WASHINGTON — Hawai'i Gov. Linda Lingle and other governors nationwide could soon find planning for hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters easier after regaining more authority over their National Guard troops in responding to domestic emergencies.

That would happen if President Bush signs congressionally approved legislation to repeal a year-old law that gave presidents more power to take control of National Guard units to react to natural disasters or other public emergencies without the governors' consent.

The governors, who were the sole commanders of guard units during emergencies until the law took effect this year, were outraged over the law, saying it sows confusion over who is in charge of the National Guard during emergencies.

The governors, backed by their state adjutants general and local law enforcement officials, said the law hurts domestic response planning and exceeds the traditional limits of presidential power in times of crisis.

Lingle said her top priority as governor is the safety and security of the state's citizens and visitors.

"It does not make sense to diminish a governor's authority over its state National Guard," Lingle said.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said the law was "a dumb idea fortunately extinguished."

"We didn't think it made sense at the time, and I think we will be better off for it," said Sanford, a leader on National Guard matters for the National Governors Association.

The 5,500-member Hawai'i National Guard is an essential element in emergency responses throughout the island state, responding to a dam breach, several earthquakes and wildfires and rain-caused flooding in the past two years. Its helicopters, for example, dropped about 750,000 gallons of water in August during the Waialua wildfire on O'ahu.

More than 30 guardsmen helped with search and recovery efforts on Maui after heavy rains in early December caused floods that damaged roads and homes, said Hawai'i Adjutant General Robert Lee of the state National Guard.

"We've just got the National Guard mobilized for cleanup at this point and manning the disaster assistance centers," Lee said.

Lee, who was among the state adjutants general opposing the law, said there was no need for the federal government to take over a state's National Guard when it's handling state emergencies.

"If I was wondering whether I could have access to my troops, I tell you I don't think we could have reacted as fast (to the Maui flooding)," Lee said.

The law stemmed from a dispute between President Bush, himself a former Texas governor, and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco over control of National Guard troops in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Congress responded by slipping the expanded authority for the president into legislation last year with little notice and without consulting the governors.

"As currently written, it calls into question whether the governor or the president has primary responsibility," North Carolina Gov. Michael F. Easley said earlier this year.

The 2006 law expanded the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows presidents to use active-duty or National Guard troops only for domestic police actions to put down rebellions or to enforce constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.

The law also said the president could take control of National Guard troops without a governor's consent in cases where public order breaks down as a result of natural disasters, epidemics, terrorist attacks or "other conditions."

The repeal is part of the defense authorization bill for the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1. Congress approved it last week and sent it to Bush. It's expected to become law, despite Bush's concern about control over the guard.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a former governor, said the ambiguity of the phrase "other conditions" makes it almost certain that presidents would take control during state emergencies and needed to be repealed.

"We had to get that out," said Bond, a co-chairman of the 80-member Senate National Guard Caucus.

Delaware Adjutant General Francis D. Vavala said the 2006 law was unnecessary and questioned its constitutionality.

"In my personal opinion, it was sort of a knee jerk-reaction to the finger-pointing that occurred around Katrina," said Vavala, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

The Bush administration had sought the increased authority and opposed the repeal.

The result would be "detrimental to the president's ability to employ the armed forces effectively" to respond to major domestic emergencies," a statement said.

"It was, in essence, a real power grab," Sanford said. "The presumption has always been, from an operational standpoint, that people who are local probably have a better sense of how to deal with a problem than somebody 500 miles away."

Sanford said that, for example, his state holds exercises and conferences during the year with the National Guard and emergency responders on dealing with a hurricane disaster.

"How dumb would it be to ... have somebody come in who has not been part of any of that and say 'I'm in charge now,' " Sanford said. "That's exactly what this proposal would have done in the event we are hit by a hurricane."

Reach Dennis Camire at dcamire@gns.gannett.com.

Make a difference. Donate to The Advertiser Christmas Fund.