Governor Larry Rhoden pitched a fit several weeks ago when Senate President Pro Tempore Chris Karr (R-11/Sioux Falls) said South Dakota may need to get tough with agricultural polluters. But Rhoden’s own Department of Agriculture (and Natural Resources) wants to get tough with agricultural polluters by charging them higher fees.
DA(NR) has requested Senate Bill 38, which would raise the fees concentrated animal feeding operations with nutrient management plans must pay for the water pollution control permits that allow them to store and spread tons of reeking critter poop. SB 38 would increase the per-head fees by 150%:
(1) $0.172$0.43 per mature dairy cow, milked or dry;
(2) $0.12$0.30 per other cattle or bison;
(3) $0.24$0.60 per horse;
(4) $0.012$0.03 per weaned swine less than fifty-five pounds;
(5) $0.048$0.12 per swine equal to or greater than fifty-five pounds;
(6) $0.012$0.03 per sheep or weaned lamb;
(7) $0.0022$0.0055 per turkey;
(8) $0.0011$0.0027 per chicken; and
(9) $0.004$0.01 per duck or goose [2026 Senate Bill 38, changes to per-head fee for CAFO water pollution control permit in SDCL 34A-2-125.1, filed 2026.01.06].
SB 38 leaves the annual fee for CAFOs not operating with a nutrient management plan at $1,000.
DA(NR) has asked for another ag fee increase, the 65% increase in livestock ownership inspection fees in HB 1020. Senator Karr has not yet filed any bills to increase ag-related fees or regulations. So so far, Governor Rhoden is beating Senator Karr 2–0 in proposing increased government pressure on the ag industry
A study published last year in the journal Nature mapped more than 15,000 CAFOs and found that fine particulate matter is nearly 30% higher near cattle farms and nearly 11% higher near hog farms. Feedlot hotspots in Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming and South Dakota have high percentages of Latino workers who have no health insurance. Exposure to dust and manure stored in lagoons is linked to serious health conditions, including asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, and leukemia. But in red states the fates of brown-skinned workers are sealed so it comes as little surprise that South Dakota is 49th in opportunity and fifth worst state for nurses but third best state for doctors.
If they don’t regulate, why should they get more money? That’s what I’m wondering. Why put more money into a failed DANR that ends up with ncreasingly polluted water every year? If residents don’t care enough to DEMAND tough regulation, then maybe they should just drink the feces and swim in the sewage.
When I was a teenager (before there was much regulation at all) swimming in the Sioux River came with its likely bout of the squirts, if not worse. It hasn’t gotten any better, and it’s probably worse than it was back in the 1960s. The Falls still froths, doesn’t it?
I’ve witnessed how state regulators excused the pollutiom and failed to levy any fines on major polluters. State DENR personnel actively lobbied EPA to NOT regulate the poisonous effluent from Brohm Mine when environmental groups had convinced EPA to enforce discharge limits on the gold mines. I’m sure that happens across the entire spectrum of permitting. Just recently we saw the federal EPA cave to such lobbying on permitting of air quality permitting.
So, why should anyone have to pay for shoody state regulation?
Hey Mr. Pay, I used to fish at Aunt Annie’s farm on the Sioux river in 1963. All those bull heads that I ate probably lead to health problems but the memories more than make up for it. We did jump in occasionally but the snapping turtle that lived by the bridge was a worry.
Surprise! South Dakota is among nine other horrible red states that are failing their rivers.
https://www.americanrivers.org/media-item/new-study-from-american-rivers-and-conservation-science-partners-finds-over-80-percent-of-u-s-rivers-lack-adequate-protection/