Natural resource conservation fund
This ballot measure asks whether money collected from the sales tax of sporting goods purchases should be directed to a state fund for conservation activities like acquiring land, bolstering resilience against storms, and expanding public access to outdoor recreation.
What your vote means
If this passes
A dedicated conservation fund would be established and receive up to $100 million each fiscal year from the sales tax on purchases of items like camping gear, golf clubs, and fishing equipment to support land conservation and outdoor recreation projects across Massachusetts.
If this fails
Conservation projects would continue to rely on the existing annual state budgeting process, and the taxes generated from sporting goods purchases would continue to be funneled into the state’s General Fund.
The breakdown
This proposed ballot question would create a dedicated funding source — up to $100 million annually from the state’s existing sales tax on sporting goods, supporters estimate — for land conservation across Massachusetts. It would also establish a 15-member board comprising five state officials and 10 members of the public that would allocate the money for various projects, including protecting drinking water, preserving state forests, and building new nature trails.
As of 2021, Massachusetts ranked last in the country in state parks funding per capita despite now having the nation’s fastest-growing outdoor recreation economy. Meanwhile, the state ranks 42nd when it comes to nature access for people of color, with 79 percent of communities of color and 69 percent of low-income people in Massachusetts living in nature-deprived areas.
The Legislature ultimately has control over how the money gets spent. So even if the measure passes and the Nature for All fund is created, there is no guarantee that all the revenue would go to conservation projects. That’s because state lawmakers could siphon some of the sporting goods sales tax money for initiatives other than conservation. They could also reduce conservation spending in other parts of the budget to compensate for the creation of the new fund.
The “Yes on 6” coalition is supported by more than 100 organizations and also won the endorsement of Gov. Maura Healey, who has been actively campaigning in support of the ballot question. The campaign is financed in part by one of the largest donations this cycle from a single individual, who contributed $800,000 last year.
Although there is no formal opposition campaign, some lawmakers expressed concern in a March hearing that using a ballot initiative to earmark tax revenue undermines their ability to allocate funding when the state budget is already strained. Other states, like Virginia, Georgia, and Texas, use sporting goods sales tax money for conservation and recreation. Texas has had its fund since 1993, and Georgia created one in 2018 after 83 percent of voters approved the measure.
Effective date
On July 1, 2027, the Nature for All Fund could begin receiving 50 percent of the taxes generated. After July 1, 2028, the fund could begin receiving 100 percent of those taxes.
What this does NOT change
Any particular line item in the budget. This measure is “subject to appropriation,” so lawmakers would need to choose to appropriate money to the fund.
How did we get here?
Gov. Maura Healey and lawmakers cut the state’s environmental and outdoor recreation programs by nearly 4 percent in her fiscal year 2027 budget amid broader financial headwinds. Those cuts came even as the state chips away at $1 billion in deferred maintenance for parks, trails, and other recreation infrastructure.
Legislative leaders have not had much appetite to pursue this effort. In early 2025, bills similar to the ballot question were introduced in the House and Senate, but lawmakers shelved them.
The Legislature didn’t advance the House and Senate versions of the Nature for All bill this session, which were introduced in early 2025 but were shelved this past March.
But this initiative, if it passes, would put clear public sentiment behind the idea as advocates look to apply political pressure to lawmakers to do more to conserve nature and adapt to extreme weather events like flooding and drought.
This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
