Senate President Donna Mercado Kim believes it’s time for the counties to take over most of what the state Land Use Commission does and has sponsored a measure to eliminate it.

When Senate Bill 1238 comes up for a hearing, however, lawmakers should remember that it’s the LUC, not the counties, that gives public interest groups a real voice in land use at an early stage of its review, when it matters most.

Critics of the LUC often point out that Hawaii is the only state with a statewide land-use regulatory agency. But a state where land is so limited has a broad interest in setting policy on how that resource is divided up among different needs. There’s wide agreement that it could be run more efficiently, but that doesn’t make ejecting the LUC and delegating its responsibilities to the counties — the intent of SB 1238 — a good plan.

The LUC is not without its own political influences, of course, but counties are supported by a property tax base that increases with development, so there’s more pressure to protect that interest, not statewide priorities.

And the discussion may be premature. The state Office of Planning is working on a plan to improve the system, which included a series of hearings for public feedback that ended in December. A draft of the recommendations is due in March. That process should be allowed to play out before a major change is even considered.

The state’s land use law, Chapter 205, was enacted in 1961 when Hawaii was facing rapid population and economic growth, real estate speculation and unplanned urban spot developments.

The statute left urban-classified land for the counties to regulate, but any move to change the other three classifications — rural, agricultural and conservation — would come before the nine-member, appointed LUC.

SB 1238 would keep decisions on conservation land with the state Board of Land and Natural Resources, but all urban, rural and agricultural land would be managed by the counties.

And a new section of law is proposed, directing counties to protect "important agricultural lands," a designation authorized in the state Constitution and enacted in 2005. There’s a lot of faith invested in this part of the bill and — based on the counties’ slowness in mapping those lands over the past decade — it’s not warranted.

SB 1238 asserts that counties have planning professionals "fully capable of handling these responsibilities." This misses the point that officials also have to worry about sustaining county operations through property taxation. State land-management priorities deserve their own layer of protection.

The bill also notes that the public has ample opportunity to testify at county hearings. But these sessions lack the potency afforded by the contested-case hearing process of the LUC, a quasi-judicial proceeding enabling all sides to call on eSxpert testimony.

Developers often bemoan the costly delay imposed by contested-case hearings, but the delay in itself is not a flaw. Land use should, in fact, be an especially deliberative process in a state with severe resource constraints. It should be a rational process, though, and reforms should be pursued to discourage frivolous lawsuits, repetitive reviews or other stops that don’t increase fact-finding or otherwise add value.

Additionally, as SB 1238 comes up forhearings, it will be incumbent on Gov. David Ige to be clear about his position on land use planning. The controversial appointment of Carleton Ching, a lobbyist for developer Castle & Cooke Inc., has been interpreted as a pro-development inclination. There’s been enough guesswork here; it’s time for straight talk from the administration on its environmental policy.

What ultimately should emerge from all of this is a thorough analysis of how Hawaii manages its land, not a quick reversal of established land-management methods.

Hawaii depends on its land for sustenance. The state’s natural assets are part of its allure and key to its economic engine of tourism, as well as the sheer enjoyment of the residents who have made Hawaii their home. Let’s make the right decision here, not one that sounds simple but ignores the consequences.