The dispute over the extent of the watershed protection boundary of Jordan Lake already had brought unusual turmoil and disagreements among developers, planners, county commissioners and other officials and citizens.

Already, partisans and principals in the debate had accused one another of tainted surveys, improper process, lack of concern for (pick one) the environment or the prospect of much-needed jobs, of undermining developers' ability to make investments relying on government decisions -- the list goes on.

Then last week came the latest and perhaps most jaw-dropping miscue of the whole tendentious affair.

City-County Planning Director Steve Medlin sent a memo to County Manager Mike Ruffin. A protest petition filed by landowners adjoining the tract proposed for development did, indeed, acquire the valid percentage of owners' signatures to force a "supermajority" or four out of five commissioners to approve the zoning change that moved the watershed boundary.

That move, in turn, opened the way to permit high-density, mixed-use development on 165 acres that otherwise would be much more sharply circumscribed.

Commissioners approved the change in a 3-2 vote Oct. 12, opening the way for the next round of zoning consideration on the specific plans for the project by Southern Durham Development. With the petition ruled insufficient, the change passed.

On the face of it, the solution might seem simple, if sure to bring more rancor to the board: Vote again.

It's not so easy, say legal experts. County Attorney Lowell Siler told the Board of County Commissioners on Thursday that the School of Government at the University of North Carolina has advised the commissioners probably can't rescind their earlier vote. Only the courts can do that.

Which, almost undoubtedly, they will have a chance to do. The Haw River Assembly, an ardent opponent of the boundary change, already was likely to sue to challenge the decision, and this gives them further incentive.

The upshot is to leave everyone in limbo that, if litigation does ensue, is likely to last for some time. The developers face prolonged uncertainty over the investment sunk into this project and the work that has gone into moving the process this far. They had a reasonable expectation they had followed the rules and won the commissioners' vote.

Opponents who, it turns out, had followed the rules to try to block the project, had their success erased by a flawed ruling from the planning office.

We're not sure who is most at fault here, but we hope the commissioners will press forward to determine where the foul-up occurred, and take all appropriate steps to prevent a repeat.