Dispute Over Local Creek Made it Into Union-Bill Lawsuit Debate

A Dane County Circuit Court judge on Thursday dismissed one of three lawsuits filed relating to Gov. Scott Walker's collective-bargaining bill.

Interestingly, a court case involving Oak Creek - State v. City of Oak Creek, which wound up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2000 - was the main precedent Judge Maryann Sima used to come to her decision.

Back then, the court ruled that the state attorney general did not have the authority to challenge the constitutionality of a state law. Rather, it was the job of the attorney general to defend the state Legislature (his client).

In yesterday's decision, Sima referenced that case several times. She wrote that if the attorney general couldn't challenge a statute's constitutionality, then a county or other arm of government couldn't either. Therefore, Dane County cannot sue the state, Sima ruled. 

It all started with some concrete

The origins of the dispute between the state and Oak Creek went all the way back to 1982. That was when the city developed a subdivision on the south end of town, and as part of that, hired a contractor to put in a concrete liner at Crayfish Creek, City Attorney Larry Haskin said.

The concrete was put in to control flooding at the creek, which runs between McGraw Drive and Nicholson Road (south of Oakwood Road near Meadowview Elementary School).

However, no one got a permit to put in the concrete, Haskin said. The state Department of Natural Resources became aware of it and brought proceedings against the city in an effort to get the concrete removed. Those proceedings would drag on for some 18 years as Oak Creek fought for the concrete to stay.

Later on, the state Legislature passed a bill that exempted Oak Creek from the requirements to get a permit for the concrete. But the attorney general sued, saying the statute was unconstitutional.

Haskin, on behalf of the city, argued that the attorney general didn't have the right to question the constitutionality of a state law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with him. To this day, the concrete is still there.

That an otherwise-unassuming creek on the south side of this city would make it into the debate over the collective bargaining bill? Well, that's just another sign of how insane the dispute over Walker's collective-bargainning bill has gotten. 

Here are two other interesting tidbits:

The attorney general who sued? Jim Doyle, future Wisconsin governor.

And the assistant attorney general who made oral arguments opposite of Haskin? None other than Joanne Kloppenburg, who (probably) lost the Supreme Court election last week.

Weird how things work sometimes.