State arguments don't hold water

President Bill Clinton made only one trip to Nebraska, but some of his semantic gymnastic skills seem to have rubbed off.

The man who crafted the phrase, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" would be proud of some of the arguments being prepared for the state's defense of LB701 against the "Friends of the River" lawsuit.

The nine residents who filed the lawsuit say property taxes levied against Republican River landowners are intended for a state purpose -- a violation of the state constitution. The case goes to trial later this month.

The plaintiffs point to a number of quotes from state senators as to how LB701 would help Nebraska reach compliance with the Republican River Compact. The law, they say, creates an illegal "closed class" of natural resources districts that tax only one group for the benefit of the entire state.

Not so, says the state brief.

"Revenues ... will fund programs to acquire water rights and enhance river flows to maximize the available water supply and the beneficial use of available water by local users."

Huh?

Other than making it possible to paddle a canoe or ride an inner tube down the river, we'd like someone to explain to us how allowing more water to run across the border into Kansas benefits Southwest and Southcentral Nebraska taxpayers in any way.

Irrigation development and conservation measures are state and national policies, not just some local idea.

Yes, Nebraska is obligated to leave more water in the Republican River for its neighbor to the south, and the matter is virtually guaranteed to wind up in court, regardless of the outcome of the challenge to LB701.

But it was the state, not Republican River Basin residents, who entered into that obligation in 1943.