The SDGOP spin blog is complaining that that Sioux Falls paper has editorialized that raising some taxes on rich people would be good for South Dakota. Yet the SDGOP spin blog offers no comment on the Republican-controlled Department of Agriculture’s request to raise fees on pesticide makers, dealers, and users.
Senate Bill 24 seeks to raise the annual registration fee for pesticides from $120 to $160. The additional $40 would be split 50-50 between the pesticide regulatory fund and the pesticide recycling and disposal fund. According to the most recent budget condition statements available (from the Daugaard Administration on December 4, 2018; Team Noem, with all of its high-priced help, hasn’t posted comparable documents for its FY2021 budget yet), the PRF has been dwindling fast, from $282,244 in FY2017 to a projected $75,053 in this fiscal year. The PRDF is also dropping, but not as badly, from $380,902 in FY2017 to a projected FY2020 balance of $263,610 (because… what? the Department of Agriculture works harder at regulating than it does at proper recycling and disposal?).
SB 24 proposes raising the commercial pesticide applicator’s license fee from $25 to $35. It also strikes the exemption for governmental entities from that fee, meaning, I guess, that the state plans to take a dip from your local weed board‘s meager budget.
Sections 5 and 6 subject farmers applying their own pesticides to more regulation. Section 5 clarifies that private pesticide applicators must have a license and raises the maximum fee for said license from $5 to $25. Section 6 makes that private applicator’s license good for three years.
Section 8 raises the pesticide dealer’s annual fee from $50 to $75.
So it looks like the Republican Department of Agriculture is asking the Republican Legislature to raise the costs of various pesticide licenses 33%, 40%, 50%, and, for do-it-yourselfers, 400%. Given the harm that can arise from misuse of pesticides, a little regulation on pesticide application doesn’t hurt, and making pesticide users pay for that regulation seems reasonable.
But remember: Senate Bill 24 isn’t coming from liberal tree-hugging vegan hippies. Senate Bill 24 comes from good Republicans who plan to transfer more money from the pockets of business to bigger government.
So farmers will pay $25, commercial applicators will pay $35, and who pays this? “annual registration fee for pesticides from $120 to $160.”
I’m assuming these are all one time payments annually. It seems like commercial guys ought to pay about double what farmers do.
The GOP loves to raise taxes. They just give them different names.
Registration fees are paid by the chemical companies. There are state and federal registration fees.
Ms. Geelsdottir, I expect these registration fees go to protect the water and the land and the trees and the fluffy creatures. You know…libbie environmental causes. grudznick says cut the fees and let the pesticide boys run wild and free and nature will take care of itself.
Thanks Cathy.
As long as we’re talking about pesticide pollutants, the Bismarck Tribune has news about the DAPL pipeline:
Standing Rock wants the company to turn over a surge analysis and a hydraulic profile that takes the expansion into account. A surge is a sudden shift in pressure on a pipeline caused by a significant change in flow. The company filed a copy of its updated surge analysis with regulators in Illinois, but its contents have not been made public. A hydraulic profile would show pressure levels throughout the pipeline.
The tribe is requesting other information as well, including a calculation of the “worst-case discharge” that could occur at the line’s Missouri River crossing just north of the reservation. The tribe maintains the information is essential for its emergency responders, who would be among the first on-site if a spill were to occur at the river.
is.gd/bjAoyk
____________________
Of course DAPL wants to keep that totally innocuous info secret because business secrets! Ohferpetessake.
Debbo,
With regard to the pipeline, if we do not transition the transportation sector to alternative sources of energy, then we will continue to use fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels today (coal, gas, oil) constitute more than 80% of our energy (not just electricity, the whole thing…including agriculture and industry). So it would be better to have viable, cost-effective alternatives ready before making the full transition. Then the market can figure things out.
In my opinion, the best pro-climate approach, if not the best form of protest, is to implement those alternatives and to support what is required to deliver them. But at the moment, using fossil fuels efficiently and delivering them safely are in order.
McTaggart Misinformation Model Exposed … After reviewing 1273 McTaggart posts (which all inherently said the same thing) his most common word is “if”.
(e.g. “If we do not blah blah blah …” “If this doesn’t blah blah blah …” “If you’re not going to blah blah blah …”)
It’s how misinformers attempt to misdirect we layfolk. He makes up a hypothetical starting with the word “if” and then builds a straw man argument on the misinformation he’s put out as true.
~ I’ll show you an example, “If we can’t believe parts of what he says, that means we can’t believe any of what he says.” Truer words I’ve never written.
Without fossil fuels tomorrow, the first thing that would happen is that you couldn’t drive into town for a beer, so no more drinking liberally for you….
Build the alternative that costs less or about the same. That would reduce the demand for fossil fuels significantly. Do you disagree with that?
Regarding the pesticide fee increases, they seem steep, but the Legislature cut fees in half in 2018. I’m assuming this may have been because the funds had accumulated a large balance, and that tends to piss off people. So now the fund balances have drawn down and the fees are being readjusted, but not up to the point where they actually were prior to 2018.
I assume costs for disposal and recycling has increased over two years, too. I’m assuming, of course, there wasn’t any transfers out of these funds for other purposes.
With the ag sector mired in The Trump Ag Depression, it’s probably an inopportune time to raise fees, but they were lowered for a few years, and the funds are now more in line with reality.
I noticed that these fees seem to be adjusted every 10 years. Isn’t it better to make small adjustments maybe every 2 years, so that they can be factored in to budgets more easily?
Yes. Too iffy with a false premise. Try again without hypotheticals.
The only non-hypothetical is that we use fossil fuels to power our transportation. You are not prepared for what is next….that is happening a lot these days.
Offer people the better choice, and they will take it.
Until the alternatives work out…but you stop fossil fuels right now…then don’t complain about not being able to drive into town to get a cold beer.
That’s not true at all. I’m prepared for what is next. I’m not complaining about anything except you telling lies and attributing them to me and others. I don’t drive, I live downtown, and I drink beer once in a while at home. You invented five things in one post. Where does your mind wander to gather this BS? Hmmmmm?
Just think of all those poor Coloradans who won’t be able to drive over and pick up their marijuana orders.
Boy, I never have seen one of those fridges that automatically re-stock themselves with beer. It is not like there is a beer truck that requires fossil fuel to deliver it to the store…..
When is this going to happen? BTW … when is Obama coming for my guns, like you said?
Obama isn’t coming for your guns. He may come over for a beer though.
You owe me two questions from when I answered your’s and didn’t ask one back.
Here’s one.
You just said, “I wouldn’t mind if some of the extra energy from renewables were to be redirected to melting snow and ice off of sidewalks and parking lots. That would be a better use than trying to sell somebody energy when they do not need it. Even warming up gas powered vehicles could add to the vehicle efficiency.”
– Why are you living where there’s no real need for humans to live and wasting energy that the rest of us have to help pay for? – follow up: Why don’t you move where the climate isn’t so harsh and advocate that all SD’ers do the same and help save the planet’s energy?
I see your wind chill nestled in at -31.
We are doing our part to reduce the global temperature at the moment. Just think how hot the globe would be otherwise.
In order to move, we would need to consume more fossil fuel…is that what you want?
Somehow I don’t think installing solar panels on my pickup truck is going to help in that regard ;^).
Mr. Lansing, grudznick also owes you a question, although it is not the scientist in me that is going to set you up to look foolish. This is a basic, human question, spanning multiple states and name-callers alike.
I will assume you are ready, Mr. Lansing, and have steeled your loins and girded your ears, so here it is.
Mr. Lansing, young sir, what is your favorite breakfast, not just the meats and tater styles and gravy volumes, but down to the jellies and biscuits and beans of coffee?