Nevada Files Lawsuit Challenging Federal Colorado River Water-Cut Plan
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Nevada sued the federal government, claiming the Trump administration's water-reduction plan for the Colorado River violates environmental statutes and could severely damage the state's economy.
Nevada filed a lawsuit on Monday contesting a federal plan that would require the state, along with Arizona and California, to cut Colorado River water use by about 20 percent for the next two years and potentially impose larger cuts over the next decade. The state argues the plan breaches the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the "Law of the River," and seeks a court order to halt its implementation.
Governor Joe Lombardo said the proposal could reduce Nevada’s annual allocation from 300,000 acre-feet to as low as 86,500 acre-feet, a cut that would jeopardize water supplies for Las Vegas and surrounding communities. > "Southern Nevada could lose more than 70 percent of its already meager Colorado River allocation," Lombardo said, adding that the issue is "a matter of survival for a community that represents about two-thirds of our state’s citizens and the lion’s share of its economy."
John Entsminger, the lead negotiator for the Southern Nevada Water Authority, warned that such a reduction would have "catastrophic effects" on the region’s ability to provide a reliable water supply, despite decades of conservation efforts that have already cut usage by roughly 40 percent.
The federal plan, released three days earlier, allows the three downstream states to cut their water take by a combined 3.2 million acre-feet through 2028, with Nevada slated for a 28 percent reduction. In contrast, the upstream states—Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming—are not required to make cuts, a distinction Interior Department Assistant Secretary for Water and Science Andrea Travnicek attributed to differing federal responsibilities and authorities.
Arizona officials expressed similar concerns, noting that the Central Arizona Project could face substantial reductions after 2028. > "Every state that relies on the river should be part of the solution," said Brenda Burman, general manager of the Central Arizona Project, describing the plan as "flawed."
Legal scholars note that the dispute could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, raising broader questions about constitutional authority over interstate water allocations. The litigation is expected to be lengthy and may compel the involved states to negotiate interim arrangements while the case proceeds.