The decades long drought, combined with overuse of the Colorado River, led the federal government and June of last year to demand the seven states that depend on the river to make cuts in their water usage.

But negotiations among the states as to who should cut what have been unsuccessful so far.

And that's why the feds came up with their own plan, which could further reduce Nevada's already limited water access.

We all know.

But it bears emphasizing upfront that the parallel, prolonged drought afflicting the American West is one of the most significant challenges facing our country today.

With the Hoover Dam in the background, Interior Deputy Secretary Tommy Boudreau justified a draft of a federal plan, which he says would protect the shrinking Colorado River and ensure continued power generation and water deliveries to 40 million people.

If you look out the window on this setting, you see the water intakes for Hoover Dam.

And clearly they were designed to be able to take in water all the way up to these levels.

You look at the bathtub rings around Lake Mead and you know what the system was designed for and where it stands today.

The interior's plan includes three options One, take no action, which officials agree is the worst option to make water usage cuts based on priority rights established about 100 years ago.

Under this plan, California would receive fewer cuts, while Arizona and Nevada would face the more severe cuts.

And three, make equal cuts of the same percentage across the lower basin states of Nevada, California and Arizona.

But those parts have dire consequence, as in some cases, and may spur opposition or even litigation unacceptable outcomes.

Instead, let us accelerate our discussions in the basin for a collaborative, consensus based outcome.

In January, six of the seven states that make up the Colorado River Basin agreed on how to cut one and a half million acre feet of water.

Meanwhile, the lone holdout, California, submitted a different recommendation for cuts.

What I was heartened by then was the fact that both recommendations really acknowledged kind of the the extent of the shortages that we will have to face.

And it also acknowledged both alternatives acknowledge that whether we like it or not, the heavy lifting has to happen within the lower basin.

The upper basin is already taken and continues to take significant hydrological hydrologic shortages.

However, Nevada draws the smallest share of Colorado River water, yet boasts a water recycling program that returns about 99% of water used indoors to Lake Mead.

That program is under the Southern Nevada Water Authority, whose general manager, John Meager, said this about the feds proposals.

Enforcement by strict priority enforcement by, you know, rather arbitrarily cutting every contract by the same amount regardless of previous conservation achievements.

There's not a lot of nuance.

His interpretation of the interior's plan.

I think it shows you what the federal government thinks their tools are.

And the federal tools, unfortunately, are a box of hammers.

So if we want something more nuanced than that, if we want something that really works and can be durable for the people that use this river, that's up to the states and the water users to come up with that.