less..
A conservancy district was established in Brown County for a number of purposes. The Klosinskis owned property in the conservancy district for a number of years. The Kosinskis sued the conservancy district because they felt it was failing to construct sanitary sewer facilities and to keep the coves of certain lakes free of sediment. After a bench trial, the trial court partially granted the Klosinskis' petition for an injunction.

On appeal, the conservancy district argued that the trial court erred when it concluded that the Klosinskis had standing to petition for an injunction. The Court clarified that normal standing principles do not apply when a statute identifies who may pursue an administrative proceeding. The statute in this case allowed anyone "adversely affected" to bring such a proceeding, so the question was whether the Klosinskis were adversely affected by the conservancy district's action or inaction. During the trial, Mrs. Klosinski identified no specific controversy with the conservancy district (with one exception); rather, she complained that she paid taxes and the District was using those tax revenues wrongly. The Court found that this was not a sufficient basis for bringing an action under the statute.


Thus, the Klosinskis could only seek an injunction against the conservancy district on the single issue that directly affected them.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here