Nevada sues Trump administration over Colorado River water use cuts

The state of Nevada is suing the federal government over its plans for Colorado River water use reductions, saying its cuts are too steep.

Nevada sued Monday after the federal government finalized its 10-year framework for planned cuts on Friday.

The Colorado River provides water for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses for seven states in the Western U.S., including Nevada.

The federal government’s plan details cuts for Nevada, Arizona and California, known collectively as the Lower Basin states.

Nevada said in its court filing Monday that the plan could cause the state to lose as much as 71 percent of its Colorado River water allocation — and that this would threaten health and safety, the environment and the economy in the southern part of the state.

“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,” Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) said in a statement.

He lamented that Upper Basin states — Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming — “are not required to contribute a drop.”

The Interior Department declined The Hill’s request for comment.

In the past, the Trump administration has described the 10-year plan as a flexible framework meant to respond to changing water conditions in the river.

The government imposed this plan after the states that rely on the river were not able to come up with their own agreement for cutting water use.

Over the last quarter century, the Colorado River has faced a drought that has lessened the availability of water on the river. This drought has been exacerbated by climate change and water overuse.

Nevada, in its court challenge, has asked a federal court in the state to toss the plan, saying that the federal government did not follow adequate procedures.

Specifically, it alleged that the government did not correctly apply the Law of the River, failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and did not adequately consider the plan’s environmental impacts, among other issues.