LB674 would revise Nebraska law governing the Perkins County Canal Project, a state-authorized canal and storage project tied to Nebraska’s rights under the South Platte River Compact. The bill restates legislative intent that the project may be developed, constructed, managed, and operated by the state, and it creates the Perkins County Canal Project Fund to receive legislative transfers, grants, loans, donations, fees, and other revenue related to the project.
The bill also directs the State Treasurer to transfer $250 million from the Perkins County Canal Project Fund to the General Fund and another $250 million to the Water Sustainability Fund, on or before June 30, 2026, in amounts and on dates set by the budget administrator. It authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to use the remaining project fund to identify the optimal route, purchase land, develop and operate the canal, and contract for an independent study. That study must address project costs, a completion timeline, cost-effectiveness and alternatives that could reduce environmental or financial impacts, and effects on drinking water supplies for Lincoln and Omaha. The department must submit the findings electronically and present them at a public hearing before the Appropriations Committee by December 1, 2026.
In state-law terms, LB674 would amend and repeal existing statutory provisions related to the canal project and would declare an emergency, allowing the act to take effect immediately upon passage and approval. It would also shift substantial money out of the dedicated project fund into the General Fund and Water Sustainability Fund, affecting how state resources are allocated for water infrastructure and broader budget purposes.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of advancing the canal project as a matter of state policy, with an emphasis on water rights, economic prosperity, and environmental health in the Platte River Basin. However, the bill’s later legislative history shows it was indefinitely postponed, indicating that support was not sufficient to move it forward. No committee transcript or recorded vote details were provided, so the available context does not show specific floor debate positions.
The main points of contention appear to be the scale and use of the project fund, the diversion of $500 million total to other state funds, and the need to evaluate whether the canal is cost-effective or whether alternatives would better address water supply and environmental concerns. The bill itself highlights potential impacts on drinking water for Lincoln and Omaha, suggesting that water supply reliability, environmental effects, and fiscal prudence were likely central issues for opponents or skeptics.
LB674 would amend Nebraska statutes governing the Perkins County Canal Project, create and fund a dedicated Perkins County Canal Project Fund, and authorize major transfers from that fund to the General Fund and Water Sustainability Fund. It would also direct the Department of Natural Resources to use remaining funds for project planning, land acquisition, development, operation, and an independent study, while repealing prior inconsistent provisions and making the act immediately effective through an emergency clause.
The bill’s text reflects a pro-project posture, emphasizing Nebraska’s water rights, economic prosperity, and environmental health in the Platte River Basin. At the same time, the bill’s indefinite postponement suggests the proposal did not achieve enough legislative support to advance, likely because of concerns about cost, project feasibility, and the redirection of large sums of money.
The most notable areas of contention are the proposed $500 million in transfers out of the Perkins County Canal Project Fund, the overall cost and feasibility of the canal, and whether the project is the best use of state resources. The required study signals unresolved questions about alternatives, environmental and financial impacts, and possible effects on drinking water supplies for Lincoln and Omaha. These issues would likely divide supporters of the canal project from lawmakers concerned about fiscal responsibility, water management priorities, and downstream impacts.