An Act to renumber 82.03 (5) (c); to amend 88.90 (1); to create 82.03 (5) (ag) of the statutes; Relating to: town authority over the water elevation of an artificial water body created by a dam and recourse due to damage caused by an obstructed waterway.
Summary
AB882 would give town boards limited authority to set a maximum water elevation for an artificial water body created by a dam and served by a diversion pump when the town determines that a particular water level is saturating the roadbed of a town highway. The bill creates a new statutory exception to existing waterway regulation rules, allowing local action to address infrastructure damage tied to elevated water levels in these specific circumstances.
The bill also amends the nuisance/obstruction remedy for blocked natural watercourses. Under current law, a landowner whose property is damaged by flooding caused by an obstructed watercourse may request removal of the obstruction if it was caused by the negligent action of the person responsible for the land where the obstruction is located. AB882 preserves that framework while clarifying the recourse available when ground or surface water flooding results from such an obstruction.
Impact
AB882 would modify Wisconsin statutes governing town authority over water levels and remedies for watercourse obstructions. It creates a narrow local-government power under s. 82.03 to regulate the maximum elevation of certain dam-created artificial water bodies, notwithstanding general state water regulation provisions, and it renumbers an existing subdivision accordingly. It also revises s. 88.90(1) to address flooding damage from obstructed natural watercourses, affecting landowners, property occupants, and those responsible for obstructions, while potentially giving affected neighbors a clearer statutory basis to seek removal of the blockage.
Sentiment
The available record suggests the bill was aimed at solving a practical local infrastructure and flooding problem rather than advancing a broadly controversial policy change. Its focus on protecting town highways from saturated roadbeds and providing recourse for flooding damage indicates a generally problem-solving, remedial intent. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass over the governor’s objections, showing that while it may have had support for addressing local water-management concerns, it did not secure the supermajority needed to become law in that form.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of town authority versus state control over water elevations and dam-related water management, especially because the bill expressly overrides a general statutory limitation. Another possible area of dispute is the balance between protecting public roads and preserving the rights of dam owners, landowners, and waterway users who could be affected by a town-set maximum elevation. On the flooding-remedy section, disagreement may have involved how much responsibility should be placed on property owners for obstructions and whether the existing negligence standard should be expanded or clarified.
Crossfiled
An Act to renumber 82.03 (5) (c); to amend 88.90 (1); to create 82.03 (5) (ag) of the statutes; Relating to: town authority over the water elevation of an artificial water body created by a dam and recourse due to damage caused by an obstructed waterway.