Budget '25: Natural Resources Analysis

The mission of the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is to protect the state’s natural resources, to maintain air, land, and water quality through environmental regulation, and to manage the state’s wildlife, fish, and forests for sustainability.

The agency’s current adjusted base budget is $1.2 billion, of which $198.4 million is GPR (general purpose revenue) tax dollars. The federal government provides $202.6 million. At $592.3 million, the Conservation Fund is the largest component of the DNR budget. It is a segregated (SEG) trust fund that supports such programs as fish and wildlife, forestry, parks, and water resources and is funded primarily through hunting and fishing license fees, excise taxes, federal grants and other state appropriations.

In his 2025-27 budget proposal, Gov. Evers is seeking a $290.2-million increase, to $1.495 billion, a 24-percent jump. The vast majority of the increase—$272.3 million—would be for what DNR budget director Maggie Hutter calls “exciting new initiatives,” while only $17.9 million would be allocated for maintenance and other standard budget adjustments.

The DNR was created in 1967 when two state agencies—the Conservation Department and the Department of Resource Development—merged.

The agency’s Environmental Management Division enforces federal and state environmental regulations, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

The External Services division oversees watershed management and customer outreach. The Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Division manages wildlife, fisheries and recreation resources, including state parks. The forestry division oversees the state’s 17.1 million acres of forest.

In addition, the Natural Resources Board (NRB), appointed by the governor with the consent of the state Senate, sets agency policy. The Wisconsin Conservation Congress is a statutory body where citizen delegates advise the NRB and agency staff on management issues.

The agency implements the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund, one of the largest and most controversial programs. Created in 1989, the fund authorizes the DNR to purchase land and conservation easement additions to state properties, as well as to support recreational infrastructure. Funded at $33.25 million per year in the current budget, Evers is proposing to triple the funding to $100 million a year for a decade, or $1 billion over the next 10 years.

The agency also oversees other large regulatory programs, including PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemical contamination, oil pipeline permitting, mining regulation, CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) regulation, and state shoreland zoning restrictions.

Finally, since Evers was elected, the DNR has elevated climate change to one of its seven top program categories. Much of the agency’s science derives from the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The agency’s new secretary, awaiting senate confirmation, is Karen Hyun, who previously served as NOAA’s chief of staff.

An array of important policy debates will swirl in and around the DNR budget debate, but they will reside primarily in three areas: overregulation of industry, agriculture, and small business; land conservation; and fish and wildlife management.

Overregulation of industry, agriculture, and small business:

The battle over overregulation—particularly with respect to CAFOs and PFAS— is being fought both in the courts and in the budget.

For PFAS, the point of contention in the budget bill will be that of “innocent landowners.” Legislative Republicans have refused to release $125 million in appropriated funds because the state has no statutory provisions protecting such property owners from clean-up liability—owners of PFAS-contaminated properties who didn’t cause the pollution. Evers vetoed a bill providing that protection last year, but is still proposing $145 million in this budget, with what many believe will be a much narrower definition of “innocent landowner.”

Environmentalists believe the original landowners’ protection provision would allow polluters to escape regulation. Conservatives say that refusing to budge on the issue shows the administration is more interested in suing than in cleaning up contaminated properties.

The governor is proposing in the budget to ramp up already aggressive regulation of CAFOs, proposing four new positions for CAFO monitoring and increasing the annual fee assessed to CAFO operators from $345 to $545. The DNR standards are stricter than federal regulations, specifically requiring preemptive waste pollution permits. Conservatives argue that CAFOs should not be required to obtain such permits without actually having released waste into a waterway.

Fish and Wildlife Management

Faced with a deficit in the state Department of Natural Resources’ Fish and Wildlife Account, Evers has proposed in his 2025-27 budget to significantly boost the cost of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses.

The proposed price hikes would range from $10 to $40. That might sound small, but in some cases the percentage increases are steep. For example, the resident deer hunting license would jump from $22 to $42, a 91-percent increase. The resident annual fishing license would grow by 50 percent, from $20 to $30. The resident small game license would climb from $16 to $36, a 125-percent increase. The resident trapping fee would double from $20 to $40.

The DNR says costs have skyrocketed, and its Fish and Wildlife Account has been projected to be in the red to the tune of almost $16 million by fiscal year 2026. However, lawmakers have questioned the management of the accounts, as well as agency efficiencies and transparency. Those concerns have led to an audit of the accounts by the Legislative Audit Bureau, which is ongoing.

Hunting and sportsmen’s clubs have already opposed the proposed fee hikes and say there should not be any fee increases before the audit is complete.

Land Conservation

Perhaps the most controversial proposal in the governor’s budget is his bid to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund for 10 years with a huge increase in funding using a mix of bonding authority, forestry SEG [segregated fund revenues] and GPR tax dollars.

Progressives and environmentalists were emboldened to seek more government control of land through acquisitions and conservation easements when the state’s left-wing Supreme Court majority stripped oversight of the Stewardship program from the Joint Finance Committee (JFC), and effectively from the legislature.

The agency says it is pivoting away from land acquisition, but the DNR under the governor’s proposal would still be spending $24 million a year on direct purchases. Conservation easements in perpetuity are coming under increased scrutiny, too, because they strip property rights from future generations and do not account for changing landscape and environmental conditions.

The MacIver Institute believes Wisconsin already owns and controls too much land. Not only is private property the foundation of freedom but the best stewards of the land are private property owners, not the government.

The biggest decision point in the DNR budget debate will be what to do with the Stewardship Fund, especially since the legislature no longer has any effective oversight. Some current lawmakers said that court decision could mean an end to the program altogether. Others, including then state Sen. Tom Tiffany, have called for ending the Stewardship Fund before—it was originally supposed to sunset after 10 years.

Alternatives include taking up land protections on a case-by-case basis, including public hearings, and requiring the state to divest of two acres of land for every one acquired or controlled.

The program will almost certainly not be funded at the governor’s suggested level, and it almost certainly will survive. The question is at what level. Expect the budget debate to lay the groundwork for future efforts to revisit the program entirely, as well as attempts at conservation easement reform, especially after Evers and the DNR did an end run around the JFC and secured funding for the 56,000-acre Pelican River Forest easement.

Proposals to limit conservation easements to renewable 15-year terms to prevent “ruling from the grave,” or similar bills will likely come along. That debate will surface in the budget deliberations.

The overall Fish & Wildlife Account will be under the budget-writing microscope after GOP lawmakers said it lacked accountability and transparency and after funding shortfalls disrupted important programs, such as when the agency ended trout stocking partnerships with sporting clubs in western Wisconsin.

Already non-resident hunting and fishing licenses were raised for nonresidents, which was expected to have generated $2.5 million annually and there had been a one-time transfer of $25 million to the account from the forestry account.

Debates over PFAS and CAFO funding foreshadows larger debates about the government’s proper jurisdiction, especially when so many state regulations are stricter than their federal counterparts.

Finally, there’s staffing, which is proposed under the governor’s budget to decrease by 10 positions from 2,539 to 2,529. However, the decrease is illusory. Actually, 46 federally funded project positions are being eliminated because the projects ended, but Evers is proposing 36 new positions to fund his “exciting new initiatives.”

Whether those positions survive intact in a budget debate that will surely question the size and scope of the agency and its ongoing regulatory jurisdictions and land acquisitions is one of the most important questions of all.

In September, the DNR released its budget request. It sought 2,494 positions. It also asked for $1.229.3 billion over the biennium, or about $266 million lower than the governor’s ask and about $24 million above the agency’s 2023-25 base budget.