Nevada is one of seven states that relies on the Colorado River, and right now those states cannot agree on how to share it.

On February 14, after more than two years of negotiations, the states missed a second federal deadline to reach a deal.

Now the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation says it's preparing to move forward with its own proposals since the current rules for managing the river expire at the end of this year.

The Colorado River Compact signed in 1922 separated the seven states into the Upper and Lower Basins.

Nevada, along with California and Arizona, is part of the Lower Basin.

And because of allocations set more than a century ago, Nevada receives the smallest share of the river, combined with prolonged drought that's forced the state to invest billions in conservation, water recycling, and infrastructure.

So what happens now?

We sat down with Nevada's lead negotiator and General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, John Entsminger.

-So John, two years, two missed deadlines, what comes next?

(John Entsminger) Well, pretty soon we're going to come up on real deadlines, because I know there's been, you know, a lot of media around these deadlines, but, you know, in reality, what the Federal Government has to actually decide is how they're going to operate the Colorado River in 2027.

And to do that, they need to make a decision by, you know, the end of July, early August.

-By you saying that, does it mean it's out of the hands of the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states now?

-No.

The states still have their hands on the steering wheel, and it's still within our power to come up with a compromised agreement.

But if we don't, I've said all along, one set of humans or another will make these decisions.

And if the seven governors' representatives don't make it, then somebody else will.

-What has the Federal Government's communication been with you since this missed deadline?

-I think the Federal Government is disappointed.

They're disappointed that we haven't come up with a compromise.

We're in constant communication.

I was, you know, on the phone with the Assistant Secretary for Interior Sunday.

So people are working hard, but we're just not quite getting to that finish line.

-Why, in your opinion?

-My opinion of why we haven't yet gotten to a deal is there's a disproportionate sense of risk.

I think there's five states that very much want to make a deal, and there's a couple of states that feel like they might be better off in litigation.

And that makes it very, very difficult to get seven people across the finish line.

But I do want, you know, your viewers to have a sense that this isn't seven states at each other's throats.

There is a common middle.

There's just a couple of states that I think would rather be told what they have to do than be the ones that have to go home and sell a compromise.

-What are the main sticking points?

-I think the main sticking points for making a deal are that the Upper Basin states want the Lower Basin states to take more shortages.

We've put 1.5 million acre-feet in cuts on the table, and they've been very clear that they want us to take up to 2.1 million acre-feet in cuts.

And on the other hand, the Upper Basin states want the lower division states to waive their compact claims, you know, to essentially say we won't sue you for the duration of the agreement.

And those two things are at odds because, we feel like they're asking too much.

-And they also don't want to make any cuts or commit to any cuts during dry years, right?

-Yes.

So far what the Upper Basin states have put on the table is essentially best efforts to conserve 300,000 acre-feet over the term of the deal, while the lower division states are taking 1.5 million acre-feet every single year.

But they won't even guarantee that that 300 will occur.

So that's where you get to they really don't have enough on the table for us to entertain the kind of legal waivers that they're asking us for.

-And their argument is that they don't even use on a regular basis their full allocation of water each year, so why should they give more cuts or any cuts at all if they're not using even what they already have.

-Well, because the way we in the Lower Basin states read the Colorado River Compact, they have an obligation to deliver us a fixed amount of water.

It doesn't really matter how much water they're using.

They have to deliver us our fixed amount of water.

And if they don't do that, then that is what could lead to litigation.

And then as far as their argument that they may not even have the legal authority, each individual state, to make this kind of a move in an interstate agreement, what do you think about that?

-Well, I think I've seen a lot of water users on the river make a lot of sacrifices.

And arguing that, you know, at a state level you can't mandate something, okay, fine.

But can you stand up voluntary programs?

Can you pay people to conserve water, like we've done here in Southern Nevada?

There's a whole list of things that we've done.

Nevada is going to conserve more water this year than all four upper division states combined.

So, you know, crying, you know, law and saying there's nothing that can be done is not really a plausible excuse for me.

-Have the Feds given you another deadline?

-Well, I think the next significant deadline is March 2, because that's when comments are due on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

So then some cards are going to be put on the table of what people are really thinking about, how serious they are about challenging this federal process.

-And that draft is what the Federal Government has come up with?

-The five different alternatives the Federal Government has put on the table for post-2026 operations.

-Which of them do you think they would be most likely to implement if it came to that?

-I don't believe any one of the five in itself is implementable.

So I think some combination of those five is what the Federal Government would move forward with, absent a river compromised by the states.

-What's the worst case scenario for Nevada under those five proposals if they were to be combined?

-Well, if you just look at the five proposals, there's one that cuts our river allocation by two-thirds, which obviously we're going to fight tooth and nail and we're going to go to the Supreme Court.

And I don't believe the Federal Government has the authority to do that, but they wrote it down.

-What would that look like for Nevadans?

-I don't exactly know.

I think our water supply for daily use, is anybody going to have to not take a shower, not have a glass of water?

No.

We're going to have enough water for health and human safety.

But would we have to ramp up our conservation plans to limit additional outdoor use even more?

Possibly.

But like I said, we're going to fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

-Regardless of whether the seven states reach a compromise or this goes to court, Entsminger says Nevada is, quote, in the best place of any state on the river.

He points to aggressive conservation and what he calls the most secure water delivery system in the basin.