A primer on the outdoors/arts amendment

Minnesota is an outdoors-oriented state. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a greater percentage of Minnesotans -- 32 percent -- hunt or fish than do residents of any other state. More than residents of North Dakota (29 percent), South Dakota (23 percent), Wyoming (28 percent) or Montana (31 percent).

Additionally, only two states, Maine (56 percent) and Montana (55 percent), have greater percentages of residents who participate in wildlife watching (48 percent of Minnesotans do).

Such findings parallel those from a 1998 Minnesota Poll that found 95 percent of respondents believed participating in outdoor recreation -- hunting and fishing -- "was an important part of being a Minnesotan."

A 2002 Minnesota Poll found that more Minnesotans favor protecting the state's lakes, rivers and forests (75 percent) than paying lower taxes (20 percent). The same poll found more Minnesotans favor environmental protection over relieving metro traffic congestion ( 52 percent to 37 percent) and more favor protecting the environment even at the risk of curbing economic growth (60 percent to 31 percent).

These data suggest the constitutional amendment proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot to clean up the state's lakes and rivers, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, funds parks and trails and the state's cultural heritage, including the arts, will be a slam dunk.

If passed, the amendment would increase the state sales tax three-eighths of 1 percent, raising about $270 million, with 33 percent dedicated for fish and wildlife habitat, 33 percent for clean water, 19.75 percent for cultural and arts projects and 14.25 percent for parks and trails.

But perhaps passage of the amendment won't be a slam dunk. The economy is tanking. A sizable portion of the electorate is cynical. No one likes higher taxes.

Those who regularly read this column know I support the proposal. I believe it's the only hope the state has of slowing and hopefully reversing the general degradation that has occurred since statehood of Minnesota lakes, rivers, prairies and forests. And the only way Minnesotans can remain the "outdoors" people they've always been.

Perhaps you disagree. Either way, with that bias laid on the table, let's take a look at the amendment, questions about it, and arguments for and against it.

Where will the money go? Who will decide how it's spent?

The fish and wildlife portion will be overseen by a newly established council made up of eight citizens and four legislators. Hunters and anglers insisted on this to ensure the money is spent as intended. The clean water money likely will be allocated with advice and oversight by a citizens group (this hasn't been finalized yet), with the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, cities and other governments and lake associations likely proposing and effecting most projects. Parks and trails money will be allocated and overseen by county, regional, city and state park authorities, with input from the citizens Parks and Trail Council. The cultural and arts money in large part will be distributed through the State Arts Board (www.arts.state.mn.us), a long-established quasi-state agency that in turn funnels money to arts and cultural councils and groups statewide.

Why is this proposed as a constitutional amendment? Shouldn't the Legislature fund natural resource conservation?

But I don't want to pay more taxes.

Fair enough. But amendment supporters believe enough voters who want to conserve land and water (and fund parks and trails, cultural heritage and the arts) will vote to pay the approximately $1 a week (for a household of average income) the amendment will cost.

OK, but why are we funding the arts?

State arts funding is not new in Minnesota. But it has declined significantly: When the state budget was cut 14 percent in 2003, arts funding dropped 32 percent. Arts supporters saw an opportunity with the "outdoor" amendment and piggybacked it. The move was bittersweet for conservationists: They opposed the arts attachment -- but in the end it helped the amendment win legislative approval.

The state constitution shouldn't be amended for this or similar purposes.

But if this amendment passes, the floodgates will open and everyone will try to amend the constitution for their pet projects.

History suggests otherwise. Minnesota's average of about .80 amendments a year since statehood pales next to the average for Alabama (7.37), South Carolina (4.45) and Texas (3.40).

I'm not giving any more money to the Department of Natural Resources.

None of the money will go to the DNR, unless that agency makes a successful project bid to the citizens council that oversees the fish and wildlife money, and the Legislature approves the expenditure. Hunters and anglers insisted on the council to ensure the money didn't fund payroll and other overhead of a state agency or similar bureaucracy.

OK, but I heard that hunters and anglers and environmentalists are exaggerating the water and land problems in Minnesota.

I still can't shake the feeling that funding conservation by a popular vote of the people subverts good governance via representative democracy.

Some people think that. Others don't, including Thomas Jefferson. He said, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people." James Madison thought similarly: "As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority ... whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish or new-model the powers of government.

What if I vote neither "Yes" nor "No" on the amendment.

Then your non-vote is counted as a "No."

A majority of all voters, including those who fail to vote "Yes" or "No" on the amendment, is required for passage.