If new land acquisitions via the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program come to an end, Wisconsin taxpayers should know exactly who is responsible: the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
For years, the Stewardship Program operated with a simple principle at its core: if state government was going to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars and spend taxpayer money acquiring land or handing out checks to private parties, elected representatives should have oversight over how that money is spent. That oversight was exercised through the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, which reviewed major projects before the state wrote the check. Common sense.
But, the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court destroyed that system in its Evers v. Marklein decision.
Supporters of the Court’s ruling may celebrate it as a victory for expanded executive power, but they should also acknowledge its consequences. The Court didn’t merely reinterpret a constitutional provision, it dismantled the accountability structure that made the Stewardship Program politically viable.
This isn’t just a theoretical question. There is a slew of evidence for why oversight matters.
For example, in 2018, the Bayfield County Forest Department sought Stewardship funding to acquire property for their county forest program. On paper, the proposal looked straightforward, but in reality, it contained serious problems.
To increase the amount of Stewardship money available, the county proposed enrolling land it already owned in the county forest program. But, the land the county already owned was located in a swamp area and was not productive timberland – the very purpose for which the county forest program exists.
The county was trying to artificially increase the value being contributed to the project, thus boosting the amount of state matching funds available, even though it was based on a false premise. This is what waste, fraud, and abuse looks like in practice.
Fortunately, the Joint Finance Committee caught it, and reduced the award to an amount that accurately reflected the project’s value. Taxpayers were protected because the oversight existed.
Today, that oversight is gone.
Had the same proposal come forward under the new system created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, there would have been no meaningful legislative review. The executive branch would have likely proceeded without scrutiny, providing no protections for the taxpayers who foot the bill.
This is exactly why checks and balances should exist.
The Court’s ruling rests on the theory that legislative committees cannot exercise powers that belong to the Legislature as a whole and that legislative review of executive spending decisions by the Joint Finance Committee constitutes an improper “legislative veto.” Whatever one thinks of those legal theories, the practical outcome is impossible to ignore: the Court removed one of the few mechanisms available to ensure accountability for Stewardship.
The justices may have been debating constitutional doctrine, but the result was the elimination of real-world taxpayer protections.
For over a decade, supporters of Knowles-Nelson defended it by pointing to legislative oversight. They argued that acquisitions were carefully reviewed, questionable proposals could be stopped, and taxpayers had their elected officials watching over the process.
That argument no longer exists because the Court took it away.
Now, supporters of reauthorizing the program are effectively asking taxpayers to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars and allow bureaucrats the final say. They are asking the Legislature to authorize additional borrowing and surrender its ability to review how that money is spent.
Negotiations to revamp the program to comply with new rules set forth by the Court while also avoiding a situation where bureaucrats can run wild, not surprisingly, ended in a dead end. Democrat lawmakers who professed to adore the Stewardship program didn’t want to compromise. They wanted no checks on the program. Their “compromise” was to authorize new money without safeguards or let the program sunset and then use it as a political talking point.
And what do you know, conservation advocates are now blaming the Legislature for “killing stewardship.” This is objectively false. The Supreme Court killed the existing stewardship program when they stripped away the oversight provisions that maintained public confidence in the program. Republican legislative efforts to responsibly revive it were blocked.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court broke the accountability model that sustained Knowles-Nelson. It removed the Legislature from the process, weakened taxpayer protections, and created a system in which executive branch bureaucrats can make major spending decisions with virtually no scrutiny. No responsible legislature should agree to that arrangement.
State Senator Mary Felzkowski (R–Tomahawk) has served in the Wisconsin Legislature since 2012 and was elected to the State Senate in 2020. She has served as Senate President since January 2025. Throughout her legislative career, Felzkowski has chaired several committees, including Forestry, Small Business, and State-Tribal Relations, and has served four terms on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, where she helped craft Wisconsin’s state budget.
