Wisconsin’s Legal Crossroads on Wake Surfing: Where Things Stand and How It Affects Municipalities, Property Owners, and Insurers
Wisconsin’s lakes are on the front lines of a fast‑evolving legal battle over wake surfing boats. Communities are weighing shoreline erosion and habitat concerns against the interests of boaters and local businesses, and the result is a patchwork of local bans, stalled statewide bills, and new litigation that could reshape rules in the future. In this post, we’ll walk through the current legal atmosphere in Wisconsin, highlight pending legislation, and flag key issues for municipalities, lake districts, property owners, and boaters, and insurers.
What Are Wake Surfing Boats and Why Are They Controversial?
Wake surfing and other “wake sports” rely on specialized boats designed to generate large, surfable wakes. These vessels typically use inboard engines with ballast tanks, tabs, or other devices that increase displacement and create a bigger wave for riders behind the boat. Those same large, energetic wakes have sparked intense debate on Wisconsin’s inland lakes.
Critics—often lake associations, shoreline property owners, and environmental groups—argue that enhanced wakes accelerate shoreline erosion, damage aquatic plants and habitat, stir up sediment, and cause property damage to docks and moored boats. Supporters, including many recreational boaters and marine businesses, counter that wake surfing is a legitimate water sport that can be managed safely, and that the environmental science does not support claims of necessary bans.
Importantly, this controversy sits on top of Wisconsin’s general boating rules. State law already imposes minimum distances for certain activities, such as operating at slow‑no‑wake speed within a set distance of the shoreline or other structures, and special rules for personal watercraft such as jet-skis. Wake‑specific rules, however, are not yet clearly standardized statewide. That regulatory vacuum has pushed the fight to the Legislature and to local governments around the state.
Current Legislation
Over multiple sessions, Wisconsin lawmakers have introduced multiple “wake sports” bills aimed at setting uniform rules for wake‑enhanced boats. Earlier proposals centered on:
Defining wake surfing and “wake‑enhanced” operation.
Requiring setback distances from shore and structures.
Adding safety requirements such as observers or mirrors and daylight‑only operation.
Wisconsin lawmakers considered these options in paired Assembly and Senate bills that offered competing statewide approaches to regulation. In the Assembly, AB 1033, backed by the boating industry, it would generally permit wake surfing so long as operators remain at least 200 feet from shore, docks, and other boats. The bill was later amended to include authorization of a Sandhill crane hunt in an attempt to render support.
In the Senate, SB 1024, supported by lake‑protection groups and local‑control advocates, proposed a significantly stricter framework by requiring wake‑enhanced boating to occur at least 500 feet from shore in water 20 feet deep or more, and would also preserve the authority of local governments to adopt tighter ordinances. A competing measure, SB 1025, mirrored the industry‑favored approach with a 300‑foot minimum distance and no depth requirement, aligning more closely with AB 1033.
After AB 1033 was combined with the crane‑hunt provisions and passed the Assembly, Senate leadership declined to take up the package, leaving all of the wake surf bills effectively stalled for the current session.
For now, there is no single statewide rule that tells wake‑boat owners exactly where and how they can operate on every Wisconsin lake. The legislative fight is not only over the right distance from shore, but also over whether state law will preserve robust local control or preempt stricter local rules.
Local Ordinances and the Town of Scott Lawsuit
In the absence of a clear statewide framework, local governments have worked to fill the gap. What began as a slow trickle of wake surfing rules—just 15 ordinances from 2009 through 2023—accelerated rapidly in recent years. In 2024, local governments enacted 36 new ordinances, and 2025 added another 18. Altogether, Wisconsin now has 54 ordinances focused on wake surf restrictions or bands, covering over 400 lakes.
Common features include:
Full bans on wake‑enhanced operation on smaller or shallower lakes.
500‑foot setbacks from shore and 20‑foot minimum depth requirements when running with ballast or other wake‑enhancing systems.
Acreage thresholds that allow wake‑enhanced boating only on larger lakes.
These ordinances rest on Wisconsin’s long‑standing tradition of local boating regulation, subject to Department of Natural Resources review and consistency with state law. But that authority is now being tested.
McEver v. Town of Scott, No. 25-CV-508-JDP (W.D. Wis. Aug. 14, 2025)
After the Town of Scott adopted an ordinance—based on a widely used model of environmental impact—banning wake‑enhanced boats on several lakes, including Birch Island Lake, a group of property owners sued. Their claims included: (1) Constitutional vagueness and due process challenges to the ordinance language; (2) Alleged conflicts with Wisconsin’s Public Trust Doctrine, arguing that broad local bans impermissibly restrict public rights on navigable waters; (3) Damages theories tied to the claimed loss of use and value of their wake boats. Because the challenged ordinance closely tracks a template used around the state, any appellate decision could either validate this approach or force many communities to rethink their regulations.
The Town of Scott case has sparked motivation for others to litigate this issue. In May 2025, the Town of Land O’ Lakes enacted Ordinance 2025‑02, which bars the use of ballast tanks, water sacks, wake shaper fins, and similar wake‑enhancing equipment. Following its passage, riparian owners Shawn and Erin Hill and Brian and Nancy Travis served the Town with an intent to file a claim, asserting that the ordinance deprives them of their lawful ability to wake surf and interferes with their rights as waterfront property owners. The claimants are seeking damages of at least $70,000 (Hills) and $120,000 (Travis’s), along with the repeal of the ordinance, a moratorium on future wake boat ordinances until January 1, 2030, and payment of legal fees exceeding $40,000.
While this case was originally filed in Burnett County, it has since been removed to Federal Court in the Western District of Wisconsin.
How This Affects Insurers
For insurers and their counsel, these developments create a new set of questions.
First, wake‑boat incidents can generate property and bodily injury claims that look very different from traditional boating losses: shoreline erosion, dock and seawall damage, claims between riparian neighbors, and injuries to surfers or third parties. Causation—was it an “enhanced” wake or ordinary boat traffic?—may become a central, expert‑driven dispute.
Second, local ordinances introduce another layer of complexity. If an insured operates a wake boat in violation of a clear setback or depth rule, plaintiffs may argue negligence per se, while insurers and defense counsel must assess how that violation interacts with policy provisions on illegal acts, notice, cooperation, and, in some cases, punitive damages or allegations of reckless conduct.
Third, municipal defendants are likely to tender wake‑boat ordinance challenges, like the Town of Scott case, to their liability carriers. Coverage questions can arise over the scope of defense obligations, the nature of the relief sought (damages versus purely declaratory or injunctive relief), and the intersection between public‑trust claims and traditional liability policy language.
For carriers writing homeowners, boat, umbrella, and municipal liability policies in Wisconsin, wake‑boat disputes represent an emerging risk category that may require updated underwriting guidelines, clearer policy language, and early engagement with defense counsel familiar with both water law and complex causation issues.
What to Watch
Looking ahead, Wisconsin’s legal framework for wake surfing boats will likely be shaped by three forces: (1) Whether the 2026 Legislature can agree on a statewide standard, and whether that standard preserves or preempts stricter local rules; (2) How courts resolve challenges like the Town of Scott case and define the limits of local authority under the Public Trust Doctrine and the constitution; (3) How insurers and insureds respond to the evolving risk landscape through claim handling, policy wording, and risk‑management practices.
For municipalities, lake districts, property owners, and insurers, the common theme is uncertainty. Until questions are answered by either courts, or the legislature, both municipalities and property owners are operating in a legal landscape that remains unsettled—and potentially subject to significant change.
Author: Mitchell D. Dess
Wisconsin’s Legal Crossroads on Wake Surfing: Where Things Stand and How It Affects Municipalities, Property Owners, and Insurers
Wisconsin’s lakes are on the front lines of a fast‑evolving legal battle over wake surfing boats. Communities are weighing shoreline erosion and habitat concerns against the interests of boaters and local businesses, and the result is a patchwork of local bans, stalled statewide bills, and new litigation that could reshape rules in the future. In this post, we’ll walk through the current legal atmosphere in Wisconsin, highlight pending legislation, and flag key issues for municipalities, lake districts, property owners, and boaters, and insurers.
What Are Wake Surfing Boats and Why Are They Controversial?
Wake surfing and other “wake sports” rely on specialized boats designed to generate large, surfable wakes. These vessels typically use inboard engines with ballast tanks, tabs, or other devices that increase displacement and create a bigger wave for riders behind the boat. Those same large, energetic wakes have sparked intense debate on Wisconsin’s inland lakes.
Critics—often lake associations, shoreline property owners, and environmental groups—argue that enhanced wakes accelerate shoreline erosion, damage aquatic plants and habitat, stir up sediment, and cause property damage to docks and moored boats. Supporters, including many recreational boaters and marine businesses, counter that wake surfing is a legitimate water sport that can be managed safely, and that the environmental science does not support claims of necessary bans.
Importantly, this controversy sits on top of Wisconsin’s general boating rules. State law already imposes minimum distances for certain activities, such as operating at slow‑no‑wake speed within a set distance of the shoreline or other structures, and special rules for personal watercraft such as jet-skis. Wake‑specific rules, however, are not yet clearly standardized statewide. That regulatory vacuum has pushed the fight to the Legislature and to local governments around the state.
Current Legislation
Over multiple sessions, Wisconsin lawmakers have introduced multiple “wake sports” bills aimed at setting uniform rules for wake‑enhanced boats. Earlier proposals centered on:
Wisconsin lawmakers considered these options in paired Assembly and Senate bills that offered competing statewide approaches to regulation. In the Assembly, AB 1033, backed by the boating industry, it would generally permit wake surfing so long as operators remain at least 200 feet from shore, docks, and other boats. The bill was later amended to include authorization of a Sandhill crane hunt in an attempt to render support.
In the Senate, SB 1024, supported by lake‑protection groups and local‑control advocates, proposed a significantly stricter framework by requiring wake‑enhanced boating to occur at least 500 feet from shore in water 20 feet deep or more, and would also preserve the authority of local governments to adopt tighter ordinances. A competing measure, SB 1025, mirrored the industry‑favored approach with a 300‑foot minimum distance and no depth requirement, aligning more closely with AB 1033.
After AB 1033 was combined with the crane‑hunt provisions and passed the Assembly, Senate leadership declined to take up the package, leaving all of the wake surf bills effectively stalled for the current session.
For now, there is no single statewide rule that tells wake‑boat owners exactly where and how they can operate on every Wisconsin lake. The legislative fight is not only over the right distance from shore, but also over whether state law will preserve robust local control or preempt stricter local rules.
Local Ordinances and the Town of Scott Lawsuit
In the absence of a clear statewide framework, local governments have worked to fill the gap. What began as a slow trickle of wake surfing rules—just 15 ordinances from 2009 through 2023—accelerated rapidly in recent years. In 2024, local governments enacted 36 new ordinances, and 2025 added another 18. Altogether, Wisconsin now has 54 ordinances focused on wake surf restrictions or bands, covering over 400 lakes.
Common features include:
These ordinances rest on Wisconsin’s long‑standing tradition of local boating regulation, subject to Department of Natural Resources review and consistency with state law. But that authority is now being tested.
McEver v. Town of Scott, No. 25-CV-508-JDP (W.D. Wis. Aug. 14, 2025)
After the Town of Scott adopted an ordinance—based on a widely used model of environmental impact—banning wake‑enhanced boats on several lakes, including Birch Island Lake, a group of property owners sued. Their claims included: (1) Constitutional vagueness and due process challenges to the ordinance language; (2) Alleged conflicts with Wisconsin’s Public Trust Doctrine, arguing that broad local bans impermissibly restrict public rights on navigable waters; (3) Damages theories tied to the claimed loss of use and value of their wake boats. Because the challenged ordinance closely tracks a template used around the state, any appellate decision could either validate this approach or force many communities to rethink their regulations.
The Town of Scott case has sparked motivation for others to litigate this issue. In May 2025, the Town of Land O’ Lakes enacted Ordinance 2025‑02, which bars the use of ballast tanks, water sacks, wake shaper fins, and similar wake‑enhancing equipment. Following its passage, riparian owners Shawn and Erin Hill and Brian and Nancy Travis served the Town with an intent to file a claim, asserting that the ordinance deprives them of their lawful ability to wake surf and interferes with their rights as waterfront property owners. The claimants are seeking damages of at least $70,000 (Hills) and $120,000 (Travis’s), along with the repeal of the ordinance, a moratorium on future wake boat ordinances until January 1, 2030, and payment of legal fees exceeding $40,000.
While this case was originally filed in Burnett County, it has since been removed to Federal Court in the Western District of Wisconsin.
How This Affects Insurers
For insurers and their counsel, these developments create a new set of questions.
First, wake‑boat incidents can generate property and bodily injury claims that look very different from traditional boating losses: shoreline erosion, dock and seawall damage, claims between riparian neighbors, and injuries to surfers or third parties. Causation—was it an “enhanced” wake or ordinary boat traffic?—may become a central, expert‑driven dispute.
Second, local ordinances introduce another layer of complexity. If an insured operates a wake boat in violation of a clear setback or depth rule, plaintiffs may argue negligence per se, while insurers and defense counsel must assess how that violation interacts with policy provisions on illegal acts, notice, cooperation, and, in some cases, punitive damages or allegations of reckless conduct.
Third, municipal defendants are likely to tender wake‑boat ordinance challenges, like the Town of Scott case, to their liability carriers. Coverage questions can arise over the scope of defense obligations, the nature of the relief sought (damages versus purely declaratory or injunctive relief), and the intersection between public‑trust claims and traditional liability policy language.
For carriers writing homeowners, boat, umbrella, and municipal liability policies in Wisconsin, wake‑boat disputes represent an emerging risk category that may require updated underwriting guidelines, clearer policy language, and early engagement with defense counsel familiar with both water law and complex causation issues.
What to Watch
Looking ahead, Wisconsin’s legal framework for wake surfing boats will likely be shaped by three forces: (1) Whether the 2026 Legislature can agree on a statewide standard, and whether that standard preserves or preempts stricter local rules; (2) How courts resolve challenges like the Town of Scott case and define the limits of local authority under the Public Trust Doctrine and the constitution; (3) How insurers and insureds respond to the evolving risk landscape through claim handling, policy wording, and risk‑management practices.
For municipalities, lake districts, property owners, and insurers, the common theme is uncertainty. Until questions are answered by either courts, or the legislature, both municipalities and property owners are operating in a legal landscape that remains unsettled—and potentially subject to significant change.