It’s Laxalt versus Sandoval on sage grouse lawsuit!

Isn't it ironic how some of the greatest arguments in favor of tort reform are modeled by the people in the party that most advocates for tort reform?

Attorney General Adam Laxalt jumped onto a lawsuit against the federal government last week, over land-use plans to accommodate the sage grouse.

Regular readers might be confused: Didn't the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently conclude that listing the sage grouse as an endangered species was "not warranted"?

Why yes. Yes, it did. But Laxalt's objection (shared by a number of other states and rural Nevada counties, as well as all the Republican members in Nevada's congressional delegation) concerns land set aside to keep the sage grouse thriving.

"The federal government's one-size-fits-all sage-grouse plan will greatly hinder Nevada's growth and success, and have an adverse impact on Nevada's economy, affecting ranchers, mining exploration, new energy source development, recreation and everyone who works in these industries," Laxalt said in a statement. "While I appreciate and applaud all of the efforts that have been made to negotiate a favorable outcome for Nevada, and continue to hope that ongoing negotiations may result in a better plan for Nevada, my office, after careful legal analysis, has concluded that this suit is necessary to fully protect the interest of the state."

But at least one guy disagrees: Gov. Brian Sandoval, a former attorney general himself, as well as an ex-federal judge.

"Prematurely embroiling the state in costly litigation at this juncture threatens to compromise future collaborative efforts to implement the Nevada plan developed over the last four years by the Sagebrush Ecosystem Council," Sandoval's office said in a statement.

"The governor's course of action is informed by more than a decade of experience on this issue and he believes it is premature to pursue litigation…. The governor believes that joining a lawsuit now will chill ongoing discussions between the state and Department of Interior, divert resources from the current strategy of engagement and could actually undermine the 'not warranted' decision nearly every stakeholder has been working toward for over a decade."

And finally: "By pursuing litigation now, the attorney general is acting in his personal capacity and does not represent the State of Nevada, the governor, or any state agencies."

Who's right? The law is confusing. NRS 228.180 says the attorney general with the consent of the governor can sue on matters having to do with public waters and lands. But NRS 228.190 says the attorney general in the name of the state is authorized to intervene or appear in any lawsuit necessary to establish or determine state rights over public lands and waters. (And NRS 228.170 says the attorney general may initiate a lawsuit either when the governor directs or when the attorney general determines it's in the interests of the state to defend or protect the state's interests.)

In other words, Laxalt can do what he wants, and there's not much Sandoval can do about it.

That's what happened in January, when Laxalt joined a lawsuit filed by a number of states, objecting to President Barack Obama's executive orders on immigration. Sandoval objected, and the two men agreed to coordinate their efforts more closely.

Looks like that's not working out.

It may be necessary someday to sue over the sage grouse. But that day is not today. And Laxalt's zeal to fulfill his campaign promise to sue the federal government over state's rights is affecting his judgment. Cast against Sandoval's pragmatic leadership on the sage grouse issue, Laxalt's legal activism risks the very result he seeks to avoid.

— Steve Sebelius is a Las Vegas Review-Journal political columnist and co-host of the show "PoliticsNOW," airing at 5:30 p.m. Sundays on 8NewsNow. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.