A bill in the General Assembly that would blunt legal challenges to environmental violations could be disastrous to South Carolina.

The proposed legislation would make it easier for work to continue while a legal challenge makes its way through the court system. Sometimes that can take years. If the challenged work -- such as filling a wetland -- was never stopped, a court ruling could be a moot point. The damage already would be done.

That would result in greater harm to the state than the perceived problem the bill is trying to address. State Rep. James Harrison, R-Columbia, says the problem is that appeals can slow down a project and time costs money.

Legislators should look out for the greater good, and the current system does that.

Now, an automatic stay is issued when someone appeals a permit decision made by the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. That is a logical response. The challenged activity is stopped until the question can be sorted out.

Under the proposed new system, the work stoppage would not be automatic. Administrative law judges would be given exclusive power to issue a stay. Under that system, a lot of environmental damage could be done, particularly if the judge's decision were appealed.

People involved in permitting processes need to accept the fact that time, money and red tape are going to be involved. They should quit running to legislators trying to rewrite law and micromanage the state health department.

Legislators should tell their constituents that a fair system of checks and balances is in place. The state environmental permitting process includes due process, with rights to appeal. It places the burden of proof squarely where it belongs: on the party that wishes to alter the environment. Public notice is involved, and perhaps a public hearing. Decisions are made by experienced professionals with scientific credentials.

Close observers of environmental law in the state say that the state regulators bend over backward to work with applicants, and are perhaps too lenient on the permit holders.

Legislators should go to bat for the system, not those who want to skirt regulations. By altering the logical process of issuing stays on challenged activity, the legislature would be siding with the wrong camp and damaging the state.