In this space, we opposed the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment that was on the Minnesota ballot Tuesday, Nov. 4. We reasoned that taxing, spending and setting priorities are the job of the Legislature, that 'budgeting by constitutional amendment' is generally a bad idea, and that the conglomeration of causes in the amendment included some that just aren't urgent enough to warrant 25 years of a regressive tax increase. Supporters of the amendment, meanwhile, argued that imperfect as it was, there was no other practical way to direct enough money toward clean water and conservation to get the job done.

Our argument lost, and theirs won. The people have spoken, and it wasn't even close. Fifty-nine percent of those who expressed a preference on the question favored the amendment.

Consequently, the Minnesota Constitution now requires that the state's 6.5 percent sales tax rise by three-eighths of 1 percent beginning on July 1. (Some cities and counties have additional sales-tax increments added for specific projects.) Depending on how the economy's doing, the increase will raise some $300 million a year. A third of that goes toward clean water, a third to wildlife habitat, 19.75 percent to arts and cultural heritage, and 14.25 percent to parks and trails.

This is a big deal. Making it work will be a big challenge. Every penny that will be collected under this amendment, whether for arts or trails or clean water, must be spent wisely and with statewide priorities in mind.

But as we see it, the urgent piece of this, the piece that is inarguably a state-government responsibility, has to do with clean water and conservation. The ballot language people voted for was mostly about water and conservation. It's worth reviewing (with our emphasis added):

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests and fish, game and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance and restore our lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater."

In other words, water, water, everywhere.

To keep faith with that, to deliver on the promise of that ballot language, the Legislature, governor and various citizens boards will have to design an evidence-based, outcome-focused plan that draws on complex science — but can be grasped by the average citizen.

We're encouraged by some of the guiding principles already being discussed: demanding a measurable outcome for every dollar spent; expecting all spending to contribute to multiple positive outcomes (wetlands preservation can help protect water quality, for example); basing funding decisions and priorities on science, and making sure the public has access to a transparent plan for the spending.

Minnesotans have voted to spend additional billions of dollars over 25 years on clean water and conservation. We can't waste the opportunity on a politics-as-usual, you-take-some-I'll-take-some, spread-the-dough-around mentality. Focus is critical. Transparency is non-negotiable. The people have spoken. They want clean water.