And joining us now to expand on what the plan could mean for Nevada is Colby Pellegrino, Deputy General Manager of Resources at the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Colby, thank you for joining us.

(Colby Pellegrino) Thank you for having me.

-So that plan is almost 500 pages long.

And at that press conference we were at, it was released just as that press conference started.

So the representatives from the states had no opportunity to go through it and said, Hey, we haven't read through it.

I'm just curious, why do you think the Interior Department chose not to let them in on it prior?

-Well, the process that the Interior Department is going through is actually processed under federal law as part of the National Environmental Policy Act.

And there's a pretty strict set of rules about how these documents are developed and who they're shared with and when they're shared and sort of having equal opportunity for everyone that's not helping write the documents see the document at the same time.

-Fair enough.

So as of this taping, we are two days removed from that press conference.

How much of this plan have you been able to go through?

-You know, we're starting to get our feet wet, if you will.

Probably a bad pun for this particular document.

-I like it.

-But we're starting to look at it and understand the analysis that they've done.

-What has stood out to you so far?

-You know, I don't think there's any huge surprises in the document.

The magnitude of reductions needed to help stabilize the Colorado River system is large.

We've been talking about the same quantities of water being needed since summer of last year.

The commissioner said we need 2- to 4-million acre feet a year in permanent savings in order to stabilize the river system.

So there's not really any surprises in terms of the overall magnitude of the reductions that they're talking about.

-Not surprised, though, by the inclusion of "take no action" plan.

I mean, how likely is it to happen that they would allow water levels to get low enough that the dams can't operate?

-Yeah.

And again, that's-- That's a structure of how the National Environmental Policy Act is set up.

In order to analyze any federal alternative, you have to compare it to what happens if the federal agency doesn't take any action.

So I think in layman's terms, we don't expect "no action" to occur, but it has to be included to sort of compare the other alternatives.

-Okay.

So Alternative 1 is based off of priority rights established about 100 years ago.

Nevada got the short end of the stick in those negotiations, getting the least amount of water from the Colorado River among all the seven states.

California gets the most.

How much more would Nevada suffer if the priority rights plan was implemented?

-I think that where the plans sit today, they're really bookmarks for analysis.

They're creating the room for the states to sit and continue to negotiate.

We don't think either of the alternatives that the feds have presented are really workable for the states.

When you look at the outcomes associated with them, they're, as Tom Buschatzke said in his comments at their release, those are dire consequences that we need to find other ways to mitigate.

So I think that, you know, under a strict priority appropriation that has a major impact on the valley, it's one that we would be able to deal with through the resource planning that we've done.

But we don't think either of those alternatives are tenable and sort of underscores our need, one, to continue conservation here locally and, two, to continue cooperating with our partners on the river to come up with a plan that works for everyone.

-That's really interesting that the federal government would come up with something that doesn't seem feasible to the parties involved.

-I think it just re-emphasizes that when you look at a situation like this and the tools that the federal government has, the states and the water users can use a scalpel, and they can come up as long as everyone can agree with something that really takes into consideration everyone's individual needs.

The federal government doesn't have tools that are that precise.

They get an axe.

And that's what we see here is that if you leave the federal government without the cooperation of the states and water users, that they have these really draconian measures for their use, and that's it.

-You call it an axe.

Entsminger calls it a hammer.

[laughter] -But the other alternative has all the Lower Basin states--California, Arizona, Nevada--cutting the same percentage of water.

What percentage would that be?

-The percentage reduction increases as the Lake Mead's elevation decreases.

-Okay, all right.

So I was wondering how Southern Nevadans would actually feel this.

How worried should they be?

-I don't think, again, that either of these two alternative represents a viable management regime for the Colorado River system.

The six-state alternative had higher-- had increased reductions higher up in the reservoir, helping us avoid some of these large reductions lower down in the reservoir.

California's alternative had the same thing.

So I think there will be common ground where we can get to different tools and different reductions that provide the same amount of stability with less impact to the community.

-I did get to speak with your boss, John Entsminger, at that press conference.

He's unable to be here today, because he said he was out of state negotiating with Arizona and California.

So the negotiations continue.

Is California the real stickler here, as they're being portrayed, because of the separate proposal that they submitted?

-I think that negotiations are hard.

These types of negotiations have really acute impacts on the communities that rely on Colorado River water.

And in particular, communities that have one major source of economic revenue or only one source of water, they fall on even more acutely.

Obviously, time is not on our side.

So that provides even more pressure.

I don't think that it's fair to say that California is the problem.

I think it's fair to say that everyone needs to be able to find something that works for them.

We were pretty dang close when we submitted the six-state alternative.

We just didn't have enough time to get there.

-And now how much time do you have?

-So this process, as they mentioned, there's comments open until the end of May.

And then they actually re-issue that 476-page document again, as a final alternative.

Not immediately after that comment period closes.

So that gives us at least a few months to continue negotiating before the final document is produced.

And then should that come up with new management alternatives, then there's another comment period and a record of decision.

So the hope is that we can line up all of these things by August, because that's when we're determining how much water everyone has for the next calendar year.

-And we haven't talked about Mexico.

What role have they played in these negotiations?

-Mexico has been a great partner on the river since we entered into our first shortage guidelines, coming and agreeing voluntarily to take reductions with this same sort of scalpel approach, where we're getting to policy that benefits them with their needs as well as helping the river system.

I anticipate that Mexico will continue to be a partner in whatever this next chapter of reductions is.

-We have only a few minutes left.

I want to pivot to some of the further conservation measures that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would like to implement, and that is within the Nevada legislature, Assembly Bill 220, making national headlines because it would give the Water Authority the power to restrict single family residential water use to about 30,000 gallons above the average use.

30,000 gallons above the average use, how many homes in Nevada are using that much water?

-So this is something that's really aimed at our largest single family residential water users.

That top 20% of residential water users uses over 35% of the water that goes to the single family residential sector.

And your average home in the Las Vegas Valley is only using about 9,000 gallons a month.

So to put that into context, you're talking about them having four times the amount of water of your average single family residential home.

And we're really asking for some power in an extreme situation to be able to curtail use so that we can help manage the valley's water supply.

-So should this pass, it would not immediately be implemented?

-No, it's an emergency measure.

-And then the other part of it is asking homeowners with septic systems to get rid of those, hook them up to the municipal water system so that that water can be recycled.

That's gotten some heat.

Some of the homeowners that have testified, according to some of the reading I've done, say it could cost $37,000 for them to replace it.

How would you justify that kind of cost?

-So when we look at the way that the community uses water, if your home is connected to the central sewer system, anything you use indoors is being treated and returned back to Lake Mead.

And we can withdraw that same gallon of water from Lake Mead again.

So anything you use indoors is not hurting our water resources.

Any water that goes into a septic is not being recycled and reused.

So essentially, if you're on the sewer, you're renting water from us.

If you're on a septic system, you're buying it because we can't use it again.

So we need to create that closed loop with all of the homes in the valley that are using Colorado River water.

Code today already requires those users to connect.

The problem is it's not been implemented very consistently throughout time.

So we're trying to set up a financial program along with the legislation to offset the cost to the homeowner while already requiring what they're required to do today -And that would be about half the price?

-What we're looking at today is getting closer to 85% of the cost.

There are ongoing costs with a septic system.

Septic systems don't last forever.

If you replace a septic system, you're looking at 15- $20,000.

So there are costs associated with having that septic, and this is just shifting some of those costs.

-Colby Pellegrino, thank you for your time.