The Inquirer and Mirror: Ballot question would funnel sales tax into new conservation fund

By Tréa Lavery Masslive.com

(Oct. 12, 2026) Supporters of one of the nine ballot questions going before Massachusetts voters Nov. 3 say it would raise tens of millions of dollars for environmental conservation – without raising taxes.

Question 6 would dedicate a portion of the state sales tax to a new Nature for All Fund, with the money going toward conservation and recreation.

The money would be used to protect clean drinking water, conserve natural resources, expand parks and recreational areas and support climate resilience.

For the first year, starting July 1, 2027, 50% of sales tax from sporting goods stores, recreational vehicle dealers and golf courses would be earmarked for the fund. After that, 100 percent of the relevant tax revenue would go to the fund.

The ballot question would also establish a 15-member board to oversee how money in the Nature for All Fund is spent.

The state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs would be required to prepare an annual report on expenditures.

The Yes on 6 campaign has estimated that if passed, the ballot question would raise around $100 million per year after it is fully phased in, without raising taxes.

The actual number may not be that high: the nonpartisan Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University found that the revenue would be closer to $65 million annually.

There is an important caveat, however. Under Massachusetts law, only the state Legislature can make final decisions on financial appropriations, and ballot questions cannot change that. In other words, even if the ballot question passes, there would be nothing stopping legislators from ignoring it.

David O’Neill, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, one of the organizations leading the Yes on 6 campaign, said in an interview that that was no reason to drop the idea.

He argued that the ballot question has widespread support – a recent MassINC poll found it had support among 54 percent of voters, with 24 percent against – and “a group of legislative champions” in favor, so it was likely the legislature would embrace the will of voters.

“We’re in a moment where we’re seeing rising sea levels, we’re seeing greater storm events and we also have a window of opportunity to protect land at a cost that is so much smaller than the cost of having to address the challenges facing municipalities for storm events and flooding,” O’Neill said.

Question 6 has been endorsed by more than 100 organizations and businesses, including major environmental groups like the Trustees of Reservations, Appalachian Mountain Club, Conservation Law Foundation, the Nature Conservancy and the Charles River Watershed Association.

It has also gotten a thumbs-up from Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, the Boston City Council and other elected officials and environmentalists.

“Everyone in Massachusetts deserves clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and the opportunity to appreciate just how beautiful our state is,” Healey said in August.

“The generations to come are counting on us to protect that, and so are our family farms, our natural parks and our forests and wildlife. By establishing the Nature for All Fund, we can secure a cleaner future for Massachusetts,” Healey said.

There is no organized opposition to Question 6, and few officials or groups have said publicly that they are against it.

The state Republican Party endorsed a “no” vote in its official 2026 ballot guide, writing that it would reduce “the flexibility lawmakers need” to address the state’s highest priorities each year.

That argument echoes the one in a May legislative report explaining why the Legislature did not pass the proposal on its own before the election. Lawmakers wrote that it could create an “unstable fiscal framework” that could reduce funding for other programs.

“Implementation of the measure would require the reallocation or reduction of funds presently directed toward other state initiatives, including investments administered through agencies such as the Department of Conservation and Recreation,” they wrote. This raises questions of opportunity costs and the potential displacement of existing infrastructure and environmental funding priorities."

In a financial analysis included in the 2026 Information for Voters Guide, the Executive Office of Administration and Finance also predicted that the fund would have “substantial implementation costs.”

O’Neill rejected these arguments, saying that the amount of tax revenue diverted to the Nature for All Fund would be a very small portion of the total state budget, less than 0.2 percent of the budget of over $63 billion for the current fiscal year.

He said drinking water, open space and conservation are public goods just like education and transportation, which also have dedicated tax earmarks.

“The reality is that a dollar that goes into nature is a dollar that’s not going to something else. We know that. And I wouldn’t argue that nature deserves special treatment,” he said. “I’d argue that it deserves reliable investment, just as other essential public needs do.”

Masslive.com is a media partner of The Inquirer and Mirror.