Laxalt defends handling of sage grouse case

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt on Friday defended his move for the state to join the sage grouse lawsuit over the objections of Gov. Brian Sandoval.

Laxalt, visiting with the Review-Journal editorial board, said nine counties in Northern Nevada had already filed, and the state needed to have a voice in the process and gain leverage from joining the lawsuit.

Laxalt and Sandoval, both Republicans, have publicly disagreed about Laxalt's decision for the state join the federal lawsuit. The lawsuit was started by Eureka and Elko counties and two mining companies over new regulations that will restrict activities on federal public lands. Seven other counties — White Pine, Lander, Lincoln, Humboldt, Washoe, Churchill and Pershing — have joined the case.

Opponents of the new regulations contend the changes will negatively impact ranching, mining and oil and gas developments, all important industries in Northern Nevada. The regulations came because of a court order that mandated the Department of Interior determine by Sept. 30 if the sage grouse needed additional protections amid declining populations.

The greater sage grouse is native to 11 western states and Canada, but its population has declined over the past century from about 16 million to fewer than 500,000 by some estimates.

Laxalt noted he ran on the importance of the attorney general and realigning the balance of power between the federal government and state governments. He also pointed out he's not going at it alone, noting that nine counties determined that a lawsuit was necessary.

"It's important that we use that litigation tool to make sure the federal government takes the states seriously," Laxalt said, adding that the states that sue have a "lot more leverage."

The dust-up between Laxalt and Sandoval unfolded without the two meeting face-to-face on the issue, according to Laxalt's account.

"I personally have not spoken to the governor on the issue," Laxalt said, adding that his office's solicitor general has met with Sandoval's senior staff.

Laxalt said the issue is important and merits a face-to-face meeting between him and Sandoval.

"We've repeatedly asked that this is the type of issue that I need to speak to the governor directly on and that hasn't happened," he said.

Asked if the governor's office declined the request, Laxalt said: "The meeting was never put together but ... it was requested on this issue many times."

Laxalt said Nevada worked in good faith within the framework the federal government set up, putting millions of dollars into the sage grouse issue and a plan.

"We presented a plan," Laxalt said. "It was rejected."

Sandoval has said he has "significant concerns" over land restrictions, but has preferred avoiding court battles with the federal government. Sandoval's office has said the governor is "disappointed" by Laxalt's move and cited concerns that the lawsuit will hamper discussions between the state and Department of Interior about the issue.

Laxalt is also defending a law that sparked a lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court targeting education savings accounts, which allow parents to put their child's public school funding toward private school tuition and other education services, including those with religious affiliations.

In August, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada sued to stop the new program, saying the state cannot allow taxpayer money to flow to a religiously affiliated school. Laxalt has filed a motion to dismiss the case.

"The state is on very solid footing to defend this law," Laxalt said.

He said the law isn't tied to a religious purpose.

"You're not going to hear that there is a religious purpose for this program anywhere in the legislative history," he said.

"The purpose of this program was an educational purpose and to improve our education," Laxalt said, calling its educational purpose the state's "lead argument."

Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2904. Follow him on Twitter: @BenBotkin1