Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 31.14 (2026)

Proof of ability to maintain dams required

✓ current as of July 2026

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

31.1431.14 Proof of ability to maintain dams required.

31.14(1)(1) It is the policy of this section to preserve public rights in navigable waters, including those created by dams, and to provide a means of maintaining dams and the developments which have been made adjacent to the flowage of such dams.

31.14(2)(2) Except as provided in sub. (3), a permit shall not be granted under s. 31.06, 31.08 or 31.13:

31.14(2)(a)(a) Unless the applicant furnishes to the department proof of ability to operate and maintain the dam in good condition, either by the creation of a special assessment district under ss. 31.38 and 66.0703, or by any other means which in the department’s judgment will give reasonable assurance that the dam will be maintained for a reasonable period of time not less than 10 years; or

31.14(2)(b)(b) If a majority of the municipalities in which 51 percent or more of the dam or flowage is or will be located files with the department, prior to the granting of the permit, their objections to the granting of such permit in the form of resolutions duly adopted by the governing bodies of such municipalities.

31.14(3)(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the applicant complies with each of the following requirements:

31.14(3)(a)(a) Furnishes proof satisfactory to the department that the applicant owns or has an enforceable option to purchase all the land which is or will be flowed by the impoundment, together with the shoreline and an immediately adjacent strip of land at least 60 feet in width, but the department may in a particular case permit a narrower strip where the 60-foot minimum is impractical and may, in furtherance of the policy stated in sub. (1), require ownership of a wider strip.

31.14(3)(b)(b) Files with the department a writing in such form as the department requires in which the applicant agrees that following the initial filling of the proposed pond the applicant will not convey the dam to another without first obtaining department approval. The department may require from an applicant who does not have the power of eminent domain a bond or other reasonable assurances that the applicant will adhere to such agreement.

31.14(3)(c)(c) Furnishes proof satisfactory to the department that the applicant has dedicated or will dedicate a parcel of land for public access to the impounded waters.

31.14(4)(4) No person may assume ownership of a dam after October 21, 1961, or the ownership of that specific piece of land on which a dam is physically located after April 27, 1982, without first complying with sub. (2) or (3). The transfer of the ownership of a dam or the ownership of a specific piece of land on which a dam is physically located made without complying with sub. (2) or (3) is void unless a permit to abandon the dam was granted under s. 31.185 or unless the transfer occurred by operation of law. Every person who accepts ownership by operation of law is subject to this chapter.

31.14(5)(5) For the purpose of implementing the policy stated in sub. (1), the department may by rule require all or specified classes of persons operating a dam for profit to create a fund or reserve to be used for major repairs, reconstruction or removal of the dam when necessary. Such rules shall prescribe the manner in which such fund or reserve is to be created, maintained and expended. This subsection shall not apply to a person who has the power of eminent domain.

31.14 HistoryHistory: 1981 c. 246; 1991 a. 316; 1999 a. 150 s. 672.

31.14 AnnotationThis section does not apply to cranberry dams. Tenpas v. DNR, 148 Wis. 2d 579, 436 N.W.2d 297 (1989).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 436 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 436 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1989). · cites it 29× “The legislative history of sec. 31.14, Stats., suggests that it is intended to regulate power dams, rather than cranberry dams.”

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 415 N.W.2d 853 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 50× “, nor sec. 31.14, Stats., applies to cranberry dams, I dissent.”

Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 8 Wis. 2d 582 (Wis. 1959). · cites it 14× “The important question presented on these appeals which in our view of the cases makes it unnecessary to *587 consider any others is: Does sec. 31.14, Stats., confer upon the Public Service Commission the jurisdiction to determine and regulate the common-law rights of all…”

State v. Zawistowski, 290 N.W.2d 303 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 2× “287, Laws of 1935, which was entitled, “An Act To Create Section 31.14 of The Statutes Relating To Relief Of Low Water Conditions Of Navigable Rivers And Lakes.”

Daly v. Nat. Resources Bd., 208 N.W.2d 839 (Wis. 1973). · cites it 2× “Finding of fact 23 states: “The establishment of the trust fund for the operation and maintenance of the dam and flowage by the applicants and with the conditions of the order herein will comply with the provisions of section 31.14 (2), Statutes. This will provide proof to the…”

State Ex Rel. Chain O'Lakes Prot. Ass'n v. Moses, 193 N.W.2d 708 (Wis. 1972). “The primary purpose of sec. 31.14, Stats., was to provide a remedy for the subnormal lake and stream levels caused by the dry spell of the early 1930’s.”

State Ex Rel. Spinner v. Kenosha Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 588 N.W.2d 662 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “He asserts that Wronowski does not own the property because he failed to comply with §§ 31.14 and 710.11, STATS.; therefore, jurisdiction was improper.”

Adams Outdoor Advert. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Madison (Wis. Ct. App. 2026). “” See MGO §§ 31.14(1), 31.15(2) (providing that awning and canopy signs are not permitted in the Group 1 district, but are permitted in Groups 2 and 3 districts).”

Luening v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 66 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1954). “” The attorney general contends that when the legislature enacted sec. 31.14, Stats., specifying the circumstances under which a diversion of water should be permitted, and omitted to authorize diversions for hydroelectric purposes, under the *540 maxim “expressio unius est…”

— Wis. Stat. § 31.14(1) — 1 case

— Wis. Stat. § 31.14(2) — 2 cases

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 436 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1989). “The legislative history of sec. 31.14, Stats., suggests that it is intended to regulate power dams, rather than cranberry dams.”

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 415 N.W.2d 853 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “, nor sec. 31.14, Stats., applies to cranberry dams, I dissent.”

— Wis. Stat. § 31.14(4) — 2 cases

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 436 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1989). “The legislative history of sec. 31.14, Stats., suggests that it is intended to regulate power dams, rather than cranberry dams.”

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 415 N.W.2d 853 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “, nor sec. 31.14, Stats., applies to cranberry dams, I dissent.”

— Wis. Stat. § 31.14(5) — 1 case

Tenpas v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 436 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1989). “The legislative history of sec. 31.14, Stats., suggests that it is intended to regulate power dams, rather than cranberry dams.”

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.