What we're seeing now with the disastrously aborted launch of the Hawaii Superferry is the aftermath of the perfect storm.

There was the clash of divergent interpretations of what environmental law requires. The state administration on the one hand argued that Superferry should not have been singled out to do an environmental assessment, the plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintained that the law clearly required it.

There was a court system that should have expedited the hearing so that the ruling against the state might have come far sooner than mere days before the scheduled launch.

And there were the residents of the Neighbor Islands, feeling a lot of pent-up anger about traffic jams and other ills of mounting urbanization in what were once rural oases.

It's easier to understand the explosion with the benefit of hindsight. But the virulence of the protest in Nawiliwili Harbor took most of the state by surprise.

In starting the service early, Superferry executives hoped to gain a public-relations boost, but that certainly backfired on them.

As for the protesters' behavior, legal demonstrations are one thing, but the video clips showing Kaua'i residents banging cars and flattening tires did nothing to advance their cause.

At this point, the state faces a twofold challenge: It must work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to bolster protections for the ferry and all vessels, though it would be unwise to restart service in the near future.

And lawmakers must look for ways of strengthening state law to reduce the chance of future trainwrecks.

In 2006, the Legislature attempted to do that with the passage of SB 2145, which directed the state Health Department to hire the University of Hawai'i Environmental Center to review the state environmental review law.

The report was due before the 2008 session; unfortunately, the state failed to encumber the funds and the study was canceled earlier this summer. It's imperative that the funds be restored by lawmakers next session.

One improvement might be to establish an administrative appeal of decisions to grant exemptions, so that the lengthier court challenges might be avoided.

The environmental review law declares that "the process of reviewing environmental effects is desirable because environmental consciousness is enhanced, cooperation and coordination are encouraged, and public participation during the review process benefits all parties involved and society as a whole."

Clearly, that didn't happen in this case.