Nebraska sues neighboring Colorado over how much water it's drawing from the South Platte River
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen and state Attorney General Mike Hilgers held a news conference Wednesday to announce the lawsuit, which was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
'It's crystal clear. Colorado has been holding water back from Nebraska for almost 100 years and getting more and more egregious every single day,' Pillen said, pointing to Colorado's rapidly expanding population over the past decade.
'So today it's really, really simple: We're here to put our gloves on," Pillen said. "We're going to fight like heck. We're going to get every drop of water.'
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called the lawsuit 'unfortunate' in a written statement and said Nebraska officials failed 'to look for reasonable solutions.'
The lawsuit accuses Colorado of depriving Nebraska of as much as 1.3 million acre-feet (about 160,350 hectare-meters) of water from the river over several years that Nebraska is entitled to under a 1923 compact between the states. The suit also accuses Colorado officials of blocking Nebraska's effort to construct a massive canal — often called the Perkins County Canal — and reservoir project that would see Nebraska seize land in Colorado to divert water into Nebraska, which is also allowed under the compact.
Nebraska needs the water not only for agriculture production in its southwestern region — which climate experts predict will grow hotter and drier in the coming decades — but also to feed water supplies in the eastern part of the state, officials said. Nebraska's capital, Lincoln, is expected to get 12% of its water from the proposed canal, Pillen said.
The compact entitles Nebraska to 120 cubic feet (3.4 cubic meters) per second from the river during the irrigation season between April 1 and Oct. 15 each year, and 500 cubic feet (about 14 cubic meters) per second during the non-irrigation fall and winter months. Hilgers said Colorado has been shortchanging Nebraska during the irrigation season, allowing only about 75 cubic feet (about 2 cubic meters) per second of water daily into Nebraska this summer.
'I think this may be the most consequential lawsuit that this office will be a part of in my generation,' Hilgers said. 'It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of the South Platte River to the future of the state of Nebraska.'
The South Platte, which flows through northeastern Colorado into southwestern Nebraska, has been at the center of a tempest brewing between the two states going back to 2022, when Nebraska announced it would build the canal.
Since then, officials from the two states have been haggling over how to carry out both the terms of the compact and land acquisition to build the canal.
'It became clear, despite the very professional and intentional scope of those negotiations, that we were at an impasse,' Hilgers said.
Weiser countered that Nebraska officials should have remained at the negotiating table.
'Nebraska's actions will force Colorado water users to build additional new projects to lessen the impact of the proposed Perkins County Canal,' he said. 'When the dust finally settles, likely over a billion dollars will have been spent — tens of millions of that on litigation alone — and no one in Nebraska or Colorado will be better off.'
Hilgers said the lawsuit was filed directly with the Supreme Court because it handles disputes between states. The process 'isn't fast,' Hilgers warned.
'We'll probably have a special master appointed within the next 12 months, and under normal litigation timelines, that's maybe 3 to 5 years before we get a result,' he said.
That does not mean work on the canal will stop, he said, as he expects work on permitting and design of the canal to continue.
Nebraska has been at the center of interstate water disputes for decades. In 2002, Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas reached a settlement over Republican River water allocation after years of legal wrangling. But disputes continued, and new agreements were reached among the states again in 2014.
Water disputes could become more common as climate change worsens shortages, said Dr. Carly Phillips, a research scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists — a nonprofit that advocates for climate change solutions.
Warmer temperatures affect multiple parts of the hydrological cycle, Phillips said. It is decreasing the snowpack, which is the main way water is stored in the western U.S. Higher temperatures also mean the snow melts earlier each year, changing the availability of stream flow. And states like Nebraska might see increased irrigation demand when it's hotter.
'These patterns are all in the same direction across the board,' Phillips said. 'The trends are really consistent when it comes to snowpack, stream flow, evaporation and irrigation demand.'
____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
After deep DOGE cuts, National Weather Service gets OK to fill up to 450 jobs
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will hire as many as 450 people to shore up the National Weather Service after deep cuts this spring raised concern about dangerous understaffing, the Trump administration confirmed Wednesday. NOAA was granted permission to fill critical positions at its weather arm, including openings for meteorologists, hydrologists and electronics technicians, Trump administration officials said. The hirings are part of an exemption to a freeze on federal hiring in place through at least Oct. 15. NOAA declined to comment further. The planned hiring was first reported by CNN. The Department of Government Efficiency has gutted NOAA and the National Weather Service, which are key for the nation's daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, climate monitoring and more. Hundreds of NOAA forecasters and other employees have been cut, and NWS offices around the country have had a number of vacancies. The administration has also weighed ending the sharing of satellite data that is key to effective storm tracking and stopped tracking the cost of climate change-fueled weather disasters. Meteorologists and climate scientists have warned of consequences with fewer workers in positions that are crucial, especially as the hurricane season got underway. After deadly flash flooding that killed dozens of people in Texas last month, some local officials and Democrats suggested that the deep staffing cuts may have contributed to endangering lives, though others defended the agency's work. Experts cautiously applauded the exemption for hirings as positive news. 'While this new development is great news for the NWS and the American public, I would like to see that the hiring actions are actually underway,' said Louis Uccellini, former NOAA administrator for weather services and NWS director. The hirings are said to include the 'mission-critical field positions' that the agency announced it would hire for in June 'to further stabilize front line operations." The agency did not say at the time how many roles would be filled. ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump-era guidance says
Immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens have long expected that they won't be deported from the country while going through the process of obtaining a green card. But new guidance from Donald Trump's administration explicitly states that immigrants seeking lawful residence through marriage can be deported, a policy that also applies to immigrants with pending requests. Immigration authorities can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and applied to become a lawful permanent resident through a citizen spouse, according to guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued this month. The policy also applies to immigrants with pending green cards through other citizen family members. People who entered the country illegally aren't the only ones impacted. Under new guidance, immigrants trying to get lawful status through a spouse or family member are at risk of being deported if their visas expired, or if they are among the roughly 1 million immigrants whose temporary protected status was stripped from them under the Trump administration. Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them 'should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,' the policy states. The changes were designed to 'enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns' and weed out what the agency calls 'fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious' applications, according to USCIS. 'This guidance will improve USCIS' capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,' the agency said in a statement. Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are 'effective immediately,' according to the agency. Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member. There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents. Previously, USCIS would notify applicants about missing documents or issue a denial notice serving as a warning that their case could be rejected — with opportunities for redress. Now, USCIS is signaling that applicants can be immediately denied and ordered to immigrant courts instead. Outside of being born in the country, family-based immigration remains the largest and most viable path to permanent residency, accounting for nearly half of all new green card holders each year, according to USCIS data. 'This is one of the most important avenues that people have to adjust to lawful permanent status in the United States,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News. Under long-established USCIS policies, 'no one expected' to be hauled into immigration court while seeking lawful status after a marriage, Mukherjee said. Now, deportation proceedings can begin 'at any point in the process' under the broad scope of the rule changes, which could 'instill fear in immigrant families, even those who are doing everything right,' according to Mukherjee. Obtaining a green card The high-profile arrest and threat of removing Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil put intense scrutiny on whether the administration lawfully targeted a lawful permanent resident for his constitutionally protected speech. And last month, Customs and Border Protection put green card holders on notice, warning that the government 'has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused.' 'In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention,' the agency said. Another recent USCIS memo outlines the administration's plans to revoke citizenship from children whose parents lack permanent lawful status as well as parents who are legally in the country, including visa holders, DACA recipients and people seeking asylum. The policy appears to preempt court rulings surrounding the constitutionality of the president's executive order that unilaterally redefines who gets to be a citizen in the country at birth. That memo, from the agency's Office of the Chief Counsel, acknowledges that federal court injunctions have blocked the government from taking away birthright citizenship. But the agency 'is preparing to implement' Trump's executive order 'in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,' according to July's memo. Children of immigrants who are 'unlawfully present' will 'no longer be U.S. citizens at birth,' the agency declared. Trump's order states that children whose parents are legally present in the country on student, work and tourist visas are not eligible for citizenship USCIS, however, goes even further, outlining more than a dozen categories of immigrants whose children could lose citizenship at birth despite their parents living in the country with legal permission. That list includes immigrants who are protected against deportation for humanitarian reasons and immigrants from countries with Temporary Protected Status, among others. The 14th Amendment plainly states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The Supreme Court has upheld that definition to apply to all children born within the United States for more than a century. But under the terms of Trump's order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn't a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump's order, according to plaintiffs challenging the president's order. A challenge over Trump's birthright citizenship order at the Supreme Court did not resolve the critical 14th Amendment questions at stake. On Wednesday, government lawyers confirmed plans to 'expeditiously' ask the Supreme Court 'to settle the lawfulness' of his birthright citizenship order later this year.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump calls old foe Andrew Cuomo as he considers intervening in NYC mayor's race to thwart Mamdani: report
President Donald Trump took a call with his old foe, Andrew Cuomo, as he considers intervening in New York City 's mayoral race to thwart Democratic front-runner Zohran Mamdani, according to a new report. Trump and the former New York governor, who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani, talked about the competitive race in a call made in recent weeks, The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing people briefed on the matter. It's unclear what exactly was discussed in the call or when it exactly happened. Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi told The Independent, 'The Governor and the President have not spoken in some time. As far as I know, they have not discussed the race.' 'There is only one candidate in this race who can effectively defend New York values and take on Donald Trump – the one official who already has: Andrew Cuomo,' Azzopardi said. 'We'll leave the palace intrigue to the gossip mill. In the meantime, Governor Cuomo is out crisscrossing the city, speaking directly to voters about uniting to build a New New York and deliver real change and progress for all.' The Independent has reached out to the White House and Cuomo's campaign for comment. Mamdani, a democratic socialist who has promised rent freezes and free buses if elected, led by 50 percent among likely voters in a new poll. The poll conducted by Public Progress Solutions and Zenith Research last month saw Mandani with 50 percent of the vote and Cuomo with 22 percent of the vote in a five-way race. The incumbent in the race, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, trailed in fourth place with 7 percent of the vote. Mamdani polled even stronger in head-to-head race scenarios with Adams, 59 to 32 percent, and Cuomo, 52 to 40 percent. Trump had privately asked a Republican congressman and New York businessmen about who they think has the best chance of beating Mamdani, the NYT reported. He has also been briefed by pollster Mark Penn and his long-time friend, former New York City Council President Andrew Stein, on polling that showed Cuomo as a competitive candidate, according to the publication. While it's unclear if Trump would even interfere in the mayoral race, let alone back Cuomo, a potential alliance between Trump and the former governor would be surprising given their past criticisms of one another. Just this April, Cuomo vowed to stand up to 'bully' Trump in a speech in Harlem, per the New York Post. But Trump has also sparred with Mamdani. Last month, the president threatened to arrest him if he won the election and followed through on his promise to defy Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in New York City. At the time, Mamdani said Trump's 'statements don't just represent an attack on our democracy but an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: if you speak up, they will come for you. We will not accept this intimidation.' In response to the NYT's reporting, Mamdani told reporters Wednesday: 'Whatever Donald Trump seeks to do to influence the outcome of this election, I have more faith in New Yorkers themselves, who have shown…that they do not want to support our current president's vision of a New York City that is ripping immigrants from their homes, that is detaining New Yorkers on the basis of political expression.' 'What they want is someone who can stand up to an authoritarian administration,' Mamdani added. Cuomo's spokesman suggested Trump would be more interested in Mamdani or the other candidates in the race. 'Regarding his reported interest, it seems clear that President Trump would either prefer Mr. Mamdani, whom he refers to as a 'commie,' because he believes Mamdani would serve as a political boon to Republicans nationwide in the midterms, symbolizing what he sees as the Democratic Party's extremism,' he told The Independent. 'Alternatively, he may favor Eric Adams, who is a wholly owned subsidiary of the President. And there is already a Republican in the race, who is the nominee of President Trump's party.' Curtis Sliwa, founder of the New York City crime prevention group the Guardian Angels, is the Republican nominee for mayor.
