Trouble Brewing --- Senate Bill 2361

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Senate Bill 2361, as described in the bill, generally proposes as follows:

ACT TO ESTABLISH THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THE PROGRAMS OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE, THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HEALTH, THE MISSISSIPPI FAIR COMMISSION, THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, THE MISSISSIPPI FORESTRY COMMISSION AND THE MISSISSIPPI SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION; TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE TO SERVE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES; TO TRANSFER THE SAID PROGRAMS TO THE NEW MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COMMERCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRESCRIBE AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

As a brief summary, this bill seeks to establish a new state department, to be under the control of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce, which would consolidate the above referenced state programs and departments. Proponents of the bill state that it will save the MS taxpayers money.

A very important aspect of this bill would be that it would bring the MS Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) under the control of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce (Ag Commissioner). As I understand this bill, the "Ag Commissioner" would essentially replace the current Commission of Environmental Quality ("Commission", which is comprised of appointees of the Governor). MDEQ would still have an internal staff, but no appointed commission.

It is the MDEQ that is statutorily tasked with determining and declaring water bodies to be "public waterways" in accordance with state statutory law. In the event of disputes regarding these designations, there is an administrative process that must be followed, which involves evidentiary hearings before the Commission folllowed by administrative rulings by the Commission.

The current Commission on Environmental Quality consists of 8 persons appointed by the Governor to periodic terms. If this new bill passes, the hearings and decisions made with respect to disputes on matters within the MDEQ's statutory authority would be conducted and made by one person --- the Ag Commissioner. For example, a hearing and decision about a MS public waterway designation would be conducted and made by only the Ag Commissioner.

While the current arrangement involving the Commission certainly involves politics (they are Governor appointees), there is at least some safety in numbers. Putting all of this power in the hands of one elected state official causes me great concern. These persons have to run election campaigns and thus seek and receive political contributions, which means they can be more directly influenced by those donations.

IF this bill passes, I suspect that we are going to see a lot of activity by landowners with respect to challenges to the MDEQ's public waterway designations. And if these challenges are successful due to favorable decisions by one state official sympathetic to their cause, as opposed to protecting the public interest, then currently public waters available for hunting and fishing will decline. Also, it would be very hard for an Ag Commissioner with developed relationships with Ag interests to set that aside and be impartial in an MDEQ matter involving those Ag interests.

I would encourage you to call your state Senators and Representatives in opposition to this bill ---- or at least in opposition to including the MDEQ in the consolidation aspect of the bill. Let's keep the MDEQ the way it is currently configured, with a technical staff, attorney(s), director and 8 person Commission. Keeping the MDEQ independent from AG interests is also a good check and balance in favor of clean water, air and earth.

[BIG TIMBER]

Lots of $$$$ bout to trade hands!!! Bout typical, I'm not surprised in the least.

[LODI QUACKER]

The Bs just never stops in the GREAT state of Mississippi!

"huh, lets create a new Department, My bother in law needs a job!"

[khound22]

Thanks for posting pomonk

[mossyisland]

Can't say that i am surprised in the least.

[msbigdawg1234]

My contact in the house says it will die

[peewee]

IF this bill passes, I suspect that we are going to see a lot of activity by landowners with respect to challenges to the MDEQ's public waterway designations. And if these challenges are successful due to favorable decisions by one state official sympathetic to their cause, as opposed to protecting the public interest, then currently public waters available for hunting and fishing will decline. Also, it would be very hard for an Ag Commissioner with developed relationships with Ag interests to set that aside and be impartial in an MDEQ matter involving those Ag interests.

That is one aspect but coming from one aspect. This would create a terrible situation just for MDEQ's actual role in the long term. I can see so much corruption coming from this it is scary.

[Click]

I am curious why you would oppose this?

[randywallace]

I am curious why you would oppose this?

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, above.

[novacaine]

Who initially authored the Bill...................follow the politics, follow the money..

These things dont just appear out of mid air. There is a motive that is NOT saving the taxpayers money. That doesnt happen as the primary motive, EVER!
Someone is either pissed, or wants a power shift for some unknown reason be it control of the money or direction a particular agency is currently taking..........maybe MDEQ?
Why group MDEQ into it otherwise?
Interesting though.

[hntrpat1]

The public waterway issue in Ms needs to be straightened out, especially along the big river

[IttaBenaKilla]

1 02/08 (S) Referred To Appropriations
2 02/18 (S) Title Suff Do Pass Comm Sub
3 03/02 (S) Committee Substitute Adopted
4 03/02 (S) Amended
5 03/02 (S) Passed As Amended {Vote}

[SB]

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.

[LODI QUACKER]

SOOOOoo. in English. Whats this change?







Sounds bad, Medq being non political is of utmost importance.

[LODI QUACKER]

History has told that.....that is not always the case.......