Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Perkins County Canal funding becomes focal point as senators propose sweeps and bonds
Loading...
Summary
Debate over the Perkins County Canal and whether its capital base can be tapped to close budget shortfalls animated the floor; supporters argued continued funding protects future water rights, while opponents proposed partial redirections and bonding options to meet immediate statewide needs.
Lincoln
A persistent split over the Perkins County Canal emerged during the Senate's budget debates as multiple senators argued whether some of the canal's accumulated cash could be reallocated to plug the state's forecast-driven budget shortfall.
Senator Raybould pressed an amendment (AM 12-45) that would authorize transferring up to $500 million from the Perkins County Canal account for other high-priority water and infrastructure needs, while leaving sufficient funding to protect the canal's core components. "If we're going to be dealing with a budget deficit and if we're looking at all other funds to tap into, I think it's only fair that Perkins Canal be considered as well," Raybould said on the floor.
Supporters of keeping the canal base intact, including Senators Jacobson, McKinney and Stroman, warned that pulling principle now would make it unlikely the canal and its reservoir would ever be finished. Jacobson said taking the money now would "effectively end the Perkins County Canal project as permitting agencies and other compacting states will view the project as speculative." He repeatedly argued that Colorado would not honor Nebraska's water rights unless Nebraska built the canal as planned.
Other senators proposed middle-ground options: Senator John Kavanaugh suggested trimming the canal appropriation to the 500 cubic-feet-per-second capacity specified in the interstate compact rather than the larger 1,000 CFS design in current documents, which he said could save roughly $61 million versus the larger build. Senator Abel and others discussed bonding or issuing revenue bonds for canal infrastructure in lieu of sweeping the cash fund.
The specific floor amendment to tap the canal's base (AM 12-45) was defeated in a roll call (5 ayes, 24 nays). Advocates for reallocation said some canal interest had been directed previously to other priorities (for example the economic recovery fund for North and South Omaha) and urged consistent treatment of all cash funds. Opponents said commitments to long-term infrastructure must be honored and worried taking canal funds would undercut Nebraska's ability to secure water rights and deliver future storage.
Why it matters: Nebraska lawmakers repeatedly said the canal would increase the state's ability to store and reuse surplus water flows and provide irrigation and municipal benefits. The project's opponents and proponents differ in their view of whether the state can afford to keep the entire current set-aside intact while addressing near-term budget needs.
Ending: The canal will remain funded as previously appropriated for now; senators said they will revisit water projects and cash-fund transfers on select file and in subsequent budget work.
