GOP senators wary of costs of land program

Criticism comes one week after Earth Day call for more funding

One week after Assembly Republicans announced a series of Earth Day-themed initiatives, including a call for a new round of funding for a large state land program, two GOP senators are criticizing the costs and questioning the need to buy more property.

Sens. Tom Tiffany, R-Minocqua, and Duey Stroebel, R-Cedarburg, said in an op-ed released on Tuesday that the Legislature must re-evaluate a program created in 1989 that has protected more than 650,000 acres.

Their criticisms underscore the conflict among state leaders over the state’s role in buying and protecting land for public use, and thereby keeping it from being developed.

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program has “accumulated far too much land, has incurred staggering debt and has resulted in decreased funds for vital state needs,” according to the lawmakers, who are members of the influential budget writing committee. “We must ask ourselves when is enough enough?” Their comments strike a different chord from those put forward by Assembly Republicans on April 22 — Earth Day.

GOP members of the Assembly announced their support for a slate of green initiatives, including charging stations for electric vehicles along I-94 and extending the stewardship program for two more years.

On stewardship, Rep. Adam Neylon of Pewaukee said last week that after two years, his Republican caucus would consider whether to extend the program again.

The stewardship program, which has protected large tracts of northern forests, including nearly 21,000 acres last year in Sawyer County for $7.2 million, and has helped local land conservancies fund smaller parcels, is set to expire in 2020.

Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, has proposed extending the program until fiscal 2021. His budget would also create a task force to make recommendations about the future of stewardship.

The program has had broad support and has been reauthorized twice — in 1999 and in 2007. But funding for bonding has been cut sharply over several budget cycles, falling from $86 million annually before Republicans took power in 2011 to the current level of $33.25 million.

After Evers’ balked at proposing another 10-year round of funding, a coalition of more than 50 groups, including Ducks Unlimited, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, said they supported long-term financial support for the program.

Over the past decade, many Republican lawmakers have complained about the size of the program and the extent of the state’s land holdings.

In all, the state Department of Natural Resources manages or protects about 1.8 million acres — larger than the state of Delaware.

Among the concerns raised by Tiffany and Stroebel is that land purchased by the state can’t be developed by the private sector. Also, the program is accruing interest of more than $500,000 a week.

In all, the state is currently obligated to pay $795 million in debt on bonds for its purchases, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

But Mike Carlson, executive director of Gathering Waters: Wisconsin’s Alliance for Land Trusts, said the cost is small in comparison with the state budget. Interest costs are less than 1% of the budget, he said.

“It’s disappointing,” Carlson said. “Any time you talk about costs of a government program, you have to put the costs in context, and the benefits.”

Carlson sees a link between Wisconsin’s robust outdoors industry and the state’s vast public land holdings. And further reductions, he believes, will eventually have a harmful impact on the outdoors experience, especially in southern and central Wisconsin, where development and recreation pressure is highest.

In its most recent estimate, the DNR says consumer spending totals nearly $18 billion annually on outdoor pursuits.

Carlson said that the state timber and paper industry could also be affected by cutbacks, because some of the largest purchases in recent years have been easements involving owners of private forests.

Under such agreements, the timber owner still keeps the land, but the properties can never be developed, must remain in forestry and must be open to public use.

The program has broad support and was reauthorized in 1999 and in 2007. But funding has been cut sharply.