Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 30.131 (2026)
Wharves and piers placed and maintained by persons other than riparian owners
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
30.131(1)(1) Notwithstanding s. 30.133, a wharf or pier of the type which does not require a permit under ss. 30.12 (1) and 30.13 that abuts riparian land and that is placed in a navigable water by a person other than the owner of the riparian land may not be considered to be an unlawful structure on the grounds that it is not placed and maintained by the owner if all of the following requirements are met:
30.131(1)(a)(a) The owner of the riparian land or the owner’s predecessor in interest entered into a written easement that was recorded before December 31, 1986, and that authorizes access to the shore to a person who is not an owner of the riparian land.
30.131(1)(b)(b) The person to whom the easement was granted or that person’s successor in interest is the person who places and maintains the wharf or pier.
30.131(1)(c)(c) The placement and maintenance of the wharf or pier is not prohibited by and is not inconsistent with the terms of the written easement.
30.131(1)(d)(d) The wharf or pier has been placed seasonally in the same location at least once every 4 years since the written easement described in par. (a) was recorded.
30.131(1)(e)(e) The wharf or pier is substantially the same size and configuration as it was on April 28, 1990, or during its last placement before April 28, 1990, whichever is later.
30.131(1)(f)(f) The placement of the wharf or pier complies with the provisions of this chapter, with any rules promulgated under this chapter and with any applicable municipal regulations or ordinances.
30.131(2)(2) Notwithstanding s. 30.133, an easement under sub. (1) may be conveyed if it is conveyed at the same time, and to the same person, that the land to which the easement is appurtenant is conveyed.
30.131 AnnotationDiscussing the application of this section. Godfrey Co. v. Lopardo, 164 Wis. 2d 352, 474 N.W.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1991).
30.131 AnnotationThis section does not grant rights to a nonriparian owner vis a vis a riparian owner. This section speaks only to the lawfulness of a pier maintained under a nonriparian access easement. The terms and purpose of the easement may include the right to use and maintain the pier. Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91, 242 Wis. 2d 722, 626 N.W.2d 78, 00-2448.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Konneker v. Romano, 2010 WI 65 (Wis. 2010).
Konneker v. Romano, 2010 WI 65 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 2 This case presents the following issues: (1) whether this lakefront easement, created by a deed that is otherwise silent as to the easement's use and purpose, grants riparian rights, including the right to construct and maintain a pier; and (2) what impact, if any, do Wis.…”
Ellingsworth v. Swiggum, 536 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court concluded that the pier removed by the Swiggums met the criteria of § 30.131, Stats., 1991-92, 1 and therefore the Ellingsworths had the right to build another pier of the same dimension as that removed.”
Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “First, they contended that the Wendts' action was barred on grounds of issue preclusion based upon a complaint which the Wendts had previously filed with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) alleging that the pier was an unlawful structure pursuant to Wis.”
Philip Myers v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 922 N.W.2d 47 (Wis. 2019). “¶34 Where the legislature intends to include the responsibility of ongoing maintenance, it specifies as such, as seen in Wis. Stat. § 30.131 , which regulates piers "placed and maintained by persons other than riparian owners.”
Godfrey Co. v. Lopardo, 474 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “We further decide that Godfrey nonetheless has a riparian right to have a pier pursuant to new sec. 30.131, Stats. We affirm a portion of the case but mainly reverse and remand to the circuit court with directions to further remand this action to the Department of Natural…”
Schauer v. DeNeveu Homeowner's Ass'n, 533 N.W.2d 470 (Wis. 1995). “In light of this change in the law, the Association moved the circuit court to reconsider its November 1989 ruling.”
Town of East Troy v. Flynn, 485 N.W.2d 415 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “Therefore, de Nava and sec. 30.131, Stats., do not prevent the installation of the pier.”
Schauer v. DeNeveu Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 522 N.W.2d 246 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “The court agreed to amend its ruling to reflect the provisions of recently enacted § 30.131, STATS., and this change was incorporated into a May 1, 1991 final judgment, from which the Schauers appealed and the Homeowners Association cross-appealed.”
Lopardo v. Fleming Companies, 97 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 1996). “The court concluded that Godfrey met the first five, but that there was a potential problem with (6), which required that “[t]he placement of the wharf or pier complies with the provisions of this chapter, with any rules promulgated under this chapter and with any applicable…”
Jack Kapinus v. Joseph Nartowicz (Wis. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 30.131, which prohibits a non-riparian owner from placing a pier pursuant to an easement on riparian land unless certain requirements are met.”
Thomas, Richard v. United States of Am. (W.D. Wis. 2024). “The non-deeded plaintiffs also assert that Wis. Stat. § 30.131 permits them to maintain their piers and docks even if their easements do not grant them riparian rights.”
Tina Trahan v. Albert J. Hinton (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 30.131. 3 No. 2020AP35 easement) to place a pier in the lake bed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.131(1) — 4 cases
Konneker v. Romano, 2010 WI 65 (Wis. 2010). “¶ 2 This case presents the following issues: (1) whether this lakefront easement, created by a deed that is otherwise silent as to the easement's use and purpose, grants riparian rights, including the right to construct and maintain a pier; and (2) what impact, if any, do Wis.…”
Ellingsworth v. Swiggum, 536 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court concluded that the pier removed by the Swiggums met the criteria of § 30.131, Stats., 1991-92, 1 and therefore the Ellingsworths had the right to build another pier of the same dimension as that removed.”
Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “First, they contended that the Wendts' action was barred on grounds of issue preclusion based upon a complaint which the Wendts had previously filed with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) alleging that the pier was an unlawful structure pursuant to Wis.”
Godfrey Co. v. Lopardo, 474 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “We further decide that Godfrey nonetheless has a riparian right to have a pier pursuant to new sec. 30.131, Stats. We affirm a portion of the case but mainly reverse and remand to the circuit court with directions to further remand this action to the Department of Natural…”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.131(2) — 1 case
Ellingsworth v. Swiggum, 536 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court concluded that the pier removed by the Swiggums met the criteria of § 30.131, Stats., 1991-92, 1 and therefore the Ellingsworths had the right to build another pier of the same dimension as that removed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.131(3) — 2 cases
Ellingsworth v. Swiggum, 536 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court concluded that the pier removed by the Swiggums met the criteria of § 30.131, Stats., 1991-92, 1 and therefore the Ellingsworths had the right to build another pier of the same dimension as that removed.”
Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “First, they contended that the Wendts' action was barred on grounds of issue preclusion based upon a complaint which the Wendts had previously filed with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) alleging that the pier was an unlawful structure pursuant to Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 30.131(l)(b) — 1 case
Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “First, they contended that the Wendts' action was barred on grounds of issue preclusion based upon a complaint which the Wendts had previously filed with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) alleging that the pier was an unlawful structure pursuant to Wis.”
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.