Environmentalists say Massachusetts has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect land and meet its conservation goals — if it can come up with the funds to pay for it.
They’ve advanced a ballot measure, Question 6, that would dedicate tens of millions of sales tax revenue on sporting goods to a fund for natural resource conservation.
“We think of this as a no-brainer,” said David O’Neill, the president of Mass Audubon. “You’re using these goods to get outside in nature, and those goods are helping us protect more nature.”
But skeptics say the measure may not actually change the amount the state spends on conservation because legislators are ultimately responsible for setting the budget, and they could decide to cut current spending on conservation to offset sales tax earmarks for the same purpose. Opponents also say lawmakers could increase other taxes and fees to compensate for the sales tax money set aside for conservation, increasing the overall tax burden.
“The Legislature has shown no inclination to reduce their spending, so they will most likely want to raise taxes and fees to make up for that lost revenue,” said Paul Craney, the executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
If Massachusetts were to pass the measure, it would join a handful of states, including Georgia and Texas, that have set aside a portion of their sales tax revenue for conservation. But while protecting the outdoors is broadly popular, the ballot question will show how much appetite voters have for dedicating certain revenue streams to specific purposes.
The proposed law would divert tax revenue from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses into a fund that would be overseen by a board made up of five state officials and 10 members of the public appointed by the governor.
The money could support the conservation or restoration of land and waterways, including drinking water sources. It could also fund parks, trails, and other opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Proponents of Question 6 estimate that it could raise as much as $100 million each year, though an analysis from the Tufts’ Center for State Policy Analysis put the figure at about $65 million. The center, which provides nonpartisan research on Massachusetts policy questions, does not take positions on ballot questions.
O’Neill said the need for conservation funding is urgent. He said the state is losing roughly 10,000 acres of land to development annually. At the same time, he said, there is a “generational land transfer” happening across the state, where older landowners are seeking out opportunities to sell or conserve their land.
The Northern Strand Community Trail, a portion of which runs through Lynn Marsh.MassDOT
He said previous conservation projects show what more money could buy: The Baker administration invested $15 million in the Northern Strand Community Trail, an approximately 10-mile path linking Everett, Lynn, Malden, Revere, and Saugus. In Bridgewater, a $3 million state grant helped the town secure a permanent conservation restriction protecting the 70-acre Hanson Farm, its last active farm.
The campaign supporting the ballot question estimates that the state currently appropriates about $25 million in bond funding for land conservation annually. The state also included roughly $15 million in grants for outdoor recreation projects in its most recent capital investment plan.
A Mass Audubon report released in 2025 concluded the state and other public sources would need to increase its spending to at least $350 million annually to meet its goal of permanently protecting 30 percent of the state’s land and water by 2030. About 28 percent of the state’s land is already protected.
The measure has received the backing of more than 130 conservation groups and businesses, including The Nature Conservancy, The Trustees, and the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance. The committee supporting a “yes” vote has raised more than $4.3 million, largely from environmental nonprofits and a handful of wealthy donors who have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Governor Maura Healey has thrown her support behind it, as have former governor Deval Patrick and the climate activist Bill McKibben.
“This is a winner for Massachusetts,” Healey said at a campaign event for the ballot measure in late August.
There are a few notable holdouts: The Environmental League of Massachusetts has not endorsed the measure, citing “limited bandwidth” during this election cycle. The Sierra Club’s Massachusetts Chapter has also decided not to take a stance.
This would not be the first time the state has allocated existing taxes to specific causes. Some of the revenue from the sporting goods tax is already dedicated to funding the MBTA and school construction.
Still, it’s not clear whether the ballot measure would succeed in increasing the total state spending on conservation.
Evan Horowitz, the executive director of the Tufts center, said lawmakers could decide to ignore the earmark or use it to support existing programs. He estimates that the state already spends roughly $400 million on conservation and recreation — far more than the tally of the yes campaign, which contests Horowitz’s number. (He said his estimate includes money for other related projects the measure is intended to support, such as recreation, beyond permanent land protection.) Lawmakers could easily divert some of that spending to other priorities if the ballot measure passes, he said.
“You’re voting ‘yes’ because you want to see the state spend more money on recreation and conservation activities,” he said. “That’s unlikely to be the outcome.”
A committee of state lawmakers reviewing the ballot question reached a similar conclusion. They wrote in a majority report that passing the measure “would neither guarantee additional funding nor materially change the status quo.”
Maple trees being tapped at Mass Audubon's Moose Hill Wildlife Sanctuary in Sharon. Danielle Lanson
Proponents countered, however, that a decisive win for Question 6 would spur lawmakers to keep their existing commitments to conservation while dedicating more money to that purpose.
“This would send a strong message to the Legislature that people care about this,” said Steve Long, the policy director for The Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts.
Though there is no organized campaign against the measure, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and Massachusetts Republican Party have endorsed a “no” vote, arguing that earmarking dollars for a single purpose gives lawmakers less flexibility to address the state’s priorities.
Craney of the Fiscal Alliance said he is also concerned the ballot measure could encourage other groups to seek their own special funding sources.
“You’re going to open up the door for other special interest groups to carve out niches where they can have revenue to spend,” he said.
The editorial boards of The Globe and The Boston Herald also oppose the measure.