Reading Time: 5 minutes

Wisconsin’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, the state’s primary way of preserving green space and wetlands from development, is set to expire June 30 — but only after the Republican-controlled Legislature failed to form a consensus after months of negotiations and potential amendments to the initial bill. 

Internal drafting documents obtained by Wisconsin Watch show that the Republican reauthorization bill — authored by Rep. Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc, and Sen. Patrick Testin, R-Stevens Point — went through at least 10 drafts between fall 2024 and when the bill was released in June 2025.

Despite the contentious negotiations over the program’s future, environmental advocates say there is still widespread popularity for Knowles-Nelson in Wisconsin. 

“There is no controversy about the program outside of Capitol politics,” said Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at Gathering Waters, Wisconsin’s Alliance for Land Trusts. “That kind of stunning gap between what the conversation about the program is inside the Capitol and what the conversation about the program is across the rest of the state is really startling.”

Kurtz and Testin did not respond to a request for comment. 

A program built on compromise, now caught in a political fight

Knowles-Nelson was signed into law in 1989 by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson and has survived both Republican and Democratic administrations, consistently drawing support from both parties. It funds everything from land acquisition by the DNR to grants for nonprofit conservation organizations and local governments.

“Knowles-Nelson is how we conserve land to protect environmentally sensitive areas. It’s how we provide access for hunters and anglers and silent sports recreationists,” Carlin said.

In the latest budget cycle, the bipartisan support unraveled after the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down a mechanism that had allowed members of the Joint Finance Committee to anonymously block individual DNR land purchases. 

Conservation advocates cheered the ruling, but Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay, who has tried to push for a compromise to save the program, warned advocates “they should be careful what they wish for.”

“I thought there was a good chance that that would be the end of the program,” Kitchens said. “So, you know, here we are.”

Why did the bill fall apart?

The Kurtz-Testin bill introduced in June 2024 would have funded the program at $28.25 million per year through 2030.

After failing to take action on Knowles-Nelson through the state budget process, Republicans in the Assembly passed an amended version of that bill funding the program until 2028 hoping to maintain existing land, not fund new projects. 

Cody Kamrowski, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, said that his organization supported the initial version of the bill, even though it wasn’t an ideal starting place.

“And then some additional amendments were made. Some more amendments were made, and then it morphed into something that wasn’t Knowles-Nelson,” Kamrowski said. “I mean, Knowles-Nelson stewardship is a land acquisition program, and with all those amendments that were put in, it wasn’t a land acquisition program.” 

The Kurtz-Testin bill would have required the full Legislature to specifically authorize any DNR land purchase with a grant award of $1 million or more — effectively meaning every significant land deal would need to pass as its own bill before any money could move.

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin, D-Whitefish Bay, the author of a competing reauthorization bill, said the timeline alone makes that unworkable. “There is no real estate acquisition in history that could last over two years,” she said. “They’re very time-sensitive.”

Kamrowski emphasized that land acquisition opportunities don’t wait for political windows to reopen. “A lot of times it’s a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to purchase a key piece of property,” he said.

The Republican bill would also have funded the program at roughly $28 million per year — less than the $33 million it had been receiving since 2021, and far below the $72 million Habush Sinykin proposed or the $100 million in Gov. Tony Evers’ version of the budget. 

Funding for Knowles-Nelson has fallen significantly since its peak in 2011. Program spending in 2018 was about a quarter of what it was in 2007, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum. 

The Kurtz-Testin bill never came to a vote. In February 2026, Senate Republican leaders pulled the bill from the floor schedule without explanation. When Habush Sinykin introduced an amendment to simply extend the program for one more year at its existing $33 million funding level, it got struck down along party lines.

“All it would have done was give the program one more year at $33.25 million, the exact same level since the 2021 budget,” Habush Sinykin said. “But it was rejected.”

Before the bill was introduced, internal drafting notes show that when Kurtz’s office took over the bill in February 2025, one of the listed priorities was to “shift focus from north to south, green space in urban areas” — removing a restriction that had prevented the program from funding parcels smaller than 10 acres. 

Kitchens said the bill has been historically controversial in the northern parts of the state because the high proportion of publicly owned lands don’t contribute to the tax base. 

“It’s a program that is viewed very differently in different parts of the state,” he said. “In the Northwoods, where they have less of a tax base, they really don’t like seeing property coming off the tax rolls. There’s always been more of a geographical split than it is really liberal, conservative.”

If the funding expires June 30, the program itself does not disappear from the statute books, but the program will no longer be funded, Carlin said. However, the practical consequences of this mean the planning landscape will be scrambled for land trusts.

The expiration also lands on top of an already strained conservation system. Carlin noted that Wisconsin has accumulated more than $1 billion in deferred maintenance at state properties and faces tens of millions of dollars in habitat management shortfalls. Letting Knowles-Nelson lapse, he said, doesn’t solve those problems.

“I think this is going to have to be a central conversation in the next state budget that can be as simple as appropriating money to the stewardship program in the short term,” Carlin said. “And then there’s a much broader conversation to be had about, how do we again get serious about taking care of our land and water so that our kids and grandkids inherit a better Wisconsin than we do.”

Evers’ office said he remains optimistic that Republicans and Democrats can reach a deal as legislative leadership and the governor’s office negotiate a potential K-12 funding increase from the projected $2.37 billion state surplus. 

“The governor has been clear that he expects the Legislature to stay in session until they’ve finished the people’s work,” spokesperson Britt Cudaback said.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the top Republican running for governor in November, said his focus would be “on maintaining the lands we already own for future generations, while being fiscally responsible with the more than $500 million in outstanding debt taxpayers still owe.”

He also said that the stewardship program has helped protect some of our most special places. “Wisconsin’s outdoor traditions are part of who we are,” Tiffany said.

Habush Sinykin, meanwhile, said Democrats are looking to flip enough Senate seats to break the Republican supermajority on the Joint Finance Committee — turning the current 12-4 split to 8-8. 

“That’ll make a big difference to allow us to reauthorize the program,” she said.

Funding for Wisconsin’s largest land conservation program could expire in three months. Here’s how we got here. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

There’s an election in Wisconsin on Tuesday, but don’t be alarmed if that comes as a surprise — in most places there isn’t much, if anything, on the ballot.

The Feb. 17 spring primary seeks to narrow down any contests where there are more than two candidates competing for a single seat ahead of the April 7 spring general election. With no statewide primaries on the ballot, voters will be tasked with narrowing down municipal, judicial and school board elections.

Voters can see what’s on their ballot by visiting myvote.wi.gov and entering their address.

The biggest statewide race this spring, the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, features only two candidates, appellate court judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor, so they won’t be on the primary ballot Tuesday. There are also dozens of school district property tax referendums on the April 7 ballot, but none on the primary ballot.

In Madison, voters will vote in the Dane County Circuit Court judge Branch 1 primary, choosing two candidates to contend on April 7 to replace current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Susan Crawford. In Green Bay, residents will narrow down candidates for city council if their district includes more than two candidates. There are no primary elections in the city of Milwaukee, but neighboring municipalities may have elections. 

Polls are open Tuesday from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. Voters can register at the polls.

There’s a primary election in Wisconsin on Tuesday. See what’s on your ballot. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Organizers are working to introduce a Montana ballot initiative that could prevent corporations from spending on elections.

The constitutional amendment would alter corporate charters and the power given to “artificial persons” in Montana, barring them from political spending. It attempts to bypass the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which said under the First Amendment the government can’t bar corporations and similar groups from spending money independently to influence elections.

The Montana proposal is not yet on the 2026 ballot after the Montana attorney general and the Montana Supreme Court determined the version was legally insufficient under state constitutional rules, but organizers are refiling new versions in the hopes of getting the initiative on the ballot. 

In Wisconsin, home of the most expensive state Supreme Court races ever, could similar campaign finance laws be put in place? It’s a complicated question, according to legal experts. 

Unlike in Wisconsin, Montana residents can propose changes to the state constitution or statutory law through a citizen petition process. To qualify a constitutional initiative for the ballot, proponents must gather signatures equal to 10% of the state’s electors, including at least 10% of electors in two-fifths of Montana’s legislative districts. Statutory initiatives require signatures equal to 5% of the state’s electors, including at least 5% of electors in one-third of legislative districts.

Similar reforms in Wisconsin would need to come from the Legislature, not from a citizen-led ballot initiative. To place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, lawmakers must approve the same proposal in two consecutive legislative sessions. The amendment would then appear on the statewide ballot, where voters could approve it and make it part of the Wisconsin Constitution by a majority vote. The governor doesn’t have a role in that process.

If Montana’s initiative makes it to the ballot and voters approve it, more litigation is likely to follow, said Derek Clinger, senior counsel at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. It’s unclear if the organizer’s argument would survive a constitutional challenge. 

Nevertheless, Montana’s proposed ballot initiative is an interesting conversation starter that could help put “political pressure” on the courts if Montana voters agree to approve a potential amendment, Clinger said. 

“They made a case that doing this would comply with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent and that states have this power to regulate and kind of control what sorts of activities corporations are allowed to participate in,” Clinger said. “It’s an interesting idea what they’re doing in Montana, but I think it would absolutely be litigated, and it’s kind of hard to predict what would happen.”

There are other campaign finance changes Wisconsin politicians could introduce, such as spending limits in judicial elections.

“Judges are supposed to be kind of more above politics compared to legislators and executive officials, and that kind of need to keep judges out of the political fray can justify more campaign finance regulations,” Clinger said. “I think if there was an appetite to impose more regulations on judicial elections in Wisconsin, I think they would have the constitutional ability to do so. But the question is: Is there that appetite?”

Paul Nolette, director of Marquette University’s Les Aspin Center for Government, said it’s a difficult legal environment for supporters of campaign finance reform. 

“Getting laws on the books that make meaningful campaign finance change is just difficult at this particular moment,” Nolette said.

One way to change the system without limiting corporate giving would be more disclosure from so-called “dark money” groups, which can avoid disclosing donors through Super PAC donations. The Arizona Supreme Court allowed legislators to challenge a citizen ballot initiative that called for “dark money” disclosure. More than 70% of voters approved the measure in 2022. 

Legislators also could introduce a more robust public campaign finance system. Wisconsin once had a public financing program for Supreme Court elections as part of the Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund, but it was repealed in 2011. State Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, previously told Wisconsin Watch she was drafting a bill to revive the public financing system and would propose significantly larger grants than the original $100,000 for primary candidates and $300,000 for general election candidates, saying smaller amounts would not meaningfully support competitive campaigns.

“The amount of money in politics, even if it’s just coming from individuals, is still significant enough that it just overwhelms the amount of public money that could be available,” Nolette said.

Apart from the state Legislature, Clinger said the Wisconsin Supreme Court could institute recusal rules, which may discourage partisan campaign donations to justices.

Can Wisconsin do what Montana is attempting to prohibit corporations from donating to campaigns? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A Shorewood judge ruled Wednesday that a man who deliberately tested the boundaries of public access along Lake Michigan’s shoreline in late July trespassed on private property.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor Paul Florsheim grew up just a few houses away from where a Shorewood resident who lives in a prominent lakeside home recorded him walking on the beach adjacent to his house multiple times and called police. Florsheim was eventually fined $313 for trespassing after walking past signs marking private property north of the public beach and cordially ignoring warnings from the police.

He previously told Wisconsin Watch that, despite Wisconsin law, the stretch of beach along Lake Michigan just north of Milwaukee had long been treated by locals like a public right of way.

Municipal Court Judge Margo Kirchner found Florsheim guilty and ordered him to pay a $313 trespassing fine, citing Wisconsin precedent that limits public access along privately controlled Lake Michigan shorelines.

Unlike other states bordering Lake Michigan like Michigan and Indiana, Wisconsin law does not guarantee public access to the beach up to the point where sand typically meets vegetation.

Under a 1923 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, private property owners adjacent to the shoreline are granted “exclusive” use of the beach, even though the land is publicly owned. The court held that Wisconsinites may walk along the shoreline only if they remain in the water.

Florsheim previously told Wisconsin Watch he hopes to appeal the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where a favorable ruling could reshape public access along Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan shoreline.

Municipal judge rules against man challenging private beach access is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.