Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (2026)
Enforcement of forfeitures; abatement of nuisances; infringement of public rights
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
30.03(2)(2) The district attorney of the appropriate county or, at the request of the department, the attorney general shall institute proceedings to recover any forfeiture imposed or to abate any nuisance committed under this chapter or ch. 31.
30.03(3)(3) All forfeitures shall be recovered by civil action as provided in ch. 778 and when collected shall be paid directly into the state treasury.
30.03(4)(a)(a) If the department learns of a possible violation of s. 281.36 or of the statutes relating to navigable waters or a possible infringement of the public rights relating to navigable waters, and the department determines that the public interest may not be adequately served by imposition of a penalty or forfeiture, the department may proceed as provided in this paragraph, either in lieu of or in addition to any other relief provided by law. The department may order a hearing under ch. 227 concerning the possible violation or infringement, and may request the hearing examiner to issue an order directing the responsible parties to perform or refrain from performing acts in order to comply with s. 281.36 or to fully protect the interests of the public in the navigable waters. If any person fails or neglects to obey an order, the department may request the attorney general to institute proceedings for the enforcement of the department’s order in the name of the state. The proceedings shall be brought in the manner and with the effect of proceedings under s. 111.07 (7).
30.03(4)(am)(am) In determining an appropriate remedy for a violation under this chapter relating to a pier or wharf, the department may not order the removal of a pier or wharf unless the department considers all reasonable alternatives offered by the department and the owner of the pier or wharf relating to the location, design, construction, and installation of the pier or wharf.
30.03(4)(b)(b) No penalty may be imposed for violation of a hearing examiner’s order under this subsection, but violation of a judgment enforcing the order may be punished in civil contempt proceedings.
30.03 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 32 s. 92 (8); 1979 c. 257; 1981 c. 390; 1983 a. 524; 1987 a. 374; 2007 a. 204; 2011 a. 118.
30.03 AnnotationUnder sub. (4), the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction to pursue any “possible violation” of the public trust doctrine as embodied in this chapter. ABKA Ltd. Partnership v. DNR, 2002 WI 106, 255 Wis. 2d 486, 648 N.W.2d 854, 99-2306.
30.03 AnnotationThe Department of Natural Resources has a statutory duty under sub. (4) (a) to proceed against piers it believes to be in violation of this chapter or contrary to the public’s rights in the waters of the state. No administrative rule limits the department’s statutory enforcement authority, nor could it do so. Baer v. DNR, 2006 WI App 225, 297 Wis. 2d 232, 724 N.W.2d 638, 05-0668.
30.03 AnnotationSummary judgment is not permitted in forfeiture actions for violations of this chapter. The relevant procedural statutes cannot be reconciled with the summary judgment procedure. Although the parties agreed to the filing of a written answer in lieu of an appearance, such an agreement cannot provide the basis to impose upon the statutory scheme a summary judgment procedure that does not otherwise exist. State v. Ryan, 2012 WI 16, 338 Wis. 2d 695, 809 N.W.2d 37, 09-3075.
30.03 AnnotationThe Department of Natural Resources may enforce the terms of lakebed grants under sub. (4) (a) as long as the enforcement does not conflict with s. 30.05. 78 Atty. Gen. 107.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2002 WI 106 (Wis. 2002).
ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2002 WI 106 (Wis. 2002). “03(4) provides: (a) If the department learns of a possible violation of the statutes relating to navigable waters or a possible infringement of the public rights relating to navigable waters, and the department determines that the public *499 interest may not be adequately…”
Philip Myers v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 922 N.W.2d 47 (Wis. 2019). “See Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (4)(a) (authorizing DNR to bring an enforcement action).”
Hilton Ex Rel. Pages Homeowners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI 84 (Wis. 2006). “By June 2001, having still not received a pier permit application, pursuant to its enforcement powers under Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (2001-02), [8] the DNR requested an abatement hearing.”
Gillen v. City of Neenah, 580 N.W.2d 628 (Wis. 1998). “ber 1995 the DNR, the City, Glatfelter Company and Minergy Corporation signed a stipulation and Settlement Agreement, which provided the following: (1) The DNR asserted that both the proposed Minergy facility and the existing operations of Glatfelter Company are impermissible…”
Froebel v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 579 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “2 *666 Moreovér, the ALJ correctly noted that the "instant proceeding was not noticed as a sec. 30.03, Stats., enforcement proceeding.”
Hixon v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 146 N.W.2d 577 (Wis. 1966). “tion that the commission acted reasonably with full notice to the appellant and with adequate findings in taking action on his application Indeed, the commission first launched an inquiry into the fill in early 1964, and after investigation and a full hearing with proper notice…”
Hilton Ex Rel. Pages Homeowners' v. Dnr, 2006 WI 84 (Wis. 2006). “By June 2001, having still not received a pier permit application, pursuant to its enforcement powers under Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (2001-02), [8] the DNR requested an abatement *171 hearing.”
Baer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI App 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “We conclude that the cited rule cannot and does not deprive the Department of its statutory authority under Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (4) *238 (2001-02) 1 to seek an order under that section "to fully protect the interests of the public in the navigable waters" of this state.”
Froebel v. Meyer, 13 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Petitioner Froebel specifically sought an order from ALJ Boldt, pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 30.03, 10 enjoining the DNR to perform remedial actions with respect to Funk’s Dam and sediment loading in the.”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. State, 2011 WI 54 (Wis. 2011). “See Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (4)(a) (authorizing the DNR to pursue relief regarding "a possible infringement of the public rights relating to navigable waters"); State v.”
State v. Ryan, 2012 WI 16 (Wis. 2012). “See Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (3). Consequently, we must presume that summary judgment is permitted in such actions unless a "different procedure is prescribed by statute or rule.”
De Nava v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 409 N.W.2d 151 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “4 Section 30.03(4)(a), Stats., provides in part: Whenever there comes to the attention of the department a possible violation of the statutes relating to navigable waters, or a possible infringement of the public rights therein, and it appears to the department that the public…”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.03(2) — 1 case
Froebel v. Meyer, 13 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Petitioner Froebel specifically sought an order from ALJ Boldt, pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 30.03, 10 enjoining the DNR to perform remedial actions with respect to Funk’s Dam and sediment loading in the.”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.03(4) — 3 cases
ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2002 WI 106 (Wis. 2002). “03(4) provides: (a) If the department learns of a possible violation of the statutes relating to navigable waters or a possible infringement of the public rights relating to navigable waters, and the department determines that the public *499 interest may not be adequately…”
Froebel v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 579 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “2 *666 Moreovér, the ALJ correctly noted that the "instant proceeding was not noticed as a sec. 30.03, Stats., enforcement proceeding.”
Baer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI App 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “We conclude that the cited rule cannot and does not deprive the Department of its statutory authority under Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (4) *238 (2001-02) 1 to seek an order under that section "to fully protect the interests of the public in the navigable waters" of this state.”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.03(4)(A) — 1 case
Froebel v. Meyer, 13 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Petitioner Froebel specifically sought an order from ALJ Boldt, pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 30.03, 10 enjoining the DNR to perform remedial actions with respect to Funk’s Dam and sediment loading in the.”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.03(4)(a) — 8 cases
Philip Myers v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 922 N.W.2d 47 (Wis. 2019). “See Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (4)(a) (authorizing DNR to bring an enforcement action).”
Froebel v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 579 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “2 *666 Moreovér, the ALJ correctly noted that the "instant proceeding was not noticed as a sec. 30.03, Stats., enforcement proceeding.”
Gillen v. City of Neenah, 580 N.W.2d 628 (Wis. 1998). “ber 1995 the DNR, the City, Glatfelter Company and Minergy Corporation signed a stipulation and Settlement Agreement, which provided the following: (1) The DNR asserted that both the proposed Minergy facility and the existing operations of Glatfelter Company are impermissible…”
Baer v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 2006 WI App 225 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “We conclude that the cited rule cannot and does not deprive the Department of its statutory authority under Wis. Stat. § 30.03 (4) *238 (2001-02) 1 to seek an order under that section "to fully protect the interests of the public in the navigable waters" of this state.”
Froebel v. Meyer, 13 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “Petitioner Froebel specifically sought an order from ALJ Boldt, pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 30.03, 10 enjoining the DNR to perform remedial actions with respect to Funk’s Dam and sediment loading in the.”
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.