April 17, 2006
Zawistowski Decision
On April 5, 2006, Circuit Court Judge John Anderson (Bayfield County) decided a case brought by the State of Wisconsin and twelve private landowners against William Zawistowski, claiming that his Sawyer County cranberry marshes were causing a nuisance by discharging phosphorus into nearby Musky Bay.  After a two week trial, the Judge found that there was no nuisance, and ruled for Mr. Zawistowski.
Zawistowski Decision
On April 5, 2006, Circuit Court Judge John Anderson (Bayfield County) 
decided a case brought by the State of Wisconsin and twelve private 
landowners against William Zawistowski, claiming that his Sawyer County 
cranberry marshes were causing a nuisance by discharging phosphorus into 
nearby Musky Bay. After a two week trial, the Judge found that there was 
no nuisance, and ruled for Mr. Zawistowski.
Mr. Zawistowski operates two cranberry marshes that were started by 
his father in the late 1930's and have been run by the family ever 
since. Like all cranberry growers, he uses fertilizer with phosphorus. 
The marshes draw water from Musky Bay on Lac Courte Oreilles and 
discharge it back during typical operations such as the harvest 
flood.
There was no allegation that Mr. Zawistowski violated any statute or 
regulation and there was no enforcement effort brought by the Wisconsin 
Department of Natrual Resources. Nonetheless, the State Attorney General 
joined with private plaintiffs (a group of out-of-state seasonal lake 
property owners) and claimed that phosphorus from fertilizer was getting 
into the Bay and was promoting the growth of weeds and algae thereby 
creating a public and private nuisance. The Plaintiffs sought to force 
Mr. Zawistowski to dredge the Bay and to enjoin him from using water 
from the Bay for his farming operation.
This case involved Wis. Stat. s. 823.08, commonly referred to the 
"Right to Farm Act" and a host of factual and legal issues. Multiple 
experts were called by both sides. Judge Anderson found that there was 
no ecological damage to the Bay; that there was no threat to human 
health from the weed and algae growth; that any interference with 
recreational uses was not unreasonable; and, therefore, there was no 
nuisance, either public or private.
Agricultural/Agribusiness 
Law Section