WBUR: Question 6: Voters weigh whether to set aside state taxes for nature conservation
Question 6 on this year’s ballot asks voters to consider whether they want to dedicate tax revenue for a “Nature for All” fund aimed at land conservation.
Consumers already pay the state’s sales tax when they buy sporting goods and recreational vehicles, or spend at a golf course. The proposed fund would put those tax dollars toward the protection or restoration of open spaces, land and waters.
What your vote would do, according to the secretary of state's office:
A “yes” vote would create the “Nature for All” fund from existing state taxes.
A “no” vote would not create the fund or change how the sales taxes are spent.
What would Question 6 do?
Massachusetts has a goal of protecting 30% of its land and waters by 2030 to mitigate habitat loss and threats to biodiversity. Meeting that mark would be hard to do without financial support, according to Mass Audubon, which supports Question 6. But critics of the proposed fund say any actions that curtail or put demands on state budgeting processes are a slippery slope.
The Nature for Massachusetts Coalition, which includes the more than 100 businesses and organizations in support of Question 6, estimate the proposed fund would set aside upwards of $100 million each year.
A review by the nonprofit research firm Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis puts that number closer to $65 million.
Each year, the state spends $400 million on recreation and conservation. As nature enthusiasts enjoy the diverse landscapes the Bay State has to offer, the outdoor recreation industry returned $14.6 billion to the state’s economy and employed more than 100,000 people in 2024.
Support WBUR
The proposal can't mandate its earmarked dollars actually get spent on recreation or conservation. In Massachusetts, ballot questions are unable to dictate how the Legislature appropriates funds. However, ballot questions can indicate to Beacon Hill how funding should be spent.
Money directed toward conservation as a result of this ballot question would be managed by the state office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The spending would be informed by a 15-person “Nature for All Board” appointed by the governor to make rules about how the revenue should be spent. The board would consist of 10 members of the public and five government officials.
If the question passes, the fund would kick in on July 1, 2027, appropriating half of the relevant sales taxes at first. One year later, all of the taxes on outdoor recreation and RVs would be earmarked for the fund.
What do supporters argue?
More than 100 conservation groups and businesses have endorsed Question 6.
David O’Neill, Mass Audubon’s president and CEO, cites climate change’s impact on biodiversity loss, storms, and human health as a reason to take action.
“ I actually think nature is a prescription that helps solve for so many societal challenges that we face today, and it's the lowest cost prescription to a lot of those problems,” he said in an interview.
O’Neill said that should Question 6 pass, the coalition will begin to plan new legislation to mandate that the tax dollars from the Nature for All Fund be spent on conservation.
What do opponents argue?
There is no organized opposition to the ballot question, but there are some critiques.
Evan Horowitz, executive director of the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, described Question 6 as "either pointless or dangerous.”
If passed, he wrote, the earmark could be ignored by the Legislature as they continue to designate funds as they otherwise would. Or, the Legislature could honor the commitment to spending on conservation even when other areas need the funding more urgently, like for Medicaid or food assistance, which has recently seen federal budget cuts.
The Massachusetts League of Women Voters takes a neutral position on the question, saying that though they support protections for the environment, “The League opposes earmarking specific revenues for specific purposes.”
What else to know
Other states have passed similar legislation to varying degrees of difference and success; some through raising or creating new taxes, others with a sporting goods sales tax.
Here's a roundup of some moves by other states:
Missouri amended its state constitution in 1984 to create a 0.1% tax to prevent soil erosion. It’s the main source of funding for their state park system. Missourians recently voted to renew their support of the tax for another 10 years.
Iowa created a national resources fund via constitutional amendment in 2010, which would have taken money from an increase in tax on property and labor. But that tax increase was never enacted, so the fund has sat empty.
Texas raises around $168 million on sporting goods taxes every year, put towards the Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Texas Historical Commission.
Colorado is considering similar legislation.