What Are Riparian Rights and Why Are They Important? (2026 Update)
Summer is in full swing across Wisconsin. Lakefront and riverfront property owners have their piers in, boats are on the water, and families are making the most of the season. It is also the time of year when disputes between neighbors begin to surface, most often over where a pier may be placed, and how each owner is permitted to access the water.
While the basic concept of riparian rights has not changed, recent developments make one thing increasingly clear: there is no bright-line rule when it comes to pier placement. Riparian owners still have the right to access the water, place a pier, and reasonably use the water for recreation. However, those rights are limited by the same guiding principle that each owner must exercise their rights without unreasonably interfering with their neighbor’s ability to do the same. It is within that limitation that most disputes arise.
No Bright-Line Rule for Pier Placement
A common misconception is that property lines on land simply extend straight out into the lake and dictate where a pier may be placed. In some circumstances, that approach may work. In many others, it does not. Wisconsin law does not mandate a single method for determining riparian boundaries, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Pier Planner (2026) provides only general guidance. The Pier Planner is not binding and does not resolve disputes between neighboring property owners. Instead, when disagreements arise, those disputes are ultimately decided by the courts if the parties cannot otherwise agree to placement between them. In doing so, courts often consider two general approaches: extending lot lines into the water, or applying the coterminous method, which angles boundary lines to account for irregular or curved shorelines. The appropriate method is highly fact-specific and depends on the configuration of the shoreline and surrounding properties, with the overriding objective being a fair and equitable allocation of access to navigable water.
Fairness as a Factor in Riparian Boundary Decisions
Wisconsin case law has long emphasized that riparian disputes are governed by principles of fairness rather than rigid rules. Courts look at a range of factors, including the shape of the shoreline, the historical use of the properties, existing pier locations, and whether one owner’s use interferes with another’s access. The central goal is to ensure that each riparian owner has a fair and reasonable opportunity to reach navigable water without encroaching on the rights of others.
A Recent Waukesha County Example
A recent Waukesha County case, Biwer v. Kmiec, provides a useful and practical example of how these disputes are being resolved today. Although the case is not binding precedent, its analysis reflects how courts are approaching these issues in real terms. There, the court rejected a strict reliance on lot line extensions and instead applied the coterminous method due to the irregular nature of the shoreline. More importantly, the court focused less on whether a pier technically crossed an invisible boundary line and more on whether it actually interfered with the neighboring owner’s use of the water.
Even where there was some degree of overlap, the court declined to order removal of the pier because there was no meaningful interference and no evidence of actual or likely harm. That aspect of the decision is particularly instructive. It reinforces that riparian disputes are not decided solely by where a line can be drawn on a survey. Instead, the outcome can turn on whether one owner’s use materially impacts another’s ability to access and enjoy the water. While this case is not binding authority, it offers a useful example of how courts may analyze riparian disputes based on the specific facts and circumstances presented.
Practical Takeaways for Property Owners
For property owners, the practical takeaway is straightforward. There is no guaranteed method that will control every situation, and relying solely on lot lines or assumptions about “where the boundary should be” can be misleading. The DNR will not resolve disputes between neighbors, and courts will apply a fact-specific, equitable analysis rather than a strict formula. Most importantly, a technical encroachment may not necessarily translate into a legal violation; there must be real interference.
Resolving Disputes Through Practical Solutions
In practice, this means that resolving these disputes often requires a practical, rather than purely legal, approach. Evaluating how the properties are actually being used, how the shoreline is configured, and whether any party is meaningfully impacted may be more important than the precise location of a boundary line. In many cases, reaching an agreement with a neighboring property owner remains the most efficient and cost-effective solution.
Bottom Line
Ultimately, riparian rights in Wisconsin remain highly fact-specific and driven by principles of fairness. The law has not created a one-size-fits-all rule, and cases like Biwer reinforce that it likely never will. At the end of the day, pier disputes are decided less by where a line is drawn, and more by whether anyone is actually being harmed.
The water law attorneys at Axley LLP have the expertise to assist any riparian client with their pier, access, easement, or related issue.
