Wisconsin Supreme Court Prevents Important Pushback Regarding New Kohler Co. Golf Course

Kohler Company, a Wisconsin-based company that owns multiple golf courses throughout the state, has spent years attempting to acquire land for the development of yet another one. Because of the location of the land in question— a state park along the shores of Lake Michigan— the company has faced some resistance. Primarily, this comes from a conservation organization called Friends of the Black River Forest, who have pushed back on the mission of Kohler Co. by pursuing a challenge to the development which states that turning said land into a golf course goes against the environmentalist and recreational ideals of the group. Reversing a previous decision by the Court of Appeals, the Friends are no longer allowed to pursue their challenge regarding the future of the land. The Court ruled that these ideals are not sufficiently protected by law. If this is the real reasoning behind the ruling, it only highlights a bigger issue. An interest in conservation and environmentalism should absolutely be protected by law in no uncertain terms.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court acted wrongly in reversing the Friends’ ability to pursue the challenge; not only should the state government be protecting state parks, but golf courses themselves are substantially harmful to the environment. Those in power should seek to protect and preserve nature. Not only are they failing to do so, but in preventing an organization from doing so in their place, they are actively working against the best interests of the local environment and, by extension, the planet. 

Had the Wisconsin Supreme Court not reversed the original decision, it is still possible that the golf course would have been built by Kohler: the state government was not working to prevent this course of action, but rather was allowing the other side of the debate to have a voice and to freely challenge the decisions of the company. Not only is it important in this specific instance that citizens and groups may openly argue about the happenings of the community, but it is important to the very concept of community to set a precedent which encourages discourse and civil disagreement. 

Under some circumstances, it seems reasonable that park land may be reutilized for something more immediately pressing, for example to make room for affordable housing. Unless attempting to further an even more urgent cause than environmentalism, nature should not be disrupted. Golf courses are purely for entertainment, and although joy is important, it comes in many forms. Our planet comes in only one. Although state parks may not make money in the way that a golf course does, the status of the natural world should not be slighted in favor of anyone’s pockets, especially of those belonging to members of a private company.

Golf courses require an excessive amount of water for their maintenance. In Utah, a set of 30 golf courses use up to 9,000,000 gallons of water daily. That averages out to 300,000 gallons of water per golf course– an immense impact even when taken alone. Importantly, this is the case for 16,000 courses in the United States alone. This adds up to an incomprehensible and inexcusable amount of water use. Further, most golf courses frequently use dozens of pesticides to keep their tiny green grass in pristine condition. These pesticides are often deeply harmful to nearby flora, fauna, and waterways.

Clearly, there are many good reasons why a group of conservationists may want to challenge the swapping of land between a state park and yet another golf course. Realistically, the government should be helping their mission. Instead, they are closing the door in the face of citizens who are trying to put a stop to damaging long-term decisions. This is not a standalone issue with the judicial system in this country– recently, the national Supreme Court has ruled in favor of limiting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. There is, as of recently, either an unfounded distrust in those with authority on environmentalism, or an inappropriate lack of concern regarding climate change, one of the most important and urgent issues currently faced by our entire planet.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ought to not only allow Friends of the Black River Forest to challenge Kohler Co., but they should also encourage it, and aid in the fight to protect the only Earth there is. The Supreme Court of the U.S. ought to act similarly, delegating power to the EPA– the very agency designed to handle these issues– and trusting that the professionals there are apt and able to do their jobs sufficiently. Organizations like Friends of the Black River Forest and the EPA should be given a voice in their areas of expertise. The climate crisis is real, and the government needs to understand this fact and prioritize its addressal.