Late last month, the chairman of the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, a representative from adhesives and bonding solutions manufacturer Bemis, and the president of the state’s largest private landowner, The Trustees of Reservations, all sat next to each other at a cramped conference table on the first floor of the State House. Surprisingly, they were there to advocate for the same thing.

All three represented members of Nature for Massachusetts – a coalition of nearly 70 nonprofits and a few private companies pushing for the Commonwealth to create a dedicated fund to purchase land for conservation, outdoor recreation, and water quality improvement. The group’s original goal was to pass this policy, which would be funded by the sales tax the state accrues from the sale of sporting goods, through the Legislature, but the House and Senate versions of the bills failed to gain traction. Now, they’ve repackaged the initiative into “Protect Water and Nature” – one of the state’s record 12 questions that could appear on November’s ballot. During its hearing before the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions, however, some legislators seemed displeased that the proposal, which would eventually divert $100 million per year from the state’s budget if fully financed, was reappearing on their desks in an already difficult budget cycle.

The Commonwealth is underperforming compared to other states when it comes to environmental protection and conservation. In 2021, Massachusetts ranked last in the country in state parks funding per capita in 2021. In the five years since, fiscal constraints caused by slow growth and federal cuts to state funding have continued to bump spending on land conservation down the list of priorities. This culminated in Governor Maura Healey recommending cutting funds for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) by 8 percent in her budget proposal released last month.

The ballot measure brings together an unlikely coalition of well-known nonprofits, local land trusts, recreation groups, and outerwear retailers for the purpose of setting aside the sales taxes the state collects on sporting goods to fund land conservation projects. These projects, in addition to protecting land and improving water quality, could also address a racial gap in access to outdoor space in Massachusetts, according to proponents. The bill version of the policy was introduced at the beginning of both the 2023 and 2025 legislative sessions but has never made it to a full floor vote. The current iteration of the bill has been stuck in the Ways and Means Committee since October.

Senator Paul Feeney (D-Bristol and Norfolk) says he still has hope that the bill will see some movement this term due to the attention the ballot initiative has generated. He also acknowledged, though, that with decreasing revenues and cuts to federal spending on states, this is a difficult year to advocate for setting aside money from the general fund.

“With seven thousand plus bills filed in the legislature, it takes some inertia, right? It’s tough to get a bill on the radar screen. And I think, from what I’ve experienced over the last few months, it seems like this bill is rising to that level,” Feeney said. “It’s not easy to balance a budget when you have a federal government that is making decisions that are going to adversely affect us.”

The Healey administration, however, has set lofty conservation goals. In 2023, Gov. Healey released a slate of biodiversity aims for the state, including setting aside 30 percent of the state’s land for conservation by 2030 and 40 percent by 2050. But the state and nonprofits are in stark disagreement over whether these targets will be met.

Stephanie Cooper, undersecretary for the environment of the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, spoke as the state’s expert witness at ballot measure hearing. She said the state was “on track” to meet its 2030 goals. But according to a report from Mass Audubon, a member of the ballot measure’s steering committee, reaching the 30 percent goal will cost the state $350 million per year – a far cry from the $40 million per year the state currently sets aside for land conservation efforts.

While there is no formal opposition to the ballot measure, its priorities are in direct competition with what many lawmakers see as more pressing matters – like funding healthcare and easing the high cost of living for many Bay Staters. This type of policy has made it through tough political environments before, as more conservative states like Virginia and Texas have passed versions of it. But this year in particular, Massachusetts will have to figure out how to continue to deliver its programs in an environment in which federal funds have been drastically cut and their consistency has become less certain.

“We estimated, about a $3.8 billion initial budget gap in the fiscal year 2027 budget, and that that gap is simply, what we would estimate is the maintenance costs for the state to keep doing what it’s doing,” said Doug Howgate, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed think tank. “Rewind back to last April, when all the tariff announcements occurred, and there was a feeling that we might be headed towards a dark recession that that would have huge impacts on the state fiscal picture. Thankfully, that hasn’t transpired over the last 12 months. But you don’t have to read too far into the newspaper to [think] ‘Who’s to say it won’t happen next month,’ right?”

During the hearing, advocates said diverting the funds for conservation use would be akin to what the state does with hunting and fishing licenses but would cover more types of recreation. “The state sporting goods sales tax is directly tied to the use of the land,” said Katie Theoharides, CEO of The Trustees of Reservations and former secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

Conservation efforts will only become more difficult as the cost of land rises and as baby boomers age out of their homes.

“We talk a lot about being in a generational wealth transfer. We’re in a generational land transfer,” said Emma Ellsworth, executive director of the Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust, who also testified at the hearing. “When I started doing this work, we would have five or six years to build a project, to work the landowners, to figure out funding sources. I have two projects right now where [the] mom just went in a nursing home, and the kids are trying to figure out how to pay for her care and how to also honor her goals and her dreams for the land that she loved and stewarded for her lifetime.”

Ellsworth also highlighted the tough financial reality for small local land trusts in rural areas. Even with $15 million in grants from the state, she said her nonprofit was stuck financing a $6 million budget shortfall.

“In Boston, six million is a trickle, right?” Ellsworth said. “Well, in Warwick, that’s an insurmountable funding gap. We’re not putting out a jar at the local farm stand and raising six million dollars.”

Advocates have argued that a sea change in funding could also help expand access to nature to more communities. According to the Center for American Progress, Massachusetts ranks 42^nd when it comes to nature access for people of color, with 79 percent of communities of color living in nature deprived areas. Meanwhile, 69 percent of low-income people in Massachusetts also live in nature deprived areas. Boston and its southern neighbors illustrate these inequalities – the neighborhoods of Mattapan and Hyde Park, mostly comprised of people of color, are considered “nature deprivation hotspots” according to the same study, while their whiter, more affluent neighbors Milton and Dedham are not.

Andrew Sharpe, chairman of the Authentic Caribbean Foundation, espoused the other social benefits of spending time in the outdoors.

“We need to get away from the everyday hustle and bustle,” he said during the hearing. “This is why nature, our parks, our waterways, [and] our green space plays a vital role in bringing our community together.”

The coalition has also said their preferred path forward is still for lawmakers to pass the legislation. The full text of Protect Water and Nature has three very crucial words: “subject to appropriation.”

According to the Massachusetts constitution, the legislature has the final say on spending. That means that even if the ballot measure passes overwhelmingly, there is no guarantee that the bucket of money – accrued in the general fund from sales taxes on sporting goods – created would get filled.

“The goal is to set up this fund, and to send a message,” said Sam Anderson, senior director of government affairs for Mass Audubon, during the hearing.

“And hope that we appropriate, is that the idea?” interjected Rep. Alice Hanlon Peisch, a Democrat who serves as co-chair for the Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions. “Seems like a lot of effort to do something at the end of the day is no different from the process we have right now, which is that you all, and many others, would advocate with the legislature during the budget process.”

Some legislators on the committee took the opportunity to question coalition members about the initiative’s aims and finances. Rep. Michael Day, a Democrat who represents Stoneham and Winchester, expressed his frustration with what he considers to be special interest dollars propping up ballot initiatives on issues the legislature has de-prioritized.

“The deliberate process is set up for a reason. We hear from all stakeholders, not just with respect to the advocates of this question, but the ones that say, ‘You know what, the money is better spent in our communities on criminal justice reform,’ or on most of the issues that we as a legislature deal with all the time,” said Day.

He also noted the Protect Water and Nature ballot committee received large cash infusions totaling more than $1.3 million from three individual donors this election cycle. The initiative has raised $1.6 million in total, about $950,000 of which has already been spent, mostly on a consultant to assist with collecting signatures.

“I’m concerned that money is infiltrating considerably on the political process, but also in particular, on the initiative ballot petition process,” he said.

The legislature could, if it chooses, pass the petition by May 5, enshrining the measure into law without it having to go to the voters. This course of action is unlikely, though, given the lethargic movement of the bill version and the fact that the legislature didn’t act on a single ballot measure proposed for the 2024 election.

Once that deadline is passed, Nature for Massachusetts will have to collect another 12,000 signatures. Coalition members think they won’t have too much of an issue getting them.

“It sounds a little bit quaint, but this is our one and only home,” Theoharides said. “It’s the only planet we have, and we are significantly under-invested in the environment and public open space.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that many initiatives are using the ballot measure process to compel state spending. That reference has been removed.