April, 2025
Lincoln — Another raid on the Nebraska Environmental Trust (NET) will likely result in another lawsuit to stop it.
The NET was established pursuant to a 1992 statewide voter initiative — reaffirmed by voters in 2004 — to use state lottery funds for environmental projects such as habitat restoration and recycling, to conserve, enhance and restore the natural environments of Nebraska.
But in 2019, the NET board, then under the control of Gov. Pete Ricketts' appointees, proposed granting millions from the Trust to for-profit companies to purchase ethanol blender pumps at filling stations. Many Nebraskans cried foul over the proposed grants, not least because it looked suspiciously like a quid pro quo for the ethanol industry's large and ongoing political contributions to the governor. It also appeared as if the NET board had contrived the proposed grants in violation of the state's Open Meetings Act.
Two of us filed suit, as citizens and taxpayers, objecting to the shenanigans. The NET board soon dropped the blender pump grants, changed its open meetings procedures and, under court direction, paid a state settlement to us for our trouble and expense.
This year, Gov. Pillen proposes to raid the Trust again in the millions, this time using a shell game to fill gaps in his state budget. He and his appointees on the NET board have withheld grants from worthy environmental projects in order to build up a balance of millions for transfer elsewhere. It begs credulity to believe this somehow happened on its own, so again litigation seems necessary to demonstrate, through FOIAs, legal discovery, and depositions, how the Open Meetings Act and other laws are being circumvented.*
Or the legislature could simply drop the idea of the transfers, act with fidelity to the will of Nebraska voters, avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation, and restore state budget integrity.
____________________________
*AI suggests this: "If the NET Board were to build up a surplus by systematically not approving grants, such actions would likely need to be discussed and decided upon in a public meeting. The Act emphasizes transparency in the formulation of public policy and prohibits secret decision-making. Any violation of these provisions could result in legal challenges, including the potential voiding of actions taken in violation of the Act."
