Funding the state’s conservation efforts will fall into voters’ hands on Nov. 3, as Ballot Question 6 pushes to divert sales tax revenue to establish a fund dedicated to protecting natural resources.
Question 6 aims to establish the Nature for All Fund by redirecting 50 percent of tax revenue from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses to the fund in 2027, and increase to 100 percent after July 1, 2028. The fund would be capped at $100 million a year.
The ballot question has seen mixed support, according to recent polling. A UMass Amherst/WCVB poll last week found that 70 percent of voters were likely to support a “yes” vote on Question 6, while only 19 percent were likely to cast a “no” vote. A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll showed a more evenly split field — the survey suggested that 49 percent of respondents would vote “yes,” compared to the 39 percent who would likely vote against Question 6.
What Would Question 6 Do?
In addition to creating the fund, Question 6 would establish a 15-member board, and would allow the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to use the money to conserve or restore land in the state.
The board would include five executive officials including the secretary of energy and environmental affairs, secretary of housing and livable communities, commissioner of fish and game, commissioner of conservation and recreation, and the climate chief. The governor would also be tasked with appointing 10 members of the public, with a mandate to include Indigenous people and at least one person with experience in natural resource conservation.
Other states — including Virginia, Georgia, and Texas — have passed similar initiatives to direct sales tax revenue from sporting goods toward parks, land, and water conservation. A similar proposition will also appear on the Colorado ballot on Election Day.
Environmental Groups Back Question 6
The primary committee backing the proposition is Yes on 6, which includes more than 130 conservation groups, businesses, and local land trusts across the state — including Mass Audubon and the Charles River Watershed Association. The ballot question has also gained support from Massachusetts Governor Maura T. Healey ’92 and former Governor Deval L. Patrick ’78.
Emily Norton, the executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association, said that Question 6 “is a great opportunity, not just to increase those investments, but also — with a clear victory — demonstrate how much people really value these things.”
Sam Anderson, the senior director of government affairs at Mass Audubon, also pointed to conservation goal outlined in the organization’s 2023 report, which advocates for at least 30 percent of the state’s land and waters to be protected by the state by 2030. The organization hopes to up the proportion to 40 percent by 2050.
“At the moment, we’re not on pace there. The state itself says we need to ramp up the pace of conservation in order to reach those goals,” Anderson said.
“A combination of all of those things really led us to the conclusion that there was no more delay,” he added.
What Do Opponents Say?
Question 6 faced scrutiny when it was first presented to the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions in March 2026, when legislators warned that the proposal would redirect tax revenue already supporting other state programs, including the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
And though there is no formal committee fundraising against the proposition, its primary opposition has come from the Massachusetts Republican Party and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocacy surrounding fiscal responsibility and transparency.
Paul D. Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, pointed to concern that diverting funds from the state’s operating budget could lead lawmakers to impose new taxes to make up for lost revenue.
“If you’re going to take a portion of the sales tax revenue out for this fund, $100 million worth, you better believe that the Massachusetts legislature is going to find another way to tax and fee the taxpayers to make up for that lost revenue,” he said.
Additionally, Craney said that the Legislature could vote to raise the $100 million cap — and increase tax revenue in other areas to make up for the revenue — at a later date if the proposition passes.
“You could see this fund growing in the near future if the proponents, who are well-funded as it is, get the legislature on board with expanding the scope of this slush fund,” he added
But supporters of Question 6 have defended the fund as a necessary investment to prevent the state from incurring larger costs when natural disasters arise down the line.
“The response that I hope people will keep in mind is that this is about treating nature as critical infrastructure and putting the money where it needs to go,” Heather Clish, the policy director for the Trustees of Reservations, said.
“For every dollar spent on nature-based approaches to reducing storm flooding, municipalities can save $6 in storm damages,” she added.