Title: Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR
Citation: 2011 WI 54
Docket Number: 2008AP003170
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 2011

2011 WI 54 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP3170 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
Lake Beulah Management District, 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, 
 
Lake Beulah Protective and Improvement 
Association, 
          Co-Petitioner-Co-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources, 
          Respondent-Respondent, 
 
Village of East Troy, 
          Intervening-Respondent-Respondent-
Cross-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
2010 WI App 85 
Reported at: 327 Wis. 2d 222, 787 N.W. 2d 926 
(Ct. App. 2010 – Published) 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 6, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 13, 2011 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
CIRCUIT COURT   
 
COUNTY: 
WALWORTH COUNTY   
 
JUDGE: 
ROBERT J. KENNEDY 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ZIEGLER, J. concurs (Opinion filed).   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the intervening-respondent-respondent-cross-appellant-
petitioner Village of East Troy there were briefs by Paul G. 
Kent and Barbara A. Neider, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison and 
oral argument by Paul G. Kent. 
 
 
2
 
For the petitioner-appellant-cross-respondent Lake Beulah 
Management District there was a brief by Dean P. Laing, O’Neil, 
Cannon, Hollman, DeJohg & Laing S.C., Milwaukee and oral 
argument by Dean P. Laing. 
For 
the 
co-petitioner-co-appellant-cross-respondent Lake 
Beulah Protective and Improvement Association there was a brief 
by William T. Stuart, Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols, S.C. 
For the respondent-respondent State of Wisconsin Department 
of Natural Resources there was a brief by Carl A. Sinderbrand, 
Axley Brynelson, LLP and Judith M. Ohm, Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources and oral argument by Carl A. Sinderbrand. 
There was an amicus brief by Andrew C. Cook, Robert I 
Fassbender and Great Lakes Legal Foundation, Inc., Madison, on 
behalf of Attorneys for Dairy Business Association, Midwest Food 
Producers Association, Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce, and 
Wisconsin Paper Council. 
There was an amicus brief by Michael D. Dean and First 
Freedoms Foundation, Inc., Waukesha and Theodore Hadzi-Antich 
and Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento on behalf of Pacific 
Legal Foundation. 
There was an amicus brief by Thomas D. Larson and Wisconsin 
Realtors Association, Madison on behalf of Wisconsin Realtors 
Association and the Wisconsin Builders Association. 
There was an amicus brief by Jodi Habush Sinykin and 
Elizabeth Lawton and Midwest Environmental Advocates, Madison on 
behalf of Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, River Alliance of 
Wisconsin and Clean Wisconsin. 
There was an amicus brief by Claire Silverman and League of 
Wisconsin Municipalities, Madison and Brian G. Formella and 
Anderson, O’Brien, Bertz, Skrenes & Golla, Stevens Point on 
behalf of Wisconsin Rural Water Association, Inc. 
 
 
3
There was a nonparty brief by William P. O’Connor and Mary 
Beth Peranteau and Wheeler, Van Sickle & Anderson, S.C. on 
behalf of Wisconsin Association of Lakes. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 54
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2008AP3170 
(L.C. No. 
2006CV172) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Lake Beulah Management District, 
 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent, 
 
Lake Beulah Protective and Improvement 
Association, 
 
          Co-Petitioner-Co-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources, 
 
          Respondent-Respondent, 
 
Village of East Troy, 
 
          Intervening-Respondent-Respondent-
Cross-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 6, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed in 
part and reversed in part.   
 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
2 
 
¶1 
N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.   This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals1 involving the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) decision to 
issue a permit to the Village of East Troy (the Village) for a 
municipal well, Well No. 7, on September 6, 2005.  Well No. 7 
was constructed and began operating on August 1, 2008.2  The Lake 
Beulah Management District (LBMD) and the Lake Beulah Protective 
and Improvement Association (LBPIA), referred to collectively as 
the conservancies, challenged the DNR's decision to issue the 
2005 permit without considering the well's potential impact on 
nearby Lake Beulah, a navigable water.  The Walworth County 
Circuit Court, the Honorable Robert J. Kennedy presiding, denied 
the petition for review, concluding that, while the DNR had some 
duty to consider the impact of proposed wells on waters of the 
state, the DNR did not violate its obligations by issuing the 
2005 permit because there was no evidence that the well would 
harm Lake Beulah.  The conservancies appealed.    
¶2 
The court of appeals held that the DNR has the 
authority and duty to consider the environmental impact of a 
proposed high capacity well if presented with sufficient 
scientific evidence suggesting potential harm to waters of the 
state.3  The court of appeals concluded that the DNR was 
                                                 
1 Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. Dep't of Natural Res. (DNR), 
2010 WI App 85, 327 Wis. 2d 222, 787 N.W.2d 926. 
2 Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. Vill. of E. Troy, 2010 WI App 
127, ¶3, 329 Wis. 2d 641, 791 N.W.2d 385. 
3 Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶25-27, 
31. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
3 
 
presented with such evidence in this case and remanded to the 
circuit court to order the DNR to consider the impact of Well 
No. 7 on Lake Beulah.4   
¶3 
We conclude that, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 281.11, 
§ 281.12, § 281.34, and § 281.35 (2005-06),5 along with the 
legislature's delegation of the State's public trust duties,6 the 
DNR has the authority and a general duty7 to consider whether a 
proposed high capacity well may harm waters of the state.8  Upon 
what evidence, and under what circumstances, the DNR's general 
duty is implicated by a proposed high capacity well is a highly 
fact specific matter that depends upon what information is 
presented to the DNR decision makers by the well owner in the 
well permit application and by citizens and other entities 
regarding that permit application while it is under review by 
the DNR.     
                                                 
4 Id., ¶39. 
5 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2005-06 version unless otherwise indicated. 
6 Wis. Const. art. IX, § 1. 
7 We use "general duty" to describe the DNR's broad 
obligation to protect waters of the state, which does not demand 
that the DNR take any particular action unless that duty is 
triggered by a proposed high capacity well permit application.   
8 "'Waters of the state' includes those portions of Lake 
Michigan and Lake Superior within the boundaries of this state, 
and all lakes, bays, rivers, streams, springs, ponds, wells, 
impounding reservoirs, marshes, watercourses, drainage systems 
and other surface water or groundwater, natural or artificial, 
public or private, within this state or its jurisdiction."  Wis. 
Stat. § 281.01(18). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
4 
 
¶4 
We further hold that to comply with this general duty, 
the DNR must consider the environmental impact of a proposed 
high capacity well when presented with sufficient concrete, 
scientific evidence of potential harm to waters of the state.  
The DNR should use both its expertise in water resources 
management and its discretion to determine whether its duty as 
trustee of public trust resources is implicated by a proposed 
high capacity well permit application, such that it must 
consider the environmental impact of the well or in some cases 
deny a permit application or include conditions in a well 
permit.   
¶5 
Thus, we affirm that part of the court of appeals 
decision holding that the DNR has the authority and a general 
duty, which it described as something less than an absolute 
duty, to consider the impact of a proposed high capacity well on 
waters of the state.9  We further affirm the court of appeals' 
conclusion 
that 
this 
general 
duty 
requires 
the 
DNR 
to 
investigate or consider potential harm to waters of the state 
only when such duty is triggered, and that there are limited 
ways in which citizens may present evidence of potential harm to 
the DNR.10   
¶6 
However, we reverse that part of the court of appeals 
decision that reversed and remanded to the circuit court with 
directions to remand to the DNR.  That part of the court of 
                                                 
9 Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶17-30. 
10 Id., ¶¶29-34. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
5 
 
appeals decision was based on the court of appeals' conclusion 
that the DNR's duty was triggered in this case by the 
conservancies' submission of an affidavit by geologist Robert J. 
Nauta (the Nauta affidavit) to the DNR's in-house attorney 
regarding a related proceeding.11  The court of appeals assumed 
that the DNR's attorney was not one of the decision makers and 
used the principles of attorney-client imputation——imputing the 
DNR attorney's possession of the Nauta affidavit to the DNR 
decision makers——to conclude that the decision makers had this 
information while reviewing the 2005 permit application and to 
include it in the record on review.12  The record is silent 
regarding who the DNR decision makers were and whether they 
actually had the Nauta affidavit while reviewing the 2005 permit 
application.  Based on the lack of information on these matters 
in the record on review, we must reverse the court of appeals 
decision to remand to the circuit court with directions to 
remand to the DNR.     
¶7 
We note that the right to review of the DNR's decision 
regarding a high capacity well permit application "is dependent 
upon strict compliance with [Wis. Stat. ch. 227]."13  "Ch. 227 
provides a comprehensive, fully defined, procedure for judicial 
                                                 
11 Id., ¶¶35-39. 
12 Id., ¶¶34-38. 
13 Cudahy v. Wis. Dep't of Revenue, 66 Wis. 2d 253, 259, 224 
N.W.2d 570 (1974); see also Kegonsa Joint Sanitary Dist. v. City 
of Stoughton, 87 Wis. 2d 131, 145, 274 N.W.2d 598 (1979). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
6 
 
review of administrative decisions."14  In a challenge to a DNR 
decision, "[d]eveloping a factual record . . . is essential, 
because [§ 227.57] limits judicial power over administrative 
decisions to review of the agency's actions, based on the record 
developed before the agency."15  In this case, based on the 
record on review, which does not include the Nauta affidavit, 
the DNR was not presented with sufficient concrete, scientific 
evidence of potential harm to waters of the state, and thus, we 
affirm the DNR's decision to issue the 2005 permit.16 
¶8 
Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the 
decision of the court of appeals.         
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
¶9 
Well 
No. 
7 
has 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
extensive 
litigation, and the issues raised in this case are related to 
the conservancies' challenge to the 2003 permit.  While only the 
DNR's decision regarding the 2005 permit is under review by this 
court, the history of and litigation involving the 2003 permit 
is relevant, and thus, is included herein.   
                                                 
14 Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (PSC), 79 
Wis. 2d 161, 170, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977). 
15 Charter Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Milwaukee River Restoration 
Council, Inc., 102 Wis. 2d 521, 527-28, 307 N.W.2d 322 (Ct. App. 
1981). 
16 If such evidence of potential or actual harm is presented 
in the future concerning Lake Beulah, our decision does not 
foreclose a remedy such as an enforcement or nuisance action.  
See infra ¶60 n.40.   
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
7 
 
¶10 In order to provide adequate drinking water to its 
growing number of residents, in 2003, the Village first applied 
to the DNR to construct a municipal well with a capacity of 
1,400,000 gallons per day (gpd).17  Along with its application 
and fee, the Village submitted reports from the consulting firm 
Crispell-Snyder, Inc., providing detailed specifications for the 
well and the results of its well site investigation.  The report 
described the surrounding land use, the surface topography, the 
hydrogeology 
of 
the 
area, 
the 
location 
of 
potential 
contamination sources, the results of test pumping, and the 
location of nearby wetlands.  This report also relied, in part, 
on an investigation by Layne-Northwest, another consulting firm 
the Village hired in 2000 to select a suitable site for its 
well.   
¶11 On September 4, 2003, the DNR issued a letter to the 
Village granting it a permit to construct and operate Well No. 
7, hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 permit."  In this 
letter, the DNR relied on its conclusion that Well No. 7 would 
not "have an adverse effect on any nearby wells owned by another 
water utility."  The DNR also included Layne-Northwest's opinion 
that Well No. 7, pumping at its full capacity, "would avoid any 
serious disruption of groundwater discharge to Lake Beulah."  
The 2003 permit provided that "[i]f construction or installation 
of the improvements has not commenced within two years the 
                                                 
17 A well with this capacity qualifies as a high capacity 
well.  Wis. Stat. § 281.34(1)(b). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
8 
 
approval shall become void and a new application must be made 
and approval obtained prior to commencing construction or 
installation."  
¶12 Well No. 7 is located 1,200 feet from Lake Beulah.  
Because of their concern about Well No. 7's potential impact on 
Lake Beulah and the surrounding environment, LBMD, later joined 
by LBPIA, referred to collectively as the conservancies, pursued 
an unsuccessful challenge to the DNR's 2003 permit decision; 
first, in a contested case hearing and later, through a petition 
for judicial review.18  As a result of this litigation, the 
Village did not begin construction on Well No. 7 before the 2003 
permit was set to expire and thus was required to apply to the 
DNR for another permit.   
¶13 On August 3, 2005, the Village's attorney sent a 
letter to the DNR's attorney formally requesting an extension of 
the 2003 permit for an additional two years.19  The Village 
asserted that no additional analysis was required because 
                                                 
18 See the court of appeals decision in this case for a 
detailed summary of the 2003 permit challenge.  See Lake Beulah 
Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶5-10. 
19 While the Village and the DNR treated the 2005 permit as 
an extension of the 2003 permit, in a decision relating to the 
2003 permit, the court of appeals concluded that the 2005 permit 
was, in fact, a new permit.  Lake Beulah Lake Mgmt. Dist. v. 
Dep't of Natural Res. (DNR), Nos. 2005AP2230 & 2005AP2231, 
unpublished slip op. at 2-3 (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2006) 
(dismissing the appeal of the 2003 permit as moot because the 
2003 permit had expired and the Village had obtained a new 
permit). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
9 
 
changes to Wis. Stat. § 281.3420 did not affect this well, and 
thus, "neither the relevant law nor facts [had] changed since 
[the Village's] last application."   
¶14 On August 4, 2005, the day after the Village formally 
requested a permit extension, the conservancies filed a motion 
for reconsideration of the circuit court's decision in the 2003 
permit challenge, to which the conservancies attached the 
affidavit of Robert J. Nauta.  The motion and affidavit were 
served on the DNR's in-house attorney in that case.  In the 
affidavit, Robert J. Nauta, a Wisconsin-licensed geologist, 
stated that based on his analysis of the Village's consultants' 
pumping tests and reports and his own pumping tests and studies, 
"the existing data can only support the conclusion that pumping 
of proposed Well No. 7 would cause adverse environmental impacts 
to the wetland and navigable surface waters of Lake Beulah."   
¶15 The DNR granted the permit "extension" in a letter 
dated September 6, 2005, hereinafter referred to as "the 2005 
permit." The DNR agreed with the Village's assertion that the 
"physical circumstances" of Well No. 7 had not changed and that 
the issuance of a permit was appropriate under the standards in 
Wis. Stat. § 281.34 as modified by 2003 Wisconsin Act 310.     
¶16 On March 3, 2006, the conservancies petitioned the 
Walworth County Circuit Court for judicial review of the DNR's 
                                                 
20 In 2004, the legislature passed 2003 Wisconsin Act 310, 
which created Wis. Stat. § 281.34 and imposed additional 
requirements on the DNR's review of certain categories of 
proposed wells with a capacity of between 100,000 and 2,000,000 
gpd.   
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
10 
 
decision to issue the 2005 permit.  Relevant to this appeal, the 
conservancies argued that the DNR, pursuant to its public trust 
obligations, should have considered evidence of potential harm 
to Lake Beulah, a navigable water, before issuing the permit for 
Well No. 7.21  In an oral decision on September 23, 2008, the 
circuit court, the Honorable Robert J. Kennedy presiding, denied 
the conservancies' petition.  The circuit court agreed with the 
conservancies that "in the presence of some solid, affirmative 
indication that the waters of Lake Beulah, or the wells, or the 
surrounding area, et cetera, would be significantly harmed, this 
court agrees that the DNR should consider that information and 
even perhaps conduct further studies to confirm whether that is 
so or not."22  Finding an "absolute dearth of any evidence 
suggesting that there would be harm to the lake or its 
environs," the circuit court concluded that the DNR did not fail 
                                                 
21 In addition, the conservancies argued that the Village's 
2005 permit was invalid because the Village requested a permit 
"extension," but was required to obtain a "new" permit.  The 
conservancies also defended their petition as timely on the 
basis that they did not request a contested case hearing and 
filed within the six month limitation period for judicial review 
of agency decisions.     
22 For the purposes of its decision, the circuit court 
assumed that the conservancies' petition was timely and also 
noted that, contrary to the conservancies' argument, the 2005 
permit was a valid "new" permit because the court of appeals, on 
review of the 2003 permit, so held in dismissing that appeal for 
mootness.  See Lake Beulah Lake Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, Nos. 
2005AP2230 & 2005AP2231, at 2-3.  Further, the circuit court 
held that the 2005 permit was valid because, even though the 
Village referred to it as a permit "extension" in its 
application, it met all of the statutory requirements for a new 
permit application. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
11 
 
to comply with its duty under the public trust doctrine by 
issuing the 2005 permit without any further investigation.     
¶17 The conservancies appealed, and the court of appeals 
reversed the circuit court's decision.23  Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. 
v. Dept. of Natural Res. (DNR), 2010 WI App 85, ¶1, 327 
Wis. 2d 222, 787 N.W.2d 926.  As an initial matter, the court of 
appeals agreed with the circuit court that the 2005 permit is 
not a "nullity" even though it is a new permit and was referred 
to as a permit "extension" in the 2005 permit application.  Id., 
¶14.  The court of appeals concluded that the 2005 permit 
application contained the information and fee required by Wis. 
Stat. § 281.34(2) for a new permit.  Id.   
¶18 The court of appeals went on to address the DNR's 
authority and duty under the public trust doctrine and Wis. 
Stat. ch. 281.  The court of appeals concluded that the State 
delegated its duties under the public trust doctrine——to 
preserve for public use Wisconsin's navigable waters and the 
beds underlying such waters——to the DNR.  Id., ¶19; see also 
Wis. Const. art. IX, § 1.24  Noting that the public trust 
                                                 
23 The Village also cross-appealed the circuit court's 
decision that the conservancies' petition for judicial review 
was timely.  The court of appeals agreed with the circuit court 
and held that the conservancies' petition was timely because it 
was not a petition for judicial review of a contested case and 
was filed within six months of the DNR's decision.  Lake Beulah 
Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶14 n.3. 
24 A detailed explanation of the public trust doctrine and 
its applicability to the high capacity well statutes is provided 
later in our analysis herein, see infra ¶¶29-33. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
12 
 
doctrine was "an important and integral part of this state's 
constitution," 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
reasoned 
that 
the 
legislature's delegation of its public trust duties to the DNR 
in one part of Wis. Stat. ch. 281 could be negated only by 
express language in the specific high capacity well provisions 
of that chapter.  Id., ¶25.  Finding no such language, the court 
of appeals held that the public trust doctrine together with 
Wis. Stat. § 281.11, § 281.12, § 281.34, and § 281.35, grant the 
DNR the authority and impose a general duty to review the 
environmental impacts of a proposed high capacity well, even if 
no formal environmental review is required by statute.  Lake 
Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶18-28.   
¶19 The court of appeals further held that this duty is 
not absolute, but must be triggered by some showing that a 
proposed high capacity well has the potential to harm waters of 
the state.  Id., ¶¶29-31.  Noting that "the DNR has particular 
expertise when it comes to water quality and management issues," 
the court of appeals left it to the DNR "to determine the type 
and quantum of evidence that it deems enough to investigate" 
potential harm to waters of the state.  Id., ¶31.  The court of 
appeals 
concluded 
that, 
"certainly, 
'scientific 
evidence' 
suggesting an adverse [effect on] waters of the state should be 
enough to warrant further, independent investigation."  Id.  
¶20 The court of appeals explained how citizens may 
present evidence to the DNR to trigger its duty to consider the 
effects of a proposed high capacity well on waters of the state.  
Id., ¶¶32-34.  First, citizens may present "the information to 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
13 
 
the permit decision makers while the permit process is ongoing."  
Id., ¶32.  Second, "if the permit has already been granted, [a 
party may] request[] a contested case hearing and, at this 
hearing, present the information."  Id.  Third, citizens may 
"petition for judicial review after the DNR has issued the 
permit."  Id.  Before a circuit court, however, citizens may 
present evidence only if the circuit court, in its discretion, 
grants a motion to supplement the record on review upon finding 
that the evidence is material and there were good reasons for 
failing to present it to the agency.  Id., ¶32 n.14; see Wis. 
Stat. § 227.56(1).    
¶21 The court of appeals concluded that, while the 
conservancies did not use any of the above methods, they did 
provide evidence to the DNR suggesting that Well No. 7 would 
harm waters of the state by submitting the Nauta affidavit to 
the DNR's in-house attorney, who was involved in the litigation 
of both permits.  Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 
Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶34-35.  Under the principles of attorney-client 
imputation, the court of appeals reasoned that any information 
that the DNR's attorney had regarding these permits while the 
2005 permit application was under review would be imputed to the 
DNR decision makers.25  Id., ¶¶36-38.  The court of appeals held 
                                                 
25 The court of appeals did not specify who the DNR decision 
makers for the 2005 permit were, and the record on review 
appears silent as to that point; nor did the DNR define that 
term.  The court of appeals' analysis assumes, however, that the 
decision makers did not include the DNR's attorney to whom the 
conservancies submitted the Nauta affidavit.  See Lake Beulah 
Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶34-38. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
14 
 
that the DNR had this evidence when deciding whether to issue 
the 2005 permit, which triggered the DNR's duty to consider the 
impact of Well No. 7 on Lake Beulah.  Id., ¶39.  Thus, the court 
of appeals reversed and remanded to the circuit court "with 
directions to, in turn, remand this case to the DNR so that it 
may consider the Nauta affidavit and any other information the 
agency had pertinent to Well [No. 7] before it issued the 2005 
[permit]."  Id. 
¶22 The Village petitioned this court for review, which we 
granted.  We first examine the scope of the DNR's authority and 
duty under the public trust doctrine and Wis. Stat. ch. 281 to 
consider the environmental effects of a proposed high capacity 
well on waters of the state before issuing a permit.  We then 
examine whether the DNR's decision to issue the 2005 permit 
complied with its duty and all other statutory requirements.   
II. ANALYSIS 
 
¶23 The question of the scope of an agency's authority 
requires the interpretation of relevant statutes, which presents 
a question of law, which we review de novo.  Andersen v. Dep't 
of Natural Res., 2011 WI 19, ¶25, 332 Wis. 2d 41, 796 N.W.2d 1.  
We afford one of three levels of deference to an agency's 
interpretation of a statute: great weight, due weight, or no 
deference.  Id., ¶26.  When interpreting the scope of an 
agency's authority conferred by statute, we give no deference to 
the agency's interpretation of its own authority.  Id., ¶25.  
Because agencies are creatures of statute, they have "only those 
powers as are expressly conferred or necessarily implied from 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
15 
 
the statutory provisions under which [they] operate[]."  Brown 
Cnty. v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 103 Wis. 2d 37, 43, 307 
N.W.2d 247 (1981). 
 
¶24 When interpreting a statute, we begin by examining the 
language of the statute, and our analysis ends there if the 
meaning is plain.  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane 
Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.  
Statutory language is interpreted "in relation to the language 
of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to 
avoid absurd or unreasonable results."  Id., ¶46.  This includes 
"the scope, context, and purpose" of the statute if it is 
evident from the statutory language.  Id., ¶¶48-49.  If our 
interpretation "yields a plain, clear statutory meaning," then 
the statute is unambiguous and we need not resort to other 
sources, such as legislative history, to aid our interpretation.  
Id., ¶46. 
 
¶25 Upon resolving the scope of the DNR's authority and 
duty, we reach the underlying dispute, which centers on the 
validity of DNR's decision to issue the 2005 permit.  "When an 
appeal is taken from a circuit court order reviewing an agency 
decision, we review the decision of the agency, not the circuit 
court."  Hilton ex rel. Pages Homeowners' Ass'n v. Dep't of 
Natural Res., 2006 WI 84, ¶15, 293 Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 166.   
¶26 A legal challenge to an agency decision is governed by 
Wis. Stat. ch. 227 and is limited to the record on review.  Wis. 
Stat. § 227.57(1); Clean Wis., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2005 
WI 93, ¶¶35-36, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768.  We separately 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
16 
 
review "disputed issues of agency procedure, interpretations of 
law, [and] determinations of fact or policy within the agency's 
exercise of delegated discretion."  Wis. Stat. § 227.57(3).  On 
matters left to an agency's exercise of discretion, we may not 
substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must give 
"due weight" to an agency's "experience, technical competence, 
and 
specialized 
knowledge . . . as 
well 
as 
discretionary 
authority conferred upon it."  Wis. Stat. § 227.57(8), (10); 
Barnes v. Dep't of Natural Res., 184 Wis. 2d 645, 662, 516 
N.W.2d 730 (1994).  If, however, we conclude that an "agency's 
exercise of discretion is outside the range of discretion 
delegated to the agency by law," we must reverse and remand the 
case to the agency.  Wis. Stat. § 227.57(8).  "The court must 
affirm the DNR's action unless it finds a ground for not doing 
so."  Barnes, 184 Wis. 2d at 661. 
A. THE SCOPE OF THE DNR'S AUTHORITY AND DUTY 
 
¶27 The focus of the conservancies' challenge to the 2005 
permit is their assertion that the DNR has both the authority 
and duty to consider the impact of a proposed high capacity well 
on waters of the state.  To a certain extent, the DNR agrees.  
The DNR asserts that it has the authority and a general duty to 
consider the impacts of a proposed well on waters of the state 
when deciding whether to issue a permit though it asserts that 
this duty did not require the DNR to undertake its own 
environmental analysis or to deny the permit in this case.  The 
DNR and the conservancies agree that this authority and duty 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
17 
 
derives from both the public trust doctrine and Wis. Stat. ch. 
281.   
 
¶28  Regarding the public trust doctrine, they argue that 
the State has delegated its duties as trustee of public trust 
resources to the DNR, and that this imposes a duty on the DNR to 
protect navigable waters.  Further, they assert that the DNR's 
authority and duty is also derived from Wis. Stat. § 281.11 
setting forth the purposes and policies of that subchapter, and 
in Wis. Stat. § 281.12, outlining the DNR's duties under that 
subchapter to protect and preserve waters of the state.  They 
assert that nothing in the more specific statutory standards for 
high capacity wells in Wis. Stat. § 281.34 and § 281.35 revokes 
this broad grant of authority or limits the DNR's duty under the 
public trust doctrine.  They note that the Village's narrow 
interpretation of the DNR's authority would lead to an absurd 
result where the DNR knew a proposed high capacity well would 
cause harm to waters of the state but had to issue the permit 
and wait to pursue remedies until after the harm occurred.  The 
DNR asserts that after-the-fact remedies would not be sufficient 
to protect public trust resources.  Finally, the DNR adds, in 
response to the Village's argument to the contrary, that the 
DNR's long history of conducting public trust analyses provides 
sufficient standards and guidance for permitees. 
¶29 The Village argues that the DNR does not have the 
authority to consider the effect of a proposed high capacity 
well on waters of the state or to reject a well permit 
application because of such concerns.  The Village asserts that 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
18 
 
the specific statutory scheme set forth in Wis. Stat. § 281.34 
and § 281.35 circumscribes the DNR's authority to conduct 
environmental reviews and limits it to only those proposed high 
capacity wells specifically enumerated in the statute (which do 
not include Well No. 7): certain wells with a capacity of 
between 100,000 and 2,000,000 gpd and all wells with a capacity 
of over 2,000,000 gpd.  The Village argues that the legislative 
history of Wis. Stat. § 281.34 and § 281.35 indicates that this 
statutory scheme evinces a deliberate legislative choice to 
limit the DNR's authority.  The Village asserts that this 
specific, limited grant of authority cannot be superseded by the 
public trust doctrine or the general policy provisions in Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 281.11 
and 
§ 281.12. 
 
The 
Village 
argues 
that 
interpreting the DNR's authority so broadly would create a 
permit system without clear standards and would provide no 
guidance for permit applicants.  The Village notes that concerns 
about the environmental impacts of high capacity wells may be 
addressed through (1) the DNR's enforcement authority under ch. 
30, (2) the State's authority to address nuisance conditions 
caused by excessive water withdrawals, and (3) citizen nuisance 
actions.26   
                                                 
26 The Village also asserts that the court of appeals 
decision raises separation of powers concerns because, according 
to the Village, the decision "has effectively added words" to 
the statute and abrogated legislative policy choices.  We 
disagree with the Village's characterization of the court of 
appeals decision in that regard, and because this argument is 
inadequately developed, we do not address it further.  See State 
v. Johnson, 2009 WI 57, ¶71, 318 Wis. 2d 21, 767 N.W.2d 207.  
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
19 
 
¶30 It is undisputed that Lake Beulah is a navigable 
water.  Thus, we begin our analysis with the applicability of 
the public trust doctrine to the DNR's regulation of high 
capacity wells because "[w]hen considering actions that affect 
navigable waters in the state, one must start with the public 
trust doctrine, rooted in Article IX, Section 1 of the Wisconsin 
Constitution."  Hilton, 293 Wis. 2d 1, ¶18.  While originally 
derived from the Northwest Ordinance, the public trust doctrine 
emanates 
from 
the 
following 
provision 
of 
the 
Wisconsin 
Constitution: "[T]he river Mississippi and the navigable waters 
leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying 
places between the same, shall be common highways and forever 
free."  Wis. Const. art. IX, § 1.  
¶31 This court has long confirmed the ongoing strength and 
vitality of the State's duty under the public trust doctrine to 
protect our valuable water resources.  In Diana Shooting Club v. 
Husting, we explained the importance of a broad interpretation 
and vigorous enforcement of the public trust doctrine: 
The wisdom of the policy which, in the organic laws of 
our state, steadfastly and carefully preserved to the 
people the full and free use of public waters cannot 
be questioned.  Nor should it be limited or curtailed 
by narrow constructions.  It should be interpreted in 
the broad and beneficent spirit that gave rise to it 
in order that the people may fully enjoy the intended 
benefits.  Navigable waters are public waters, and as 
such they should enure to the benefit of the public. 
156 Wis. 261, 271, 145 N.W. 816 (1914). 
We reaffirmed this maxim in Muench v. Public Service Commission 
in our examination of the history and evolution of the public 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
20 
 
trust doctrine, which indicated a "trend to extend and protect 
the rights of the public to the recreational enjoyment of the 
navigable waters of the state."  261 Wis. 492, 499-508, 53 
N.W.2d 514 (1952).  We have further explained, "The trust 
doctrine is not a narrow or crabbed concept of lakes and 
streams.  It appreciates such bodies of water as more than 
arteries for waterborne traffic."  Menzer v. Vill. of Elkhart 
Lake, 51 Wis. 2d 70, 82, 186 N.W.2d 290 (1971).  
¶32 From this fundamental tenet of our constitution, the 
State holds the navigable waters and the beds underlying those 
waters in trust for the public.  Hilton, 293 Wis. 2d 1, ¶18; 
ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. Wis. Dep't of Natural Res., 2002 WI 106, 
¶¶11-12, 255 Wis. 2d 486, 648 N.W.2d 854; Wis. Envtl. Decade, 
Inc. v. Dep't of Natural Res. (DNR), 85 Wis. 2d 518, 526, 271 
N.W.2d 69 (1978).  "This 'public trust' duty requires the state 
not only to promote navigation but also to protect and preserve 
its waters for fishing, hunting, recreation, and scenic beauty.  
The 
state's 
responsibility 
in 
the 
area 
has 
long 
been 
acknowledged."  Wis. Envtl. Decade v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d at 526 
(internal citations omitted).   
¶33 While it is primarily the State's duty to protect and 
preserve these resources, "[i]n furtherance of the state's 
affirmative obligations as trustee of navigable waters, the 
legislature has delegated substantial authority over water 
management matters to the DNR.  The duties of the DNR are 
comprehensive, and its role in protecting state waters is 
clearly dominant."  Id. at 527; see also Hilton, 293 Wis. 2d 1, 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
21 
 
¶20; ABKA Ltd. P'ship, 255 Wis. 2d 486, ¶12 ("The legislature 
has delegated to the DNR broad authority to regulate under the 
public trust doctrine and to administer ch. 30.").   
¶34 Particularly relevant to this case, and supporting the 
DNR's 
expansive 
duty 
in 
this 
regard, 
the 
Wisconsin's 
Environmental Decade v. DNR court cited several chapters of the 
statutes, which charge the DNR with managing water resources, 
and concluded that those statutes act as the State's delegation 
of its public trust duties to the DNR.  85 Wis. 2d at 527-28 
(citing Wis. Stat. chs. 29, 30, 31, 33, 144 (1977)).  This court 
further concluded that Wis. Stat. § 144.025(1), (2) (1977), 
which provides nearly identical language to that currently in 
Wis. Stat. § 281.11 and § 281.12, served as a legislative 
delegation of the State's public trust duties to the DNR, 
specifically regarding its authority to consider the public 
trust when regulating the chemical treatment of aquatic weeds 
and algae.  Wis. Envtl. Decade v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d at 527-28.  
Similarly, we conclude that, through Wis. Stat. § 281.11 and 
§ 281.12, the legislature has delegated the State's public trust 
duties to the DNR in the context of its regulation of high 
capacity wells and their potential effect on navigable waters 
such as Lake Beulah.  After examining the role of the public 
trust doctrine, we turn to the language of the relevant 
statutes. 
¶35 The statutory scheme governing high capacity wells, in 
subchapter II of Wis. Stat. ch. 281, combines the DNR's 
overarching authority and duty to manage and preserve waters of 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
22 
 
the state with certain specific, minimum statutory requirements.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 281.11 provides: 
The department shall serve as the central unit of 
state government to protect, maintain and improve the 
quality and management of the waters of the state, 
ground and surface, public and private. . . . The 
purpose of this subchapter is to grant necessary 
powers and to organize a comprehensive program under a 
single state agency for the enhancement of the quality 
management and protection of all waters of the state, 
ground and surface, public and private.  To the end 
that these vital purposes may be accomplished, this 
subchapter and all rules and orders promulgated under 
this subchapter shall be liberally construed in favor 
of the policy objectives set forth in this subchapter. 
Wisconsin Stat. § 281.12(1) further sets forth the DNR's powers 
and duties under subsection II of Wis. Stat. ch. 281, "The 
department shall have general supervision and control over the 
waters of the state.  It shall carry out the planning, 
management and regulatory programs necessary for implementing 
the policy and purpose of this chapter."   
 
¶36 In 
subchapter 
II 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
ch. 
281, 
the 
legislature has further directed the DNR to regulate high 
capacity wells.  Wis. Stat. §§ 281.34-281.35.  A high capacity 
well is one that "has a capacity of more than 100,000 [gpd]."  
Wis. Stat. § 281.34(1)(b).  The owner of a proposed high 
capacity well must "apply to the [DNR] for approval before 
construction of a high capacity well begins."27  Wis. Stat. 
                                                 
27 The owner of a well that is not a high capacity well, 
i.e., one with a capacity of less than 100,000 gpd, must "notify 
the 
[DNR] 
of 
the 
location 
of 
[the] 
well . . . before 
construction of the well begins."  Wis. Stat. § 281.34(1)(b), 
(3)(a). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
23 
 
§ 281.34(2).  While the statutes refer to the DNR's "approval" 
of a proposed high capacity well, the DNR's "approval" of a well 
is actually its decision to issue a permit, and we refer to it 
as such herein.     
¶37 For wells with a capacity of between 100,000 and 
2,000,000 gpd, the DNR must review the well permit application 
using the formal environmental review process in Wis. Stat. 
§ 1.11 for those wells (1) "located in a groundwater protection 
area," (2) "with a water loss of more than 95 percent of the 
amount of water withdrawn," or (3) "that may have a significant 
environmental impact on a spring."  Wis. Stat. § 281.34(4)(a).  
For certain wells in the above categories, depending upon the 
DNR's conclusions in the environmental review process, the DNR 
may issue a permit, may deny a permit, or may issue a permit 
with conditions to "ensure that the . . . well does not cause 
significant environmental impact," or, in the case of a public 
utility well, to "ensure that the environmental impact of the 
well is balanced by the public benefit of the well related to 
public health and safety."  See Wis. Stat. § 281.34(5)(b)-(d).  
 
¶38 For wells with a capacity of more than 2,000,000 gpd, 
the legislature has imposed significant additional requirements.  
Wis. Stat. § 281.35(4)(b), (5).  Before issuing a permit for 
such a well, the DNR must determine, among other things, that 
"no public water rights in navigable waters will be adversely 
affected[,] . . . the proposed withdrawal and uses will not have 
a 
significant 
adverse 
impact 
on 
the 
environment 
and 
ecosystem[,] . . . [or] a significant detrimental effect on the 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
24 
 
quantity and quality of the waters of the state."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 281.35(5)(d).   
¶39 We conclude that, through Wis. Stat. ch. 281, the 
legislature has explicitly provided the DNR with the broad 
authority and a general duty,28 in part through its delegation of 
the State's public trust obligations, to manage, protect, and 
maintain waters of the state.29  Wis. Stat. §§ 281.11, 281.12; 
see also Wis. Envtl. Decade v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d at 527-28.  
Specifically, 
for 
all 
proposed 
high 
capacity 
wells, 
the 
legislature has expressly granted the DNR the authority and a 
general duty to review all permit applications and to decide 
whether to issue 
the permit, to issue the permit with 
conditions, 
or 
to 
deny 
the 
application.30 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
                                                 
28 We use "general duty" to describe the DNR's broad 
obligation to protect waters of the state, which does not demand 
the DNR to take any particular action unless that duty is 
triggered by a proposed high capacity well permit application.  
Under this general duty, the DNR is required to consider the 
impact of a proposed high capacity well on waters of the state 
only if the DNR decision makers are presented with sufficient 
concrete, scientific evidence that the proposed well poses 
potential harm to waters of the state.  See infra ¶¶44-46. 
29 Because the DNR's authority and general duty derive from 
both the public trust doctrine, which protects navigable waters, 
and Wis. Stat. ch. 281, which protects waters of the state, we 
refer to the DNR's authority and general duty in regard to 
waters of the state, which encompasses both.  See Wis. Stat. 
§§ 281.01(18), 281.11, 281.12; see also Wis. Envtl. Decade v. 
DNR, 85 Wis. 2d at 526-27. 
30 Whether the DNR has the authority to consider the 
environmental impact of proposed wells with a capacity of less 
than 100,000 gpd, for which only notification, under Wis. Stat. 
§ 281.34(3), is required, is not before this court, and thus we 
do not decide that issue. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
25 
 
§§ 281.34(2), (4)-(5), 281.35(4)(b), (5).  The high capacity 
well permitting framework along with the DNR's authority and 
general duty to preserve waters of the state provides the DNR 
with the discretion to undertake the review it deems necessary 
for all proposed high capacity wells, including the authority 
and a general duty to consider the environmental impact of a 
proposed high capacity well on waters of the state.31    
                                                 
31 Our conclusion is not affected by the argument advanced 
by the Great Lakes Legal Foundation (GLLF) in a letter recently 
submitted on behalf of the amici Dairy Business Association, 
Wisconsin 
Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc., Wisconsin Paper 
Council, Inc., and Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc.  In 
its letter, the GLLF asserts that 2011 Wisconsin Act 21, enacted 
on May 23, 2011, further circumscribes the DNR's authority to 
consider environmental harm under Wis. Stat. ch. 281.  The GLLF 
relies on Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2m)——"No agency may implement or 
enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold, including a 
term or condition of any license issued by the agency, unless 
that standard, requirement, or threshold is explicitly required 
or explicitly permitted by statute . . . ."——and Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.11(2)(a)——limiting an agency's rule-making authority to 
that "explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature," 
not including any "statement or declaration of legislative 
intent, purpose, findings, or policy," or "the agency's general 
powers or duties." 
None of the parties argues that the amendments to Wis. 
Stat. ch. 227 in 2011 Wisconsin Act 21 affect the DNR's 
authority in this case.  The DNR responds that Wis. Stat. ch. 
281 does explicitly confer authority upon the DNR to consider 
potential environmental harm presented by a proposed high 
capacity well.  The conservancies agree.  The Village maintains 
that the DNR lacks such authority under Wis. Stat. ch. 281 but 
states that "Wis. Stat. § 227.10(2m) does not change the law as 
it relates to the authority of the [DNR] to issue high capacity 
well approvals under Wis. Stat. § 281.34."  We agree with the 
parties that 2011 Wisconsin Act 21 does not affect our analysis 
in this case.  Therefore, we do not address this statutory 
change any further.  
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
26 
 
¶40 The parties agree that there is no requirement either 
for the formal environmental review in Wis. Stat. § 281.34(4) 
nor for the detailed environmental findings in Wis. Stat. 
§ 281.35(5) for Well No. 7 because it has a capacity of 
1,400,000 gpd and does not fall into any of the special 
categories 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 281.34(4) 
for 
which 
formal 
environmental review is required.  However, the Village argues 
that the "graduated permit framework" in Wis. Stat. § 281.34 and 
§ 281.35 limits the DNR's authority to consider environmental 
concerns to only those wells for which minimum review standards 
are prescribed.  The Village's interpretation of the high 
capacity well statutes would require the DNR to issue a permit 
when the minimum statutory requirements are met.    
¶41 To the contrary, there is nothing in either Wis. Stat. 
§ 281.34 or § 281.35 that limits the DNR's authority to consider 
the environmental impacts of a proposed high capacity well, nor 
is there any language in subchapter II of Wis. Stat. ch. 281 
that requires the DNR to issue a permit for a well if the 
statutory requirements are met and no formal review or findings 
are required.   
¶42 Indeed, the Village's interpretation conflicts with 
the permissive language in the statutes, which allow the DNR to 
exercise its discretion when deciding whether to issue a 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
27 
 
permit.32  The legislature can, and in other contexts does, 
mandate that the DNR issue a permit when certain requirements 
are met,33 but the legislature has not done so for high capacity 
well permits.  Finding no language expressly revoking or 
limiting the DNR's authority and general duty to protect and 
manage waters of the state, we conclude that the DNR retains 
such authority and general duty to consider whether a proposed 
high capacity well may impact waters of the state.  See e.g., 
Reuter v. Dep't of Natural Res., 43 Wis. 2d 272, 275-78, 168 
N.W.2d 860 (1969); Maple Leaf Farms, Inc. v. Dep't of Natural 
Res., 2001 WI App 170, ¶¶15-27, 247 Wis. 2d 96, 633 N.W.2d 720.  
This interpretation best harmonizes all of the high capacity 
well statutes and avoids potential conflicts between the 
statutes and with the State's delegation of its public trust 
duties.  See Beard v. Lee Enters., Inc., 225 Wis. 2d 1, 15, 591 
N.W.2d 156 (1999) ("Apparently conflicting provisions of law 
                                                 
32 See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 281.34(5) (providing in the 
"[s]tandards and conditions for approval" that, for certain 
wells, the DNR "may not [issue a permit for] the high capacity 
well unless" certain conditions are met or included in the 
permit, but not requiring the DNR to issue the permit if those 
conditions are met); § 281.35(5)(d) (providing in the "[g]rounds 
for approval" that "[b]efore [issuing a permit], the [DNR] shall 
determine all of the following," including certain environmental 
findings but not mandating permit issuance if the DNR does make 
such findings). 
33 See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 281.346(4s)(d)3. (providing that 
the DNR "shall issue a notice of coverage" under a general 
permit for a water withdrawal from the Great Lakes basin if 
certain statutory requirements are met); § 285.62(7) (providing 
that the DNR "shall issue the operation permit" for a stationary 
source of air pollution if the statutory requirements are met). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
28 
 
should be construed so as to harmonize them and thus give effect 
to the leading idea behind the law.").  
¶43 Contrary to the Village's argument, this does not 
create a permit system without standards.  The Village's 
argument ignores the reality of how the DNR exercises its 
authority and complies with its duty within the statutory 
standards.  As with many other environmental statutes, within 
the general statutory framework, the DNR utilizes its expertise 
and exercises its discretion to make what, by necessity, are 
fact-specific determinations.34  General standards are common in 
environmental statutes and are included elsewhere in the high 
capacity well statutes.  See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 281.35(5)(d)1. 
(requiring the DNR to make a finding "[t]hat no public water 
rights in navigable waters will be adversely affected" before 
issuing a permit).  The fact that these are broad standards does 
not make them non-existent ones.    
¶44 We conclude that the meaning of these provisions is 
clear: the DNR has the authority and a general duty to consider 
                                                 
34 Wisconsin courts recognize that the DNR is expected to 
utilize its expertise and experience to apply the general 
statutory framework to each proposal.  Clean Wis., Inc. v. Pub. 
Serv. Comm'n, 2005 WI 93, ¶168, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768 
(recognizing "the DNR's special expertise on environmental 
matters"); State ex rel. Boehm v. Dep't of Natural Res., 174 
Wis. 2d 657, 677, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993) (according deference to 
the DNR's decision because "the DNR is the state agency 
possessing staff, resources, and expertise in environmental 
matters" and is in the best position to evaluate environmental 
impacts). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
29 
 
potential environmental harm to waters of the state when 
reviewing a high capacity well permit application.35    
¶45 The DNR's general duty certainly does not require the 
DNR to investigate the potential environmental harm of every 
high capacity well permit application or to undertake a formal 
environmental 
review 
for 
every 
application. 
 
Such 
an 
interpretation would be inconsistent with the legislature's 
decision to mandate that level of environmental review for only 
certain high capacity wells.  Wis. Stat. §§ 281.34(4), (5), 
281.35(5); see also Rusk Cnty. Citizen Action Group v. Dep't of 
Natural Res., 203 Wis. 2d 1, 8-9, 552 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 
1996).  
¶46 However, given its general duty, the DNR is required 
to consider the environmental impact of a proposed high capacity 
well 
when 
presented 
with 
sufficient 
concrete, 
scientific 
evidence of potential harm to waters of the state.  Upon what 
evidence, and under what circumstances, that duty is triggered 
is 
a 
highly 
fact-specific 
matter 
that 
depends 
upon 
the 
information submitted by the well owner in the well permit 
                                                 
35 Because we conclude that the plain language of the 
relevant statutory provisions is clear, we need not examine the 
legislative history.  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for 
Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶46, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.  
Additionally, we are not persuaded by the Village's argument 
that the legislative history indicates that, by expanding the 
minimum environmental review requirements for certain high 
capacity wells, the legislature intended to limit the DNR's 
authority to consider potential environmental harm to its review 
of and decision regarding permits for only those wells.  We 
further reject the Village's argument because it is contradicted 
by the plain meaning of the statute. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
30 
 
application and any other information submitted to the DNR 
decision 
makers 
while 
they 
are 
reviewing 
that 
permit 
application.  The DNR should use both its expertise in water 
resources management and its discretion to determine whether its 
duty as trustee of public trust resources is implicated by a 
proposed high capacity well permit application such that it has 
an obligation to consider environmental concerns.  This is 
consistent with the fact-specific determinations that the DNR 
often must make to comply with its obligations under other 
environmental statutes.36   
¶47 The limited review available to those who wish to 
challenge the DNR's discretionary permitting decisions provides 
an additional restriction that limits when a court will hold 
that the DNR's duty required it to take further action when 
considering a particular high capacity well permit application.  
As outlined in greater detail below, a legal challenge to the 
DNR's decision under ch. 227 is limited to the record on review 
and is deferential to the DNR's expertise in this area.  Thus, 
citizens must present any evidence of potential harm to the 
agency before the decision is made or risk losing the ability to 
challenge the DNR's discretionary decision based on such 
evidence.         
B. APPLICATION TO THIS CASE 
 
¶48 The conservancies argue that the DNR had a duty to 
consider potential harm to waters of the state in this case 
                                                 
36 See supra ¶42 n.30. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
31 
 
because the conservancies provided the DNR with concrete, 
scientific evidence showing potential harm to Lake Beulah.  The 
conservancies assert that they triggered the DNR's duty by 
submitting the Nauta affidavit,37 which they argue contained such 
evidence, to the DNR while it was making its decision regarding 
the 2005 permit, and that the DNR violated its duty by not 
considering it.  The conservancies note that on August 3, 2005, 
the Village formally requested an extension of the 2003 permit 
by submitting a letter to the DNR's in-house attorney on the 
2003 permit challenge.  On August 4, 2005, the conservancies 
served a motion for reconsideration of the circuit court's 
decision on the 2003 permit on that same DNR attorney.  The 
Nauta affidavit was attached.  The conservancies assert that the 
2005 permit is invalid because the DNR had this evidence and was 
obligated to consider it but did not do so.    
¶49 They 
assert 
that 
"the 
very 
unique 
factual 
circumstances" coupled with the "complex procedural history" of 
this permit, involving the same parties and legal issues, mean 
that even though they submitted it regarding the 2003 permit 
litigation, since the DNR actually had this information while 
making its decision regarding the 2005 permit, it triggered the 
                                                 
37 The conservancies note that attached to the Nauta 
affidavit were a letter from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional 
Planning 
Commission 
(SWRPC) 
and 
an 
email 
from 
the 
U.S. 
Geological Society, which raised other concerns about the report 
submitted by the Village's consultant and Well No. 7's impact on 
Lake Beulah.  When we refer to the Nauta affidavit we refer to 
all of the evidence presented in that affidavit and the 
attachments thereto.  
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
32 
 
DNR's duty to consider it.  Additionally, the conservancies 
assert that the Nauta affidavit became part of the record on 
review for the 2005 permit when they submitted it in a binder 
along with their brief and later moved the circuit court to 
supplement that record.38 
 
¶50 On the result required in this case, the Village and 
the DNR agree.  They assert that a remand is not warranted 
because the DNR's duty to consider potential harm to waters of 
the state was not triggered by the 2005 permit request based on 
the evidence in the record on review.  They argue that 
challenges to DNR's permitting decisions under ch. 227 are 
limited to the record on review, which is not simply any 
information the DNR had, but only that information the DNR had 
when 
making 
its 
permit 
decision 
that 
the 
DNR 
compiles, 
certifies, and sends to the circuit court.   
                                                 
38 In their brief and at oral argument the conservancies 
also argued that an order by the circuit court, in which the 
circuit court noted that the parties could rely on "any 
information shown by the record to have been known to the DNR 
before and after the issuance of the [2003] permit," effectively 
added this evidence to the record on review.  We disagree with 
this characterization of the circuit court order because it 
reflects that the circuit court would consider only information 
in the record on review by referring to "information shown by 
the record to have been known to the DNR."  (Emphasis added.)  
Additionally, this order is not properly before this court 
because it is not in the record but was provided as an appendix 
to LBMD's brief.  See State v. Kuhn, 178 Wis. 2d 428, 439, 504 
N.W.2d 405 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting that an appellate court is 
"limited by the record before [it] and cannot consider the 
extraneous material included in [a party's] appendix").   
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
33 
 
¶51 They assert that the Nauta affidavit is not part of 
the record on review in this case.  They note that the 
conservancies could have, but did not, utilize one of the 
following methods to add this evidence to the record on review: 
(1) through a contested case hearing regarding the 2005 permit, 
or (2) through a motion to supplement or correct the record on 
review in the circuit court.   They further note that the 
conservancies submitted this affidavit to the circuit court 
attached to a brief; however, they did not properly move to 
supplement the record with this information because their motion 
to supplement did not refer to the Nauta affidavit.  They argue 
that the court of appeals' use of agency imputation principles 
to remand based on evidence in the Nauta affidavit is improper 
because that argument goes to what information the agency 
decision makers may or may not have had, and not what is part of 
the record on review.   
 
¶52 As reflected by the parties' arguments, determining 
what information the DNR had when making its decision to issue 
the 2005 permit, which we may do only by examining the record on 
review, is critical to the result in this case.  It is important 
to understand that the "record on review" is a term of art 
within the context of Wis. Stat. ch. 227.  The record on review 
is "the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the 
proceedings in which the decision under review was made, 
including all pleadings, notices, testimony, exhibits, findings, 
decisions, orders and exceptions, therein . . . " that the 
agency submits to the circuit court.  Wis. Stat. § 227.55.  
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
34 
 
Simply stated, the record on review is that record actually 
compiled and certified by the agency, which it sends to the 
circuit court.  In this case, the record on review consists of 
all of the documents that the DNR sent to the circuit court in 
the conservancies' challenge to the 2005 permit.   
¶53 A challenge to an agency decision under Wis. Stat. ch. 
227 is limited to the record on review in that proceeding.  Wis. 
Stat. § 227.57(1); Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n 
(PSC), 79 Wis. 2d 161, 170, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977).  A court may 
consider evidence outside the record on review only "in cases of 
alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency."  Wis. 
Stat. § 227.57(1); see also Wis. Envtl. Decade v. PSC, 79 
Wis. 2d at 170.   
 
¶54 Citizens have several options through which they may 
present evidence to influence an agency's decision and to have 
that information considered in a review of the decision. 
 
¶55 First 
and 
foremost, 
in 
order 
to 
ensure 
that 
information will be considered by an agency in its decision 
making and will be included in the record on review, citizens 
should submit evidence to the agency decision makers while they 
are deciding what action to take.  More specifically, in regard 
to proposed high capacity wells, we conclude that to trigger the 
DNR's duty to consider the impact of a well on waters of the 
state, citizens must present sufficient concrete, scientific 
evidence of potential harm to waters of the state directly to 
the DNR decision makers while they are considering the well 
permit application. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
35 
 
 
¶56 After the DNR makes its decision, citizens may 
petition the DNR for a contested case hearing.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.42(1).  If the petition is granted, citizens may present 
evidence during the hearing, which becomes part of the record on 
review.  Wis. Stat. §§ 227.44(3), 227.45(2). 
 
¶57 Additionally, citizens also have a limited opportunity 
to add to the record on review before a circuit court upon 
making a successful petition for judicial review.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.52.  If the petitioners believe that the DNR had 
information that it should have, but did not, include in the 
record on review, they may ask the circuit court to correct the 
record on review by adding such information.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.55.  The petitioners may also request leave to supplement 
the record on review with additional evidence if the "evidence 
is material and [] there were good reasons for failure to 
present it in the proceedings before the agency."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 227.56(1). 
 
¶58 The Nauta affidavit is not in the record on review in 
this case.  The conservancies assert that the DNR actually had 
this information while making its decision regarding the 2005 
permit because they served the Nauta affidavit on the DNR's 
attorney related to the 2003 permit challenge while the DNR was 
reviewing the Village's 2005 permit application.39  At this stage 
                                                 
39 The record on review does not include any information as 
to who the decision makers were regarding the 2005 permit.  
Thus, as did the court of appeals, we must assume that the DNR's 
in-house attorney, to whom the conservancies submitted the Nauta 
affidavit, was not a decision maker on the 2005 permit.  See 
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶34-38. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
36 
 
in the proceedings, this argument is of no avail.40  Instead, 
before the circuit court, the conservancies could have asserted 
this argument in support of proper motions to correct or 
supplement the record on review.  See Wis. Stat. §§ 227.55, 
227.56(1).  The conservancies did not make such motions in 
regard to the Nauta affidavit, and therefore it was not included 
as part of the record on review. 
 
¶59 During oral argument the conservancies asserted that 
they did move the circuit court to supplement the record on 
review with information that they submitted in a binder, along 
with their brief.  However, the Nauta affidavit is not in the 
                                                 
40 For this reason, we do not address further the attorney-
client imputation argument that was the basis for the court of 
appeals' decision to remand.  See Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. 
DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶35-39.  An argument that the DNR 
attorney's knowledge and possession of the Nauta affidavit could 
be imputed to the agency decision makers considering the 2005 
permit application is one to be addressed to a circuit court in 
motions to supplement or correct the record on review.  We do 
not address the merits of such an argument because it does not 
provide 
a 
basis 
for 
an 
appellate 
court 
to 
supplement 
retroactively the record on review.    
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
37 
 
binder referred to in the conservancies' motion to supplement.41  
Thus, this motion to supplement could not have added the Nauta 
affidavit to the record on review.                   
¶60 Having clarified the importance of what is and what is 
not in the record on review in this case, we address the DNR's 
discretionary decision to issue the 2005 high capacity well 
permit to the Village.  Since the evidence raised in the Nauta 
affidavit is not part of the record on review, pursuant to Wis. 
Stat. § 227.57(1), we may not use the information in that 
affidavit as a basis to reverse the DNR's decision.   
¶61 We conclude that the DNR properly exercised its 
discretion and complied with the law in issuing the 2005 permit.    
                                                 
41 The Nauta affidavit was included in a binder submitted 
along with LBMD's initial brief in support of its petition for 
review, dated May 1, 2008, when this case, No. 2006CV172, was 
pending along with two related matters, Nos. 2006CV673 and 
2007CV674.  This brief was apparently superseded by another 
brief submitted by LBMD, dated August 11, 2008, which references 
only the circuit court case that is at issue in this case, No. 
2006CV172.  Along with the August 11, 2008, brief, LBMD 
submitted a different binder of documents, which did not include 
the Nauta affidavit.  It is clear from the documents referenced 
in LBMD's brief in support of its motion to supplement the 
record or take judicial notice that the motion to supplement 
referred to the binder submitted along with LBMD's August 11, 
2008, brief, which does not contain the Nauta affidavit.   
A letter by LBMD's attorney regarding the circuit court 
record to be sent to the court of appeals confirms that the 
binder containing the Nauta affidavit was not part of LBMD's 
motion to supplement the record.  LBMD's attorney stated that 
"the papers listed at R. 18 [LBMD's May 1, 2008, brief], 19 [the 
binder containing the Nauta affidavit], and 20 do not relate to 
this case, and should remain in the Court's file in Consolidated 
Case Nos. 06-CV-673 and 07-CV-674."        
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
38 
 
Its decision is supported by the evidence in the record on 
review of the 2005 permit, specifically the documents submitted 
in 
the 
Village's 
application 
including 
Layne-Northwest's 
conclusion that Well No. 7, pumping at its full capacity, "would 
avoid any serious disruption of groundwater discharge to Lake 
Beulah."  There is no concrete, scientific evidence in the 
record on review that would trigger the DNR's duty to consider 
the impact of Well No. 7 on waters of the state.  Nor have the 
conservancies established that the DNR's decision to issue the 
2005 permit violated any applicable requirements in Wis. Stat. 
§ 281.34 or in the DNR rules.    Thus, we must affirm the DNR's 
decision to issue the 2005 permit to the Village for Well No. 
7.42 
                                                 
42 We note that the Village has been operating Well No. 7 
since August 1, 2008.  Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. Vill. of E. 
Troy, 329 Wis. 2d 641, ¶3.  The conservancies never requested a 
stay of the DNR's permit issuance at any point in the 
proceedings, in order to delay construction of Well No. 7 until 
after the review was complete.  See Wis. Stat. § 227.54 
(providing that a "reviewing court may order a stay upon such 
terms as it deems proper").   
If the DNR or the conservancies believe that the well is 
actually causing harm to Lake Beulah, they are not foreclosed by 
our decision from pursuing a remedy in the future through an 
enforcement or nuisance action.  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. 
Michels 
Pipeline 
Constr., 
Inc., 
63 
Wis. 2d 278, 217 N.W.2d 339 (1974) (recognizing that the State 
may pursue an action to abate a public nuisance caused by 
groundwater use); Gillen v. City of Neenah, 219 Wis. 2d 806, 
828-33, 580 N.W.2d 628 (1998) (holding that citizens may bring 
an action under Wis. Stat. § 30.294 to abate a public nuisance 
that is affecting public rights in navigable waters). 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
39 
 
III. CONCLUSION 
¶62 We conclude that, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 281.11, 
§ 281.12, § 281.34, and § 281.35, along with the legislature's 
delegation of the State's public trust duties, the DNR has the 
authority and a general duty to consider whether a proposed high 
capacity well may harm waters of the state.  Upon what evidence 
and 
under 
what 
circumstances 
the 
DNR's 
general 
duty 
is 
implicated by a proposed high capacity well is a highly fact 
specific matter that depends upon what information is presented 
to the DNR decision makers by the well owner in the well permit 
application and by citizens and other entities regarding that 
permit application while it is under review by the DNR.   
¶63 We further hold that to comply with this general duty, 
the DNR must consider the environmental impact of a proposed 
high capacity well when presented with sufficient concrete, 
scientific evidence of potential harm to waters of the state.  
The DNR should use both its expertise in water resources 
management and its discretion to determine whether its duty as 
trustee of public trust resources is implicated by a proposed 
high capacity well permit application, such that it must 
consider the environmental impact of the well or in some cases 
deny a permit application or include conditions in a well 
permit.   
¶64 Thus, we affirm that part of the court of appeals 
decision holding that the DNR has the authority and a general 
duty, which it described as something less than an absolute 
duty, to consider the impact of a proposed high capacity well on 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
40 
 
waters of the state.43  We further affirm the court of appeals' 
conclusion 
that 
this 
general 
duty 
requires 
the 
DNR 
to 
investigate or consider potential harm to waters of the state 
only when such duty is triggered, and that there are limited 
ways in which citizens may present evidence of potential harm to 
the DNR.44   
¶65 However, we reverse that part of the court of appeals 
decision that reversed and remanded to the circuit court with 
directions to remand to the DNR.  That part of the court of 
appeals decision was based on the court of appeals' conclusion 
that the DNR's duty was triggered in this case by the 
conservancies' submission of an affidavit by geologist Robert J. 
Nauta (the Nauta affidavit) to the DNR's in-house attorney 
regarding a related proceeding.45  The court of appeals assumed 
that the DNR's attorney was not one of the decision makers and 
used the principles of attorney-client imputation——imputing the 
DNR attorney's possession of the Nauta affidavit to the DNR 
decision makers——to conclude that the decision makers had this 
information while reviewing the 2005 permit application and to 
include it in the record on review.46  The record is silent 
regarding who the DNR decision makers were and whether they 
actually had the Nauta affidavit while reviewing the 2005 permit 
                                                 
43 Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 327 Wis. 2d 222, ¶¶17-30. 
44 Id., ¶¶29-34. 
45 Id., ¶¶35-39. 
46 Id., ¶¶34-38. 
No. 
2008AP3170   
 
41 
 
application.  Based on the lack of information on these matters 
in the record on review, we must reverse the court of appeals 
decision to remand to the circuit court with directions to 
remand to the DNR. 
¶66 We note that the right to review of the DNR's decision 
regarding a high capacity well permit application "is dependent 
upon strict compliance with [Wis. Stat. ch. 227]."47  "Ch. 227 
provides a comprehensive, fully defined, procedure for judicial 
review of administrative decisions."48  In a challenge to a DNR 
decision, "[d]eveloping a factual record . . . is essential, 
because [§ 227.57] limits judicial power over administrative 
decisions to review of the agency's actions, based on the record 
developed before the agency."49  In this case, based on the 
record on review, which does not include the Nauta affidavit, 
the DNR was not presented with sufficient concrete, scientific 
evidence of potential harm to waters of the state, and thus, we 
affirm the DNR's decision to issue the 2005 permit. 
¶67 Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the 
decision of the court of appeals. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed in part and reversed in part. 
                                                 
47 Cudahy, 66 Wis. 2d at 259; see also Kegonsa Joint 
Sanitary Dist., 87 Wis. 2d at 145. 
48 Wis. Envtl. Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d at 170. 
49 Charter Mfg. Co., 102 Wis. 2d at 527-28. 
No.  2008AP3170.akz 
 
1 
 
¶68 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.   (concurring).  I join 
the majority opinion because its holding is the legally correct 
result.  Given that our review "shall be confined to the 
record," Wis. Stat. § 227.57(1), I simply cannot dissent.  
Still, I write separately to express my uneasiness with the 
result in this case.  Notwithstanding our decision today, there 
remains credible, concrete evidence that Well No. 7, now 
constructed and in operation since August 1, 2008, has the 
potential to harm the wetland and navigable surface waters of 
Lake Beulah.  If the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
(DNR) was not aware of this evidence then, it most certainly is 
aware now.  However, such evidence is not part of the record for 
purposes of judicial review, and consequently, we may not 
consider it.  Although this case does not sit well with me, this 
court cannot sua sponte supplement the record and permit the end 
to justify the means.  
¶69 The 
waters 
of 
this 
state 
are 
deeply 
revered, 
especially by those who live alongside them.  As the late 
Justice William A. Bablitch so eloquently observed, "Fishing is 
many things, the least of which to many who indulge is the 
catching of fish."  Cnty. of Adams v. Romeo, 191 Wis. 2d 379, 
391, 528 N.W.2d 418 (1995) (Bablitch, J., concurring in part, 
dissenting in part).1  Well over a century ago, this court 
                                                 
1 Justice Bablitch continued:  
It is, in the winter doldrums, the casual 
browsing 
through 
the 
fishing 
catalogues, 
the 
fisherperson's 
equivalent 
of 
the 
gardener's 
seed 
catalogues, contemplating the coming renewal; 
No.  2008AP3170.akz 
 
2 
 
recognized one of the unique and most significant rights enjoyed 
by riparian landowners: "The right of the riparian owner to the 
natural flow of water substantially unimpaired in volume and 
purity is one of great value, and which the law nowhere has more 
persistently 
recognized 
and 
jealously 
protected 
than 
in 
Wisconsin."  Winchell v. City of Waukesha, 110 Wis. 101, 108, 85 
N.W. 668 (1901).  This is the very right that is potentially 
threatened by Well No. 7.  According to Wisconsin licensed 
geologist Robert J. Nauta (Nauta), water pumped from Well No. 7 
disrupts groundwater supply to Lake Beulah and diverts surface 
water from Lake Beulah, thereby adversely affecting the lake and 
the wildlife dependent upon the lake.  See also Ken Bradbury & 
                                                                                                                                                             
It is the snap of a twig across the lake on a dew 
filled morning signalling the approach of a deer 
taking the first sip of the dawn; 
It is the desolate cry of a loon signalling its 
mate in a most haunting communion indecipherable to 
mere humans; 
It is the screech of the owl ten feet above the 
river bend warning the invader of its displeasure as 
we approach at dusk to witness the fleetingly hypnotic 
hatch of the mayfly, ironically renewing itself at the 
moment of its demise; 
It is the swish swish swish of the giant wings of 
the heron as it rises reluctantly from its shallow 
water preserve, glaringly reminding us that this is 
its home, not ours.  
It is all of this, and more, that brings us back 
again and again.  This is fishing; the catching of a 
fish is merely ancillary. 
Cnty. of Adams v. Romeo, 191 Wis. 2d 379, 391-92, 528 N.W.2d 418 
(1995) (Bablitch, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). 
No.  2008AP3170.akz 
 
3 
 
Jim 
Krohelski, 
Groundwater 
Use 
and 
its 
Consequences 
in 
Wisconsin, 
Groundwater Advisory Committee (Apr. 1, 2005), 
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/gac/minutes/GAC040105min.pdf; 
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/dwg/gac/presentations/bradb
ury040105.pdf.   
¶70 However, the fact of the matter is that Nauta's 
affidavit is not part of the record for purposes of our review.  
See majority op., ¶¶57-58.  Moreover, there is nothing in the 
record indicating that the DNR decision makers possessed the 
affidavit.  See id., ¶6; Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 2010 WI 
App 85, ¶¶15, 35, 327 Wis. 2d 222, 787 N.W.2d 926.  Because that 
evidence is not part of the record, I simply cannot conclude 
that the DNR erroneously exercised its discretion when it issued 
the 2005 permit to the Village of East Troy for Well No. 7 
without investigating or considering potential harm to Lake 
Beulah.  See Wis. Stat. § 227.57(6) (providing that the court 
has the authority to "set aside agency action or remand the case 
to the agency if it finds that the agency's action depends on 
any finding of fact that is not supported by substantial 
evidence in the record" (emphasis added)). 
¶71 Accordingly, I respectfully concur. 
 
 
No.  2008AP3170.akz 
 
 
 
1