Ballot Question 6 explained: Natural Resource Conservation Fund

This November, Massachusetts voters will decide on nine statewide ballot questions. Question 6, titled “Natural Resource Conservation Fund,” would set aside a portion of existing state sales tax revenue for land, water, and outdoor recreation projects.

Here’s what the ballot question would do, who supports and opposes it, and how it could impact residents.

What the question would do

If approved, Question 6 would create a “Nature for All Fund.” Beginning July 1, 2027, the fund would receive 50% of the state sales and use tax collected on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses. After July 1, 2028, that share would rise to 100%. Sales tax revenue already directed to the MBTA and the School Modernization and Reconstruction Trust Fund would be excluded. Public and private donors would also be allowed to contribute to the fund.

The state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs would be able to spend the money on “natural resource conservation,” which the measure defines broadly. This includes conserving or restoring land to protect drinking water, rivers, lakes, and coasts; preserving farms and forests; creating and improving parks and trails; and protecting lands of indigenous cultural significance. State agencies, municipalities, tribal governments, and public charities focused on conservation could also receive money from the fund.

A 15-member board would write rules about how the money should be spent. The board would include five state officials and ten public members appointed by the governor, including people from underserved communities and indigenous people, and at least one person with conservation expertise. The rules would include environmental justice principles, access to and restoration of lands of indigenous cultural significance, and affordable housing development.

The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs would also be required to report annually to state committees on how much fund spending goes toward land with environmental justice populations.

What supporters say

One ballot question committee, “Vote Yes for Water and Nature,” formally supports the measure, according to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). 

The committee was formed by the Nature for Massachusetts Coalition, a group of more than 100 environmental, conservation, and community organizations and businesses.

Supporters say the question protects clean water, wildlife habitat, and public green space without raising taxes, since it redirects sales tax revenue the state already collects. And because the state currently doesn’t have a dedicated funding source for conservation efforts — despite leading the nation in the growth of the outdoor recreation economy — it fills a much-needed gap.

“You pay a gas tax, and that money goes to fix the roads and bridges we all drive over,” said Katie Theoharides, president and CEO of The Trustees, one of the groups in the campaign’s 10-group steering committee. “There is nothing that we pay for clean water and clean air that has a dedicated funding source, and so this invests in those critical resources.”

In their official ballot argument, supporters say the fund could provide as much as $100 million a year, or about 0.16% of the overall state budget.

“It’s a fraction of a single year’s growth in the state budget, and it is a reasonable increase to conservation spending that will make a measurable difference,” Theoharides said.

While new to Massachusetts, this kind of funding mechanism has been rolled out in other states as well. Virginia, Georgia, and Texas each have dedicated a sporting goods sales tax to support conservation efforts, Theoharides said. Georgia’s program, which began in 2019, has funded dozens of new parks and trails and helped conserve or restore at least 69,000 acres.

As for why the revenue stream is tied to sporting goods, Theoharides said it’s a direct link between the item being used and the opportunity to use it.

“You can’t go outside and recreate and do these activities if you don’t have access to nature,” she said, adding that “this is making an investment in the places where people can use their outdoor recreation gear.”

The question has drawn endorsements from Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, former U.S. EPA Administrator and White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, and former Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs Bob Durand, as well as local land trusts across the state.

See how much the committee supporting the ballot question has raised here.

What opponents say

No ballot question committee has formed to formally oppose Question 6, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Voter Guide noted that no organized group submitted an argument against it.

In its place, the Secretary’s office compiled an argument drawn partly from the Legislature’s majority report. It says the measure would create an “unstable fiscal framework” by permanently earmarking sales tax revenue that currently goes to the state’s General Fund. It also notes that, because the Legislature controls appropriations, the money might not end up in the fund even if voters approve the question.

“The proposed law, as written, raises questions regarding fiscal impacts, programmatic displacement, and constraints on administrative flexibility,” the Secretary’s office wrote in its Voter Guide.

The Massachusetts Republican Party has also posted online against the question, arguing that “earmarking dollars for a single purpose reduces the flexibility lawmakers need to address the Commonwealth’s most pressing priorities each year.”

What’s the potential impact?

The state’s Executive Office of Administration and Finance estimated in its Voter Guide that the law would automatically divert tens of millions of dollars a year that currently support the state operating budget to the new fund.

Tufts University’s non-partisan Center for State Policy Analysis analyzed the measure and found:

• Question 6 doesn’t raise new money. It earmarks existing sales tax dollars from sporting goods stores, recreational vehicle dealers, and golf courses.
• The earmark is relatively small, at roughly $65 million, compared with the roughly $400 million the state currently spends each year on recreation and conservation.
• Nothing in the measure requires lawmakers to increase spending on conservation or recreation by the earmarked amount. They could use the money for existing programs or divert it to unrelated uses.
• Reaching the state’s climate goals may require more conservation spending, and the dedicated fund could enable that.

The bottom line

Per the Secretary of the Commonwealth:

A “yes” vote would create a fund that could be utilized for natural resource conservation that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and the use of golf courses.

A “no” vote would not create this natural resource conservation fund or change how sales and use taxes are spent.

Annie Jonas is a Community writer at Boston.com. She was previously a local editor at Patch and a freelancer at the Financial Times.