The state’s biggest environmental organizations are advocating for a brand new funding stream for nature and water conservation to the ballot next month — an effort they say will generate tens of millions of dollars for environmental protection.
Some opponents, however, have said the measure will limit lawmakers’ ability to appropriate funding elsewhere amid budget crunches. And even some nature advocates have come out against the initiative, questioning whether it will benefit private organizations at the expense of the public.
Ballot Question 6, which supporters refer to as the “Protect Water and Nature” initiative, would direct a portion of the existing sales tax revenue on recreation and sporting goods to support natural conservation and restoration across Massachusetts.
Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for the “yes” campaign, said the fund would set aside up to $100 million for new land protection, preserving working-family farms, safeguarding sources of clean drinking water, and other nature-based efforts.
“Question 6 is about protecting our clean drinking water and access to nature,” Farnitano said. “It’s about protecting the essential outdoor places that make Massachusetts a great place to live, work, and raise a family — our rivers, lakes, forests, farms, and wildlife habitats.”
The measure is one of nine on the ballot this November, and has found strong support from major environmental organizations in the state, including Mass Audubon, The Trustees of Reservations, and the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance.
Although there has been no major organized opposition to the measure, Massachusetts Republicans and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance have both opposed Question 6, arguing that earmarking funds for a single purpose reduces lawmaker flexibility in budget allocation and puts unnecessary pressure on the state budget.
And even some ardent nature supporters are hesitant to lend their support, arguing that it unfairly redirects funds from other equally important public services.
Barry Ingber, who said he’s worked as an environmentalist for over four decades and served as a National Park Service ranger, likened the situation to a Thanksgiving dinner.
“There’s a lot of food on the table but too many guests for the food, and as you’re about to embark on dividing up the food, somebody grabs a piece and says, ‘This is mine,’” he said. “The idea of ‘we come first, and then you can figure out how the other things get funded’ is elitist, deeply problematic, and unjust.”
The Shoestring relies on reader support — not corporate owners or paywalls — to make independent news for western Massachusetts possible. If you value independent local journalism, please consider making a tax-deductible donation.
The fund amounts to about two-thirds of the 6.25% sales tax on sporting goods, which currently goes into the state’s general fund. The remainder of that sales tax already goes towards the Massachusetts School Building Authority and the MBTA.
Ingber, who is also a member of Progressive Mass, said a much fairer approach would be to continue advocating for nature-based funding during annual state budget discussions, or to find ways to create new revenues to dedicate to conservation, rather than carving out from what already exists.
Progressive Mass elected not to take a formal position on Question 6 after member polling didn’t reach a majority on either position.
But the promise of no new taxes has been one of the major selling points of the proponent campaign, especially across its TV and social media ad runs. According to campaign finance records, the Yes on 6 campaign has spent over $1.5 million since last year, primarily on consulting costs, signature collection, and digital ads.
In turn, the campaign has received almost $3.5 million in contributions, primarily from major environmental organizations in the state, like Mass Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and The Trustees.
Heather Clish, the policy director of The Trustees, said the fund would be pivotal amid shrinking federal grant funding and would help finance many of their conservation projects, including rewilding efforts, farm preservation, and urban regreening.
“We are 100% behind the need for everybody in the state to have clean water and the need to conserve forests, farms, natural areas, and wildlife habitats, all without raising taxes,” Clish said.
Looking toward western Massachusetts, Clish referenced conservation efforts in Williamsburg, including the recent creation of Beaver Brook Conservation Park, where she said funds from Question 6 could further support ongoing rewilding and restoration work.
Farm conservation is another category of projects that could be supported by the new nature fund. Clish said The Trustees often assist aged-out farmers in finding new owners, ensuring the farmland is preserved rather than abandoned or converted to something else.
Clish said The Trustees would also work to expand public green spaces in urban areas like Boston, creating more community gardens and parks.
Major supporters like The Trustees have also framed Question 6 as essential to meeting Gov. Maura Healey’s ambitious conservation goals, including her “30 by 30 plan” to permanently protect 30% of Massachusetts’ lands, waters, and coastal areas by 2030, and 40% by 2050.
“There’s simply not enough money to meet those goals right now, and so we see this as a great solution to get the funding, to advance the funding, and to meet those goals,” Clish said.
Healey has endorsed Question 6 and spoke at a rally in support of the measure in early September.
Some environmental advocates are more hesitant to call Question 6 the right solution, citing concerns that directing public tax money to private organizations to acquire and conserve land is a suboptimal path towards meeting the 30% goal.
“Public money should be used to acquire public land,” Lynne Man, co-leader of the Massachusetts Sierra Club Forest Protection Team, told The Shoestring. While Healey’s 30% promise doesn’t specify whether newly protected land should be public or private, Man said her team has long advocated for an increase in public reserves, where logging and other disturbances are strictly prohibited, as a better approach to meet the state conservation goals.
She further expressed concern that the Question 6 measure doesn’t specify the level of protection needed for acquired lands, and some organizations could use funds to acquire and log forested areas while claiming to promote conservation.
“We would like to see more assurances that the land would be permanently protected and that the public would have a say in its use,” Man and her team members wrote in a letter to Massachusetts Sierra Club leadership.
Man said how the measure’s campaign was funded — primarily by large non-profit organizations in the state — has raised red flags.
“It’s being promoted as a public benefit, but the biggest beneficiaries are the private organizations,” team members wrote in the same letter.
Man said the sentiment among team members is that while there are “a lot of good things” in the measure, it just “isn’t quite ready.” She said she worries the measure will have unintended consequences if passed as is, pointing especially to insufficient public input and participation in how funds are spent.
The measure, as it stands, would establish a public oversight board composed of members of the public, appointed by the governor. The board would be responsible for approving all expenditures from the fund and would issue an annual report, available to the public, listing every project that received funding for that year.
Man criticized the oversight board, arguing that gubernatorial appointees are likely to follow the whims of whoever is leading the initiative. “You need public input to counterbalance that,” Man said.
Man also echoed Ingber’s sentiments that the measure would redirect funds from elsewhere.
“There are so many other things that need funding and the general fund gets used to support a lot of different programs, so where exactly is this money being taken from?” she asked.
Supporters of Question 6 estimate the fund’s $100 million a year would be a small fraction of the overall state budget. According to Farnitano, Question 6 would set aside just 0.16% of the $62 billion state budget passed this year, if in place today.
“We think that’s a small but reasonable amount to dedicate,” he said. “Clean water and access to nature are fundamentally important for Massachusetts, and they deserve reliable state funding that’s not subject to the ups and downs of the state budget process.”
Farnitano said the measure would also minimize any short-term impact on state budgeting by phasing in tax revenue to the fund over two years — 50% in the first year and 100% in the second.
The measure is modeled upon similar programs in other states, including Georgia, Virginia, and Texas, which also dedicate a portion of sporting goods sales tax to conservation.
Farnitano said Georgia in particular finances about a dozen projects a year through its nature fund, specifically through private and public partnerships, which Question 6 would hope to imitate.
“The state will chip in money, private foundations or conservation groups will bring in money, or a municipality, city, or town will partner with the state to fund a project,” Farnitano said. “We think this will ultimately bring even more resources to the table through those partnerships.”
Clish said The Trustees in particular are hoping to take advantage of new partnerships through the fund.
“I look at this as not just projects for The Trustees,” she said. “It’s The Trustees and a whole mosaic of public and private partners that can come together to do the types of projects that can protect land.”
The Connecticut River Conservancy, which contributes to several key water conservation efforts across western Massachusetts, is also in support of Question 6.
Communications Director Diana Chaplin said the fund would help the organization expand green stormwater infrastructure projects, including rain gardens and green roofs. Chaplin further mentioned culvert upgrades, aquatic invasive species removal, and floodplain restoration as other projects in need of funding.
Chaplin said the initiative is “very promising” and agreed that it would allow for strong partnerships with other statewide organizations.
“Massachusetts is fortunate to have great organizations that are knowledgeable about ways to protect the environment and adapt to climate change; we just require the critical funding it takes to make it happen,” Chaplin said in a statement to The Shoestring.
Recent polling by the Commonwealth Beacon indicated that 56% of voters would vote “yes” on Question 6. Farnitano said the campaign effort since its launch last year has been extensive, with 122,000 total signatures collected to place the measure on the ballot.
Dylan Vrins is an independent reporter and recent graduate of Amherst College with a B.A. in environmental studies. Reach him at dylanvrins@gmail.com or on Instagram @dylan.vrins
- Dylan Vrins
