direction, but to require that agencies consider and evaluate the environmental consequences of alternatives available to them in the exercise of that consideration in the framework provided by sec. 1.11, Stats. WED III, 79…”

Wisconsin's Env't Decade, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 312 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 1981). “The issue in this case is whether the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), sec. 1.11, Stats. 1979, requires the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR), to take environmental factors into account when reviewing the plans of a building project for code…”

Citizens' Util. Bd. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “, does it fulfill the requirements of § 1.11, Stats.?" 7 CUB emphasizes the statutory directive that a reviewing court is to "separately treat .”

Larsen v. Munz Corp., 480 N.W.2d 800 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Larsen sought a declaration that the department is required to file an *754 environmental impact statement under sec. 1.11, Stats., the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), before constructing the proposed state administration building at 101 East Wilson Street in the City…”

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c) — 12 cases

Milwaukee Brewers v. DH&SS, 387 N.W.2d 245 (Wis. 1986). “Section 1.11(2)(c)3 and 5, Stats., provides that the FEIS should include "[a]lternatives to the proposed action" and "[a]ny irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action.”

Town of Holland v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wis., 913 N.W.2d 914 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 1.11(2)(c). A draft of the EIS for the Project as prepared by the PSC was published in August 2014; the PSC accepted comments on the draft EIS for forty-five days after its publication.”

Larsen v. Munz Corp., 482 N.W.2d 332 (Wis. 1992).

Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 387 N.W.2d 254 (Wis. 1986). “In contrast, challengers to other prison sites are able to obtain such relief from a reviewing court upon "... such terms as it [the court] deems proper.”

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(d) — 1 case

Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(e) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(5) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 1.11(c) — 1 case

Warzon v. Drew, 855 F. Supp. 1017 (E.D. Wis. 1994).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.