Massachusetts ballot question 6 would create Nature for All Fund. Here's how it would work.

Ballot question 6 in Massachusetts, if approved by voters in November, would establish the "Nature for All Fund." It would direct upwards of $65 million a year in revenue from sales taxes collected on sporting and outdoor equipment, recreational vehicles and at golf courses toward land and water conservation, parks and outdoor recreation.

At Lynn Woods Reservation, miles of wooded trails offer residents opportunities to hike, bike and enjoy the outdoors. But the forest also serves another important purpose: protecting the city's drinking water supply.

"You can hike, bike, go for a picnic with your family, but this is also protecting the city of Lynn's drinking water," said Katherine Lange, government relations manager at the Conservation Law Foundation.

Lange said preserving forests around reservoirs helps keep drinking water clean while reducing treatment costs for cities and towns.

"Yes" on Massachusetts ballot question 6

The Conservation Law Foundation is among more than 120 organizations statewide supporting question 6.

"Our forests, our beaches, our mountains are part of the reason why living in Massachusetts is so great," Lange said.

She argues that Massachusetts has historically fallen short when it comes to funding conservation efforts.

"Right now in this state budget we do not see dedicated funding for land and water protection year after year. There's actually been this trend of decades of underinvestment in our land and waters," Lange said.

For Lange, places like Lynn Woods Reservation demonstrate why protecting natural resources deserves a dedicated source of funding.

"These are the things that make living here really special," she said.

Under the proposed law, Massachusetts would dedicate a portion of existing sales and use tax revenue from sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses to the Nature for All Fund.

Beginning July 1, 2027, the state would direct an amount equivalent to 50% of the qualifying tax revenue to the fund. That would increase to 100% beginning July 1, 2028.

The money could be used for projects including the preservation of drinking water supplies, restoration of forests and farmland, improvements to parks and trails, protection of coastal areas and expanded access to outdoor recreation.

A 15-member board would establish regulations governing how the money is spent. It would include five state officials and 10 members of the public appointed by the governor.

The state officials would include the secretaries of energy and environmental affairs and housing and livable communities, the commissioners of fish and game and conservation and recreation, and the state's climate chief.

"There's no new taxes, no new fees. When you go to your outdoor gear store and buy something, your experience won't change. You'll just know that part of that purchase is going towards protecting the places that you already love," Lange said.

"No" on Massachusetts ballot question 6  

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance is urging voters to reject question 6, raising concerns about redirecting existing tax revenue away from the state's general fund.

Paul Craney, the organization's executive director, argues that setting aside money for conservation would leave lawmakers with less flexibility to fund other priorities.

"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. "Instead, they will find new ways to tax us."

Craney also questions provisions in the ballot language that reference affordable housing development, environmental justice and statewide climate goals.

Craney said he worries those provisions could allow money intended for traditional conservation efforts to eventually support other initiatives.

"The devil's always in the details with the ballot questions," Craney said.

He pointed to language that would allow the fund to support conservation projects aligned with statewide climate goals and require guidelines for conservation efforts in conjunction with affordable housing development.

"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, which I think some of the people that put this forward wanted it to be, which is land conservation and helping the environment," Craney said.

A "no" vote would leave the existing system in place, without establishing the new dedicated conservation fund.