MOST STATE AGENCIES are required to pay "rent" to the Budget and Control Board for the use of state-owned office buildings. And yet the largely autonomous athletic departments of state universities -- not to mention completely private money-making operations -- can force the state Highway Patrol to incur overtime expenses and reduce its life-saving presence on our public highways in order to aid in their profit-making enterprises.

This wouldn't make sense at any time; it certainly doesn't make sense when the state doesn't have the money to provide for basic public safety.

Earlier this summer, Gov. Mark Sanford, in his ongoing challenge to the way things have always been done, tried to change that. He vetoed a provision in the state budget bill that prohibited the Highway Patrol from charging fees for maintaining traffic control for "special events," saying the patrol should be able to assess reasonable fees.

But the Department of Public Safety's plans to institute the fee for the patrol were put on hold earlier this month when Attorney General Henry McMaster issued an opinion saying it could not do so just because the governor merely took away a prohibition on doing so; to act, the patrol would need explicit statutory approval.

Mr. McMaster's reasoning appears sound: Courts have established that state agencies have only those powers delegated them by state law. But whether his reasoning would stand up in court or not, what's important is what we do about it. The patrol could always respond by simply refusing to provide the service; but that's probably not productive. This is a matter that demands legislative action.

Before Mr. McMaster issued his ruling, the city of Columbia used the cover of the pending Highway Patrol charges to institute its own charges for traffic control for USC football games and the State Fair. The reasoning officials used was instructive. Unlike the state, the city already charged for traffic control for concerts and other "private" money-makers. As City Council member Hamilton Osborne explained: "USC charges people for admission to the football game, and everything else that goes on in that stadium is paid for. You have to pay to get in the fair, and when you get in there, the principal purpose is separating the visitor from his money. Shouldn't we have been doing it all along?"

It's not clear precisely where the line is that separates the state's (or a city's) public duty to keep streets and highways safe from the responsibility of organizations that go out of their way to clog those streets for their own purposes. But we believe that a line should exist. And we believe that money-making events -- be they private or public -- should fall on the side of picking up the tab themselves. By way of comparison, most everyone would acknowledge that organizations have an obligation to hire their own security at concerts and other public events, rather than expecting the city or state to handle it all.

Mr. McMaster notes that, "in other instances, the General Assembly has provided specific statutory authority to DPS to charge a fee in certain circumstances." That's what it should do in this case, passing a law that clearly authorizes the patrol to charge for services that do more to benefit event sponsors and participants than the general public.