Nevada water leaders still aren't pleased about the federal government's framework of cuts to water from the Colorado River, but they say that suing other states to maximize their water rights remains an absolute last resort. 

"Our first, second and third choice is negotiation and cooperation," John Entsminger, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority and Nevada's lead negotiator on river rights, said during an annual water conservation summit hosted by Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) in Las Vegas on Wednesday. 

But he emphasized that Nevada has a right to fight. 

"At the end of the day, we have to protect our legal interests," Entsminger said. "We're not just going to lose if negotiations fail. We will protect the people of Nevada."

The summit comes two weeks after the federal Bureau of Reclamation issued its plan for managing the river after 2026, stepping in after the seven states that share it failed to agree on how to divide shrinking supplies. Nevada must annually give up 50,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water over the next two years under the framework, which also cuts water distribution to Arizona and California, the other states in the river's Lower Basin. 

The 10-year federal proposal puts limits on how deep cuts can go and leaves the specific operating rules to be rewritten every two years. It does not require the states in the river's Upper Basin — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — to make any cuts to their allocations. 

That stipulation has frustrated some in Nevada who feel the state has already made sacrifices to conserve water even as its population has rapidly expanded. Nevada holds by far the smallest share of the Colorado River of any of the three Lower Basin states, entitled to just 300,000 acre-feet per year versus Arizona's 2.8 million and California's 4.4 million. 

Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, wrote in a press release after the cuts were announced that the plan "seeks to impose unrealistic reductions on Nevada and our water users" and warned it "could have devastating economic and environmental impacts."

The plan is not yet final, with states awaiting the federal government's release of a legally binding decision expected to come any day now. Entsminger said he is talking to "everybody," including the other Colorado River states and the federal government, about the plan. 

"There's hope that things can change," he said. "That's why you keep talking to people." He added that there's "another round or two to go" in negotiations.

But Mike Connor, a former deputy secretary of the Interior and the commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation under President Barack Obama (D), said during the summit that states in the basin are "closer to compact litigation than we've ever been." 

Leaders from each state "have to understand the negative implications of litigation and not go down that route at all costs," he said. 

Why do the states disagree?

Representatives of the three Lower Basin states are frustrated that the four Upper Basin states face no mandatory cuts under the federal plan, while the governors of the Upper Basin states released a joint statement saying they felt "encouraged" by the new guidelines.

If the Lower Basin states choose to pursue litigation, such actions could include formally demanding that Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming curtail their own water use to meet their obligations under the 1922 agreement that divided the river — a step that has never been taken before and would almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court. 

The Upper Basin states argue that the original agreement only obligates them to avoid depleting the river through their own water use — not avoiding the shortfalls caused by a drying climate. The Lower Basin states read the same language as a commitment to deliver a set volume of water downstream.

The disagreement traces back to the language of the 1922 compact, which runs only four pages and contradicts itself, Entsminger said at the summit. It describes its purpose as "equitable apportionment" of the river but also states it is not meant to interfere with rights held by anyone already using the water.

"The Upper Basin loves that first sentence," Entsminger said, referring to the "equitable apportionment" phrase. "That means, however much water there is, we get 50 percent. Whereas the Lower Basin says, 'No, no, no, no, no.'"

Connor, who spent years representing the federal government in Colorado River negotiations, said both readings have some truth to them.

The Upper Basin states need to realize that "you're not alone in having Mother Nature drive shortages," he said, arguing that climate change and drought have also affected water reserves in states such as Nevada. 

On the other hand, he said the Lower Basin states need to be willing to "set aside the right to litigate over the compact. … And that's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the Lower Basin."

Lee, for her part, said she's always concerned about the "crisis" of water in Nevada but emphasized that the presentations at the summit were a lesson that "litigation is the one option that should be off the table. And that is going to take all of us."