The state Legislature has a long-standing, dysfunctional relationship with local governments.

Lawmakers espouse the virtues of “local control” far more often than they allow its practice. Locally elected officials don’t always trust the Legislature’s motives, and their skepticism is well-placed.

When a complicated and controversial issue comes along — such as oil and gas drilling — all of that suspicion surfaces again.

It is easy, then, to sympathize with the local officials and local residents who consider the state’s attempt to regulate oil and gas drilling a heavy-handed affront. But that doesn’t change the facts.

Oil and gas drilling is a highly technical issue; decisions will affect not only the state and local economy, but Idaho’s irreplaceable water supply. It simply makes sense for the state, supported by state agency staff, to play the lead role in oil and gas regulation.

That’s why House Bill 464, the state’s oil and gas bill, is a step in the right direction. The bill passed the House 54-13 Friday and now heads to the Senate.

HB 464 builds on existing state law that established an oil and gas conservation commission — comprising the governor, the secretary of state, attorney general, controller and state schools superintendent. It is a matter of existing — and reasonable — policy to have statewide officials, answerable to all Idaho voters, chart a consistent Idaho strategy for oil and gas exploration.

That also makes sense because rural counties — the areas that may be most attractive to oil and gas companies — cannot afford to replicate the experience and knowledge already in-house at the state agency level. When that advice is brought to bear, we believe the state is best positioned to make decisions in the widest public interest, rather than decisions that cater to a smaller, local constituency.

If this line of reasoning sounds familiar, it should.

It is almost identical to the arguments that we made several years ago, when legislators debated and rejected the idea of creating a state siting commission for power plants. We argued then that it was patently ridiculous for the state to walk away from such decisions — perhaps leaving a panel of three part-time county commissioners to wrestle with the enormous environmental and economic implications of approving a nuclear power plant.

An oil or gas project isn’t quite on the same scale, but the same principle applies. And it is more than a bit ironic that some of the same people who rightly argued for a state power plant siting panel are again among the critics, even though legislators are now taking a smarter approach to oil and gas.

As is too often the case, the Legislature hasn’t done itself any favors with its handling of this issue. Some residents in Washington County, the epicenter of Idaho natural gas exploration, feel their concerns have been ignored — and last week, commissioners passed an oil and gas ordinance that would stand in direct conflict with the state’s bill.

Is there a way to give local governments a greater say in the process? Perhaps. We believe lawmakers and the industry should be sensitive to these concerns and receptive to change. But a framework of state regulation is the right approach.

“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board.