Massachusetts Vote Would Dedicate $65 Million Annually to Conservation Fund

Voters in Massachusetts will decide in November whether to create a dedicated funding stream for environmental conservation. The proposal, known as Ballot Question 6, would establish the Nature for All Fund. If approved, the fund would receive up to $65 million per year in revenue.

The money would come from existing sales taxes. Specifically, it targets purchases of sporting and outdoor equipment, recreational vehicles, and transactions at golf courses. The state would not introduce any new taxes or fees. Instead, it would redirect a portion of revenue that currently flows into the general state budget.

The funding level would phase in over two years. Beginning July 1, 2027, the state would direct 50% of the qualifying tax revenue to the fund. Starting July 1, 2028, that share would increase to 100%. This structure ensures the fund reaches its full operational capacity within 18 months of the law taking effect.

The fund would support specific projects. These include preserving drinking water supplies, restoring forests and farmland, and improving parks and trails. It would also cover the protection of coastal areas and expanded access to outdoor recreation. A 15-member board would manage the fund and set regulations for how the money is spent.

The board would consist of five state officials and 10 members of the public appointed by the governor. The state officials include the secretaries of energy and environmental affairs and housing and livable communities. It also includes the commissioners of fish and game and conservation and recreation, as well as the state’s climate chief.

Katherine Lange, government relations manager at the Conservation Law Foundation, supports the measure. She argues that the state has historically underfunded conservation efforts. "Right now in this state budget we do not see dedicated funding for land and water protection year after year," Lange said. She noted that preserving forests around reservoirs helps keep drinking water clean and reduces treatment costs for municipalities.

Lange pointed to places like Lynn Woods Reservation in Lynn as examples of why dedicated funding is necessary. The reservation offers trails for hiking and biking while protecting the city’s water supply. "Our forests, our beaches, our mountains are part of the reason why living in Massachusetts is so great," she said. More than 120 organizations statewide back the proposal.

Opponents argue the fund reduces legislative flexibility. Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, urges voters to reject the question. He contends that removing revenue from the general fund will force lawmakers to find new ways to generate money. "Do we think that the legislature is going to actually reduce spending to make up for that loss? The answer is no, they’re not," Craney said.

Craney also questions specific provisions in the ballot language. The measure allows the fund to support projects aligned with statewide climate goals and requires guidelines for conservation efforts in conjunction with affordable housing development. He worries these clauses could shift money away from traditional land conservation toward other industries. "It’s not unreasonable to imagine that this project, this fund, this dedicated fund, eventually will go to pet projects of the climate industry in Massachusetts or the housing industry in Massachusetts instead of the original intent," Craney said.

If voters choose "no," the existing budget system remains in place. The state will not create the Nature for All Fund, and sales tax revenue from outdoor equipment and golf courses will continue to flow into the general fund without a dedicated conservation allocation.