During debate on the floor, Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the GOP Knowles-Nelson bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).

A pared-back proposal that will continue the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program, but without allowing for new land acquisition, passed the Assembly on Thursday, eliciting critical reactions from Democrats who said it won’t uphold the legacy of the program.

The Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program was initially created during the 1989-1990 legislative session and signed into law by former Gov. Tommy Thompson. With the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the state, the program has authorized state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations. It has traditionally received bipartisan support in Wisconsin as it has been reauthorized several times over the years.

Two GOP bills, coauthored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), passed the Assembly in a 53-44 vote along party lines. The bills would extend the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

Under the amended proposal, the Knowles-Nelson program would be reauthorized until 2028, but the money set aside would mostly be for maintaining land that has already been purchased under the program.

The program’s land acquisition provisions have been essentially stripped in the legislation. 

A previous version of the GOP bill would have authorized the program until fiscal year 2029–30. Gov. Tony Evers in his 2025-27 state budget proposal had called for investing over $1 billion and reauthorizing the program for another 10 years. Republicans rejected the proposal. 

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) blamed the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the state of the proposal.

Wisconsin lawmakers for years exercised control over what Knowles-Nelson projects received funding through the state’s powerful Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee could anonymously object to a project and have it upheld for an indeterminate amount of time.

The program and the power of the committee became the focus of a fight over the balance of power between the governor and lawmakers, with the state Supreme Court ruling in 2025 that the Joint Finance Committee did not have the authority to hold up spending through anonymous objections. 

Sortwell said that the DNR should not be able to buy land without oversight from lawmakers.

“I don’t support their ideas to turn our authority of the Legislature over to unelected people,” Sortwell said. “We can build this up and do more things with it but let’s make sure we don’t lose what we have today. We can maintain the program. We can go ahead and make sure that we can keep the lands that we already have in good condition and continue moving forward.” 

Under the amended version of AB 315, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would only be able to obligate $1 million for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million. The $1 million could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. The bill would also allow for DNR to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million. The program would also limit the amount that could be obligated for recreational boating aids to $3 million. 

The amended version of AB 612 reduces the amount that can be obligated each year to $13.25 million. It also includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels land that are 5 acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or is contiguous to state-owned land.

The bill would also require that large projects get approval from the full Legislature and limit grant or in-kind contributions for a project to 30%.

The DNR, under the bill, would also need to conduct a survey study of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money, proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years, and proposed changes. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Recipients of a grant would also need to submit a report to the DNR on how the money was spent, and it would need to be publicly published. 

The program is set to expire on June 30, 2026, without a reauthorization from the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers.

Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Team Knowles-Nelson, a coalition of Wisconsin environmental conservation organizations, fishing and hunting advocates, trail builders, bicycle enthusiasts and others, said in a letter urging lawmakers to vote against the bills on the Assembly floor that they don’t propose a “workable path forward.” 

“These bills include virtually no funding for land acquisition. Land trusts and local governments would have no dedicated ability to acquire land for either purpose — a fundamental departure from the program’s core mission,” Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the nonprofit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said on behalf of the coalition. “While the bills provide habitat management grants to nonprofit conservation organizations, they impose an impractical framework. The grants are limited to habitat work on lands already owned by the state or local governments, excluding nonprofit-owned lands. This restriction undermines the collaborative conservation model that has made Knowles-Nelson successful for over three decades.” 

During debate on the two bills, Democratic lawmakers said the bills were inadequate and would not preserve the intent of the program. 

Rep. Vinnie Miresse (D-Stevens Point) declared that “every time Republicans amend the Knowles-Nelson proposal, it seems to get worse.” 

“Without land acquisition, Republicans have neutered this program and rendered it Knowles-Nelson in name only,” Miresse said. He added that lawmakers’ attitude of treating people with different opinions as a “threat” is how legislation that “ignores history, disregards broad public support and turns a shared legacy into just another talking point” gets a vote.

“They chose the extremes, and that choice will cost the state a program that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support,” Miresse said. 

Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) said the bill is not a compromise, but is instead “table scraps.”

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) talked about being a “birder” — someone who watches and observes birds as a hobby.

“We had the option to do a cost to continue… and it was rejected, and that disheartens me because when I go to places like Horicon Marsh when the birds are coming in, are migrating in, and I get to see goldfinches — there’s nothing like watching a chimney swift swoop down and try to get some food, or when you’re out and just walking around and navigating a red-winged blackbird swoops down tries to peck you in the head because it thinks that you are a crane trying to steal its eggs,” Moore Omokunde said. “We need to provide these opportunities for so many people in the state of Wisconsin to enjoy this.”

Republican lawmakers argued that the proposal was better than the Knowles-Nelson program ceasing to exist.

Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. He added that it would “help preserve some of our beautiful natural areas” for future generations to enjoy.

“Sometimes we get caught up in partisan politics, but let’s not make this about partisan politics. This bill deserves strong, bipartisan support,” Kaufert said. 

“I would rather take half a cookie today, rather than no cookie today to make sure that we can continue the program,” Sortwell said. “You gotta vote yes today because if you vote no, you’re saying, you know, what? I’m not willing to compromise. It’s not good enough for me, and I’m going to vote no, because I’m going to be like a little kid and take my ball and go home.”

Evers told lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that he was “hopeful” they would be able to move forward on a reauthorization proposal for the Knowles-Nelson program.

“I would be glad to sign any reauthorization proposal that appropriately supports both land acquisition and property management of Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources and public lands to secure the future of this program that is so fundamental to Wisconsin’s proud and cherished tradition of conservation,” Evers said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correctly state the amount of money the amended bills would dedicate to the program.

A hemp plant at a Cottage Grove farm. Hemp, used for industrial purposes and now grown legally in Wisconsin, is made from a variety of the cannabis plant that is low in THC, the active ingredient that is responsible for the intoxicating effect of marijuana. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers are backing competing visions for the future of hemp in the state. One proposal, (SB 682), was discussed during a Thursday meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue. The bill would create a regulatory structure for hemp-derived cannabis products which would preserve the state’s hemp industry despite a federal ban set to take effect in November. Without state-level intervention, or the federal government choosing to reverse course, hemp growers and distributors fear that Wisconsin’s $700 million industry and about 3,500 jobs will disappear.

Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), chair of the  Agriculture and Revenue Committee presented the bipartisan hemp bill to his committee, which he authored with bipartisan support. Testin’s legislation would define hemp as cannabis plants with no more than 0.3% of delta-9 THC (or the maximum concentration allowable under federal law up to 1%, whichever is greater) and define “hemp-derived cannabinoids” as any such compound extracted from the hemp plant. THC concentrations would be determined using specific high-performance testing methods. 

Wisconsinites would need to be at least 21 years old to purchase hemp-derived cannabinoid products under the bill, which mandates that products undergo independent lab testing to ensure that they contain the amount and type of cannabinoids described on the product’s label. This practice, known as truth-in labeling, is something the hemp industry has called for in recent years. 

Products could not be sold under the bill without labeling including contact information for the manufacturer or brand owner, serving sizes per container of product, ingredient lists including allergens, potency labeled in milligrams, and any necessary warnings. Under the bill, hemp-derived products could not contain more than 10 milligrams of THC in a single serving. 

Testin said Thursday that globally, the industrial hemp market was valued at roughly $11 billion in 2025, and is expected to reach $48 billion by 2032. “Despite its wide availability, the regulation of [hemp-derived cannabinoid] products is essentially non-existent, leaving a patchwork of different approaches taken by states across the country,” he said. 

In Wisconsin, such products “are generally recognized as legal but unregulated,” Testin said. “There are no state laws that restrict the sale to minors, regulate the potency or content of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], or establish labeling or packaging requirements.” Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee and other states have moved to enact their own regulations, Testin said. “Regulations are needed to eliminate the current uncertainty regarding the status of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], provide stability and certainty for businesses looking to enter this segment of the economy, and enact public safety regulations.”

Both Testin and Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) have worked on hemp laws for Wisconsin since the federal Farm Bill passed in 2018. “I’ve actually grown hemp,” said Kurtz, recalling that in 2019 “it was kind of a wide open market.” People that Kurtz and others called “bad actors” throughout the hearing also rode the hemp wave, seeing it as a “get rich quick scheme.” Kurtz said that today, the hemp industry is filled with people who want to do the right thing, but that “bad actors” have persisted. 

Kurtz said SB 682 is designed to ensure that Wisconsinites “get the very best product, and they know what they’re getting.” He stressed that “if we do nothing, then hemp is going to be illegal at the federal level…but it will still be legal here in the state of Wisconsin. So I think it would behoove us to work together, get a good compromise, a good common sense piece of legislation to make sure that we — in my humble opinion — protect our constituents, but also protect an industry that I think is needed.” 

Although hemp would be illegal at the federal level, a state-level industry could still operate similarly to the way some states have fully legal recreational or legalized cannabis programs, largely because the federal government has not cracked down on those industries. 

Testin added that “regardless of anyone’s thoughts as it relates to cannabis and cannabinoids, it’s here. And obviously we have a lot of different approaches as to how to best move forward.” He repeatedly took aim at the “stupidity” of what he described as “our overlords” in Washington D.C., but also criticized other hemp-related bills being pushed in Wisconsin. Whereas some Republicans are seeking to ban hemp products outright, others have differing ideas about how a legal industry should be regulated. 

A bill introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), SB 681, would require that manufacturers and distributors of hemp-derived cannabinoid products have permits. Products would be sold under a three-tier system, and would be regulated similarly to alcohol under the Division of Alcohol Beverages, a component of the Department of Revenue, which would be renamed to the Division of Intoxicating Products. 

Although both Testin and Wimberger’s bills have gained bipartisan support, Testin described Wimberger’s bill as “the dead bill” and “deader than dead.” Testin argued that SB 681 would over-regulate the hemp industry, and even lead to a monopolization effect where a small number of entities could control who gets hemp permits, shape an otherwise competitive market, and operate in a “good ol’ boys club” manner. 

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) highlighted  the divide among state Republicans over hemp and cannabis products, stressing that Democrats are not the ones holding up legalization and regulation.

The committee room was filled with people from across the hemp industry who listened to the conversation. When lawmakers questioned how to ensure that children do not acquire intoxicating hemp products, distributors and manufacturers pointed to age-verification software even for online sales, which require a photograph and image of a driver’s license to approve an order. There was also discussion about how to prevent products from being marketed to children using cartoon-like advertising and appealing candy wrappers. 

Some veterans testified, describing how hemp helped them alleviate pain, kick addictive pain killers, soothed PTSD symptoms, and calmed the body for sleep. Other testimony centered on the danger involved in crossing state lines to Michigan or Illinois to acquire cannabis to treat various medical conditions. Hemp farmers stressed that they need to know now how they will be affected by a looming federal ban as they decide when or whether to plant their crops in the spring. 

Much of the public testimony was supportive of  Testin’s bill, though some speakers said that it needed to be amended to protect farmers and growers, and also expand the kinds of products it would cover including drinks and gummies. 

“Yes, we are now in a scenario where there are intoxicating hemp products,” said Testin. “But just no different than anything like beer, wine, or alcohol, we need to have some sensible regulations put in place, which this bill aims to do just that.”

As for “concerns about getting baked or getting high from these products,” Testin added, “it’s no different than those individuals who go out and consume too many old fashioneds at fish fry on a Friday night, or have too many beers. It’s about personal choice and responsibility, but at the same time making sure that we have some regulations put in place.”

The hemp industry deserves to “thrive and grow,” Testin said, while the public deserves protection and to know “that this stuff isn’t falling into the hands of people it shouldn’t be in, like kids.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A Wisconsin Senate Committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would allow private companies to construct small solar projects on underutilized farmland and commercial rooftops across the state. 

The bill, which would encroach on the monopoly the state’s existing utility companies are allowed to maintain under state law, is being considered while people across the country worry about rising energy costs amid a boom in the construction of data centers and the increased use of electric vehicles and appliances. 

Environmental groups in the state have also regularly complained that the utility companies aren’t constructing enough renewable energy projects or sunsetting existing coal and natural gas power plants quickly enough. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) and Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa), would allow people in Wisconsin to subscribe to get some of their power from a local “community solar” installation. The subscribers would receive credits they can put toward their utility bill. Because the power developed at the local solar installation will still need to travel through the utility company’s infrastructure, the bill includes a provision that all subscribers to the program would have to pay at least $20 per month on their electric bill. 

In the hearing of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government, the bill’s authors said allowing community solar projects would increase people’s energy choices while allowing the expansion of solar power in the state that avoids the objections from local residents that often come with large, utility-scale solar projects. 

“This change will open a new market sector in a high energy industry, attract economic investments in Wisconsin, create local jobs, drive innovation and competition, and ultimately save consumers and small businesses money on their energy bills,” Testin said. 

But the authors also acknowledged there is still a lot of disagreement over the details and the bill is not yet in its final form. 

“We’re not exactly there yet. We’re not all agreeing on this being the best way forward just yet, but this public hearing is a really important step to vet that out a little bit more to get us closer to that answer,” Krug said. “So yes, there are still some kinks to work out between the utilities and individuals who want a more market-based approach to solar. I hope we can work through those issues here.”

Over the hearing’s three and a half hours, the testimony split among two groups — the utility companies who are opposed to the bill and a coalition of solar companies, economists, farmers and employers who are in favor. 

The utility companies accused the bill of creating a “shell game” that would lower the costs for the subscribers of a given project while raising electric bills for everyone else. Zack Hill, testifying on behalf of Alliant Energy, said the utility estimated that community solar would result in an additional $8.75 billion in costs for ratepayers over the next 25 years. 

“How does [the bill] pay for subscribers 10 to 20% energy savings? The short answer: It will shift costs to your other constituents,” Hill said. “Some have said this sounds like community solar voodoo economics, but all you have to remember is this, when a company promises you a discount, someone else has to pay for it.”

People in favor of the bill argued that the generation of more energy could only help lower energy costs while disputing the utility companies’ claims. Will Flanders, the research director at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, also said the utilities’ estimates undervalue the benefits that community solar can add. 

“This is a model that expands energy choice without large subsidies, without mandates, without turning more power over to monopoly utilities,” Flanders said. “In fact, it introduces competition at a time when Wisconsin needs it the most.” 

“We argue that community solar can deliver net savings to the entire system,” he continued. “When we talk about a shell game, what we’re really saying is there’s no real additional resources being put into the system, but obviously there is additional resources being put in when we have these with these programs in place.” 

Karl Rabago, a Denver-based energy consultant who testified with Flanders, said that the Alliant $8.75 billion estimate amounted to a threat that if the utilities don’t get to sell the energy, they’ll charge consumers for that loss. 

“No one knows where this number comes from, but having seen how utilities make their case in other states, I am 99.9% confident they are basically saying, ‘If we don’t get to make the electricity and sell it, we could potentially lose $8.75 billion and and if we don’t make that money, we’re going to charge you for it anyway,’ and that’s how customer costs could go up,” Rabago said. “That’s the most likely explanation for a histrionic number. The utility position, to summarize, seems to sound a bit like ‘let us do it all and no one gets hurt.’ We’ve heard those kinds of exhortations. Monopolies do it particularly well.” 

Toward the end of the hearing, a number of Wisconsin property owners testified, touting the benefits they’ll receive if they’re able to allow solar projects to be constructed on their land. 

Duane Hinchley, a Cambridge dairy farmer, said community solar is an “innovative solution” that can give farmers a stable income to hedge against the risks in the agriculture business. Plus, he said, allowing farmers to participate will prevent land that has been farmed for generations from being developed into subdivisions. 

“With the right policies in place, our state’s proud agricultural heritage can be a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s clean energy future,” Hinchley said. 

But throughout the day, lawmakers from both parties appeared skeptical of the bill’s benefits. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said repeatedly he didn’t understand how the program would work for the utility companies. 

“It sounds like a shell game to me,” he said. “I just, I’m really having a challenge with trying to figure out how that would work, because it would seem to me that the energy company, the regulated company, is the one that’s going to be footing the bill for this.” 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) questioned how the program wouldn’t eventually raise energy costs for non-participants, but said one selling point for the bill was that it would encourage the increased development of renewable energy. 

“I heard you say this is going to force more solar to be built, whether or not you need it,” Spreitzer said to a utility company representative. “And I guess that, to me, is the one selling point of the bill. Is that I look at where we’ve been in the landscape lately, where we have, unfortunately, federal incentives for solar that are going away. We have increasing demand for power from data centers. We’re seeing new natural gas plants get built. We’re seeing coal plants not being retired, when we hoped they would. To me, there’s plenty of need for solar.” 

If the utility companies won’t support a community solar proposal, Spreitzer wondered, what do they need from the Legislature to encourage more solar development? 

“And so if we’re not going to go down this route, what are the incentives that you all need to make sure that we can continue to drive solar development without increasing rates for customers and without saying, ‘let’s go build a natural gas plant instead?” he asked. 

Anti-rights of nature bill 

Also on Tuesday, the committee heard testimony on a bill from Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) that would prohibit local governments in Wisconsin from enacting “rights of nature” ordinances, which grant natural elements legal rights that can be protected in court. 

Nass said in his testimony that the idea is anti-American and is contrary to the values of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a radical departure from our current law. Rights are something that human beings have,” Nass said. “This concept of granting nature rights is something that has been done primarily in foreign countries … and many of these countries lean dramatically towards socialism and communism, and their attitude is not compatible with private property rights in our country.”

But proponents of rights of nature resolutions frequently point to the fact that corporations are granted rights under U.S. law. Communities including Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or begun drafting rights of nature ordinances and some Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant Devil’s Lake State Park some rights that can be protected in court. 

In a statement after the hearing, Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), one of the co-authors of the Democratic proposal, wrote, “As we heard from advocates today, Rights of Nature is one of the strongest tools local governments have to protect clean air, clean water and healthy soil for future generations — so that our grandchildren, and their children after them, can drink our waters, eat food grown in our soils, and hunt in our forests.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE