The clock is ticking on a popular land stewardship effort in Wisconsin

Some Republicans expressed interest in saving the Knowles Nelson Stewardship program, but other GOP lawmakers want the conservation effort defunded.

A Democratic legislator is making a public plea to  a Republican colleague to schedule a committee hearing on a bipartisan effort to save a popular land conservation program from its pending demise.

The Knowles Nelson Stewardship Program — named for former governors Warren Knowles, a Republican, and Gaylord Nelson, a Democrat — is one of the state’s most prolific examples of bipartisan cooperation. Designed to save sensitive areas from overdevelopment while preserving recreational and commercial use, after 36 years, Republican legislators have stripped its funding out of the new state budget. Now its survival depends on a standalone bill, but only if lawmakers from both parties can agree on details.

“The Knowles Nelson Stewardship Program is just a textbook example of an effort that has broad bipartisan support,” said Sen. Jodi Habush-Sinykin (D-Milwaukee) on our radio show. “It has years of success preserving hundreds of thousands of acres for conservation and for local tourism.”

But a growing number of GOP lawmakers have become critics of the program. Some cite its cost, just over $30 million this year, for example. Others want the Legislature to have more veto power over individual land purchases. Another criticism is rooted in the claim that the purchased land comes off local property tax rolls — but some projects include a state payment in lieu of taxes, other parcels remain in private hands while protecting the land, and many of the sites generate new revenue streams because of recreational use and nearby development.

Still, with Republicans entirely removing Gov. Tony Evers’ request for funding, the clock is ticking to outline new levels of funding and oversight. Democrats oppose a GOP idea to have large purchases subject to Assembly and Senate approval, saying it politicizes each project. Instead, Democrats propose an independent board made up of people nominated by lawmakers from both parties that can take action faster than politicians.

“I see how bills are held up through the [legislative] process,” said Habush-Sinykin, “To require any acquisition in a real estate setting to go through the entire legislature, that would kill any deal.”

Habush-Sinykin sees room for legislators to work together on a compromise, but she says that would require Sen. Rob Stasholt (R–New Richmond) to schedule a public hearing on a bill in the Committee on Sporting Heritage.

“He could have done so back in May,” said Habush-Sinykin. “But it’s already here in November and we need to have a hearing so the public can weigh in and we can move forward on trying to reconcile the bills to be able to reauthorize the program.”

Stafsholt has scheduled a hearing this week for his committee, but the only bill on the agenda relates to hunting sandhill cranes.