A promise and a warning, hedged with a lawsuit, were offered by Clark County power brokers this week in hopes of derailing a ballot measure aimed at limiting eminent domain land seizures.

On Monday, a pair of county commissioners vowed to seek restrictions on when and why the county takes land, while the Regional Transportation Commission revealed a memo claiming PISTOL's fine print could render the state ineligible for millions of dollars of federal aid for road work.

But backers of the measure known as the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, dismissed those claims as insufficient or exaggerated. They said they were proceeding undeterred for today's 11 a.m. Clark County court hearing on a lawsuit seeking to strip PISTOL from the Nov. 7 ballot.

County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, who is also chairman of the Regional Transportation Commission and is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit, said this week's confluence of carrot-and-stick is "a little bit coincidental, believe it or not."

Woodbury joined Commissioner Chip Maxfield in proposing a law that would limit when the county can seize private land and ban the use of eminent domain powers for redevelopment purposes.

PISTOL advocates say the measure is needed to restrict governments throughout the state from seizing private land and then conveying it to another private party.

The ordinance, scheduled to be considered by commissioners at their Sept. 5 meeting, would restrict the county from taking private land unless it is needed for roads or other clearly public projects and would strip the Clark County Redevelopment Agency of eminent domain power.

Woodbury and Maxfield had opposed the Redevelopment Agency's creation three years ago, in part because of concerns over whether such an entity should have eminent domain powers.

The ordinance would not have an impact on the city of Las Vegas, which has engaged in several bruising legal battles over its use of eminent domain to take property for use for private development. Clark County has avoided such use of eminent domain.

PISTOL petition backer Don Chairez, a former district judge seeking the Republican nomination for attorney general, said he supports the county's proposal, but still wants such a rule enshrined in the state constitution.

"I welcome reinforcing it at every single avenue that we can make happen," Chairez said. "The goal is to strengthen property rights in Nevada, no matter where it comes from."

While the commissioners and Chairez agree on certain government restrictions, Woodbury and Maxfield argue that other sections of the PISTOL petition would harm taxpayers by increasing the costs of securing rights of way for public works projects.

Chairez disagrees. "Their concerns are premature," he said. "I believe that Bruce Woodbury is being misled by bad legal advice."

Part of that advice comes in the form of an undated Federal Highway Administration internal memorandum, obtained and disseminated by the RTC, that says PISTOL as written "will be in direct violation" of federal rules governing financial aid for transportation projects.

"Violation of federal regulations will place federal highway finding to Nevada in jeopardy," wrote the memo's author, Susan Lauffner, the agency's real estate services office director.

The Nevada Department of Transportation gets roughly more than $200 million per year in federal funds, while the RTC gets up to $30 million a year. Most regional road projects rely on federal matching grants covering 50 percent or more of the costs.

"It's very cut and dried," said Jacob Snow, RTC general manager. "Either you do the things they tell you to do, or you don't get the money."

Backers of PISTOL argued the Federal Highway Administration's claim was based on erroneous logic that, if correct, would put existing Nevada law in conflict with federal rules.

"They're just Henny Penny-ing you, 'the sky's gonna fall,' and all that crap," said Kermitt Waters, an eminent domain attorney who helped write the ballot question.

The ballot question was born from the furor that followed a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. New London, in which a city hall in Connecticut was allowed to force out 15 homeowners who had refused to sell their homes for the construction of office buildings and housing being built by a pharmaceutical company.

If the Clark County's legal challenge fails and voters vote to approve PISTOL in November, it would have to garner voter approval in a second referendum two years later before it could become state law.

PISTOL would entitle property owners to have juries determine whether the land being sought under eminent domain is being taken for a public use or for private development. Compensation would be the highest price the property would bring on the open market and not a lesser, fair market value now offered. And property owners would not be liable for attorney fees.

Backers have said the proposal evens the playing field for property owners. Under the current rules, governments have the upper hand, PISTOL advocates say. But opponents say the measure would weaken zoning rules.

Statewide efforts to gauge the potential impact of PISTOL have to date been inconclusive. A review last year by the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the research arm of the Legislature, could not determine what would be the fiscal impact of the measure.

The LCB said, "Given the difficulty projecting the level and scope of eminent domain proceedings state and local governments may undertake after the effective date of the initiative, the potential financial impact on state or local governments cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The potential increase in the costs may cause government entities to forgo certain projects requiring the taking of private property under eminent domain laws."