Last week was a busy one. I spent the entire week in Boise, and as the legislative session gets closer, the meetings are starting to stack up quickly.

On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting hosted by the Associated Taxpayers of Idaho. One of the panels included both co-chairs of the Joint Finance–Appropriations Committee, who spoke about the state budget. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the upcoming legislative session will be dominated by budget discussions. Things are not as rosy as they were last year.

Part of that reality is tied to the economic conditions we’re now facing. But part of it is also tied to how state revenue is forecasted and budgeted. That process is something most legislators have very little direct control over.

JFAC starts to meet long before the legislative session ever begins to set what is known as the revenue number — the amount of money the state believes it will have to budget in the coming fiscal year. Economists present a range of forecasts, assumptions are debated, and ultimately a single number is chosen. That number becomes the foundation for the entire state budget.

A simple way to think about it is this: It’s like sitting down at your kitchen table and asking, “How much do we think we’ll make next year?” You settle on a number — and then you build your entire household budget around it. If that estimate turns out to be too optimistic, the budget gets tight very quickly.

That’s essentially what happened. The revenue number was set too high. As monthly and quarterly numbers started coming in, it became clear revenue wasn’t keeping pace with expectations.

At that point, it’s easy to start pointing fingers. We can debate individual policy choices — whether certain tax cuts were too aggressive, whether certain spending decisions were ill-timed. But whatever one’s view of those decisions, the reality is this: the budget we now have is the budget we must work with.

During the panel discussion, the co-chairs of JFAC emphasized that the committee does not set policy — that its role is simply to fund the laws passed by the Legislature. In theory, that is how the system is supposed to work, but in reality, it is far from it. I kept thinking about one very specific example: water infrastructure funding.

Last session, legislation was introduced that would have created a permanent, ongoing $30 million annual allocation for water infrastructure. That funding would have been codified into law. By doing so, the Legislature would have established clear policy: Idaho is committed, year after year, to investing in water infrastructure.

That matters because water projects are not short-term. Storage, recharge sites, and other irrigation and water projects require long-term planning and certainty. The knowledge that funding will be available consistently is what allows those projects to move forward and protects one of Idaho’s most critical natural resources for decades.

Instead, that policy was not codified. The funding was placed into the budget through what is known as intent language.

Intent language is guidance attached to budget bills that explains how money is expected to be used. A simple analogy is getting $20 for your birthday, but being told it can only be spent on a specific item. The money is there, but so are the strings.

Here’s where the distinction matters: When money is put into statute, it becomes policy set by the full Legislature. When money is governed by intent language, policy direction is effectively set through the budget process and controlled by just 20 people.

As we move into a tighter budget environment, difficult decisions are coming. Health care costs continue to rise. Public safety costs rise. Transportation projects face uncertainty. Nearly every area of state government will feel pressure.

My concern is that long-term water infrastructure funding could become one of those pressure points. Because it is not codified in law, its continuation is left to the annual budget process. That means a funding commitment that was meant to be ongoing is now subject to year-to-year discretion of 20 people.

Water is too important for that level of uncertainty. If we truly believe something is critical to our state, the most durable way to support it is through clear, transparent law, not intent language.

That distinction — between law and intent — may sound technical. But its consequences are very real.