There鈥檚 a debate right now over what Texas lawmakers should do with the money in the . The fund was set up in the 1980s to smooth out the differences from times of oil boom and bust.
Some see now as a boom time, because of the growth of energy production from , or "fracking," but others see the threat of stormy times ahead.
Some fiscal conservatives don鈥檛 like the talk they鈥檙e hearing from Texas lawmakers about taking money out of the Rainy Day Fund.
Senate Republican leaders using $6 billion 鈥� close to half the fund's value -- to pay for new water and road projects.
There鈥檚 more money in the Rainy Day Fund now, largely because fracking has led to more more oil and gas production in Texas. Now, there鈥檚 more in the fund than it needs.
But the head of the , JoAnn Fleming, says the Rainy Day Fund should be used to shelter the state from the need for outside help and to protect Texas from the effects of a literal 鈥淩ainy Day.鈥�
鈥淲e need to preserve the Rainy Day Fund in case we have a hurricane that shuts down the Port of Houston," she said. "Instead of our elected officials looking at their watch as they did in New Jersey, waiting for FEMA and the federal government to show up, we believe our state leaders should keep the Rainy Day Fund intact.鈥�
Senator Kel Seliger, Republican from Amarillo, is to designate three percent of the Rainy Day Fund to a transportation fund that would pay to fix roads damaged by all the truck traffic resulting from fracking.
