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