DuckSouth.com

SB wrote:Did MDEQ get removed in the amendment? I heard that did but have not validated it.

MDEQ plays a large role in many matters. I view them as a "voice of reason" between an entity (public or private entity) and the EPA. One has to ask if they would rather have a local person approving their permit or handing down a penalty or someone in the EPA's regional office or DC office.

The bill was amended so that MDEQ would retain independent status while the Soil and Water Conservation Commission would be absorbed into DEQ.

If DEQ were merged into Dept of Ag they would likely loose their regulatory authority and we would have to deal with EPA in Atlanta.

So PML your opinion on this not containing anything sinister as far as Six Mile didn't change?

Sorry, just now responding.

It did indeed change, which was the reason for this op/thread.

While there was nothing related specifically to any body of water in the original bill, the proposal to bring the MDEQ under the Commissioner of Agriculture, for the reasons I set forth in the original post, would have been potentially bad for all public waterways in MS.

It now appears that my concerns with the bill have been rectified.