Committee deadlock leaves Stewardship renewal uncertain

A state Assembly committee last week deadlocked on a vote to renew the state’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, and, though the proposed bill still moves to the Assembly floor, it’s anything but a given what the final package will look like.

The Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation tied 6–6 on advancing a Republican-authored reauthorization bill, with Northwoods Reps. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) and Calvin Callahan (R-Tomahawk) joining Democrats — albeit for different reasons — in voting no.

Swearingen and Callahan voiced constituent concerns about the state’s ongoing spending for land purchases and conservation easements in northern Wisconsin, while Democrats prefer a much more expanded Stewardship program than the bill proposes, along with an annual increase of millions more in funding.

The current iteration of the legislation would still allocate $28.25 million a year to the program, and — the most controversial part — at least $10 million a year in fee-simple and easement land acquisitions, either by the DNR itself or in grants to conservation organizations.

A tie vote allows a bill to move to the Assembly floor “without recommendation,” meaning it can still be scheduled for a vote, which is expected in January. Still, the deadlock underscored internal Republican divisions and cast doubt on whether party leaders can gather the votes necessary for passage without relying on Democratic votes.

On one side are property rights advocates who believe the state already has too much land and should sunset the Stewardship program, as was originally intended, and entertain easement or land purchases on a case-by-case basis. On the other side are Democrats who believe Republicans have already crippled the program unacceptably and who want to see it vastly expanded.

In the middle are Republicans who are trying to forge a compromise. State Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) authored a compromise approach last summer, while this month Kurtz successfully authored an amended version of the bill — the version that deadlocked in committee last week.

If reluctant Republicans can’t be persuaded to vote for the current bill or changes aren’t made to satisfy them, the GOP leadership would be forced to compromise with Democrats on a bill that would surely grow the program.

The alternative would be to kill the Stewardship program altogether, which is set to expire on June 30 if it is not reauthorized. 

Lawmakers from both parties have raised ongoing concerns about how to reconcile the state’s decades-old land acquisition fund with a 2024 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling essentially ending legislative oversight of the program. That oversight had allowed Joint Finance Committee (JFC) members to place anonymous holds on proposed purchases and had functioned as the chief legislative check on DNR acquisitions for more than a decade.

Without it, Republicans argue, there’s no check on the agency buying land or facilitating conservation easements on lands that don’t need protection and that could seriously impede future economic growth.

That court ruling also had an unintended consequence, as a November 14 Wisconsin Legislative Council memo laid out.

“Because one of the statutory provisions invalidated by the Evers v. Marklein decision had operated as an exception to a general prohibition on land acquisitions, the decision had a practical effect of prohibiting DNR from obligating funds for land acquisition under the stewardship program except for projects located within a ‘project boundary’ that was established by DNR on or before May 1, 2013,” the memo stated.

The GOP bill attempts to address both issues, all the while attempting to curtail program spending.

Swearingen’s and Callahan’s districts contain some of the largest concentrations of publicly owned land in the state. As the committee vote approached, Swearingen cited constituents’ concerns that additional Stewardship purchases could further expand state or nonprofit control of land. The two lawmakers shared handouts with a WisPolitics reporter showing more than 66,500 Stewardship acres already inside Swearingen’s district and more than 56,100 in Callahan’s.

“I’m hoping that beyond today’s executive session we can continue to have those discussions on both sides and get me to a place where I could comfortably vote for both bills on the floor, hopefully in January,” Swearingen said at the hearing, as reported by WisPolitics.

What the legislation looks like

Two companion measures have been under consideration, a policy bill reshaping how the state approves large land acquisitions and a companion bill authorizing Stewardship funding. 

The funding bill allows bonding of $13.25 million a year. Within that, there is $3 million a year for land acquisition and habitat restoration, the latter of which can include land acquisition: $1 million for DNR land acquisition, $1 million for grants to nonprofit conservation organizations to acquire property; and $1 million for nonprofit habitat restoration. Recreational boating aids remain stable at $3 million; and $7.25 million would go for local assistance grants.

The bill also creates forestry account appropriations to fund programs that are now funded by Stewardship: $5 million for DNR property development; $2 million for local assistance grants; $4 million for conservation nonprofits to acquire land; $1 million for NCO habitat restoration; and $1 million for county forest grants.

All totaled, the bills would fund Stewardship at $28.25 million per year. Crucially, at least $10 million a year could be used for land acquisitions, and perhaps more.

As for the policy bill, beginning in 2026, under the major amendment approved last week, the DNR would not be able to obligate funds for a DNR land acquisition project that exceeds $250,000 until it had been approved by the legislature through a statutorily prescribed process in which the DNR must submit a list of all major land acquisitions proposed for the subsequent fiscal year to the JFC and appropriate standing committees.

However, the amendment retains a $1 million project threshold for other, non-DNR land acquisitions, including acquisitions by nonprofits.

According to a Legislative Council memo, that list must include estimated purchase prices, requested state funding sources, and nonstate sources of funding, such as federal grants or donations. The legislature then can enumerate a proposed land acquisition from the list through legislation.

That process attempts to resolve the now-declared unconstitutional system whereby the legislature unconditionally authorized money for the land acquisition program and then required the DNR to bring specific larger purchases back to the JFC for review. That required “second action” validation by the legislature on unconditionally appropriated funds violated the executive’s core functions of implementing and enforcing the law, the state Supreme Court determined.

Under the proposed bill, the funding for larger parcels is not authorized until legislation is specifically enumerated, that is, unlike before, the appropriation for project-specific purchases is now a statutorily conditioned allocation reinserting legislative oversight.

However, some critics say the new system is a just as unconstitutional as the old one because the legislature is still authorizing overall funding for land acquisition. If the Legislature can “appropriate” but prevent spending until it passes a second, project-specific bill, so this viewpoint goes, executive function becomes window dressing and separation between the branches collapses.

Other changes to the bill

Elsewhere in the amended bill, according to the legislative council, of the $2 million in annual bonding authorized for grants for nonprofits, $1 million may be used for grants to acquire land,  and $1 million may be used for grants for certain activities relating to wildlife habitat. 

Those latter grants must be used on lands open to the public, specifically  “land … open to the public for nature-based outdoor activities to benefit fish, wildlife, and other game species,” rather than on “public lands to benefit game species and other wildlife.”

The amended bill sunsets a requirement that DNR must annually set aside $500,000 in bonding revenue for friends’ groups and nonprofit conservation organizations for projects for property development activities on DNR properties. Another provision sunsets existing authority for DNR to use certain unobligated bonding authority in the Land Acquisition, Property Development and Local Assistance, and Recreational Boating Aids for drilling new wells, facility maintenance, upgrades and renovations, and construction of new buildings. 

“Instead, the bill directs DNR to use unobligated bonding authority from those subprograms from fiscal years 2021-22 and 2022-23 to obligate $2.5 million for projects at the Les Voigt State Fish Hatchery and the Brule State Fish Hatchery,” the legislative council memo states.

The amended bill also does not repeal a law that prohibits DNR from obligating more than 20 percent of stewardship funds to acquire parcels of land less than 10 acres in size, as the original bill did. The amended bill retains that general prohibition but specifies that the prohibition does not apply when the acquisition of a parcel will improve access to hunting, trapping, and fishing opportunities, as determined by the DNR, or the parcel is contiguous to land already owned by the state.

Reaction

While Swearingen and Callahan were relaying constituent concerns about the overall impact of land acquisition on northern Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association (WBHA) has been adamant that the Stewardship program be reauthorized with a robust land acquisition program.

“Notably, Wisconsin state statutes explicitly authorizes the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for land acquisition, conservation, and recreation,” Carl Schoettel, president of the WBHA said in November 4 testimony before the committee. “This statutory language clearly indicates that the acquisition of large tracts of land is a core purpose of the program, not an after-thought. Without dedicated funding to support this statutory purpose, we fear the program’s shift toward infrastructure or minor recreational projects will leave the foundational goal of habitat protection underfunded.”

The new bill also splits the Nature Conservation Organization program into two separate appropriation lines, one for land acquisition and one for habitat restoration, and, at the November 4 hearing, Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives at Gathering Waters, lauded the change.

“Both needs are vital,” Carlin testified. “That being said, the acquisition of conservation land is the heart and soul of Knowles-Nelson. Any reauthorization bill needs to continue funding the purchase of conservation lands.”

Still, as reflected by the vote, many Democrats aren’t happy with the new legislation. State Rep. Randy Udell (D-Fitchburg) said the program was cherished and has enjoyed strong bipartisan support as Wisconsin’s primary method to acquire and maintain beautiful public lands.

“Both Governor Evers and Legislative Democrats proposed full reauthorization of this program,” Udell said last week. “The Republican majority blocked these proposals. Instead, this week, we voted on a half-measure which would instantly defund $35 million from maintenance projects and create an arduous, partisan approval process for new public land acquisition. This should be simple. I will keep fighting to save Knowles-Nelson, but it will require bipartisan cooperation.”

The DNR itself is opposing the heart of the proposed bill — the need for legislative enumeration for large acquisitions. Testifying at a November 4 public hearing, Calvin Boldebuck, the DNR’s legislative director, said the requirement of  legislative enumeration would add unnecessary red tape to a program that he said had historically functioned well without those additional steps. 

“Enumeration can be a lengthy process and that could have detrimental impacts on the department’s or a grantee’s ability to acquire properties that are hard to come by,” Boldebuck said. “Sellers do not often want to wait such a long time to complete land sales and could likely find a buyer that would be able to close much more quickly.”

Boldebuck said that was especially concerning since the bill did not include any timelines or requirements for the Legislature to hold public hearings to enable the public to voice their opinion on a project or advance an enumeration bill for a project, which would reduce transparency and accountability of the Stewardship program. 

“This would apply not only to DNR acquisitions, but also to grants for acquisitions that are being made by local units of government or nonprofit conservation organizations,” he testified.

(It should be said that any enumerated legislation requires a public hearing.)

Boldebuck also said enumeration would impact the administrative burden of the program.

“The more administrative complexity we see, the more communities will self-select out of the program leading to disparate benefits,” he testified. “Many local governments have resource constraints that impact the amount of time they are able to dedicate to these projects and this provision will exacerbate that problem.”

Boldebuck said the administrative burden will be increased by the provision that changes the available grant percentage from 50 percent to 40 percent of acquisition costs based on the timing of when a local unit of government closes on an acquisition.

Democrats plan

Last week’s debate occurred against the backdrop of a Democratic proposal introduced earlier this year that would significantly expand — and restructure — the Stewardship program.

In a bill proposed earlier this year, Democrats proposed increasing annual funding from $33.25 million to $72 million through 2032. Their version would have expanded local government grants for trails, playgrounds, and park upgrades.

The measure would have also created a 17-member oversight board with representatives from tribes, conservation groups, sporting organizations, businesses, and citizens to review large acquisitions instead of requiring legislative approval, and it established dedicated funding for tribal co-management of lands.

Their plan would reject provisions that prioritize property development over land acquisition, and it would maintain the program’s existing scale of land purchases. Rep. Ann Roe cited a 2025 poll showing “93 percent of Wisconsinites support renewing the program,” and that “90 percent of the state’s households live within one mile of a Stewardship-funded project.”

In September, Democratic Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point) introduced that version as an amendment to the current bill, but it has not been taken up.

While much of last week’s debate focused on the technical requirements imposed by Evers v. Marklein, the deadlock also reflected broader tensions over land use in northern Wisconsin. In recent years, large conservation easements  —  especially the 56,000-acre Pelican River Forest easement in Oneida County —  have galvanized opposition from some local governments and landowners who say the program reduces taxable acreage, increases state control of land, and limits economic development.

The state DNR now owns or controls more than 2 million acres statewide, or about 5.8 percent of Wisconsin’s land area, and has identified nearly 200,000 more acres as potential acquisitions. When federal and county lands are included, counties such as Oneida are nearly 40 percent publicly owned.

This tension is central to objections from northern GOP lawmakers, who argue the program has expanded far beyond its original scope. The original Stewardship program was to have sunset after 10 years.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.