Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

A pair of Republican lawmakers, desperate to advance a Knowles-Nelson stewardship program bill that can garner GOP support, urged Senate lawmakers and members of advocacy organizations to get on board with pausing land acquisition for two years.

“I think we’ve landed it in a good spot now. Is it perfect? I’ll be the first to admit this is not a perfect bill,” Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said during the Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage committee meeting Tuesday. “If we simply allow the clock to run out, this program goes away, and I certainly don’t want to be behind the wheel when the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program phases out.”

Since 1990, the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program has preserved wildlife habitat and expanded outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin by authorizing state borrowing and spending for the purchase of land and by giving grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations.

The program will run out of money on June 30, 2026 without legislative action. Reaching an agreement to continue the program has been difficult, however, with Testin telling the committee that legislators  have faced “buzzsaws” from all sides as they have worked to put together their plan. 

The Assembly passed a pair of amended bills on a 53-44 party line vote last month.

“A lot of my colleagues said ‘Oh, you’ll never get a hearing in the Senate,’” Kurtz said. “Thanks to Chairman Stafsholts, we’re having a hearing in the Senate, so it’s baby steps. It’s like chopping wood. Sen.  Testin and I are committed to keep working on this.” 

“It’s not done, so time hasn’t ran out,” Kurtz added.

Under the current proposal, the program would receive funding for another two years. 

The DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program under the bill, as well as listing land acquisition priorities. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Kurtz told the committee that recent changes to the bill do “refocus” the program towards maintaining the land that has already been acquired under the program. He said that lawmakers had to make “some tough decisions.”

“It does temporarily change the focus of the program to maintain what we already own and catch up on backlog maintenance, while DNR is doing the study, planning and prioritizing a comprehensive path forward for land acquisition,” Kurtz said. “We’re confident this plan will ensure the long-term legacy of stewardship for generations.”

The lawmakers said there are still some additional changes to the bill to come. 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) expressed concerns about the decreasing funding and scope of the program and questioned how lawmakers got to the point of cutting the land acquisitions portion of the program. 

The Knowles-Nelson program is currently funded at about $33 million annually. Habush Sinykin and Democratic lawmakers proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to it and Gov. Tony Evers had called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The GOP bill in its current state would dedicate $28.25 million.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would be allowed to obligate $13.25 million a year under the bill in its current form. Of that, $1 million would be for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million — that could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. DNR would also be able to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million — and $3 million for recreational boating aids. 

Funding for the program 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 of land that are five acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or are contiguous to state-owned land.

“Where we find ourselves now is a situation where we have zero dollars awarded to land acquisition,” Habush Sinykin said, adding, “When does this program stop being the Knowles Nelson stewardship program?” 

Testin said the funding was what was “politically palatable” for the Republican authors’  Assembly and Senate colleagues.

“There are some individuals that have strong feelings both for and against this program,” Testin said. “And where we think we’ve landed is at a point to keep the program going in some form or fashion, continue to put state resources behind it, and then as we do every two years, when we come back in January 2027, regardless of what happens in — shakes out in the November elections, we will begin another state budget process, which then gives us the opportunity once again to take a look at where we are financially as a state, hopefully put more resources into various programs, whether it’s Knowles-Nelson or others.” 

Habush Sinykin said funding acquisitions is necessary to maintain the “vitality” of the program. She also noted that there is strong bipartisan support for the program including from constituents and from conservation and recreation organizations 

“What we’re hearing is we in the Legislature need to put our money where our values are, and this is a program that is valued,” Habush Sinykin said. 

Kurtz shared what he said was the “Assembly perspective” with the committee. 

“It became abundantly clear for the [Republican] caucus I represent that land acquisition was a problem, and that’s why we kind of pivoted to the major land acquisitions, which some people did not like that as well,” Kurtz said. “I’d love to see more money in the program… But I know what the power of our caucuses is, they don’t like borrowing money, and so that’s an issue. They don’t like buying all the land up north. That’s an issue…. Let’s focus for a couple years on maintaining what we have. Let’s do the inventory. Let’s see what the path is for, and in two years, we’re going to be right back here, saying, hey, we need to do this.”

Part of the political problem for the popular Knowles-Nelson stewardship program involves legislative Republicans’ resentment of a 2025 state Supreme Court decision. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the program through the Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee had the ability to anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. But last year the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional, with conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley writing for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee complained that eliminating the anonymous veto had placed them in a difficult position. 

Committee Chair Sen. Rob Stafsholts (R-New Richmond) said he was “a little disappointed” that the committee  had to be there working on the issue at all, noting that the state Supreme Court ruling changed the shape of the program.

Testin said there was not a problem with the way that the program functioned prior to the decision and that the Supreme Court ruling is the reason the program is in trouble. 

“By and large, the vast majority of projects that came before the finance committee were approved and enumerated,” Testin said. “We no longer have that authority and put this entire program in jeopardy.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee suggested that environmental groups that supported the Supreme Court case overturning the anonymous veto process were responsible for damaging the Knowles-Nelson program. 

Cody Kamrowski, executive director for the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, met a cold reception when he told lawmakers about his organization’s decision to withdraw its support for the bill after the recent amendments.

“Land acquisition is not incidental. It is what makes public access, habitat protection and outdoor opportunity possible in the state of Wisconsin,” Kamrowski said, warning that setting aside more land is particularly important in fast-growing areas where preserving wild land will soon be “gone forever.” 

“Have you thought about where we’re at and the political reality of where this program is at?” Stafsholts replied.

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, an alliance of 40 land trusts around Wisconsin, said his organization is concerned about the elimination of the land acquisition portions of the program and language that would limit habitat management to government-owned land. 

GOP lawmakers on the committee were not receptive to Carlin’s pleas, especially since his  organization was part of the Supreme Court case as a co-plaintiff.

“Do you as an organization regret intervening in that lawsuit knowing where we’re sitting here today?” Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown) asked.

Carlin said Gathering Waters is “incredibly proud of the work” the group  did on the lawsuit. He noted that there were more than two dozen projects blocked by the committee in the first two years of Evers’ term. 

“I don’t agree with the framing of the question that we are here today because of the Court decision,” Carlin said. “We are here today because of an apparent reluctance to come together and make a bipartisan compromise to keep the program moving forward.”

“I will happily go before the public any day to talk about why projects should always move forward with a democratic process, and that all of our decisions in government should be transparent and open to public scrutiny,” he added.

Stafsholts disagreed. 

“I think that 100% of the reason we’re sitting here today is because of that lawsuit… you can’t sit there silently and watch something dramatically reduce the ability to have stewardship in Wisconsin and then come back here and beg for it.” Stafsholts said. 

Testin said the lawsuit is the reason he and Kurtz had to “bend over backwards” and “move heaven and Earth” to get a bill advanced in the Legislature. 

After the hearing, Carlin told the Examiner he wasn’t expecting to be challenged on his group’s participation in the lawsuit during the hearing. He questioned Republican lawmakers’  characterization of  the “anonymous objector” system as good governance. He also said that Republicans could simply work together with Democrats to pass a bill that continues the program, which has long enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Instead, Republicans are presenting an ultimatum that they will only consider a bill that has majority Republican support. 

“This is what is politically possible right now, if we only rely on the votes of Republican legislators,” Carlin said, noting that all 60 Democratic legislators signed on as cosponsors to a Democratic proposal and the authors of that proposal, including Habush Sinykin, have said they want to work with Republicans. “Compromise is an absolute necessity in the Senate… If lawmakers were willing to work across the aisle — and they don’t even have to meet in the middle, they just have to make some meaningful progress towards supporting the core functions of the program — then there would be absolutely no problem getting this across the finish line,” he said. “The problem is only there if lawmakers insist on it being a partisan bill.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

At a Wisconsin Assembly committee meeting in November to consider a proposal to extend the widely popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) complained that too much land in his district has been conserved through the program.

That sentiment has become increasingly common among a subset of Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, most of them representing the far northern reaches of the state. The complaint they often make is that Knowles-Nelson has taken too much land off local property tax rolls, depriving already struggling local governments of important revenue. 

These complaints also go hand-in-hand with laments that the Wisconsin Supreme Court undermined the Legislature’s authority to conduct oversight of the grant program by ruling the Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Finance was unconstitutionally blocking stewardship grant projects proposed by the Department of Natural Resources. These Republicans say that their districts have borne the burden of Wisconsin’s land conservation goals for too long and some of that work should shift to southern parts of the state.

Because of this group’s objections in the Republican legislative caucus, the stewardship program is facing its demise next year.

Popular program hits roadblocks 

The Knowles-Nelson program was started in 1989 to fund land conservation in the state. Grants from the program to local governments and non-profits help cover some of the costs for purchasing and conserving land that can be used for recreation, preserving animal habitats and supporting local industries such as forestry. Polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites support the program. 

Despite that support, it is set to expire next summer and, so far, legislative efforts to extend the program have failed. 

In his initial 2025-27 state budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers asked to extend the program for ten years with $100 million in annual funding. Republicans stripped that provision from the budget immediately. 

Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) have authored a bill that would extend the program for four years at $28 million per year. The bill also includes a provision that would require the full Legislature to approve any land purchases that cost more than $1 million — a proposal that critics say would be far too slow for the speed at which real estate transactions need to move. 

A separate proposal from Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) would re-authorize the program for six years at $72 million per year and create an independent board made up of members appointed by the Legislature to approve large land purchases through the program.

Separately, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) has introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would require the full Legislature to approve any state spending on land conservation.

Data contradicts lawmakers’ complaints 

The complaints that Knowles-Nelson has conserved too much Northwoods land may prove fatal to the program in a Legislature that has been unable to find common ground on environmental issues. 

But an analysis of public lands data shows that the Knowles-Nelson program plays a comparatively small role in Wisconsin’s conserved land portfolio. Despite the claims of critics, the program’s land purchases have been made in all corners of the state. 

knowles nelson by assembly district

“Knowles-Nelson becomes like sort of the straw man argument,” says Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at the land conservation non-profit Gathering Waters. “If legislators stood up and said, ‘I don’t think that we should have public land in the way that we do, we should reduce our public land portfolio,’ that would be a terribly unpopular position.”

The program has widespread support, he says.

“Public lands are the prized heritage of Americans, right?” Carlin says. “It’s one of the only things that we just largely agree on as a country, is that we are really proud of our public lands. And this is part of our national identity, and I think it’s certainly part of our Wisconsin identity.” 

Swearingen’s 34th district, which covers north central Wisconsin from Rhinelander up to the Michigan border, has more land conserved by the DNR than any other district in the state — almost 335,000 acres, nearly 24% of the district. That includes land set aside for state parks, natural areas, forests and similar uses. 

But only 4.7% of the district is conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Another 4.6% of his district is conserved by the federal government, and 8.6% is conserved county forest land. 

Despite the claims that Knowles-Nelson has devoured valuable land across the state, no Assembly district has had more than 5.1% of its land conserved through the program, data shows. The average amount of Knowles-Nelson conserved land across all 99 Assembly districts is 1.13%. 

Many small purchases

Ron Eckstein, a board member of Wisconsin Green Fire, says Knowles-Nelson is best equipped to help the state purchase smaller tracts to connect already conserved land across the southern part of the state. 

“Many state fish and wildlife areas, state parks, and state natural areas across the southern two-thirds of Wisconsin have private land inholdings within their property boundaries,” he said in an email. 

“It is very important to continue to purchase these inholdings so these state properties can meet their intended purpose: fish and wildlife habitat, rare species, game species, public access, recreation and recreational trails,” Eckstein said. “This means continuing the long-term, slow process of purchasing a 20-acre tract here and an 80-acre tract there to complete these state-owned areas and fulfill their public purpose.”

state land by assembly district

Other DNR land and federal land take up hundreds of thousands more acres across the state. 

The 74th District, represented by Rep. Chanz Green and Sen. Romaine Quinn has the most Knowles-Nelson land at 5.1%. Nearly 11% of the district is other DNR land while 14.5% is federal land and 23.8% is county land.

Twenty Assembly districts have more general DNR conserved land than the 74th has Knowles-Nelson land. 

Across the five Assembly districts with the most federal land, 1,596,129 acres have been conserved. Across the five districts with the most Knowles-Nelson land, 413,453 acres have been conserved. 

The data also contradicts Republican claims that the northern parts of the state unfairly get too much land conservation attention. 

The Dane County districts represented by Reps. Mike Bare (D-Verona), Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) and Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) are all among the 10 districts with the highest percentage of land conserved through Knowles-Nelson. Rep. Karen DeSanto’s Baraboo-area district, Rep. Chuck Wichgers’ suburban Waukesha County district and Rep. Scott Krug’s district south of Stevens Point are also in the top 10.

When divided by dollar amount, Knowles-Nelson is similarly disbursed. Since its inception, $1.2 billion has been given out through the program to all but one of the Assembly districts; the Milwaukee district of Rep. Supreme Moore-Omukunde (D-Milwaukee) is the only district to not receive any money. 

The 36th district, represented by Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), has gotten the most of that money — $102 million, which amounts to 7% of the total Knowles-Nelson purchases over the program’s lifetime. But districts have received an average of $13 million through the program.

federal land by assembly district

“While we’ve done some really cool things with Knowles-Nelson, it’s largely been a drop in the bucket of our sort of overall public lands portfolio,” Carlin says. While some critics complain about the state’s total public land portfolio, he adds,  “Knowles Nelson investments are really targeted and strategic, and cumulatively not actually that big.”

Republicans defend focusing on Knowles-Nelson because they have limited control over the land conserved by the federal and county governments.  Legislators have authority over the program through the biennial budget process and the confirmation of members of the Natural Resources Board, but despite that, have put the stewardship program in the crosshairs. 

In the last several years, Republicans on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee began using passive review — an anonymous veto system — to selectively block some Knowles-Nelson projects, to the wide condemnation of members of the public and conservation groups. A 2024 state Supreme Court ruling, in a lawsuit filed by Gov. Tony Evers against the committee’s co-chair, Sen. Howard Marklein, found that the “legislative veto” was unconstitutional. 

“Until the Evers v. Marklein decision by the liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court, there was a good process in place for new stewardship land purchases,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the Wisconsin Examiner in a statement. “Those checks and balances between the executive branch and the Legislature ensured that it was a collective decision, and that the state did not overpay for stewardship land. Unfortunately, since this process was destroyed, the Legislature is forced to put even more scrutiny on the stewardship program.”

County Forest by Assembly District

Carlin says the program has played an important role in helping local governments in more rural parts of the state invest in projects that help the local economy in the long term. Dane County’s recently passed 2026 budget includes $20 million for land conservation, which is not an expense most counties can afford. 

“But if collectively, we choose as a state to say this is an important priority, we’re all going to work on this together, then we can make meaningful investments in rural communities that wouldn’t otherwise be able to do it themselves,” Carlin says. 

“At a time when there is such incredible inequality of wealth and opportunity,” he adds, “what the data tells us is that Knowles-Nelson has been a really good democratizer of investments in conservation and recreation.”