Nevada sued the Trump administration on Monday to block its plans to slash water supplies from the drought-stricken Colorado River, saying the move could devastate the state and violate the laws governing the river.

The Department of the Interior on Friday finalised its plan that included a 21% reduction in water ​from the river to California, Nevada and Arizona for two years starting in 2027.

The ​cuts to the three so-called lower basin states could nearly double after 2028, a ⁠move that Arizona and Nevada have said would have huge consequences for their economies.

The four so-called upper ​basin states — Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming — face no mandatory cuts under the new 10-year plan ​to manage the river that provides water to one in 10 Americans and generates power for 6 million people.

The plan is up for review every two years and the states were unable to agree on how to share the water ​after more than three years of talks to replace a plan that expires this year.

Upper basin states ​refused to take mandatory cuts to their water supply from the river, arguing they already face steep reductions due to ‌the ⁠decades-long drought in the western United States. The three lower basin states say all seven states that share the river must make cutbacks in water use.

The lawsuit by Nevada, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada and the Southern Nevada Water Authority is the first to challenge the plan. It was filed in federal ​court in Las Vegas ​and named as defendants ⁠the Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and its commissioner, Aubrey Bettencourt.

The Interior Department declined to comment and the Bureau ​of Reclamation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit ​alleged the administration ⁠violated administrative law, environmental law and the group of treaties, agreements and court rulings known as the Law of the River.

It said the administration did not comply with requirements to consider reasonable alternatives and foreseeable ⁠economic impacts, ​to fully respond to comments, or to adequately analyse mitigation ​measures.

"Consequently, decision-makers and stakeholders are left to guess at how federal defendants interpret and apply the Law of the River, which all ​agree governs the proposed action," the lawsuit said.