Judge dismisses Wisconsin wake surfing lawsuit

Wake surfing takes place on water. But the future of the activity in Wisconsin is being decided, at least in 2026, in federal courts and at town board meetings.

The most recent action was a July 17 decision by a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by wake boat owners against the Town of Scott in Burnett County.

Judge James Peterson in the western Wisconsin district of U.S. Federal Court ruled the wake boaters had a “lack of standing” because they continued to wake boat even after the ordinance was enacted and town officials testified they had no means or intent to enforce it.

The town passed the ordinance in 2024 to cover several local waterbodies to “protect the lakes from environmental damage caused by larger wakes and to prevent safety hazards caused by larger wakes and higher bows that can obscure vision,” according to the document.

Plaintiffs in the case were Chad McEver of Houston, Texas; Scott Oppenheimer of Naples, Florida; and the Peggy Oppenheimer Living Trust, based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. McEver and Scott Oppenheimer also listed addresses on Birch Island Lake in the Town of Scott.

They were represented in the case by the Weld Riley S.C. law firm of Eau Claire.

The lawsuit, which was filed May 16, 2026, in Burnett County Circuit Court and later advanced to federal district court, sought to overturn the town’s wake-enhanced boating rule, which it claimed was illegal and unconstitutional, as well as compensation for “a taking” of their private property by not being able to use their wake boats for their intended purposes.

The suit claimed damages to McEver of not less than $124,570, owner of a 2017 Mastercraft XT20 wake boat, and to Oppenheimer of $65,587 for his 2012 Nautique 200 V Sport, for their inability to use their boats for wake surfing.

However, testimony in the case revealed McEver and Oppenheimer disobeyed the ordinance and continued to wake surf on local waters in 2025. And town officials, lacking a water patrol or other resources, said they had not enforced the ordinance and didn’t intend to in the future.

Judge Peterson dismissed the case on procedural grounds, or “lack of standing” in legal terms, since the plaintiffs had not shown they suffered due to the ordinance.

The result on paper is a victory of the town since it won’t pay damages. However, it didn’t provide what either side in the wake-enhanced boating debate was seeking.

Lake protection groups want a ruling that clearly supports a local wake-enhanced boating ordinance on its substance. That would clear the way for dozens, perhaps hundreds, more such actions in Wisconsin.

Wake boat owners and the boating industry and its lobbyists want a ruling that finds an ordinance unconstitutional or otherwise improper.

To be clear, Wisconsin law allows local ordinances, and they are commonly enforced for activities such as leaf burning and water-skiing.

An intense debate over wake-enhanced boating has emerged in Wisconsin over the last decade or so. The activity typically involves powerful motorcraft with ballast tanks which, when filled with lake water, increase the boat’s displacement and produce waves large and powerful enough to allow a surfer to ride behind the boat without a tow rope.

However, it’s the very nature of the watercraft that has generated concerns. Independent studies have shown when used in wake surf mode the boats produce much greater wave energy, propeller downwash and disturbance of sediments than traditional motor boats.

The large waves have also caused complaints of increased shoreline erosion and conflicts with other lake users, including paddlers, as well as concerns over heightened risk of spread of aquatic invasive species.

In Wisconsin, wake-enhanced boating is allowed anywhere motorcraft are allowed to operate and create a wake, typically 100 feet from shore.

Since the Republican-controlled Legislature and the Department of Natural Resources have not taken action on the issue this year, the wake-enhanced boating landscape in Wisconsin is being determined by local units of government and judges.

In the Town of Scott case, it seems clear the wake boaters will continue to use their vessels in wake-enhanced mode on relatively shallow Birch Island Lake (768 acres, average depth 6 feet and maximum depth 13, according to state data) and poses questions about the effectiveness of such ordinances in towns lacking enforcement capabilities.

“The court’s ruling gives our clients the green light to keep wake surfing,” Anders Helquist and John Robert Behling, attorneys for Weld Riley, S.C., said in a statement. “Nothing in the ruling prohibits wake surfing or says the ordinance is legal and the town’s complete non-enforcement of the ordinance shows this isn’t a real issue but one the town got dragged into by outside special interest groups.”

The attorneys also criticized the town officials for their actions, including testifying they don’t plan to enforce the ordinance.

“We think that is patently false and they are again engaging in bad faith and their governance is an abusive overreach,” Helquist and Behling said in the statement. “Passing an ordinance but swearing under oath that they have no intent to enforce is the type of abuse of governance that has no place in Wisconsin, much less the north country.”

However, since it was on procedural not substantial grounds the ruling also gives lake protection groups optimism for the future.

It also makes wake boat owners 0-4 in such lawsuits across the country. Cases in 2024 in Oregon and 2025 in Texas and Wisconsin also resulted in the ordinances remaining in place.

The Wisconsin case was titled Hameister et al versus Town of Manitowish Waters. Decided Aug. 7, 2025, in Vilas County Circuit Court, the judge denied a request for injunction and dismissed the case.

Meanwhile, activity continues at town boards to enact more ordinances. As of mid-July, 94 local units of government in the state have passed ordinances to prohibit or restrict wake-enhanced boating, according to the Last Wilderness Alliance, a Wisconsin- based non-profit organization providing assistance to groups and individuals seeking such a rule.

Sixteen of the ordinances have been enacted in 2026, including recently to cover Fish Lake in the towns of Hancock and Deerfield and village of Hancock in Waushara County, and Lake Nokomis, Rice River Flowage and Bridge Lake in the towns of Nokomis and Bradley in Oneida and Lincoln counties, respectively.

Dozens more are reportedly holding off on writing ordinances and awaiting clarity from two remaining lawsuits in the state, against the Village of Elkhart Lake and the towns of Manitowish Waters and Boulder Junction. Weld Riley is representing the wake boaters in both.

These cases, also in federal district courts, are more likely to be decided issues of substance, according to multiple legal experts in the state.

Although there is no specified timeline, rulings are expected in both cases before the end of 2026.