It's the Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment - and both "Vote Yes" and "Vote No" camps are promising a fierce fight to the finish.

The amendment would raise the state sales tax by 3/8 of 1 percent, which would generate an estimated $300 million a year, and about $11 billion over 25 years. This works out to be about $52 to $60 per year for the average Minnesota family.

About 80 percent of the money would be spent on clean water projects for lakes, rivers and streams - and wildlife habitat, parks and trails. The remaining 20 percent would be spent on art programs and cultural resources.

Supporters of the measure say few issues are more critical than the health of our lakes, streams and habitat, and thus feel the money generated by the amendment is not only sorely needed, but would be an excellent investment in Minnesota's most precious resources.

"I support the measure," said Jim Oraskovich, a Pequot Lakes resident who is a member of the East Twin Lake Association for which he chairs a shoreline restoration committee.

"We need the resources," he said. "I realize that clean water and shoreline restoration is important, and recreation is important and I am willing to pay the $60 per year it will cost me."

Oraskovich will be voting yes on the amendment.

But he does admit the measure is not perfect. He is uncomfortable that the amendment includes money for other things besides lakes and habitat.

"I am a supporter of the arts, but I think adding funding for arts into this amendment sends a mixed message," he said. "I would rather that all the money would go just for water, so it's unfortunate that they weighed this down with other items."

Ray Byrd of Merrifield is definitely voting no on the amendment.

"First of all, it's stupid," Bryd said. "They've stuck all this arts and stuff on it. It's a bunch of (baloney). We're being taxed to death in this state. I think we're the third highest taxed state in the country. They tax everything here. It's just crazy."

Bryd said he does not believe that Minnesota lakes are as polluted as state officials say they are, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), which says that up to 40 percent of all Minnesota lakes have at least some kind of environmental problems, be it water pollution, shoreline degradation or infestations with invasive species.

"I don't buy that for a minute," Bryd said. "I'm an avid fisherman, I have four boats, I spend hours and hours on the lakes, I know a lot of lakes in this region and none of them are polluted."

Bryd also thinks that government agencies such as the MPCA are self-sustaining bureaucracies that are creating projects that may not be necessary.

"If you go seek something out, you'll find it," Bryd said. "These agencies find things that they can raise taxes for, the taxes go to them, so of course they're going to tell you they need to raise taxes for these projects. Everybody I know is voting no on this thing."

Other conservatives, however, feel the amendment may have some merit. Don Dabill of Pine River considers himself a conservative voter who is leery of all government tax-and-spend programs, but says he may at least consider supporting the clean water amendment.

"I'm very concerned about our water, our lakes and streams," he said. "This is serious business. What I don't like about the amendment is the way they have loaded it down with this other stuff - they get kind of wild."

Other conservative voters point out that they are all for clean water and for protecting wildlife habitat, but that the amendment is taking the wrong approach because it removes the job of appropriating funds for environmental projects out of the hands of the legislature.

In a letter sent and published in the Lake Country Echo, Tony Bauer of Nisswa points out that outdoorsmen have always paid to protect the environment, and that other fundd that were originally intended for environmental programs only, such as state lottery proceeds, were leeched off by the state's general fund.

Bauer also points out that management of the estimated $300 million a year generated by the amendment will be handled by an as yet "undefined committee."

Even local residents involved directly in protecting lakes express some doubt about the Clean Water Amendment, athough they support it on balance.

"The more I think about it, the more it makes sense," said Tom Adams, who is president of the East Twin Lake Association. "The amendment will make sure that money will go to this issue. Neither side on this issue has a perfect solution, but in the end, you have to get things done and I think this will be a good thing."

Both Vote Yes and Vote No groups are vowing to spend $5 to $10 million on getting the amendment passed or defeated. A number of statewide polls, including those conducted by the Minneapolis StarTribune, Minnesota Public Radio, and the Humphrey Institute for Public Policy, show a narrow majority of state citizens inclined to vote "yes" - though a simple majority may not be enough.

That's because it is expected that about 9 percent of voters will simply skip checking "yes" or "no" on their ballots - and all those who skip will be counted as "no" votes, according to the Humphrey Institute. That means at least 57 percent of the votes must be "yes" or the measure is likely to fail.