Time for a change, but which?

The time-honored tradition of changing our clocks twice per year has long been a source of frustration for Nebraskans. Legislators on both sides of the aisle agree that it needs to go. However, the debate over how to replace it has revealed a divide that goes beyond party lines, reflecting the contrasting needs of rural and urban communities.

Two competing bills in the Nebraska Legislature illustrate this divide. Senator Dave Murman of Glenvil has introduced LB302, which would place Nebraska on permanent standard time, ensuring more daylight in the morning. In contrast, Senator Megan Hunt of Omaha has proposed LB34, which would move the state to permanent daylight saving time, keeping daylight later into the evening. While the goal of both bills is to end the biannual ritual of shifting the clocks, the question remains: when should Nebraskans enjoy their extra hour of sunlight?

For rural communities, the argument for permanent standard time is compelling. Farmers and ranchers rise with the sun, and extra morning daylight is a practical necessity. Those caring for livestock, milking cows, or tending to other early-morning agricultural tasks would find it easier to stick to their schedules without having to work in pre-dawn darkness. Safety is also a key concern—fewer children would be waiting for the bus in the dark, reducing the risk of accidents on rural roads. Advocates of permanent standard time also point to health benefits, citing studies that show our bodies function best when aligned with natural sunlight.

Meanwhile, urban centers like Omaha see the world through a different lens. Supporters of permanent daylight saving time argue that having more daylight in the evening would boost economic activity. Businesses, restaurants, and entertainment venues could see increased foot traffic, as people would be more inclined to stay out later when the sun is still shining. Law enforcement officials note that longer daylight hours in the evening correlate with lower crime rates in cities, making neighborhoods safer. Recreational activities also benefit, from youth sports leagues to golf courses, which rely on evening daylight for extended play and increased revenue. Parents, too, see value in their children being able to spend more time outdoors rather than retreating indoors to screens.

The debate, at its core, is a matter of priorities. Rural Nebraskans prioritize early-morning productivity and safety, while urban residents emphasize economic growth and evening recreation. Both perspectives are valid, and neither solution is perfect. What’s more, history has shown that previous attempts to implement permanent daylight saving time were met with backlash, leading to a swift return to the current system.

Wouldn't it be funny if our biannual ritual of changing our clocks evolves to have nothing to do with energy savings, but turns out to be the best compromise we can come up with? By springing forward and falling back, Nebraska—and the nation—has been accommodating both lifestyles in an imperfect but balanced way. As lawmakers debate the future of time in Nebraska, they must consider whether choosing one system over the other will truly serve the best interests of all Nebraskans—or if, in the end, the inconvenience of flipping clocks twice per year is the only compromise that works.