Massachusetts voters will decide this November on a ballot measure, Question 6, that proposes dedicating a portion of state sales tax revenue to natural resource conservation. Governor Maura Healey has publicly endorsed the measure, describing it as a way to safeguard clean air and water without raising taxes. She has championed the measure as a means to invest roughly $100 million annually into conservation efforts, preserved in a new fund financed by taxes on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf course usage.

At a campaign event near Chestnut Hill’s Hammond Pond Trailhead, Healey emphasized the potential broad benefits of the proposal, stating it is "a winner for Massachusetts" and framed it as a timely effort to protect natural resources before costs escalate. The new conservation fund would be overseen by a 15-member board, though legislative approval would be required for appropriations. Environmental groups such as Mass Audubon, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the Trustees of Reservations have backed the measure, which has attracted more than $2.6 million in campaign contributions, including a major donation from Belmont philanthropist Kirsten Waerstad.

However, the measure has drawn a more cautious assessment from the governor’s own Executive Office of Administration and Finance, which is responsible for preparing the state budget. In the official voter guide distributed statewide, the office noted that Question 6 could significantly impact state and local finances by automatically redirecting tens of millions of dollars that currently support the general budget to the new conservation fund. The office also indicated that implementing the measure would entail “substantial” costs, due partly to the need for new systems to track applicable sales tax revenue, which is not presently itemized by product type.

The fiscal implications remain uncertain because neither the Massachusetts Department of Revenue nor retailers currently separate sales tax collections by categories such as sporting goods. The office acknowledged that a full financial analysis was not feasible due to a lack of detailed data. An independent study by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis projected that the measure would eventually earmark around $65 million annually for conservation, a relatively modest amount compared to existing state spending of approximately $400 million on recreation and natural resource programs.

Some state lawmakers have expressed reservations about the measure’s potential to displace funding for other environmental and infrastructure priorities. A report from earlier this year pointed to the possible need to reduce budgets for existing initiatives overseen by agencies like the Department of Conservation and Recreation. However, proponents such as Sam Anderson, chair of the ballot question campaign and senior director at Mass Audubon, have questioned these concerns, arguing that conservation funding and DCR appropriations are distinct and should not be conflated.

Not all environmental organizations have endorsed the measure. The Sierra Club’s Massachusetts chapter has yet to take an official position and is continuing internal discussions, while the Environmental League of Massachusetts cited limited resources for its decision not to actively support the campaign, though they generally favor the concept.

Kerry Lyons, a spokesperson for Governor Healey’s campaign, declined to address the difference between the governor’s support and her administration’s fiscal assessment. He reiterated that the measure seeks to protect land and water without increasing taxes and warned that delays in conservation efforts would only raise challenges and costs.

As the November election approaches, voters will weigh these competing considerations—balancing the promise of dedicated funding for natural resources against concerns about the measure’s fiscal impact and implementation challenges.