Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment? We need clean water for drinking, fishing, and swimming, for the benefit of ourselves, our children and future generations. This amendment will protect our drinking water and provide funding for the clean up of our rivers, lakes and streams. The amendment gives us a chance to act now by providing $300 million a year for 25 years to preserve our last remaining open spaces before they are lost forever to development. The amendment will fund the to protection our drinking water sources, enhance and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat, preserve our arts and cultural heritage, support our parks and trails, and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater so we can pass the Minnesota we love onto future generations.
How much will it cost me? Less than 15 cents a day -- about a $1 a week -- for the average Minnesota family. That’s a small price to pay to protect our clean water, wildlife habitat, and natural areas. The average household in Minnesota would contribute $56 per year in additional sales tax.
Why do we need to amend the constitution? Can’t we just appropriate the money? In Minnesota, amending the constitution is the only mechanism for creating a truly dedicated funding source. Minnesota’s constitution has been amended numerous times, usually for limited-term funding reasons similar to this proposal. Most recently, the constitution was amended in 2006 to provide additional funding for transportation.
Doesn’t this tie the hands of future legislatures that might need this money for something else? Actually, this proposal would give the legislature more flexibility with general fund dollars by reducing competition for limited resources. Because this proposal is entirely funded with new money, no additional strain will be placed on the state’s budget now or in the future, while ensuring that our state’s long-term priorities no longer fall victim to short-term budget needs. If passed, this proposal would sunset in 25 years, allowing future generations even greater flexibility.
How much money will this generate? How do you know that this is enough? Approximately $300 million/year in 2008 dollars. Minnesota has done a substantial amount of planning work to determine specific needs. The scale and scope of this proposal is intended to provide adequate funding for existing plans. More than 80% of the funding will be directed toward clean water, wildlife habitat and natural areas. Just under 20% will be directed to the arts and cultural resources.
How do we know what this money will actually be spent on? The language in the constitution specifically allocates funding among four purposes as follows: 33% for water quality, 33% for wildlife habitat, 19.75% for arts and cultural resources, and 14.25% for parks and trails.
Won’t this take money away from other priorities, such as education and health care? Because this proposal creates a new funding source, other programs would not be affected. If anything, funding these priorities from a dedicated fund reduces competition for general fund dollars.
Why does this proposal ask for a sales tax increase? Isn’t the sales tax regressive? Because Minnesota exempts food and clothing, the sales tax is actually the 2nd most progressive of our four modes of taxation. Moreover, the sales tax is more stable and predictable than other revenue sources, allowing for more accurate long-term planning. Between the Twins stadium, the transportation bill, and this measure, won’t the sales tax simply be too high? When compared to other metropolitan areas of comparable size and affluence, the Twin Cities currently has one of the lowest sales tax rates. The transportation sales tax will only apply to metro area counties that choose to participate, and the stadium sales tax only applies in Hennepin County.
Isn’t the lottery supposed to be paying for our state’s environmental projects? Only a small percentage of proceeds from the state lottery are actually contributed to the Environmental Trust Fund. While the Trust Fund is an important source of revenue, it does not come close to meeting the funding needs of Minnesota’s natural resources.
Why do we need to pay for more public land? Don’t we already have enough? Minnesota is continuing to grow and new development is placing pressure on places that have not previously been considered to be “at risk.” Protecting certain parcels of land is also a crucial strategy for ensuring the water quality of our lakes and rivers.
Why put the arts and environment together in the same package? Minnesota’s natural and cultural resources are both critical to maintaining our state’s high quality of life. Unfortunately, they are also both among the first areas to be cut in times of budget crisis.
Who is running the campaign? Vote Yes Minnesota is a grass roots, citizen-run committee made up of a residents and organizations who represent a wide variety of community, geographic area, political affiliation, and economic interests in Minnesota.
How can I help? Vote Yes on November 4! If you are interested in volunteering or contributing to this important campaign please contact us at www.YesforMN.org or at (651) 644-2088.