Sen. Christensen says bills will be controversial

Friday, October 18, 2013

McCOOK, Nebraska -- Sen. Mark Christensen is not known as a legislator who would shy away from controversial topics, introducing a bill to allow teachers to carry guns in classrooms as well as other firearm related legislation in recent years. For that reason, his comments Tuesday morning in McCook warning that legislation he planned to introduce in the coming session would be controversial and require Nebraskans to "think about what you want," may warrant attention.

"I wrote seven bills already on water for this coming year. Most are going to be very controversial," said Sen. Christensen during the McCook Area Chamber of Commerce legislative breakfast, Tuesday morning.

Sen. Christensen said even though the state was sitting on its largest cash reserve ever, it was not going to be easy to generate funds to address issues facing Nebraska irrigators.

Rural representation was outmatched by the big city Senators hailing from the eastern part of the state, according to Sen. Christensen, who said Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy Counties alone accounted for 25 of the legislators in Lincoln.

Sen. Christensen said the press commonly referred to 24 rural Senators but he believed it would be a real stretch to find 14 agriculture friendly Senators.

"It's very important we continue to have strong representation from our rural Senators," said Christensen.

Sen. Christensen did not offer details pertaining to the bills he planned to introduce but reiterated comments similar to those he has typically made after controversial legislation he introduced failed to advance.

"Some of it will be very thought provoking, going to have to think about what you want," said Sen. Christensen, adding the legislation would require weighing both long and short term desires.

"We've always looked short term, this is going to make people think," said Christensen.

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • How is it that the difference between the upper and lower NRD is around 20 plus inches per year and the surface water is shut off ? Senator C. And the next district district 44 rep will need to face that question.

    -- Posted by dennis on Fri, Oct 18, 2013, at 8:25 PM
  • The difference is 20 inches over 5 years not a difference of 20 inches per year. The LRNRD is at 45 inches over 5 years or 9 inches per year and the URNRD is at 65 inches over 5 years or 13 inches per year for a difference of 4 inches per year. Any district can overpump and they'll have to account for that like the URNRD that pumped 18 inches in a year. The MRNRD is not much lower than the URNRD at 60 inches over 5 years or 12 inches per year. That is due to local NRDs which are given the authority to regulate allocations that meet state goals for compact compliance.

    Shutting off the surface water for storage or irrigation was done by the DNR acting in their capacity to ensure compliance. I hope this answers your question and clears things up.

    -- Posted by Aaron Kircher on Tue, Oct 22, 2013, at 1:39 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: