A recent legal complaint challenges a newly enacted ordinance that bans wake surfing on a popular Wisconsin lake, raising questions about municipal authority and recreational rights for residents and visitors. The suit was filed by Elkhart Watersports Alliance, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 20, 2026, naming the Village of Elkhart Lake and its trustees as defendants.
According to court documents, the plaintiff alleges that an ordinance passed by the Village Board on November 3, 2025—Ordinance No. 669—constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to prohibit wake surfing entirely on Elkhart Lake. The complaint states: “This action seeks a declaratory judgment that an ordinance attempting to completely ban wake surfing on Elkhart Lake, Sheboygan County, is illegal and unconstitutional.”
The background section of the filing outlines that Elkhart Watersports Alliance (EWA) is a nonprofit corporation comprised mainly of riparian landowners who own boats or property on Elkhart Lake. EWA describes itself as “a boating organization…whose primary purpose is to support, protect, and promote boating activities on the waterways in the Village of Elkhart Lake and the Town of Rhine.” The group asserts that its members use wake boats for wake surfing—a water sport described as low-impact and accessible to people with various physical abilities.
The complaint details a series of events leading up to the passage of Ordinance No. 669. It alleges that all village trustees voted in favor of what it calls “the most extreme action a government can take—a complete prohibition—on something which has been legal for decades on Elkhart Lake.” Plaintiff argues this goes beyond reasonable restrictions allowed under state law (Wisconsin Statute § 30.77), claiming instead that it targets specific boat types known as ‘wake boats.’
Supporting their claim, EWA references several communications from village officials suggesting intent to eliminate both wake boats and wake surfing from the lake. For example, one trustee stated in an email: “the Ordinance is ‘an ordinance eliminating wake boats/wake surfing from Elkhart.’” Other emails included discussions with outside advocacy groups regarding drafting reports to support such bans.
The plaintiff further contends that procedural irregularities occurred during adoption of the ordinance. They allege possible violations of Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law due to meetings or communications held outside properly noticed public sessions. The complaint also highlights minimal discussion at board meetings regarding actual boating traffic or safety issues specific to Elkhart Lake.
EWA’s filing includes arguments about the nature and benefits of wake surfing compared to other water sports allowed under current regulations. They assert: “Wake surfing occurs at a significantly slower speed compared to higher-speed and higher-impact watersports like wakeboarding, tubing, or water skiing,” adding that it provides safe recreational opportunities for children, elderly individuals, people with disabilities, and wounded veterans.
To support their position against a total ban, EWA cites an ‘Elkhart Wake Study’ shared with village trustees before passage of the ordinance. According to their summary: “The Elkhart Wake Study showed that with no ballast…someone ‘tubing’ at 19 miles per hour…creates a larger wake than a wake surfer (with full ballast) 200 feet from shore.” The study reportedly found minimal impact from wakes generated by surfers operating within proposed setback distances.
Despite these findings—and proposals for compromise ordinances restricting rather than banning wake surfing—the complaint alleges that village officials rejected alternative approaches such as setbacks or limited hours for activity. Proposals included exempting riparian owners or establishing designated zones based on depth and distance from shore consistent with scientific studies referenced by both sides.
On legal grounds, EWA argues multiple counts including:
– That the ordinance exceeds statutory authority because required findings were not made concerning local conditions (“the Village failed to take into account all…mandatory factors for Elkhart Lake”);
– That state law allows only restrictions—not outright prohibitions—on certain boating activities;
– That vague language in the ordinance renders it unconstitutionally overbroad under due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment invalidating Ordinance No. 669 as ultra vires (beyond legal power), injunctive relief preventing enforcement against its members or others similarly situated, attorneys’ fees under federal civil rights statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1988), and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Representing EWA are attorneys from Weld Riley S.C., according to court filings. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-00682.
