The broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program is on life support after Wisconsin Senate Republicans canceled a vote on a GOP-authored bill to extend the program during the body’s floor session Wednesday. 

For nearly four decades, the program has allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to support the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. The program is set to expire June 30 when its funding runs out. 

Lawmakers have been working for nearly a year to reach an agreement on an extension. A Knowles-Nelson extension in Gov. Tony Evers’ proposed budget last year was stripped out by Republicans and a Democratic-authored bill supported by all 60 legislative Democrats has languished in a Republican-controlled committee. 

In recent years, a handful of legislative Republicans have become increasingly hostile to the stewardship program, complaining that it has taken too much land off local property tax rolls in the northern part of the state and that a state Supreme Court decision last year removed the Legislature’s oversight authority over the program’s spending. 

In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would extend the program without any funding for land acquisition. With the Assembly holding its final scheduled floor session of the year on Thursday, the Senate’s failure to hold a vote on its version of the bill Wednesday means it’s unlikely a bill will make it to Evers’ desk. 

Democrats have said they won’t support a version of the bill that ends land acquisition under the program. 

In recent weeks, Republicans have begun to lay the groundwork for claiming that any failure to extend the program would be the Democrats’ fault. 

But Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the author of the Republican proposal, said Wednesday after the bill was dropped from the schedule that the Senate needs to pass a version of the bill with 17 Republican votes.  With supporters and opponents of the program divided within the Republican caucus, advocates for the program have said for months it’s been clear that any version of stewardship extension would require bipartisan support. 

“This has been one of these bills that’s been very difficult to thread the needle on,” Testin said after the Wednesday floor session. “So it’s been sort of a tug of war, you do X, Y, and Z on one provision of the bill. You have members that raise concerns, and if you do X, Y and Z a different way, they’ve got concerns as well.”

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), who wrote the Democratic proposal and has been involved in legislative negotiations over the program, said it’s disingenuous for Republicans to point fingers at Democrats, when Democrats are united in their support for the program and have tried to compromise. 

The initial bill proposed by Habush Sinykin included a provision to provide independent oversight of the program as a response to Republican concerns and in recent days offered a compromise of extending the program with $5-6 million in land acquisition funding — about $10 million less than budgeted currently. On the floor on Wednesday, Democrats attempted to force a vote on a motion that would have extended the program for one year at current funding levels. 

“Their efforts to try to cast blame or aspersions on the Democrats when it is apparent that they have too many members of their caucus who are strongly opposed to this program … they have not been shy or reticent about voicing publicly strong opposition to the continuity of this program,” Habush Sinykin said. “So it takes not just a lot of nerve, but a questionable honesty, to try to pin this on Democrats.” 

Habush Sinykin said the Assembly version of the bill was “not even tempting” because it doesn’t include any land acquisition funds. 

“What they are looking for and needing are more Democratic votes, which is a big responsibility, because we care about the integrity of the program,” she said. “So you don’t want to give votes for something that doesn’t have value and isn’t true to the purpose.”

“Everyone in the building knows, and many outside the building know, that Republicans don’t like Knowles-Nelson,” she continued, “that they can’t get it done in their caucus.”

Baylor Spears contributed reporting to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Data centers and local communities would be barred from working in secret under legislation that received a public hearing before a state Senate committee Tuesday.

The Senate Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism also heard testimony on a pair of competing bills, both pitched as ensuring that data centers pay their own way for the electric power they use and controlling how they use water resources.

SB 969 would impose a blanket ban on non-disclosure agreements between data center companies and the municipalities where they’re planning projects.

“Unfortunately, we have witnessed a troubling pattern in Wisconsin and throughout our country — community leaders are signing secrecy deals with big tech companies and their agents to conceal material facts about the development of billion-dollar data centers from the public,” said Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken), the bill’s author, in his testimony on the measure. “These same entities seek to hide vital information about the scope and impacts of their intended developments from the local officials charged with guarding their citizens’ welfare, undermining sound decision-making and eroding confidence in the process.”

The secrecy surrounding a data center project in Menomonie prompted local opposition that led the community’s city council to pass an ordinance in January stopping a developer from advancing the $1.6 billion project.

“This bill is really about trust,” said state Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie), the author of the bill’s Assembly companion. “It makes sure those conversations happen in the open and not behind closed doors.”

A data center industry lobbyist opposed the measure, asserting that a ban on non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, could stall Wisconsin’s emergence as a prime data center location.  

Brad Tietz, the state policy director for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry group has been working with its member businesses “on model frameworks that ensure early and proactive community engagement and transparency while safeguarding sensitive proprietary and security information.”

Non-disclosure agreements are especially important in the early stages of data center site selection, “where a company may be considering multiple sites and has not yet made a final decision,” Tietz told lawmakers. “But to simply put a blanket opposition on NDAs would put Wisconsin at a competitive disadvantage right when it is primed to do exceptionally well in this industry.”

Data center utility costs

The bulk of Tuesday’s hearing focused on two other pieces of legislation, one authored by Democrats and the other by Republicans. Both measures were written with the intent of ensuring that power-hungry data center developments don’t pass off their electricity costs to the rest of the public.

SB 729 is authored by Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) and state Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland). The Assembly companion is AB 722.

“Wisconsin must establish a comprehensive and responsible regulatory framework that protects Wisconsin taxpayers, workers, and our natural resources now and into the future,” Habush Sinykin told the committee. “Yet here’s the rub. Currently, Wisconsin has no statewide regulatory standards governing hyperscale data centers. None.”

Habush Sinykin said that the bill was written in consultation with the state Public Service Commission. It would put data centers in a new class of electric power users, “very large customers,” and require utilities serving those users to file a rate case for that class every two years.

“I believe that we all have a shared goal of ensuring that the public does not pay for the energy expenses of data centers,” Stroud told the committee. “According to the Public Service Commission, establishing a very large customer class tariff is the most effective tool currently available to ensure that energy-related costs are borne by data centers rather than shifted on to the general public.”

Utilities would also be required to report quarterly their data center users’ energy consumption and sources and make that information public.

Because data centers are also heavy uses of water, the bill requires water utilities to notify the PSC of individual customers that use 25% of the utility’s water volume.

The Habush Sinykin/Stroud bill includes provisions to encourage renewable energy use and the use of union labor. In order to qualify for a sales and use tax exemption from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the data center must derive at least 70% of its energy from renewables and pay the construction workers the prevailing wage in the region if they aren’t covered by a union contract.

The committee chair, Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), questioned those provisions.

“This bill appears to me as though it’s going to say, ‘Well, you can come here. We understand you bring a massive economic impact, but actually we want more,’” Bradley said. “It’s going to drive them away from the state of Wisconsin and then we’re going to lose out.”

But Stroud said data center developers have been enthusiastic about adopting clean energy.

“We are extending tax credits to the richest companies in the world. It is not a small thing to do that,” Stroud said. “We should be getting a huge benefit. And it would change the conversation, I think, in a lot of these communities if they had access to significant benefits.”

Republicans go in a different direction

The alternative bill — AB 840/SB 843, authored by Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) and Sen. Romain Quinn (R-Birchwood) — mostly takes different approaches on all of the issues involved. The Assembly version passed that house in January on a mostly party-line vote of 53-44, with two Democrats voting in favor of the legislation and one Republican voting against it.

The bill directs the PSC, in writing its rate-making orders, to ensure that the utility costs of large data centers aren’t passed off to any other customer, but doesn’t offer specific directions on how to do that. It includes language stating that developers must hire Wisconsin workers to the extent possible.

The legislation also would require that any renewable energy facility that primarily serves the load of a large data center be located on the data center property.

“This will improve reliability by reducing dependence on a distant power grid and safeguards our communities from being burdened with large energy projects that exist solely to serve data center facilities elsewhere,” Quinn said.

The bill also requires the water used at a center to be recycled, and includes requirements that data center developers post a bond that can be used to reclaim the property if the project is abandoned before it’s completed.

Earlier, Stroud said the GOP bill’s requirement restricting renewable energy to on-site at data centers would be “a non-starter for many of the companies seeking to locate in our state.”

In his testimony, however, Quinn defended the provision as a safeguard against saddling other customers with the data centers’ energy costs. “I believe we should make it more attractive for data centers to build their own power supply,” he said.

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Gove) asked Quinn why he and Zimmerman didn’t work with Sinykin and Stroud on a common piece of legislation. Quinn replied that the provisions the Democrats prioritized wouldn’t pass in the current Legislature, including the prevailing wage provision and the renewable energy provisions.

During her portion of the hearing, Habush Sinykin said the provision for recycling water in the Republican bill was of interest to her. She also emphasized that lawmakers should work together across the aisle on legislation to address the broader concerns about data centers.

“The Senate is here through March, and the Assembly can be called back as well,” Habush Sinykin said. “I believe it makes sense and the conditions warrant a call for a special session or an extraordinary session, because people in Wisconsin do not want to wait another year or more to have regulation filling this vacuum.”

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, testified that affordability was a top concern for Wisconsin ratepayers.

“Electricity costs are surging at a pace higher than inflation over the past four years,” Content told the committee. “Wisconsin has the second highest electricity rates in the Midwest.”

His organization “recognizes the intent of the authors on both sides to shield customers from higher costs,” Content said. “Our hope and expectation, given that affordability is job one right now, is that lawmakers will work together in the remaining days of the session and across the aisle to take the most workable provisions of both and find common ground on a plan that the governor will sign into law.”

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)

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