Bluestem Prairie

South Dakota lawmakers' assertions about voter fatigue don’t stop them from sending four measures to the 2026 general election ballot

In 2024, Sout Dakota voters were asked to vote on seven ballot measures. Doesn't sound like that situation is going to change.

Read more about election-related bills considered and adopted during the 2025 legislative session on South Dakota Searchlight’s 2025 SD Election Legislation page.

From South Dakota Searchlight. 

Lawmaker assertions about voter fatigue don’t stop them from sending four measures to the ballot
by Makenzie Huber

After some South Dakota lawmakers complained about fatigue from the number of questions on the ballot, they’re sending four of their own measures to voters.

South Dakotans considered seven ballot questions during the 2024 election, including four state constitutional amendments. Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, said that resulted in “millions of dollars in out-of-state money coming for deceptive, emotionally charged ads stating half-truths.”

“The voters are weary of that,” he said. “They’re fatigued.”

Hughes was speaking on behalf of his own resolution that will go to voters as a ballot measure. It will ask voters to approve a 60% threshold to pass constitutional ballot questions, rather than a simple majority. 

2025 election legislation

That’s one of the four questions lawmakers sent to the 2026 general election ballot this legislative session, which has one day left on March 31 to consider the governor’s vetoes. Seven other proposed ballot questions from legislators failed to cross the finish line.

Lawmakers’ eagerness to put their own measures on the ballot is “a little ironic” said Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota.

“The Legislature is contradicting itself and contributing to said ‘ballot fatigue,’” Chapman told South Dakota Searchlight.

Another six potential ballot questions from the public are already listed on the Secretary of State’s website. None of those questions have been approved for petition circulation yet.

Following are the questions that South Dakota voters will see from legislators — if they don’t approve more next session.

Allowing the Legislature to remove South Dakota from expanded Medicaid

South Dakota voters will decide next year whether to continue requiring Medicaid expansion if federal support for the program declines.

Medicaid is government-funded health insurance for people with low incomes, and for adults and children with disabilities. In 2022, South Dakota voters expanded Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level, to capitalize on a 90% federal funding match included in the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. The expansion is part of the state constitution and can only be altered by voters.

The ballot question will ask voters to authorize the termination of Medicaid expansion if federal support falls below 90%. Speculation about a reduction in federal Medicaid expansion funding has been swirling as the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress look for spending cuts.

Last fall, South Dakota voters authorized state officials to consider imposing work requirements on people covered by Medicaid expansion. The state has not yet applied for federal permission to impose those requirements.

Requiring a 60% vote to amend the state constitution

Four years after Constitutional Amendment C and eight years after Constitutional Amendment X failed at the ballot box, voters will once again consider if the threshold for approving certain types of ballot questions should be raised from a simple majority.

Amendment C sought to require a three-fifths vote for the approval of ballot questions that would increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years after a measure’s passage. The measure was defeated by 67% of voters.

South Dakota voters rejected Constitutional Amendment X in 2018, which would have raised the approval requirement for constitutional amendments to 55%. It was defeated with 54% voting against it.

Hughes’ new proposal would raise the constitutional amendment approval threshold to 60%. Supporters of the proposal argue that a higher threshold is necessary to protect the state constitution from frequent changes and to ensure that only amendments with broad public support are adopted. They also say the proposal could discourage out-of-state interest groups from trying to amend South Dakota’s constitution, and keep the constitution reserved for language dealing with the structure of government rather than policy matters. 

Opponents argue that voters have spoken on the matter, and there’s no need to ask them again.

Creating an unclaimed property trust fund

Voters will see a ballot question in 2026 asking permission for the state Investment Council to manage a trust fund for unclaimed property.

Unclaimed property consists of an array of abandoned or forgotten private assets, including money from bank accounts, PayPal accounts, stocks, life insurance payouts, uncashed checks, unused refunds, and even the contents of safe deposit boxes. Holders of the money or items, such as banks, try to find the owners. The property reverts to the state after three years.

Unclaimed property revenue surged to record levels during the past few years as people left assets behind during pandemic-motivated relocations, and because of Bancorp’s relocation of its national headquarters to Sioux Falls.

The state typically spends much of the revenue, while setting aside only a portion of it for people who come forward to claim their property. Yet rightful owners can claim their assets from the state at any time.

Much of the money is never claimed. Last year, as the state took in about $175 million of unclaimed property, it paid out $38 million in claims to 6,768 claimants. South Dakota has received $310 million worth of unclaimed property so far this year.

The ballot question is part of a legislative package passed this session to bring more predictability to the volatile revenue source, and to protect the state if claims increase. Senate Bill 155, which was signed by Gov. Larry Rhoden on Wednesday, would limit the amount of unclaimed property funds that can be used in the state’s general fund budget, and gradually transition all unclaimed property money into the trust fund. Interest from the fund would then be treated as revenue for the state’s annual budget.

Clarifying that non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in South Dakota elections

Senate Joint Resolution 503 sends a constitutional amendment to South Dakota voters clarifying a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote in any elections in the state. South Dakota’s voter registration form already requires voters to certify they’re citizens of the United States.

Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, introduced the legislation. She said voters in several states have added similar clarifications in their state constitutions in recent elections. She added that the clarification ensures the “process remains secure” and that the “voices of American citizens aren’t diluted.”

Howard, who also introduced the unclaimed property ballot measure, told South Dakota Searchlight that ballot fatigue is “a very real concern,” but she has “confidence in our citizens.”

“They take time to research the issues and I do know no one here is in any way trying to take away or dilute the will of the voter,” Howard said. “We want to listen to the voters. It’s our intention, if anything, to maybe limit the influence of outside national organizations.”

What else might appear on the ballot?

In 1898, South Dakota became the first state to allow citizen-backed initiatives and referendums.

Petitions are filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and reviewed by the attorney general and the Legislative Research Council before they are approved for circulation. Petition circulators must gain 17,508 signatures from South Dakota registered voters for an initiated measure or referred law, and 35,017 signatures for a constitutional amendment. The deadline to turn in signed petitions is May 3, 2026.

Potential 2026 citizen-sponsored ballot questions include:

• An initiated measure requiring South Dakota public school teachers and students to recite a specific non-denominational prayer daily, with an exemption for students and teachers who object.
• A constitutional amendment requiring South Dakota voters approve legislative changes to initiative and referendum procedures.
• A constitutional amendment requiring that “laws may not be enacted to restrict the power of initiative and referendum.”
• A constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to change or repeal initiated measures.A constitutional amendment requiring a seven-year wait and a three-fourths vote by the Legislature and vote of the people to make changes to voter-approved initiated measures.
• An initiated measure rolling back nonagricultural property assessments to 2020 valuations and capping assessment increases to 2.25% annually.

Photo: The South Dakota House of Representatives convenes on Feb. 5, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

this South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

•  In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Dark money in SD: Virginia nonprofit outspends in-state groups in open primaries campaign
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• SD abortion-rights measure opposition gets $500,000 from Leonard Leo's Concord Group 
• Cannabis industry is major funder of South Dakota pot legalization ballot question 

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Commentary: Funding freezes and staff cuts pull the rug out from under South Dakota farmers

Fine commentary by the executive director for Friends of the Big Sioux River and executive director of Northern Prairies Land Trust, that echoes earlier Bluestem post about the plight of farmer after radical slashes in Washington D.C.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Funding freezes and staff cuts pull the rug out from under farmers
by Travis Entenman

What happens in Washington, D.C., can oftentimes feel far away, disconnected from everyday life in the rest of the country. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s recent efforts to streamline the federal government have, and will continue to have, unintended consequences for farmers’ and ranchers’ efforts to conserve water, soil and wildlife habitat if cuts continue with a hatchet instead of a scalpel.

Freezing conservation funds promised to farmers, many of whom have already spent the money, and slashing Natural Resources Conservation Service staff are only exacerbating the uncertainty farmers feel every year during planting. Efforts to make government more efficient and responsive to local needs may be pulling the rug out from America’s farmers when certainty is what’s needed most.

DOGE in SD

For more about the impact of mass federal firings, funding freezes and grant cancellations in South Dakota, see Searchlight’s DOGE in SD page.

U.S. agriculture is already dealing with record costs, labor concerns and an uneasy global trading market. The freeze on conservation funding, coupled with NRCS staffing cuts, is not just an inconvenience; it’s a threat to the economic viability of American farms and ranches, our communities, and the stewardship of land and prairies we depend on.

This funding pause is preventing tens of millions of dollars from being spent in South Dakota. In 2022, Congress invested nearly $20 billion into USDA’s voluntary, incentive-based, private lands conservation programs at NRCS nationwide. The funding began to hit the ground in 2023, and since then, over $29 million have been promised to South Dakotan producers, allowing farmers and ranchers to adopt conservation practices on over 600,000 acres.

Many of these producers have already spent thousands of dollars of their own money to implement practices like planting cover crops, implementing rotational grazing and installing new irrigation systems — all with the understanding that they would be reimbursed in a timely manner, as usual. USDA’s freeze means that many of those farmers are now in limbo, hoping they will receive the reimbursement they are contractually owed.

News is starting to trickle out that some pots of funding are starting to be unfrozen. Although this is a good start, there is still great uncertainty about which funding pots and contracts are being unfrozen. It goes without saying that existing contracts should be honored, at a minimum, and producers should be provided with certainty about the availability of new funding for this year.

Conservation programs don’t just benefit farmers; they have broader economic impacts. When farmers engage in conservation practices, they’re not only improving their land for future generations, but they’re also investing in their communities. Conservation practices often result in better water quality, enhanced wildlife habitats and improved soil health. These improvements boost local economies by ensuring that farms can operate profitably over the long haul and contribute to the broader rural economy.

Another consequence of the freeze is its impact on conservation easement funds that we, at Northern Prairies Land Trust, use to facilitate land protections for farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and Nebraska. Easement funds are often used to protect and restore prairies and grasslands — the fastest disappearing ecosystem in the world. Grasslands, threatened by urban sprawl, conversion to other uses, and a changing climate, are critical as duck and waterfowl breeding habitat, for water filtration, and as migration corridors for big game and other wildlife.  The uncertainty caused by the funding freeze is slowing the conservation of prairies at a time when they need it most.

Beyond the funding freeze, USDA’s Farm Service Agency and NRCS have local offices here in South Dakota that are facing significant staffing reductions, which will only exacerbate these challenges. NRCS and FSA have locally based staff who administer USDA programs, execute contracts and help farmers address natural resource concerns on their farms. They help farmers and ranchers apply for financial assistance, provide technical assistance and guide them on best practices for land management and conservation. USDA funding delivered by NRCS and FSA staff provides significant support to farmers in South Dakota and across the country, and many of these staff have built strong, trusted relationships with producers and conservation groups in the state.

Unfortunately, plans to further reduce staff and even close down some of these offices will leave farmers and ranchers unsure about who to turn to when they have questions about a program, natural resource concern, or reimbursement for money they’ve already spent. Delays will prevent landowners from accessing the technical support they need to implement effective conservation practices now, while they are planning for the whole year.

Farmers are already on the frontlines of extreme weather, which has been increasing in frequency and severity for years. Now, USDA’s funding freeze and staffing cuts are making their job even harder. It’s time to put political divides aside and follow through for our South Dakota farmers and ranchers.

Photo: South Dakota surpassed 7 million acres enrolled in the Conservation Stewardship Program when Reed Petersek enrolled his Lyman County land in 2017. The program, administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, helps landowners build on existing conservation efforts and do more. (Courtesy of USDA-NRCS/Flickr)/

This South Dakota Searchlight commentary is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• About time MNLeg begins bipartisan work in tied chamber: the case of the MNHouse ag committee
• USDA cancels $18 million in funding for school meals and food banks in Minnesota
• Trump's tariffs: SD farmers prepare for impact 
• MinnPost: Delay in conservation grants adds another layer of uncertainty for MN farmer,
• Could Trump's Canadian tariffs apply to electricity? Confusion reigns
• Grant that ‘would have fed thousands’ on Rosebud Sioux Reservation lost to Trump cuts

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz returns to Iowa Friday; Des Moines first stop on town hall tour

As Republican members of congress refrain from conducting town halls, someone is taking their place.

From Iowa Capital Dispatch.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz returns to Iowa Friday, first stop on town hall tour
by Robin Opsahl

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate, is going to host a town hall in Des Moines Friday as the first stop on a national tour heading through Republican-represented areas.

The Des Moines town hall, set to begin at 3 p.m. Friday, is the first stop for the Minnesota Democrat as he plans to head to areas currently represented by Republicans in the U.S. House. The tour began after Walz made a post on the social media platform X responding to news that the House GOP’s campaign leadership told members to stop holding town halls because of backlash over cuts taken by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s temporary organization, the Department of Government Efficiency.

“That’s a shame. If your Republican representative won’t meet with you because their agenda is so unpopular, maybe a Democrat will,” Walz wrote on X earlier in March. “Hell, maybe I will. If your congressman refuses to meet, I’ll come host an event in their district to help local Democrats beat ‘em.”

Walz told CNN Wednesday that he and his staff were overwhelmed by the response to the post, with hundreds of local party leaders and candidates reaching out to hold events in their area. As the running mate to former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee who lost to President Donald Trump in the 2024 general election, Walz said he believed he could serve as a “catalyst” for Americans who feel unheard in the current political climate.

“I have a little more of a national voice, so I should bring it to them, and I’m going to basically be handing the megaphone to them,” Walz said to CNN.

The event in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District, currently represented Republican U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn, is already sold out, with a waitlist available. Walz also has a Saturday stop planned in Omaha, Nebraska, which is currently represented by Republican U.S. Rep. Don Bacon. Both Nunn and Bacon won tight reelection races in 2024.

Other town halls are planned for Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ohio in coming weeks, with additional events expected to be announced.

The Friday town hall will be the first time Walz has returned to Iowa since he joined Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart at the Iowa State Fair in 2023.

Though many high-profile Democrats or potential 2028 presidential candidates have not yet returned to the campaign trail, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a former Democratic presidential candidate, has also visited Iowa as part of a national tour in 2025. In February, he spoke in Iowa City as part of his “Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here” campaign focused on criticisms of Trump and Musk.

Image: From the Iowa Democrats X account.

This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related post

• Town hall with "garbage" constituents? Heavens no. But Center of American Experiment will interview Fischbach March 20 in Ottertail

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Wendy Hoff felony theft charge dropped

Are Wendy and Judd Hoff's legal problems, stemming from charges of theft of signs in 2024, coming to an end? Mr. Hoff, readers may remember, was the endorsed DFL candidate challenging incumbent Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, in the 2024 election.

Looks like it. The Alexandria Echo Press reported Thursday morning, Felony theft charge dropped in Wendy Hoff case involving signs:

ALEXANDRIA — The charge relating to the alleged theft of hundreds of signs has been dismissed against Wendy Hoff

The action was taken March 11 in Douglas County District Court.

According to a document filed that day, the dismissal was based upon the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and the matter is being referred to the city attorney's office for further consideration. Prosecutorial discretion allows public prosecutors a wide latitude to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime.

Related charges against Wendy Hoff's husband, Judd Hoff, have not been dismissed as of press time.

According to a press release issued last year on Aug. 8, more than 240 signs were recovered at the Hoffs' address.

The signs included political campaign signs, real estate signs, special events and advertising.

The search warrant reads that the signs were both large and small and included those advertising Donald Trump, Gov. Tim Walz, Calvary Lutheran, Art in the Park, Casey's Amusement, ReMax, the Vikingland Parade, Legacy of the Lakes, Hoffman Produce and many others.

Wendy Hoff was cited as a suspect in multiple thefts before being charged with felony theft last August. . . .

Read the rest at the Echo Press.

Some back story: in August 2024, Bluestem posted in Updated! Alex police recover over 240 signs at home on 2700 block of Le Homme Dieu Heights:

 On Saturday, KARE 11's Lou Raguse reported in People react to theft of 244 yard signs in Alexandria, allegedly by political candidate's wife:

Wendy Hoff faces one misdemeanor charge so far as the county attorney reviews the bizarre case.

 . . .A worker at a local gun shop saw a woman snatching political signs from the lawn outside and said he snapped a photo she posed for before driving away with the signs in her van.

"They're mad. They're frustrated," said Alexandria Police Chief Scott Kent.

Kent said his department put together a number of similar reports describing the same suspect stealing signs. They wrote a search warrant, raided the suspect's home, and say they found 244 lawn signs in the garage — from realtor ads and political signs to random garage sales.

"It was pretty much non-discriminatory," Kent said.

The suspect is Wendy Hoff, who has been charged with misdemeanor theft in one of the cases while the county attorney decides how to handle the rest.

She's the wife of Judd Hoff, the local DFL-endorsed candidate running for Minnesota House of Representatives against his neighbor, Republican Mary Franson.

. . .At the Alexandria Echo Press, Celeste Edenloff reported 240 signs, including political campaign signs, seized in search warrant of an Alexandria home The house is located in the 2700 block of Le Homme Dieu Heights.

Over at the Voice of Alexandria radio station, there's Search warrant results in over 240 signs being recovered at area home. Mark Anthony reports:

(Alexandria, MN)--On Wednesday, the Alexandria Police Department executed a search warrant in the 2700 block of Le Homme Dieu Heights in Alexandria. This investigation has spanned over several months and there are dozens of reports of stolen signs; the signs include political campaign signs, real estate signs, special events, and advertising. Officials will be working with the victims of the stolen signs to return them and get them back to their rightful owner.

Law enforcement says there were over 240 signs recovered at the search warrant and this will take some time to contact all the victims and return them. They say to please be patient with us as this is an ongoing investigation and we are working as quickly as we can to return the signs to the victims.

As of this time, no arrests made.  However, reports are being sent to the county attorney's office for review.

Bluestem will keep an eye open for any developments in this story.

Photo: Judd and Wendy Hoff. Source KFGO.

Related posts

•  Updated! Alex police recover over 240 signs at home on 2700 block of Le Homme Dieu Heights 
• News digest: DFL House District 12B Judd Hoff endorsement wasn't a winner.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

About time MNLeg begins bipartisan work in tied chamber: the case of the MNHouse ag committee

As a person who watches select Minnesota House committees--either livestreaming or via the MNHouse Information Service YouTube archives, I was happy to read this in Lisa Kaczke's Session Daily article, House leaders look ahead to bipartisan work in tied chamber:

Now that the District 40B special election is over, DFL and Republican leaders are focused on the bipartisan work ahead in a chamber with a 67-67 tie.

Beginning next week, DFL and Republicans will co-chair all House committees except the body’s fraud prevention panel. Bills will also need to have bipartisan support to be approved by committees and move to the House floor where 68 votes are needed for passage.

House Speaker Emerita, DFL Leader Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park) said she had a “good conversation” on Wednesday with House Speaker Lisa Demuth (R-Cold Spring) and hopes there’ll be a shift from bills favored by only Republicans to more bipartisan bills next week.

“I think we’re both ready to turn the page and start working together,” said Hortman. . . .

A case in point where bipartisan work wasn't happening? The Minnesota House Agriculture Finance and Policy.

I've followed the committee for many years, since issues related to rural Minnesota--part of Bluestem's stomping ground--dominate the committee's jurisdiction.

On Wednesday, minority lead Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul (who'll be co-chair next week when the body is evenly split 67-67) posted on Facebook about the committee's one-sided work (not a tradition in ag policy-making):

The full text:

On Monday, I spoke on the House Floor in favor of a bipartisan bill to modify financial reporting requirements for grain buyers. In the Agriculture Committee, where I serve as DFL Lead, I brought forward some of my concerns about the bill being used to subsidize bad management with taxpayer dollars. Some of those concerns were addressed by Republicans, leading to my support of the bill this week.

Unfortunately, that was a rare bright spot of bipartisan work happening this week. In the Agriculture Committee, House Republicans decided they were going to use their temporary 1-vote margin to push through a budget bill that included unvetted proposals before the proper budget target process has been completed. You can watch my comments in committee below.

 

This is not normal and is contrary to the spirit of bipartisan work that my colleagues have stated they want to adhere to. It was an extremely disappointing partisan move, especially in our current House makeup where no bill can pass without bipartisan support.

 

As I said in committee, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Republicans should not be pushing these one-sided budget bills at this time, especially before we know the full impact of the barrage of USDA cuts coming down from Washington D.C.

Click on the image in the embedded post to watch his remarks.

 

Hansen also issued the following press release:

Rep. Hansen's Statement on House Republicans’ Fake Agriculture Budget

SAINT PAUL, Minn. – Today, House Republicans on the Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee passed HF1704, a partisan attempt at an Agriculture and Broadband Finance and Policy budget bill on a party-line roll call vote. The bill rolls back worker protections and cuts funding for locally sourced hunger relief programs.

This comes just days after the Minnesota Department of Agriculture confirmed that previously signed contracts with the USDA of $9,226,348 for school food purchasing and $4,045,518 for childcare institution food purchasing were canceled, as well as the $4,732,009 from the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program.

Representative Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul), who will co-chair the House Agriculture Committee when the House power-sharing agreement takes effect next week, released the following statement following the bill hearing:

“This bill does not have 68 votes, and it will not become law. However, today’s vote does illustrate House Republicans’ misplaced spending priorities, unwillingness to work together, and willful disregard for the impacts of the Trump administration’s cuts to USDA.

“DFLers are committed to building an Agriculture budget that centers hunger relief, supports local food producers, and ultimately helps people throughout this state. Democrats have been ready to work together to solve the problems facing Minnesotans, but Republicans’ unwillingness to listen to the colleagues they need to vote for this bill shows how deeply unserious they are about governing during their temporary majority.”

Readers will recall that Bluestem posted USDA cancels $18 million in funding for school meals and food banks in Minnesota, and MinnPost: Delay in conservation grants adds another layer of uncertainty for MN farmers as well as noting a similar USDA-related story here in South Dakota: Grant that ‘would have fed thousands’ on Rosebud Sioux Reservation lost to Trump cuts.

Let's hope the right-leaning caucus grows some common sense as balanced comes back to the MN House chamber.

UPDATE: Wednesday's committee hearing on the bill continued in much the same vein, as I noted on the X platform:

Heckova show. Anderson went down narrow partisan path--unusual in MN ag policymaking --and Dems weren't talking it lightly. #mnhouse #mnleg #mnfarmers https://t.co/tL7fgSx6oi

— Sally Jo Sorensen (@sallyjos) March 12, 2025

end update

The MNHouse Information Services of Monday's hearing, beginning with Hansen's remarks--and includes responses to them from committee members on both sides of the partisan divide:

Photo: Screencap of the MnHouse Information Services YouTube of the House Agriculture Committee hearing.

Related posts

• USDA cancels $18 million in funding for school meals and food banks in Minnesota
• MinnPost: Delay in conservation grants adds another layer of uncertainty for MN farmers
• Grant that ‘would have fed thousands’ on Rosebud Sioux Reservation lost to Trump cuts.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Summit Carbon Solutions seeks pause in ethanol carbon pipeline permitting schedule after South Dakota adopts eminent domain ban

The latest development in ethanol CCS pipeline politics in South Dakota.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Carbon pipeline company seeks pause in permitting schedule after SD adopts eminent domain ban
by Joshua Haiar

Summit Carbon Solutions wants the schedule of proceedings for its South Dakota permit application “paused for review and adjustment” after the state’s Legislature and governor approved a ban on the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.

The company filed a motion Wednesday with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission asking for a suspension of the scheduling order and an indefinite extension of the deadline for regulatory action on the application. The existing schedule includes a multi-day evidentiary hearing in August and September.

Summit cited House Bill 1052, signed last week by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, as a significant obstacle to completing land surveys along the pipeline’s planned route.

“With the passage of HB 1052, the Applicant’s ability to obtain survey permission has changed,” wrote Summit attorney Brett Koenecke. “The surveys which are necessarily required to inform the route decisions as to right of way will be significantly delayed.”

Summit spokeswoman Sabrina Zenor responded to South Dakota Searchlight questions with a statement reiterating language in the motion and adding, “Summit Carbon Solutions remains committed to working through this process and advancing the project in states that support energy and innovation.”

Eminent domain is a legal process for acquiring access to land for projects that have a public benefit, with compensation for landowners determined by a court. It’s commonly used for projects such as electrical power lines, water pipelines, oil pipelines and highways.

The ban has been hailed as a victory by some landowners who have resisted Iowa-based Summit’s proposed $9 billion carbon capture pipeline. The project would transport carbon dioxide emissions from dozens of ethanol plants in five states to an underground storage site in North Dakota. It would qualify for billions in federal tax credits incentivizing the sequestration of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.

The project has permits in other states, although some are being challenged in court. South Dakota regulators rejected Summit’s first application in 2023, largely due to the route’s conflicts with local ordinances that mandate minimum distances between pipelines and existing features. The company has since made adjustments to its route and reapplied.

Critics of the project are interpreting Summit’s motion as another victory for the opposition.

“This request for extension is a clear sign that Summit knows they have lost the trust of South Dakota, and will be unable to proceed on their original timeline without being able to force surveys on unwilling landowners,” said Chase Jensen, of Dakota Rural Action, in a statement.

Rhoden, a longtime advocate for property rights, described the ban last week as a way to restore trust between landowners and developers. Summit issued a statement last week criticizing the ban as unfairly targeting its project and said “all options are on the table” when asked if it was considering legal action.

The company is not the first to encounter trouble earning a permit for a carbon capture pipeline in South Dakota. Navigator CO2 canceled its $3 billion project in October 2023, citing the “unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa.” South Dakota regulators had denied Navigator’s permit application a month earlier.

Photo: Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, speaks to hundreds of rally attendees at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre on Jan. 13, 2025, during an event highlighting opposition to a carbon dioxide pipeline. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden signs eminent domain ban on carbon pipelines
• South Dakota Legislature passes eminent domain ban for carbon pipelines
• Carbon pipeline eminent domain ban advances to South Dakota House; ‘compromise’ bill gutted
• SD House: carbon capture pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, while environmental analysis bill fails
• SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines
• CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future
• Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
• Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
• State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

SDPB update: Lawmakers on budget committee reject Noem’s public broadcasting cut

Back in February, I posted Busloads of SD public broadcasting supporters make case to avoid $3.6 million state budget cut.

The supporters were successful, South Dakota Searchlight reports.

Lawmakers on budget committee reject Noem’s public broadcasting cut
by Joshua Haiar

PIERRE — Members of the Legislature’s main budget committee voted to maintain state funding for South Dakota Public Broadcasting on Tuesday, reversing former Gov. Kristi Noem’s proposed $3.6 million cut.

The Joint Appropriations Committee, meeting at the Capitol, rejected the provision in the governor’s December budget proposal. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle praised the decision, citing the importance of SDPB’s communication towers, which relay public safety messages; its legislative and other state government livestreams that support government transparency; and its broadcasts of state high school activities.

“As long as I’m here, it’s safe,” said Rep. Liz May, R-Kyle. “Because I have got to watch basketball.” 

The move follows an avalanche of opposition to the proposed cut. Earlier this legislative session, busloads of SDPB supporters traveled to the Capitol to urge lawmakers to maintain funding. They and staff warned the cut would jeopardize federal matching dollars and force the network to significantly scale back local programming. SDPB leaders had warned that without the funding, the network’s ability to broadcast high school sports, legislative hearings and emergency alerts would be severely diminished.

SDPB Executive Director Julie Overgaard, addressing the committee Tuesday, described the past few months as some of the most challenging in her decades with the organization. 

“I cannot tell you how much my staff, myself, our boards and everybody who has spent so much of their life to make this a great service for South Dakota, we appreciate the work you did, and the decision you made,” Overgaard said.

The funding reduction was included in the budget proposal from former Gov. Kristi Noem before she departed for a federal Cabinet position. Gov. Larry Rhoden, who succeeded Noem, acknowledged concerns over the cut but had not committed to restoring it.

SDPB’s budget now moves forward in the legislative process as lawmakers work to finish the next fiscal year’s state budget by the time their annual legislative session concludes Thursday.  Lawmakers will return to Pierre on March 31 to consider any vetoes from Rhoden.

SDPB is requesting $5.6 million in state funding for the 2026 fiscal year. The organization’s total budget is about $11 million, with the rest of the money from federal matching funds and private fundraising.

 

Photo: Retired South Dakota Public Broadcasting employee Larry Rohrer, center, and Executive Director Julie Overgaard, right, attend a budget meeting on Mar. 11, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Busloads of SD public broadcasting supporters make case to avoid $3.6 million state budget cut
• Commentary: Attorney general and others know: Noem’s SDPB cut threatens public safety 
• Proposed funding cut could sink network in as little as two years, SDPB director says

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Democrat wins special election, bringing Minnesota House to a tie

Yesterday's big news in Minnesota state politics. Nice tie.

From the Minnesota Reformer.

Democrat wins special election, bringing Minnesota House to a tie
by Madison McVan

Democrat David Gottfried decisively won a special election in the north metro area Tuesday night, bringing the Minnesota House to a 67-67 tie. 

The seat was empty because the winner of the November election, Democrat Curtis Johnson, was not a resident of the district, a judge ruled in December. 

“The President is sowing chaos that is increasing the price of basic needs like food, energy and health care. It’s never been more urgent that we work together in Saint Paul,” Gottfried said in a statement.

After Gottfried is sworn in, likely on Monday, committees will be co-chaired by one Republican and one Democrat, with membership split evenly, except for a new anti-fraud committee that will remain under Republican control. Rep. Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, will remain in her position as the House speaker through 2026, under a power sharing agreement negotiated earlier this year. 

A bill requires 68 votes to pass in the House, so all bills will require some amount of bipartisan support to pass the chamber. Bills will also require bipartisan support to get a committee hearing, House DFL caucus leader Melissa Hortman said this week. Per a prior agreement, Republicans will retain their majority on the Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee, which was formed to address the theft of hundreds of millions of public dollars in recent years. 

Lawmakers must pass a two-year budget by June 30 to avoid a government shutdown.

Republicans, who have controlled committees during their temporary one-seat advantage, have just a few more days to hold hearings on their bills that have no DFL support.  

The one-seat advantage — though temporary — has paid dividends for Republicans, who secured the speakership and the permanent majority on the anti-fraud committee. And, they were able to get bills on the floor to push their political message, even if they had no chance of passage, like delaying the implementation of paid leave, overturning the duty to retreat, and banning transgender athletes from girls sports. 

While the seat was empty, Republicans considered using their one-vote advantage to block the seating of DFL Rep. Brad Tabke, who narrowly won his south metro election. Democrats held out from the legislative session for several weeks, preventing the chamber from reaching the number of present members required to conduct business. 

Democrats returned to the chamber in early February after reaching a deal with Republicans on the details of the power-sharing agreement. 

“It was always going to be an uphill battle to win in a dark blue Democrat seat, but we look forward to having the House back at full strength,” Demuth said. “I want to thank Paul Wikstrom for running an incredible race and ensuring that District 40B is represented by someone who actually resides in the community.”

 

Photo: State Rep.-elect David Gottfried, who won a special election in House District 40B in the north metro area on March 11, 2025. Courtesy photo, via Minnesota Reformer.

This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• Meet the new deal, a heckova lot like the old deal: Minnesota House Democrats end boycott; legislating to finally begin, three weeks late
• MN Supreme Court to hear second case about House chaos. Here’s what you need to know.
• MN House GOP files lawsuit to force absent DFL members back to Capitol by fining them
• Minnesota House operations stuck in the mud
• MN Supreme Court sides with House DFL, invalidating House GOP’s work for last 2 weeks
• Heckova beginning: Two court decisions upend Minnesota legislative session 
• The ghost of Joe Rolette: DFL walkout at the MN State Legislature isn’t without precedent 
• Minnesota leads again: No other state has ever begun legislative session without clear majorities
• [VIDEO] Session Daily: MNHouse Republicans plan to act as majority, DFL threatens Opening Day absence in power sharing tug-of-war
• DFL Sen. Kari Dziedzic, former MN Senate Majority Leader, dies of cancer at 62
• After Johnson drops notion of appeal, MNHouse 40B special election scheduled for Jan. 28, 2025
• GOP wins MN House majority, for now, after judge rules District 40B DFL candidate ineligible
• Republicans seek Minnesota House majority through two legal challenges
• Dancing in the dark? MNHouse DFL and GOP, tied at 67, locked in a haters’ embrace

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

USDA cancels $18 million in funding for school meals and food banks in Minnesota

I'm catching up with posting after helping a neighbor with a serious health emergency. Just in time, her doctor told her. 

From the Minnesota Reformer.

USDA cancels $18 million in funding for school meals and food banks in Minnesota
by Christopher Ingraham

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is cancelling roughly $1 billion in already-promised spending on local food purchases for schools and food banks nationwide, Politico reported this week.

The Local Food for Schools program provides funding for states to purchase food from local farmers and distribute it to schools and child care programs. A similar initiative, the Local Food Purchase Assistance program, buys and distributes locally-produced food to in-state food banks.

For fiscal year 2025, Minnesota had been awarded roughly $13.3 million to purchase food for schools, and an additional $4.7 million to cover products for food banks. Those funds will no longer be distributed.

DFL lawmakers characterized the cuts as “catastrophic.”

“The Farm to School program has helped our students receive fresh and nutritious locally sourced food while providing additional revenue streams for our farmers, a win-win for Minnesota,” said Senator Heather Gustafson (DFL-Vadnais Heights), who authored legislation to put farm food in local schools. “Demand for Farm to School funds has always exceeded what we can afford, while the overall impact on the federal budget is very small. Cutting this funding is not cutting waste, it’s only hurting our food supply.”

The programs were initiated under the Biden administration as a way to help farmers, schools and food banks weather the supply chain disruptions brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minnesota was the first state to be awarded an LFS grant in 2022. “More Minnesota schools will have access to reimbursement grants to support local purchasing, which will strengthen our state’s local and regional markets, support small and emerging farmers, and ensure our kids are eating the freshest, most nutritious food our state can offer,” said Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen at the time.

USDA data shows that more than 100 Minnesota farmers and food producers participated in the LFPA program. Those producers will now have to find other markets for their products.

The $13 million reduction in local school food spending is about 5% of what the state spends on school meals annually, which could complicate lawmakers’ ongoing efforts to pass a budget to fund state government for the next two years.

Compounding the effect of the USDA cuts are efforts by Republican lawmakers in Congress to slash school meal funding to help pay for $4.6 trillion in federal tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy. 

“Congress needs to invest in underfunded school meal programs rather than cut services critical to student achievement and health,” said Shannon Gleave, president of the School Nutrition Association, in a statement. “These proposals would cause millions of children to lose access to free school meals at a time when working families are struggling with rising food costs.”

Photo: Photo by Amanda Mills/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, via the Minnesota Reformer.

This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Trump's tariffs: SD farmers prepare for impact 
• MinnPost: Delay in conservation grants adds another layer of uncertainty for MN farmer,
• Could Trump's Canadian tariffs apply to electricity? Confusion reigns
• Grant that ‘would have fed thousands’ on Rosebud Sioux Reservation lost to Trump cuts

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Trump's tariffs: SD farmers prepare for impact

As I noted in this morning's first post, MinnPost: Delay in conservation grants adds another layer of uncertainty for MN farmer, farmers in Minnesota are beginning to feel the chaos of the Trump administration.

The South Dakota News Watch story republished below looks at how another parcel of Trump policy could affect their agrarian sisters and brothers across the shared border. 

Trump's tariffs: South Dakota farmers prepare for impact
By Stu Whitney,South Dakota News Watch

During his March 4 address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol, President Donald Trump defended his use of tariffs as a core economic and political strategy, adding a message to the agricultural community.

"Our farmers are going to have a field day right now," Trump said during the speech. "So to our farmers, have a lot of fun. I love you too."

In South Dakota, a state whose reliance on agricultural trade makes it more susceptible to the risks of tariffs and trade wars, the president's words were viewed as hopeful but not entirely reassuring.

Farmers have sturdy memories. They recall the volatility of commodity prices and exports during Trump’s first White House stint, when much of the state's soybean flow to China was halted due to tariff retaliation and has struggled to recover.

"(Tariffs) will hurt our pocketbooks, obviously," said Rodney Koch, who grows soybeans and other crops north of Garretson, about 20 miles northeast of Sioux Falls. "But will we come out of it better in the long run? That's the hope."

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds echoed that sentiment in a statement to News Watch, saying that "there needs to be an end game, and I believe the president is working with that same goal in mind."

So far, the only certainty is uncertainty.

On March 4, Trump slapped 25% tariffs on almost all imports from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% on imports from China, rattling stock markets and triggering retaliatory actions from the countries involved.

Two days later, the president announced that he was postponing 25% tariffs on many imports from Mexico and some imports from Canada for a month amid widespread fears of the economic fallout.

Corn, wheat and soybean prices dropped in the days following the trade shakeup, and farmers weighed the impact of more expensive machinery and fertilizer coming down from Canada.

"One thing the market doesn't like is uncertainty because uncertainty means risk," said Jared McEntaffer, CEO of the Dakota Institute, an economic research and analysis organization in Sioux Falls. "If farmers are concerned that they're going to see lower commodity prices in the future, then naturally, they're going to start pulling back on their spending. And it becomes a ripple effect."

News Watch talked to farmers, business leaders, economists and politicians to try to clear up some misconceptions about tariffs and examine how South Dakota's farm economy could be impacted in the coming months and years.

What are tariffs exactly?

Tariffs are a tax on imports, in which the buyer pays a foreign seller an established tax rate based on what is being sold. Percentages are generally lower for countries with which the United States has a favorable trade agreement.

The money is collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country. Because companies are paying more for the goods, that extra cost frequently gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

"There's a narrative out there that we're going to be imposing these taxes on Canada and Mexico," said McEntaffer. "That's not the case. The tax will be paid by American companies and consumers."

Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue source for the United States. That changed as global trade grew after World War II and the government needed larger revenue streams to support its operations.

In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government collected about $80 billion in tariffs and fees. That pales in comparison to the $2.5 trillion from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes.

How do tariff policies impact South Dakota?

Farming helps drive the state economy, with agricultural production and processing accounting for about 14% of South Dakota’s gross domestic product (the total value of all goods and services produced).

The wholesaling of corn, wheat and soybeans brought in $10 billion in overall revenue in 2024, second among South Dakota industries to credit card issuing ($18 billion).

Though many of these farm goods are sold domestically, a large percentage (including 60% of soybeans) are sold to international buyers.

South Dakota is the country’s 12^th largest agricultural exporting state, shipping $5.4 billion in farm goods abroad in 2022, led by soybeans, corn, feed grains, beef, veal and wheat.

The largest international markets for these exports are, in order, Canada, Mexico and China, which are the three countries that Trump’s administration has placed tariffs upon.

Don’t tariffs impact U.S. imports, not exports?

The thing about tariffs is that there is almost always retaliation, as we’ve seen with Canada, Mexico and China. That’s what is meant by trade wars.

In 2018, when Trump slapped a 25% tariff on goods from China, the Chinese government responded in kind. That greatly reduced the exporting of soybeans into China as that country looked to Brazil to fill the void.

As of November 2024, China accounted for only 44% of total U.S. soybean sales, down from 62% in 2016. From 2019-2023, an average of 73% of Brazil’s exported soybeans went to China.

Following Trump's 2025 tariff announcement, Beijing retaliated with levies of up to 15% on various U.S. agricultural exports, including soybeans, wheat, meat and cotton.

Mexico's response will be watched closely, since that country is the top destination for United States corn exports.

"They're our No. 1 customer, and we value our customers," said DaNita Murray, executive director of South Dakota Corn, which represents the interests of corn producers across the state. "There's a balance between wanting to negotiate strong trade agreements and asking those countries to come to the table to negotiate in good faith while they're being slapped with tariffs."

What is President Trump's reasoning for the tariffs?

The economic reasoning revolves around boosting revenue and addressing trade deficits as well as trying to incentivize American companies such as automakers to shift manufacturing back to the United States.

But Trump has also talked of using tariffs as a bargaining tool to strengthen border security. During his March 4 address, he said that Mexico and Canada have "allowed fentanyl to come into our country at levels never seen before, killing hundreds of thousands of our citizens.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there were 87,000 fentanyl-related U.S. deaths between October 2023 and September 2024, down from 114,000 the previous year.

Critics have questioned equating the northern border with the southern border on the subject of drug smuggling. U.S. customs agents seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border during the last fiscal year, compared to 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border.

"We understand that the president is using (tariffs) as a negotiating lever to stop the flow of fentanyl into the country," said Scott VanderWal, president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau. "Usually he gets what he wants by doing things like that."

But VanderWal, a third-generation family farmer from Volga, just west of Brookings, is also concerned about the fragile state of South Dakota's farm economy so soon after the COVID-19 pandemic, droughts and flooding as well as uncertainty about a new farm bill and federal spending cuts.

Nationally, net farm income decreased 4% in 2024, following a 19% drop the year before.

VanderWal met with South Dakota Republican and U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune on March 4 in Washington to urge caution on trade policies as Trump acknowledged in his speech to Congress that there could be a "little disturbance" in the markets before the strategy bears fruit.

"What we hear from our members is that they can handle some temporary pain as long as there's some benefit on the other end," VanderWal said. "But we've been careful to help the administration understand that with the current ag economy, we would prefer that the president uses the tariffs sparingly."

What are South Dakota politicians saying?

Tariffs present a political quandary for South Dakota’s congressional delegation, which is caught between Trump’s enduring popularity (he carried the state with 63% of the vote in 2024) and the economic needs of their ag-based constituents.

So far, Thune, Rounds and U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson have publicly backed Trump's aggressive trade strategy while also calling for reasonable time limits and parameters.

"Unlike former President Biden, who didn’t negotiate any new trade agreements which led to lower commodity prices, President Trump is a businessman and uses tariffs as leverage in negotiating important issues such as border protection," Rounds told News Watch. "He’s pretty clearly expressed his desire for us to be patient as he works through those issues. Naturally, those of us that have always promoted free trade continue to look for progress."

Johnson told News Watch in February that fair trading relationships and stopping the flow of fentanyl across the border are important priorities and "it seems to me that the president has been very clear that these are areas where he wants to have leverage in conversations with these countries.”

Kristi Noem, former South Dakota governor and U.S. representative who's now secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has ardently supported the trade measures as a means of securing the border. Thune told CNN that Trump's actions are "an attempt to use (tariffs) in a targeted way to achieve and accomplish something that I think a lot of the Americans expect him to address.”

Those statements illustrate a much different political climate than South Dakota Republican leaders operated under in 2018, when Trump levied tariffs against China during his first term in office.

At that time, Thune, Rounds and Noem sent a public letter to the president expressing “serious concern” over the tariffs and other trade policies that they said could push “an alarming number” of South Dakota farmers and ranchers “to the brink of economic collapse.”

“Please keep in mind that U.S. export market share is diminishing daily at an alarming rate, and history has proven that once lost, export markets can take years, even decades to recapture,” read the July 2018 letter.

How will tariffs impact current trade agreements?

One of the concerns is that igniting a tariff battle will reverse recent gains in the trade relationship with Mexico under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which was signed during Trump’s first term.

Mexico repealed its ban on importing genetically modified (biotech) corn from the U.S. in February after a favorable ruling in an arbitration case brought by American trade representatives.

“We had some ups and downs with the previous Mexican administration, but things seem to be headed in the right direction," said Murray of South Dakota Corn, which monitors policy for a state ranked sixth in overall corn exports. "I know that the current administration (in Mexico) is interested in looking at USMCA and possibly making some improvements, and it could be a tough conversation with tariffs in the picture."

On March 6, Trump announced that imports from Mexico that comply with USMCA would be excluded from the 25% tariffs for a month. He also stated that potash (fertilizer) that U.S. farmers import from Canada would be tariffed at 10%, the same rate at which Trump wants to tariff Canadian energy products.

As for changing the dynamic and exploring global markets for corn exports, Murray noted India as a possibility and also various countries in Africa.

“You have mature corn markets like Mexico and Japan,” she said. “And then you have new emerging possibilities, like India and, frankly, the continent of Africa. What are their protein needs? And can U.S. corn compete on a quality basis, as well as price, to make sure that it's U.S. corn that's feeding those chickens and pigs.”

Will there be a farm bailout coming this time?

The “temporary pain” of U.S. farmers during the first go-round of Trump tariffs in 2018-19 was addressed by authorizing payments to U.S. farmers of $28 billion to offset their losses from Chinese trade retaliation.

That was more than the $21.8 billion that the Department of Defense spent in fiscal year 2019 for “nuclear delivery systems and weapons,” including ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers, according to Forbes.

“Taxpayers are going to be asked to initial checks to farmers in lieu of having a trade policy that actually opens and expands more markets," Thune said at the time. "There isn’t anything about this that anybody should like."

Given the state of the federal deficit and the administration's focus on cutting government spending, it seems unlikely that a similar round of farm bailouts will be offered this time around.

That could make the sting felt by farmers more long-lasting if trade wars linger and tariffs become the norm, said Doug Sombke, president of the South Dakota Farmers Union.

“We haven't gained markets back from the last time, and we probably never will," said Sombke, a fourth-generation Brown County farmer. "The only reason we made it through last time was that we got substantial payments from the government, which contributed to the current budget deficit."

Tariffs on Canada could make it more expensive to buy farm machinery and other equipment, Sombke said, worsening an already difficult cycle of farmers struggling to make ends meet without government support.

In 2023, South Dakota received $1.23 billion in farm subsidies, which ranked fourth behind Texas, Kansas and North Dakota.

“If you ask any CPA (certified public accountant) who is doing taxes for farmers, they'll tell you the same thing – farmers are making it on the payments," Sombke said. "If it wasn't for the subsidies and tax breaks and other payments they receive, they wouldn't make anything. That’s how tight things are right now."

The Associated Press contributed to this story, which was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit organization. Read more stories and donate at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact Stu Whitney at [email protected].

Photo:  A farmer at work. From South Dakota News Watch.

Related posts

• MinnPost: Delay in conservation grants adds another layer of uncertainty for MN farmer,
• Could Trump's Canadian tariffs apply to electricity? Confusion reigns
• Grant that ‘would have fed thousands’ on Rosebud Sioux Reservation lost to Trump cuts

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6