Wis. Stat. § 823.02
An action to enjoin a public nuisance may be commenced and prosecuted in the name of the state, either by the attorney general on information obtained by the department of justice, or upon the relation of a private individual, sewerage commission created under ss. 200.01 to 200.15 or a county, having first obtained leave therefor from the court. An action to enjoin a public nuisance may be commenced and prosecuted by a city, village, town or a metropolitan sewerage district created under ss. 200.21 to 200.65 in the name of the municipality or metropolitan sewerage district, and it is not necessary to obtain leave from the court to commence or prosecute the action. The same rule as to liability for costs shall govern as in other actions brought by the state. No stay of any order or judgment enjoining or abating, in any action under this section, may be had unless the appeal is taken within 5 days after notice of entry of the judgment or order or service of the injunction. Upon appeal and stay, the return to the court of appeals or supreme court shall be made immediately.
Wis. Stat. § 823.02
This section was not repealed by implication by the creation of former ss. 144.30 to 144.46 [now see chs. 285 and 289] that empower DNR to investigate sources of pollution. State v. Dairyland Power Coop. 52 Wis. 2d 45, 187 N.W.2d 878 (1971). A court of equity will not enjoin a crime or ordinance violation to enforce the law, but will if the violation constitutes a nuisance. Repeated violations of an ordinance constitute a public nuisance as a matter of law, and the injunction can only enjoin operations that constitute violations of the ordinance. State v. H. Samuels Co. 60 Wis. 2d 631, 211 N.W.2d 417 (1973). The concept that an owner of real property can, in all cases, do with the property as he or she pleases is no longer in harmony with the realities of society. The "reasonable use" rule applies. State v. Deetz, 66 Wis. 2d 1, 224 N.W.2d 407 (1974). A nuisance is an unreasonable activity or use of property that interferes substantially with the comfortable enjoyment of life, health, or safety of others. State v. Quality Egg Farm, Inc. 104 Wis. 2d 506, 311 N.W.2d 650 (1981). Prohibiting injunctive relief against a person merely because the person was acting independently would render a public nuisance that consisted of multiple independent actors engaging in acts of prostitution immune to effective redress. Accordingly, a trial court had authority to issue an injunction to abate the individual's role in prostitution that undisputed evidence proved was a public nuisance. City of Milwaukee v. Burnette, 2001 WI App 258, 248 Wis. 2d 820, 637 N.W.2d 447, 00-2308. The social and economic roots of judge-made air pollution policy in Wisconsin. Laitos, 58 MLR 465. Primary jurisdiction; role of courts and administrative agencies. Krings, 1972 WLR 934. Protecting the right to farm: Statutory limits on nuisance actions against the farmer. Grossman and Fischer. 1983 WLR 95.