On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer.

Minnesota is missing out on millions in federal highway incentive dollars because it hasn’t yet adopted a .08 blood-alcohol content limit on breath tests.

Ours is only one of three states, along with Colorado and Delaware, that hasn’t gone to the lower standard.

In a way it is puzzling, since Minnesota is a state with historically little tolerance for drunken driving: It was the first to yank licenses at the site of the arrest or for those who refused to take a breath test; it makes it easy for authorities to confiscate drunken drivers’ license plates or vehicles; and it has enacted a felony penalty for people caught four times in 10 years. It’s simply inconsistent with the tradition in Minnesota.

This year, the Senate has passed a .08 bill and Gov. Tim Pawlenty supports the switch. But House leaders are peeved at Congress for demanding the change and say they’re worried that local governments can’t afford to enforce it. They contend the lower limit would leave police and prosecutors less time to deal with the most serious cases involving more dangerous drivers, so they want to delay the change until 2007. We can understand that. But it comes at what cost to innocent people on the roads?

Minnesota had 33,032 arrests and 239 alcohol-related traffic deaths in 2002. Slightly more than 400,000 of the state’s 5 million residents have a DWI on their record, according to the Office of Traffic Safety. State officials predict an annual 1,320 DWI convictions annually from the tougher standard, and estimate it would save 14 lives.

A study in Illinois showed a 14-percent drop in fatal crashes involving drivers who had been drinking during the first three years of a .08 limit.

It would be one thing if our state government &045; and consequently our highway funding &045; were in good shape, but once again the Legislature is looking at cuts. Then we could afford to protest what the federal government is mandating.

And if drunk driving were not a problem in our state &045; if people always used a designated driver or called a cab after drinking &045; and no one was being killed by drunk drivers on the road, then again we could afford to protest.

But these are still concerns. And maybe the idea of a .08 bill is still a no-brainer.