FLOOD WARNING Click county for more information: Muskogee         FIRE WARNING Click county for more information: Woodward         FLASH FLOOD WATCH Click county for more information: McCurtain        

Lines are forming to tap the state's Rainy Day Fund. Before the lines stretch around the block, let's check the forecast.

Storms are moving in from lower tax revenues and state lottery shortfalls. Leaders are scrambling for ways to cover a deficit in education funding. Cleaning up after December's ice storm left cities financially high and dry. The perfect storm shelter, some say, is a shower of cash from the state's emergency fund.

Problem is, that shower could become a deluge.

We're not among those waiting in line for a Rainy Day Fund drawdown. Gov. Brad Henry isn't in the line. Nor are House Republicans. But perhaps it's just a matter of time before everyone queues up and says a fund now flush with cash should be, well, flushed.

Tempting indeed is a cash drawer holding nearly $600 million. How nice it would have been to have a fund like that in 2003 when the state had a budget shortfall of $700 million. But if we start tapping the fund now, it won't have $600 million in it when and if another fiscal cold front moves into the state.

Reimbursing the cost of ice storm debris removal may seem like a legitimate use for money from an emergency fund. Two years ago, we argued the fund was a possible source to reimburse rural fire departments overwhelmed by drought-related wildfires. But in that case, the firefighters needed money so they could continue to fight fires. Debris removal reimbursement isn't the same.

Nor is supplemental education funding. If that's an appropriate use of Rainy Day money, is supplemental corrections funding? Human services? Roads?

Anything can — and will — show up on the radar for Rainy Day funding. All you need to justify issuing a storm warning is a dire forecast.

But let's line up on the side of caution and not apply an F5 solution to an F2 problem.