Nevada filed a federal lawsuit on Monday contesting the Department of the Interior’s recent Record of Decision on future Colorado River water cuts.
The lawsuit — in conjunction with the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and Southern Nevada Water Authority — requests that the court prevent the implementation of the decision until “legal and technical shortcomings are resolved.”
“Under the proposed plan issued by the Department of the Interior, southern Nevada could lose more than 70% of its already meager Colorado River allocation while the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming are not required to contribute a drop,” explained Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo.
“This isn’t about political posturing; this 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,” he said.
What’s being contested
The Department of the Interior’s decision, released Friday, would adopt guidelines from 2027 through 2028, creating an immediate framework of stability while states return to the negotiating table to discuss a lengthier, decade-long solution.
The core of the decision — and the source of contention between Southwestern states — is how the water conservation efforts are split.
The four Upper Basin states (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming) face no mandatory water reductions — they are subject to voluntary conservation goals. The three Lower Basin states (Arizona, California and Nevada), however, could be required to cut their water usage by up to 3 million acre-feet.
Even between the three Lower Basin states, the cuts are not spread evenly. Arizona is expected to accept 61% of the cuts, California 35% and Nevada 4%.
Arizona State University water law professor Rhett Larson spoke with the Deseret News in an interview released Friday about what the imposed cuts mean for citizens.
“Cities will have no choice to make but to make alternative investments either in conservation or in buying alternative supplies,” he said. “And whatever choice the cities make, those choices will be expensive, and they’re going to pass those costs on to ratepayers.”
Larson explained that water utility bills will rise, electricity rates will skyrocket and citizens will see prices increase in the grocery aisle.
“The phrase that I constantly keep trying to tell people is we are not running out of water,” he said. “We are running out of cheap water.”
The state of the Southwest — and how it got there
Legislation created in 1922 designates 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico, 7.5 million acre-feet to the Upper Basin states, 7.5 million acre-feet to the Lower Basin states and 1.5 million acre-feet to evapotranspiration.
That totals 18 million acre-feet in the Colorado River each year.
“But we know from tree ring analysis that the 1,000-year average amount of water in the river is about 13.5 million acre-feet,” explained Larson. “And the reason that we promised more water than the average river could deliver is that we based the data in the 1920s on flood years.”
He explained that much of the conflict the Southwestern states live with now is due to “bad math from the beginning of the law.”
Tearing down the old system isn’t a simple solution either — many property rights depend on the old legislation, he explained, so “to tear it down may create just as much uncertainty and conflict as the current system already creates.”
Water levels in Lake Mead, located in Arizona and Nevada, have dropped about 30% in only one year. Lake Powell, which sits between Utah and Arizona, is dropping about 3 to 4 feet a month.
Larson said there’s a possibility Powell stops generating electricity soon.
How states are reacting
It’s clear that the Upper Basin states and the Lower Basin states are in a battle — one that fights for fewer cuts, more representation and fair conservation efforts.
The Upper Basin states argue they need to grow into the water they have been promised as they face extreme drought conditions while the Lower Basin states say they have larger populations and have more farmland, creating a need for more water.
“Neither side is particularly happy with the other side’s argument, and at this stage, it is fair to say that the negotiations have failed, and we are rapidly careening towards litigation between the states and potentially litigation against the federal government for the plan they are about to propose,” said Larson.
In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the Colorado River Authority of Utah said, “We are reviewing Nevada’s complaint but otherwise have no comment at this time.”
Utah leaders previously pointed out that some water right holders are receiving as little as 10% to 15% of their rights this year.
“It’s pretty obvious that, regardless of what the requirements are under the compact, you can’t deliver water that doesn’t exist. That’s the big challenge we had this year,” said Gene Shawcroft, chairman of the Colorado River Authority of Utah, in his remarks to Utah legislators last week. “I think the federal government has finally understood that and is putting pressure on the larger reductions on the Lower Basin, simply because that’s where the majority of the use is.”
Following Nevada’s decision to file a federal lawsuit, Gov. Lombardo said, “The Department of the Interior can’t roll Nevada and solve the entire Colorado River shortage on the backs of the Lower Basin states.”
He said the state has already shown its willingness to “do their part,” referencing its reduction of the state’s Colorado River consumption by about 40% amid population growth in the last 25 years.
He continued that the Colorado River “is a shared resource, so the solution needs to involve everybody. Until that happens, we are prepared to fight for as long as it takes.”
Echoing Nevada’s concern, Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Reconsultation Committee, said, “Shortages may not be imposed on the Lower Basin to absorb a deficiency that exists because the Upper Basin states have not met their delivery obligations.”
Arizona representatives from the committee said they objected to the new federal framework because it is “inconsistent” with the Colorado River Compact and the Law of the River in a meeting Monday.
Buschatzke recognized that the three Lower Basin states must come to an agreement, saying “the feds are going to impose something on us,” if a deal is delayed.
“Water’s a unique resource, and because it’s unique, people are irrational about it,” said Larson. “It has cultural meaning, symbolic meaning. And so people don’t tend to want to sell in ways that might make economic sense.”
When Upper and Lower Basin states are arguing about water, he said, “what we’re really arguing about is feeling respected, or feeling seen, or having our sovereignty or our culture respected.”