This is not how good planning is supposed to work. This is, however, how politics does work.

A bill set for consideration by the state House after a warm reception in the Senate seeks to force the preparation of a full environmental impact statement for the planned Superferry project, only a few months before the newly constructed vessel is due to dock in Honolulu.

It's a bad idea, not because the concerns about the environment are unreasonable, but because it's a needlessly draconian action where more workable solutions exist.

Beyond its irrationality, the bill attempts an end-run on a process of decisions and appeals. And that sends precisely the wrong message about doing business in Hawai'i.

It comes at the eleventh hour, years after the state's finding (upheld by the court) that an EIS is not required for the launch of the passenger-cargo-vehicle service between O'ahu and Maui, ultimately to link all major islands.

This maneuver will waste inordinate amounts of taxpayers' money, including millions of dollars invested in harbor improvements that were approved, in part, because the Superferry was anticipated.

This was money approved by some of the same lawmakers who are now pushing for a lengthy comprehensive study that will likely kill the project. That outcome, which unfairly changes the rules so late in the game, surely will land the state in court, running up even costlier legal bills. Guess who pays that tab?

It isn't necessary. Much of the study that an EIS would compel has already been done in the form of environmental assessments. There is nothing to stop the state from examining the data from these reports to mandate improvements that are necessary to protect public interests.

Also, Superferry executives have expressed willingness to participate in a broad EIS process that studies the impact of the broader plans for expansion by all harbor users — at Kahului, for starters. Lawmakers cite the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts; if so, they should support a study that is truly comprehensive.

That would be a better use of legislative time and energy than the current obstructionist strategy.