After a day of attending to frost-warning garden chores and finally seeing the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate's white buffalo, I'm grateful Michelle Griffith was on the job at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul.
With just over 48 hours prior to the Legislature’s mandatory adjournment midnight Monday, lawmakers are still struggling to resolve a few key issues as they aim for a two-year budget to fund everything from roads to schools, parks, health and social services.
Several large budget bills have yet to be negotiated between the 67-67 divided House and the Democratic-controlled Senate — health and human services, education, a potential infrastructure package and a tax bill — i.e., the most complex and contentious.
The lack of movement on these bills makes a special session all the more likely. Legislative leaders say they anticipate a one-day special session prior to Memorial Day, though it could be longer.
Lawmakers have to pass a budget by June 30 or the government will shut down.
Among the major sticking points: cutting MinnesotaCare for undocumented immigrant adults. Some rank-and-file, progressive Democrats broke with their leaders and Gov. Tim Walz and protested the budget agreement over the proposal and harshly criticized Democratic leadership for acquiescing to one of the Republicans’ top priorities.
House DFL Caucus leader Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, appearing Friday on TPT Almanac, said Democrats will need to compromise given the divided government.
“People need to bend. They need to understand they won’t get everything they want,” Hortman said.
Rep. Cedrick Frazier, DFL-New Hope, who is also co-chair of the progressive People of Color and Indigenous Caucus, told reporters Saturday that the POCI Caucus doesn’t plan to shut down the government over cutting MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults.
“We care about all the Minnesotans, and we’re not willing to shut the government down, but we’re willing to make sure we work very hard to ensure the Minnesotans get what they need,” Frazier said.
Other contentious debates include potential changes to the state’s new paid leave and earned sick and safe time programs and cuts to taxpayer aid for private schools.
Walz has proposed cutting $109 million in aid that helps private schools with transportation, counseling and textbooks. The state has allocated this funding to private schools for decades, but Walz and Democrats are proposing the cuts amid a projected multi-billion dollar budget deficit beginning in 2027.
On Thursday, House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, gave reporters the impression that private school aid would not be touched and presented this as a win for Republicans.
“We also know that we have made great strides in protecting the funding for non-public education. We are protecting our schools,” Demuth said. “We are protecting our students so they can learn in the best way forward.”
But cuts to private school aid are still in play, as far as a key DFL senator is concerned.
Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton, said that funding for private school aid wasn’t part of the global budget agreement, and protecting public education is a priority for Senate Democrats.
“I understand the uniqueness and the value of non-public schools, but as the chair of the Education Finance Committee in the state of Minnesota, my priority is to fund public schools at the best rate and in the best way possible,” Kunesh said in an interview with the Reformer.
A source with the House Republican caucus told the Reformer that there’s “no scenario where we will agree to” any cuts.
Kunesh, who also serves as an assistant majority leader, said that the cuts to private schools are part of her education budget, and she anticipates this issue to be a sticking point in budget negotiations between members of the House and Senate — also known as a conference committee.
“We just have to remind those members also that we have that obligation to public schools first,” Kunesh said.
In between the Senate and House floor sessions, Rep. Dave Baker, R-Wilmar, and Sen. Judy Seeberger, DFL-Afton, held a small press gaggle near the Capitol rotunda to tell reporters that significant changes to the state’s paid leave and earned sick and safe time programs are still on the table, despite their absence from the legislative leaders’ budget agreement.
Legislative leaders agreed to reduce the paid leave payroll tax cap that the Department of Employment and Economic Development could implement each year from 1.2% to 1.1%. But since paid leave will launch in January with a 0.88% payroll tax split between employers and workers, the reduction does nothing to change the program as currently constituted.
Baker said Demuth has given him her blessing to keep trying to implement paid leave changes in conference committee, though he didn’t say what he would specifically look to change. Throughout the session, Baker has attempted to exempt small employers from the paid leave requirement.
“We’re just trying to get (paid leave) right-sized a little bit,” Baker told reporters.
Photo: Hundreds of Education Minnesota members gather in the Capitol Rotunda on May 17, 2025, to rally in support of improved pensions, pay and health care. Photo by Andrew VonBank/House Public Information Services, via Minnesota Reformer.
For me, the notion of putting a men's prison on the location of the closed Saputo dairy processing plant was the most annoying, since Big Stone City for me is filled with memories of buying plants for my flower and vegetable gardens at Lou's Greenhouse. As headlines like Big Stone City Residents Push Back on Proposed State Prison Site, I'm not alone on that one.
And as the article above points out, for obvious reasons, the State of South Dakota won't use the empty CoreCivic private prison in Appleton, Minnesota. (I've heard rumors that some Appleton residents are hoping that Noem's ICE will reopen the facility for detained undocumented immigrants, but my most reliable sources say no).
The inability to act on a site here in South Dakota isn't the only factor that's going to make costs of prisons more expensive John Hult reports for the South Dakota Searchlight.
South Dakota will need a third more prison space than it has now by 2036, and lawmakers’ choice to pass a so-called truth in sentencing bill in 2023 is a major reason why.
That’s among the takeaways from a new report on the state’s prison infrastructure that says the state would need to spend between $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion on new prisons to deal with an inmate population that’s projected to swell in spite of the state’s decreasing crime rate.
The state needs a 1,700-bed men’s prison immediately, the report from Arrington Watkins says. Even then, it says, another 1,500 beds for men will be necessary in a little more than 10 years, when it projects a prison population of more than 5,000 people.
The state signed a $729,000 contract with the Phoenix-based firm as part of “Project Prison Reset,” a work group formed by gubernatorial fiat in the face of state lawmakers’ refusal to back an $850 million, 1,500-bed men’s prison in Lincoln County in February.
Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen, chairman of the work group, said the report supports the group’s first official vote last month, which was to conclude that the state does need at least one new prison.
Venhuizen was quick to point out that the $2 billion price tag would only apply if the state followed the consultant’s guidance to the letter and built two large prisons, but said the population projections lay bare the stakes of South Dakota’s current approach to criminal justice.
The work group’s job is not to address the drivers of prison population growth, he said. But he also said he’s glad the report took note of those driving forces.
The truth in sentencing bill, SB 146, requires people convicted of violent offenses to serve between 85% and 100% of their sentences, depending on the category of their crime.
As a legislator in 2023, Venhuizen voted against SB 146, and its potential to impact prison populations “was part of the reason why.”
“Those decisions are not free. You have to strike a balance there,” Venhuizen said. “If you’re sending people to prison for longer, there is a cost to that.”
The bill’s author and prime sponsor, Republican former Sen. Brent Hoffman, has a different take on the legislation’s impact on South Dakota’s correctional needs.
“The real issue isn’t SB 146, which protects the public by requiring violent criminals to serve their sentences,” said Hoffman, a supporter of term limits who served one term and opted against running for a second in 2024. “The underlying, systemic problems are recidivism rates, wasteful spending, misguided priorities and incompetence, and those problems won’t be solved by any consultant’s report or politician’s rhetoric.”
Prison population growth
Every correctional facility in South Dakota is beyond its capacity now. The South Dakota State Penitentiary was built in 1881 to house one inmate per cell, but holds twice as many.
The proposed 1,500-bed facility in Lincoln County, mired in controversy over cost and necessity and still tied up in litigation over its location, was meant to replace the penitentiary.
There are two other housing units on the penitentiary campus in Sioux Falls, however, and each of those faces its own issues with overcrowding.
The maximum-security Jameson Annex, for example, is overbooked because it houses not only maximum security inmates, but those in disciplinary segregation and those with serious mental health needs. It’s also the sorting zone for every new male inmate in the state system, where inmates stay as they’re assessed for longer-term placement.
The Sioux Falls Minimum Center, meanwhile, holds 245 men in a building designed for 96.
Even with a large but temporary drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, new admissions to Department of Corrections custody grew an average of 3.2% a year between 2015 and 2024, the report says.
That’s in spite of a crime rate in South Dakota that’s lower than the national average and on the decline. The state’s total population has gone the other direction, increasing by 0.9% a year since 2010.
Much of the long-term factors built into the new report were present for its predecessor, a report from Omaha’s DLR group that pointed to a 1,500-bed men’s facility as one of several necessary projects for the DOC.
Senate Bill 146 is a wrinkle that didn’t exist for the DLR group, some portions of which were used by Arrington Watkins in its expedited, two-month repeat assessment.
SB 146 ropes in fewer than 10% of the state’s inmates, the report notes – drug offenses are the most common charge for which South Dakotans are imprisoned – but the inability of those convicted of violent offenses to be released before serving at least 85% of their sentence will have a long-term impact on prison population growth.
“Roughly half” of the 1,246 more inmates the report anticipates South Dakota will have by 2036 is attributable to SB 146.
Parole violations are another driver of population growth, the report notes. About 45% of new admissions to the DOC came by way of parole violations in 2024, the report says, and 84% of those violations “were technical in nature rather than new criminal charges.”
Minnehaha County State’s Attorney Daniel Haggar cautioned that technical parole violations often involve serious misbehavior, however. Technical violations include drug use, he said, as well as absconding – losing touch with a parole officer altogether.
“When those offenders are violent offenders or sex offenders this is a threat to public safety,” he said in an email to South Dakota Searchlight on Friday.
Responses colored with skepticism of price tag, conclusions
The state has already spent more than $50 million on the Lincoln County site, although a share of that money could be clawed back by selling land or reusing aspects of the now-stalled prison’s design.
The new report’s top recommendation is a 1,700-bed, Level V facility, built within 30 miles of the existing penitentiary to relieve crowding across the entirety of the men’s prison system. It also recommends demolishing the 1881 penitentiary.
“Level V” is correctional nomenclature for maximum security.
Former penitentiary warden Doug Weber wrote seven letters to lawmakers during the 2025 session urging them to say no to the 1,500-bed facility in Lincoln County, essentially a smaller version of what the new report says is necessary.
The focus on the factors driving the state’s prison population growth raises important questions, Weber told South Dakota Searchlight on Friday, but he disagrees strongly with its conclusions on how to remedy the situation.
“There’s nobody in South Dakota, in my opinion, except a handful of people, maybe in Pierre, that would be comfortable spending $2.1 billion on buildings for the Department of Corrections,” said Weber. “There are much better ways to spend money.”
Weber called a Level V facility unnecessary and too expensive in a state where the number of maximum security inmates hovers around 200.
He also bristles at the idea of knocking down the pen. Millions have been spent to maintain it in recent years, including for air conditioning less than five years ago, and Weber said it could easily serve as a minimum security facility by removing the cell doors and putting a single person in each cell.
Republican Speaker of the House Jon Hansen, a work group member and candidate for governor in 2026, said “there’s absolutely no way that I will support spending that much money on prisons.”
“If we needed to be building new facilities, we should be looking at the current location in Sioux Falls for a lot less money,” Hansen said.
Madeline Voegeli, one of the neighbors to the Lincoln County site who sued the state over the issue, said in an email to Searchlight that the group has serious doubts about the veracity of the report’s population projections.
The DLR report, completed in 2022, suggested a 1,300-bed men’s prison at a cost of around $608 million.
Now, she wrote, “we’re being told to swallow a nearly quadrupled cost of up to $2.1 billion, largely driven by SB 146 and questionable population projections.”
Voegeli accused the state of engaging in a “pattern of inflating proposals to make a billion-dollar plan” – the original Lincoln County proposal – “appear reasonable.”
Venhuizen said arguments suggesting that the Lincoln County plan’s supporters tried to tip the scale in the consultant’s report are misplaced.
“It’s not a strong position to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is being dishonest,” Venhuizen said. “If you’re doing that, you should probably examine the strength of your own arguments.”
Criminal justice reform questions
Rep. Karla Lems, a Canton Republican who’s both a work group member and an avowed opponent of the Lincoln County proposal, said Friday that she’s skeptical of the conclusions, as well.
The work group is meant to deliver its recommendations to a special legislative session in July. The state, she said, needs to spend more time thinking about reducing repeat offenses before it decides what to build.
Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, is also a work group member. He said the state needs to think “innovatively” on how to reduce prison populations, and that the report is a clear sign of how necessary that is. Mulder was one of the prime sponsors of a bill to change the penalty for first- and second-offense drug ingestion from a felony to a misdemeanor during the 2025 session.
Too few prisoners are getting drug treatment, Mulder said, and he feels the state ought to consider partnering with nonprofits to extend treatment’s reach both inside the prison and outside, for parolees.
He also has questions about parole supervision practices.
“I would ask ‘what’s going on now with things like remote monitoring,’” Mulder said. “It’s a lot more effective for the state for someone so they can continue to be held accountable, but be held at home.”
A graph of South Dakota’s projected prison population, taken from a consultant report from the group Arrington Watkins. (Courtesy of South Dakota Department of Corrections)
Mulder supported truth in sentencing and continues to, though. He said parole reforms make more sense.
Reforms to truth in sentencing laws ought to be up for consideration, though, according to Zoë Towns, executive director of a bipartisan think tank called Fwd.Us.
Her group pushes for changes to criminal justice and immigration policy. The knock-on effects of incarceration for families and communities are heavy, Towns said, and the returns for public safety diminish significantly when inmates don’t have a chance to earn credit for good behavior – even when the people earning them committed violent offenses.
“What we should be asking is ‘how long is incapacitation actually helpful?’” Towns said. “What are the policies that are most likely to help people, when they come home, to contribute to their communities and local economies?”
Addressing behavioral health needs and addiction early on are more effective ways to deal with crime than incarceration, she said, but other strategies are even further removed from criminal justice.
“It’s literally after school and public school programs,” Towns said. “That has a stronger homicide reduction rate than policing does. I’m not saying there’s not a role for policing. I’m saying that actually, factually, in evidence, has a stronger return than sleeping in prison.”
The next Project Prison Reset meeting is June 3 in Pierre.
Photo: The Project Prison Reset group meets on April 3, 2025, at the Military Heritage Alliance in Sioux Falls. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
Lawmakers and advocates on the right and left are raising questions about a provision in legislation a powerful U.S. House committee approved Wednesday, with critics arguing it would allow federal regulators to approve natural gas and carbon dioxide pipelines over prohibitions in state law.
Two sections in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s reconciliation instructions, which the Republican-led panel passed along party lines, would allow pipeline operators to pay $10 million to participate in an expedited federal permitting process that critics say would override state laws.
The potentially intensely controversial provision would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority to issue licenses for pipelines carrying natural gas, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oil, or other energy products and byproducts.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Commission issues a license under subsection (c)(1) of this section and the licensee is in compliance with such license, no requirement of State or local law that requires approval of the location of the covered pipeline with respect to which the license is issued may be enforced against the licensee,” the text of the bill reads.
A summary document provided by the committee says the bill would apply to states only in cases when state agencies are responsible for conducting federal reviews.
“For States, this includes their authorities to impose conditions for any certifying authorities delegated to States by federal law,” the document says.
But a variety of groups and lawmakers — environmental groups opposed to loosening reviews, landholder advocates concerned about property rights and small-government conservatives who favor local control — say the measure would open the door for the federal government to nullify state and local protections.
That includes a recent South Dakota law to prevent pipeline operators from using eminent domain to force landowners to sell or allow use of their property.
“This is federal overreach,” South Dakota state Rep. Karla Lems said in a Thursday interview. “It would override any state or local law regarding … the routing of a pipeline.”
Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’
The Energy and Commerce Committee was one of 11 House panels that have approved reconciliation instructions and sent them to the House Budget Committee to consolidate into one package. House Republicans plan to consider the 1,100-page package on the floor next week.
The complex process, known as budget reconciliation, allows the majority party to pass legislation with simple majorities in both chambers, avoiding the U.S. Senate’s usual 60-vote requirement.
President Donald Trump has described the package as “one big, beautiful bill” and it contains a host of his domestic policy priorities including extending tax cuts and increasing funding for immigration enforcement.
A provision in Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation bill encouraged an existing trend of pipeline installation in the Midwest. The measure provided tax breaks for carbon sequestration, which can involve piping the carbon dioxide byproducts that result from processes like ethanol production into underground storage chambers.
Actually building those pipelines across hundreds of miles between ethanol producers, particularly in farm states like Iowa and South Dakota, and underground storage facilities in North Dakota, where the geology supports it, requires the use of private land, which has been strongly opposed for several reasons and led to state restrictions.
Environmental and safety groups worry some pipeline at some point will rupture and therefore pose a danger to nearby residents and water sources.
Private property owners and conservative political allies say they should have stronger rights to resist pipeline operators from using their property.
Plea to Congress
That unusual coalition was apparent again this week as environmentalists and conservatives united to oppose the measure in the Energy and Commerce bill.
A collection of 70 environmental and conservation groups signed a letter to the committee Wednesday urging the language be removed.
“These measures would radically expand federal jurisdiction over all types of interstate pipelines, drastically limit public input, shorten environmental review timelines, and shield projects from legal challenges, all while clearing the way for expanded use of federal eminent domain against landowners,” the letter said.
The letter was signed by groups ranging from the local agriculture and conservation organization Dakota Rural Action to national environmental group Food & Water Watch.
South Dakota House Speaker Jon Hansen, a self-described MAGA Republican, tweeted screenshots of the provision with the message “property rights are under attack again.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican former U.S. House member and rival to Trump in the 2024 presidential nomination race, reposted the tweet.
“This represents overriding both the rights of states and private property owners to serve Biden’s Green New Deal,” DeSantis wrote above Hansen’s message. “What the heck is going on up there?”
Uncertainty over impact
Chase Jensen, a senior organizer with Dakota Rural Action, said in a press release accompanying the coalition letter that the group was calling on members of Congress “to stand with the State of South Dakota and oppose this clear attempt to buy permits and bypass the people.”
“When South Dakota was first faced with carbon dioxide pipelines, our congressmen said it was up to the state to deal with it,” Jensen said. “Now that we have barred eminent domain for these private projects – their billionaire owners are trying to cut the state out of the process altogether.”
South Dakota’s U.S. House member, Republican Dusty Johnson, said in a statement to South Dakota Searchlight he’d been unaware of the bill’s language but predicted it would be removed before final passage.
He indicated he was unsure what the effect of the bill would be, but started “from a place of deep skepticism.”
“I wasn’t aware of this language until committee text was released,” Johnson, who does not sit on Energy and Commerce, wrote. “As a former public utilities commissioner, I have strong concerns with bypassing state permitting and I begin from a place of deep skepticism for this language. I doubt it will be included in President Trump’s ‘one, big, beautiful bill.’”
But U.S. Rep. Julie Fedorchak, a North Dakota Republican who is a former state utility regulator, told reporters on a press call Thursday morning that she thought the bill would not block the state from being involved in environmental reviews, even if a company seeks a pipeline permit from federal regulators.
Fedorchak said she doesn’t think the proposal would limit local input on projects, adding that FERC has a “pretty robust permitting process” for interstate natural gas pipelines.
A spokesman for the Energy and Commerce Committee did not return a message seeking clarification Thursday.
North Dakota Monitor Editor Amy Dalrymple and South Dakota Searchlight Editor Seth Tupper contributed to this report.
Photo: South Dakota state 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. (Photo by Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
Legislative leaders and Gov. Tim Walz on Thursday, at a press conference in the Capitol’s golden-fixtured reception room, proudly announced a long-sought, bipartisan deal that would finally bring the Legislature one step closer to passing a two-year budget of roughly $66 or $67 billion, about five billion less compared to the current two-year cycle.
Progressive Democrats were outraged, however, shouting and banging on the door into the room from which they were barred entry, drowning out Walz and the leaders’ remarks about their hard work and friendly negotiations.
The lawmakers shouted “don’t kill immigrants” and “One Minnesota, right?” — a dig at the governor’s 2018 election slogan.
The source of their anger: The budget deal that would end access to state-subsidized health insurance — MinnesotaCare — for undocumented adults. Undocumented children would still be eligible for the program.
Because of the change to MinnesotaCare, progressive Democrats in the House and Senate have vowed to withhold their votes for the measure, which would be included in a health omnibus bill.
Lawmakers won’t vote up or down on the budget, however. They’ll vote on a series of bills funding various government operations, from schools to parks to health and social services.
The big question was whether the progressive Democrats — particularly in the 34-33 Democratic-controlled Senate — would block all government spending bills, or just the health bill that would repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented people.
Rep. Cedric Frazier, DFL-New Hope, said the People of Color Indigenous Caucus is focused on voting down the MinnesotaCare provision in the health bill, while evaluating whether to vote against more of the budget over the next few days. If progressive Democrats were to vote no across the board, Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, would need some Republican votes, and it wasn’t clear Thursday that she had them.
Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, didn’t sign the budget agreement and said Thursday he wasn’t sure whether his caucus would vote for the budget agreement as written.
But in a statement, Johnson was more forceful: “While the final deal includes some needed reforms, it falls short of acknowledging we need bipartisan support to stop the harmful progressive policies hurting small businesses and working families. We still have a lot of work before the end of the session.”
On top of all this, time is running out: The legislative session ends on Monday, and the Minnesota Legislature will likely need a special session to pass its 2026-2027 budget.
Here are five key takeaways from Thursday’s budget deal announcement.
‘We are going to fight this ‘till the very end’
Members of the progressive POCI Caucus said they were blindsided by the deal to roll back MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults. At a press conference, about 30 Democratic lawmakers vowed they will not vote for it.
Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina, said taking away health care for undocumented immigrants was Republicans’ top priority and accused Republicans of not caring if these Minnesotans die due to a lack of health care.
“What we have is a party who is willing to take away insulin from diabetics, inhalers from people with asthma, cancer treatments for people who just want a few more years with their children, all for political points, all for political gain,” Mann said. Republicans, she said, are telling immigrants that “they can suffer, they can die and we don’t care.”
“We are going to fight this ‘till the very end,” Mann said.
MinnesotaCare was created in 1992 to help close the gap in coverage for low-income working families who make more than the income threshold for Medicaid, which is called Medical Assistance in Minnesota.
In 2023, the DFL trifecta expanded the social safety net to include undocumented immigrants, beginning on Jan. 1 this year.
Enrollment has surpassed estimates, and Republicans argue undocumented people should be taken off the rolls to save money and discourage people from moving here for coverage.
The Department of Human Services says that its most recent data show that as of April 24, 20,187 undocumented people had enrolled in MinnesotaCare. The program is fee-for-service, meaning the state only pays claims after services are administered.
DHS says it has received 4,306 claims for service, costing Minnesota $3.9 million. This is nearly $1 million over what the state had projected by this date, according to DHS. Some of the undocumented immigrants on MinnesotaCare pay a monthly premium, like other residents who are on the program.
State Sen. Jordan Rasmusson, R-Fergus Falls, who has been at the forefront of the Republican effort to repeal the expansion of MinnesotaCare for undocumented people, celebrated the deal in a statement: “This change is a benefit for Minnesota taxpayers and is an acknowledgement that including all illegal immigrants in MinnesotaCare made us a magnet for those who broke the law to enter our country.”
That’s a strong signal that Republicans would vote for the health bill, helping push it over the finish line in the absence of progressive DFL votes.
Emilia Gonzalez Avalos, executive director of Unidos Minnesota, said that working immigrants in Minnesota have been used as human shields in Minnesota legislative leaders’ budget deal.
“This is not an issue that will magically go away at the end of session. A countdown has begun, and people that were receiving treatments for life-saving procedures now have through the end of the year,” Gonzalez Avalos said.
House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, said the compromise leaders came to isn’t heartless.
“It’s not a measure of being uncaring. It’s a fiscal issue, and there are still opportunities those Minnesotans that are here illegally can still join the private market,” Demuth said.
There’s still a lot we still don’t know
The budget agreement gives the topline numbers for spending increases and cuts by agency.
The biggest cuts over the next two years are to human services ($270 million), transportation ($115 million), and health ($98 million).
The agreement doesn’t specify how, exactly, those agencies will make the changes to revenue and spending.
For example, the budget agreement calls for $270 million in cuts to the Department of Human Services.
In the House, lawmakers want to shift costs to counties and reduce the number of people receiving extra payments to cover care for people with extraordinary needs. In the Senate, the DFL majority passed a bill that would instead cut funding to nursing homes. And Walz has his own ideas for how to slow down DHS spending.
It’s not clear what aspects of each plan — House, Senate and governor — were incorporated into the agreement. In a press conference Thursday, no one mentioned the specifics of the DHS portion of the bill.
Leaders did discuss how they plan to achieve some of the savings: ending MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults; repealing one part of a tax credit for data centers; and pushing some costs to counties.
Details of the budget cuts will trickle out as lawmakers meet in conference committees, taking aspects of the House and Senate versions of budget bills until they reach the target handed down to them by leadership.
Looming over the process is the expected cuts from the Republicans in Washington.
If Congress moves forward with a federal budget that would slash funding to states — which would likely happen in September just before federal government funding expires — lawmakers would have to reconvene to find even more cuts.
Stillwater prison to close in 2029
The budget agreement includes the closure of the state’s second-largest prison, in Stillwater.
“Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater needs such significant updating and investments that closing the facility must be seriously considered,” the Office of the Ombuds for Corrections wrote in the report.
The facility’s 1,100 residents must be relocated over the next four years, assuming the Legislature moves forward with the plan.
Soft cuts
There are some areas of the state budget — including education and some parts of DHS — that automatically increase each year to account for inflation.
In the areas of the budget where inflation adjustments aren’t automatic, however, lawmakers are opting not to give agencies a funding bump to cover their expected cost increases over the next two years.
That means widespread smaller cuts, beyond those specified in the targets, are expected at state agencies, as the cost of providing services — labor, supplies, transportation, etc. — increase with inflation, while the agency’s budget does not.
Demuth during the budget announcement highlighted a small change to paid leave that would “reduce the tax for businesses.” But the change would only reduce the payroll tax cap that the Department of Employment and Economic Development could implement each year from 1.2% to 1.1%.
DEED has said it would launch the program in January with a 0.88% payroll tax, which will be split between workers and their employer.
Education cuts down the road?
The budget agreement calls for no changes to education funding, except the mandatory inflation adjustment, over the next two years.
In the following two years, 2028 and 2029, the agreement calls for $420 million in cuts, which accounts for nearly a quarter of the savings projected in those years.
But the people who signed the agreement may not have the political power or will to follow through with those cuts. They would need to be approved by the 2027 Legislature. By 2027, Minnesota will have elected an entirely new House, Senate and governor.
While Walz and other leaders might run again, the political dynamics could be entirely different.
Photo: Sen. Alice Mann speaks as she and other members of the People of Color and Indigenous Caucus hold a press conference responding to the morning announcement of a budget deal Thursday, May 15, 2025 at the Minnesota State Capitol. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer).
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.
My friend and I were driving through the sporadic thunderstorms that blew through Northwestern South Dakota when news broke of the Minnesota state budget deal.
No tornado warnings here in Roberts County, but the weather warnings in Minnesota seem to match news of the deal.
Personally, I'd like to see all working people--especially those caring for livestock and poultry flocks and working in food processing and preparation--receiving health care insurance, but perhaps I'm just old fashioned about human rights and health.
Gov. Tim Walz on Wednesday assembled a press conference with state legislative leaders to announce agreed-upon spending targets for the state budget.
The Legislature is supposed to pass a balanced budget funding the Minnesota government over the next two years before it adjourns May 19. It is exceedingly unlikely they will do this, though Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, asserted at said press conference that lawmakers may just need a day-long special session to complete the budget.
Walz declared to a packed and rapt audience of reporters that “it never happened in American history” where one had a legislature so closely divided (the Senate is 34 DFL, 33 Republicans; the House is split 67-67 between the parties) that was nonetheless able to reach a budget compromise.
It is especially impressive, the governor said, “at a time of chaos and dysfunction at the federal level.”
“I think the country would be appreciative of this, because it can still work. Democracy is hard, but it can still work.”
And then chaos and dysfunction happened.
People began to pound the doors of the governor’s locked reception room, chanting Walz “sold out” and “failed immigrants” on a budget compromise to stop letting undocumented immigrants access MinnesotaCare, a state-operated subsidized health care program.
Many of the protesters were not incensed private citizens, but rather the very DFL lawmakers who hold a razor-thin majority in the Senate.
Amid the din of demonstrators, lawmakers and Walz administration officials answered questions in a way that suggested a lot still needs to be done.
Here is what we know about the progress in crafting a state budget.
Walz, Hortman, Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Springs, and Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, laid out targets Wednesday about the size of each spending bill and the overall amount the Minnesota government will spend over the next two (and four) years.
Walz and the legislators announced that they will spend $283 million less in fiscal years 2026 and 2027 than what was laid out in the Minnesota Management and Budget’s (MMB) February forecast.
That puts total spending at $67.5 billion over the next two years.
A forecast is just that, predicting what the state might do using past years as a guide. It also anticipates revenues Minnesota will bring in by looking at factors like tariff uncertainty and possible Federal Reserve actions.
This cut over the next two years includes $270 million less compared to the February forecast in the Department of Human Services (DHS), which operates Minnesota’s Medicaid program.
There are modest cuts elsewhere compared to the forecast, like $30 million less for jobs and economic development programs.
The big and painful cuts come in fiscal years 2028 and 2029.
At that point, the state plans to reduce K-12 spending by $420 million compared to forecast, and wipe out $820 million from DHS. Overall, Walz and lawmakers target $1.8 billion in cuts during these two years.
Some cuts are being agreed on now because MMB predicts Minnesota will move from a surplus to a nearly $6 billion budget deficit by fiscal year 2028.
“I’m pleased to say that we came up with a budget that was fiscally responsible,” Walz said, adding, (as he did in the State of the State speech) “this agreement will ensure Minnesota continues to be the best place in the country to raise a child.”
Gov. Tim Walz speaks at the press conference about the budget compromise.
Wait, so all that was announced was these budget spending targets?
Yes and no.
In snippets of their press conference remarks, one can glean what specific issues Walz and legislative leaders reached compromises on.
One such topic is health care for undocumented immigrants.
Minnesota started a program Jan. 1 to allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in MinnesotaCare, a program that partly subsidizes health care for Minnesotans who live below 200% of the federal poverty level.
As of April 24, the program has cost the state $3.9 million. But Republicans say costs will spiral and imperil Minnesota’s ability to get Medicaid money from Washington.
In response, MinnesotaCare will only be accessed by undocumented children with adults booted off, Demuth explained.
Tipped off about this deal, the legislative People of Color and Indigenous caucus made up entirely of DFLers attempted to storm the press conference. They later held a press conference of their own, saying they will not sign off on a spending bill with MinnesotaCare cuts for undocumented immigrants.
Asked about the cut, Walz said, “I don’t agree with it but I agree with the compromise of it.”
Murphy, who previously said she would hold the line on MinnesotaCare for all undocumented immigrants, told reporters, “We learn as children the skill and value of compromise.”
I’m confused. Is limiting subsidized health care for undocumented immigrants to just children a settled issue or not?
It is settled unless all DFLers vote as a block to stop a spending bill with that language. Murphy and Hortman would need to change their current stance, which is unlikely this late in the budget-writing process.
What other hot-button issues are lawmakers agreeing on?
As diligent followers of the state budget process might remember, the bill funding K-12 schools is stuck in the House over whether to extend a program that gives hourly school workers – like teacher’s aides and food service workers – unemployment benefits when school’s out in the summer.
Hortman explained that the House plans to pass an education spending bill as soon as tomorrow. The chamber will then introduce separate legislation that has the unemployment insurance program sunset in four years.
Also on the education front, Demuth said, “We have made great strides in protecting the funding for non-public education,” a sign that cuts to private school students’ aid and transportation is likely off the table.
A subject that has received far less attention (until today) is that the state will close the Stillwater Correctional Facility by 2029, as part of the budget deal. The Star Tribune reports the decision will affect 550 state employees and 1,172 inmates, and save the state $40 million.
What is NOT included in the budget agreement?
Well, the bills still have to be written working from these targets.
That means negotiating what to cut, or in some cases add, to spending bills that can run hundreds of pages long.
One glaring area is Medicaid costs, including giving recipients long-term care at their homes.
Walz has consistently highlighted the escalating costs of long-term care waivers. During his State of the State speech, the governor implied that long-term care could soon make up 1/8 of the budget.
Yet there are no specific Medicaid cuts laid out in the targets, according to Ahna Minge, the state budget director.
That will leave it to House and Senate Human Services Committee leaders to reconcile two very different bills when it comes to Medicaid cuts. Already, committee leaders have treated finding Medicaid cuts as a quite unsavory, if necessary, part of their jobs.
“This is not something we can say we’re proud of,” said Mohamud Noor, DFL-Minneapolis earlier this month of the budget bill that passed through the House Human Services Committee he co-chairs. “But we’re getting there.”
MinnPost reporter Shadi Bushra contributed to this report.
Photo: Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman (DFL, 34B) speaks at the Capitol on Thursday, May 15, 2025, flanked by Gov. Tim Walz (DFL), Sen. Majority Leader Erin Murphy (DFL, 64) and Speaker of the House Lisa Demuth (R, 13A), from left to right. Credit: MinnPost photo by Shadi Bushra.
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.
While the State of Minnesota has passed sweeping legislation to restrict Per- and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, also called "forever chemicals"), South Dakota hasn't been as agressive.
South Dakota’s state government is testing for “forever chemicals” in rivers across the state.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s, including in modern products such as nonstick cookware and water-resistant clothing, and don’t break down easily in the environment or in the human body. Research indicates PFAS exposure may be linked to negative developmental and reproductive effects, and an increased risk of some cancers.
Concerns about their prevalence in the environment and their impacts on human health have grown steadily in recent years, as they’ve been discovered in drinking water, fish and food packaging.
The Biden administration set first-ever limits on the chemicals in last year. EPA-mandated testing has found them in nearly half of Americans’ drinking water. Publicly available test results found a type of PFAS called perfluorooctane sulfonic acid at Mount Rushmore National Memorial as well as smaller amounts of other PFAS contaminants in Aberdeen, Harrisburg, Rapid Valley Sanitary District, Lincoln County Rural Water System and the Mni Wiconi water system. The Trump administration is planning to weaken drinking water limits on PFAS, according to Politico.
The state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources began testing rivers this spring to “establish a baseline” for the presence of PFAS in surface waters across the state, according to Ben Koisti, spokesman for the department.
The department will use results to determine risks and help “identify and address potential contaminant sources,” Koisti said in an emailed statement.
Caption: A map shows PFAS testing sites managed by the state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Courtesy of SD DANR)
“The results can also be beneficial for water systems that use surface water as their water source,” Koisti said. “If PFAS contamination is identified in an area and at concentrations that pose a potential risk to a drinking water system, DANR will take action to further identify the source and mitigate the contamination to protect the impacted water supply.”
Testing is underway with additional sampling planned at the 30 testing sites this fall. Results will be posted on the department’s website. The East Dakota Water Development District tested 11 sites along the Big Sioux River in eastern South Dakota last year, finding the contaminants were most concentrated downstream of cities like Watertown and Sioux Falls in its preliminary data.
The department’s sampling sites were selected based on geographic distribution, population density, and whether the surface water contributes to a drinking water supply. There are 26 water systems in the state that rely on surface water for drinking water.
The project costs about $15,000 using federal EPA funds through the Public Water System Supervision grant.
Photo: The Big Sioux River flows under a Highway 34 bridge near Egan in southeastern South Dakota. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
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.
South Dakota’s Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources has not set specific targets for reducing water pollution in the state’s streams and rivers.
More than three-quarters (78%) of the stream-miles tested in South Dakota were found to be unhealthy for aquatic life, swimming and other beneficial uses, according to the department’s 2024 surface water quality report. Surface water is public property in South Dakota, not the property of landowners.
Major pollutants include fertilizer runoff from farm fields, soil erosion from agricultural operations and natural sources, and E. coli bacteria from livestock and wildlife feces.
South Dakota requires a permit to discharge pollutants into surface waters, but issues such as declining inspections and lapsed permits due to staffing issues have contributed to frequent violations.
The DANR has not responded to emails asking about statewide pollution reduction goals. Other states, including Minnesota and Iowa, have set statewide goals for pollution reduction.
This fact brief responds to conversations such as this one.
This story 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 to get stories when they're published.
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.
Two North Dakota judges have ruled that lawsuits filed by landowners against carbon pipeline company Summit Carbon Solutions can proceed over objections about court procedures.
Several landowners are suing Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, which is attempting to build a network of pipelines across five states. The pipelines would take carbon dioxide emissions captured at ethanol plants to sites in western North Dakota for permanent underground storage.
Attorneys for Summit had filed motions to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that not all parties involved were properly notified and that the cases were not filed in the proper court.
South Central Judicial District Court Judge Pam Nesvig issued her ruling Friday rejecting Summit’s arguments in one case in which landowners are suing Summit and the North Dakota Public Service Commission.
South Central Judicial District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren filed a similar ruling Tuesday in another case in which landowners are suing Summit entities and the North Dakota Industrial Commission.
The Public Service Commission in November granted Summit a permit for its pipeline route, about 333 miles through southeast and south-central North Dakota.
South Central Judicial District Court Judge David Reich has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss in another case where Burleigh County is suing the North Dakota Public Service Commission and Summit Carbon Solutions.
Among the issues raised in the PSC cases is that the agency did not give enough consideration to the safety of residents along the pipeline route. The lawsuit also challenges the PSC’s ruling that state zoning rules trump county zoning ordinances on pipelines.
The PSC ruled last year that a 2019 state law gives the state the upper hand on pipeline setbacks – such as how far away the pipeline must be from a residence – after Summit said Emmons and Burleigh had passed unreasonable set ordinances.
In the Industrial Commission case, landowners contend the state Department of Mineral Resources withheld information about Summit’s models that would predict where the carbon dioxide would move when the gas is pumped underground. The Industrial Commission oversees the Department of Mineral Resources, which recommended approving the storage permits. About 92% of landowners have voluntarily agreed to participate in the storage facility.
In yet another case, the North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments last month in a challenge to a state law related to underground storage of CO2.
The Northwest Landowners Association and other landowners contend a state law that can force landowners to take part in an underground CO2 storage project through a process called amalgamation is unconstitutional. Summit Carbon Solutions is taking part in the defense of that law along with the state of North Dakota and the Industrial Commission. An attorney for Minnkota Power, who joined the Industrial Commission in arguing to the Supreme Court, said a small percentage of property owners should not be able to deny a majority the right to develop their property.
Summit’s pipelines are planned to connect 57 ethanol plants, including Tharaldson Ethanol at Casselton, to the underground carbon storage sites.
Summit so far has been denied a permit in South Dakota. It has obtained permits in Iowa and for part of its Minnesota route. Nebraska has no state permitting for carbon pipelines.
Supporters of the Summit project say it would support the ethanol industry by lowering the carbon intensity score of the ethanol plants, opening up potential sales in low-carbon fuel markets.
The project would take advantage of federal tax credits promoting carbon sequestration to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Photo: Lenora Kenner, center, of Bismarck, talks with attendees of an anti-CO2 pipeline protest at the Capitol in Bismarck on July 27, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor).
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.
The National Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol was established in 1864 to allow states to donate “statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services.”
Minnesota is currently represented by education pioneer Maria Sanford and Henry Mower Rice, an early state leader who helped facilitate statehood and was one of its first senators.
“Like Minnesota, many states have chosen to submit one civic leader and one political leader. Many states have also recently chosen to update their statues in recent decades,” said House DFL Floor Leader Jamie Long (DFL-Mpls).
He sponsors HF475 that would request the application to replace the statue of Henry Mower Rice in the U.S. Capitol with a statue of Hubert H. Humphrey be approved by the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress. The Humphrey statute would match what is currently on the Capitol Complex in St. Paul.
Approved 85-44 by the House Tuesday, the bill now goes to the Senate.
Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria) questioned why the House is acting on this bill when the legislative session must end by May 19 and there are no joint budget targets or deals on education and MinnesotaCare.
The Mower Rice statue was installed in 1916; Sanford in 1958.
“More than a century of Minnesota history has transpired since then. And Minnesotans have accomplished quite a lot on the national stage since then. I believe it’s indisputable that the Minnesotan who had the greatest impact was Hubert Humphrey,” Long said.
Vice president of the United States under Lyndon B. Johnson, Humphrey was the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 1968. He also served 23 years in the U.S. Senate and, per the bill, "worked alongside former University of Minnesota law student and Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to build a bipartisan coalition to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Long said Humphrey’s biggest antagonists were often in his own party, particularly on civil rights.
A provision moving in the omnibus state government bill would allow for donations to create the new statue and relocate the Mower Rice statue to Rice County.
“Talking to my county and the administrator there, they are excited to be able to get the statue of Henry Mower Rice back. It’s going to be displayed in their courthouse in a prominent location,” said Rep. Keith Allen (R-Kenyon).
Rep. Bjorn Olson (R-Fairmont) is concerned the placement of a new Minnesota statue could be located in a less prominent location. “Capitol administration has the opportunity to put our new statue anywhere that they desire. … There are state statues in our capitol that are in hallways, that are behind curtains, that are behind other statues. This statue that we are talking about removing today is in Statuary Hall, the prominent place where all the other statues are, where people and visitors go.”
Statuary Hall used to be the House Chamber until the body grew to 435 members.
Long said the Mower Rice statue is currently behind two others in the room; Sanford’s is in the visitor’s center. “I can assure you nobody is putting Hubert Humphrey in a corner and that a former vice president is going to have a place of honor.”
Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the floor debate:
Photo: The Hubert H. Humphrey Memorial on the Minnesota State Capitol grounds. (Photo by Michele Jokinen).
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.
U.S. immigration officials conducted a “worksite enforcement action” that resulted in eight arrests Tuesday in Madison, three days after their boss, Kristi Noem, was subjected to a protest in the same South Dakota city.
At least one of the two targeted businesses, Manitou Equipment, was awarded financial support from the state while Noem was governor.
The media office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a written statement that the agency’s action was at Manitou and also at Global Polymer Industries “in response to information or allegations received by ICE Homeland Security Investigations.”
ICE later issued a news release saying two people from Nicaragua and one from El Salvador were arrested at Manitou, and three from Nicaragua and two from Guatemala were arrested at Global Polymer. The release alleged that all eight people were in the country illegally and said they’re being held by ICE pending deportation proceedings.
The news release did not say whether the businesses would face consequences, but they were criticized in a statement from ICE Homeland Security Investigations St. Paul Special Agent in Charge Jamie Holt.
“Employers who knowingly hire individuals without legal work authorization not only undermine our nation’s immigration laws but also exploit vulnerable populations,” Holt’s statement said. “These enforcement actions make it clear: illegal hiring practices aren’t limited to major metropolitan areas — they are happening in small towns across rural America, and we will continue to hold violators accountable, wherever they operate.”
In response to follow-up questions from South Dakota Searchlight, an ICE spokesperson said “this is all the information I can provide at this time.” Madison Mayor Roy Lindsay Jr. said Tuesday when reached by phone that he was out of town and suggested calling Police Chief Justin Meyer, who said all questions should go to ICE.
ICE’s statement said it enforces business compliance with federal employment eligibility requirements, and has the responsibility to conduct worksite enforcement initiatives “targeting employers who violate employment laws.”
“During these operations, any alien determined to be in violation of U.S. immigration laws may be subject to arrest, detention, and, if ordered removed by an immigration judge or other authority, subject to removal from the United States,” the statement said.
Action follows protest
Noem delivered the commencement address and received an honorary degree Saturday at Dakota State University in Madison. Around 200 demonstrators gathered outside the graduation ceremony to protest the actions of Noem and the Department of Homeland Security that she leads, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.
The protesters were especially concerned about the targeting of more than 1,000 international students nationwide, including one at South Dakota Mines in Rapid City — Priya Saxena — who is suing the government after it revoked her visa.
Her revocation was triggered by a criminal records check that turned up a four-year-old misdemeanor traffic conviction against her, and a charge of driving under the influence from the same traffic stop that was dropped after a test showed her blood-alcohol content to be within the legal limit. On Tuesday morning, while ICE was making arrests in Madison, Saxena was participating in a court hearing in Rapid City, where she’s seeking an order preventing further immigration enforcement against her.
Anden Wieseler is a member of the Dakota State University Student Senate who opposed Noem’s invitation to the university and helped organize Saturday’s protest. He wasn’t surprised by news of the immigration enforcement action.
“I had several conversations with members of the DSU student body and a lot of us kind of expected something like this to happen after bringing Kristi Noem to Madison,” Wieseler said.
A student who graduated Saturday, Carter Gordon, said the dual immigration enforcement action in Madison “reeks of retribution.”
“You could make the argument that they would’ve happened even had she not been protested, but it feels very vengeful,” Gordon said.
The nonprofit South Dakota Voices for Peace, which advocates for immigrants, is trying to gather information about the arrests and affected families. The nonprofit works with local rapid-response observers around the state, including one that reported seeing ICE helicopters Tuesday morning in Madison.
Chief Executive Director Taneeza Islam said the group’s main initial worry is whether the arrested people have children, and where they are.
“These kids are our top concern at the moment,” Islam said.
About the companies
One of the companies targeted, Manitou, is a France-based global manufacturer of construction equipment. Plant manager Jeff Minnaert told South Dakota Searchlight in 2023 that the Madison location employed about 250 people, and about 25% of them were Hispanic.
The company was seeking additional employees at the time to support a planned $60 million expansion that was set to add a combined 125 jobs to the Madison plant and another location in Yankton. In December 2022, while Noem was governor of South Dakota, the board of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development awarded Manitou nearly $1 million through a construction sales-tax refund program to help with the expansion.
In July 2023, also while Noem was governor, the Governor’s Office of Economic Development received a Silver Shovel award from Area Development magazine, which the magazine said was due to activity including the Manitou expansion.
The other targeted business, Global Polymer Industries, is a Madison-based company that was founded in a garage in the small town of Arlington in 1993. It describes itself as one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, which is a flexible product that retains its shape and melts only under extremely high temperatures. The company’s wide range of products includes conveyor components, sprockets, guide rails and custom-molded parts.
South Dakota Searchlight attempts to speak with officials at both companies were unsuccessful Tuesday.
This story was updated at 4:45 p.m. Central on May 13, 2025.
Participating agencies
A news release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the following agencies supported its May 13, 2025, enforcement action in Madison:
FBI.
Internal Revenue Service.
Drug Enforcement Administration.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
U.S. Marshals Service.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Air and Marine Operations.
Madison Police Department.
South Dakota Highway Patrol.
South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation.
Photo: A worker welds together heavy machinery in June 2023 at a Manitou Equipment America plant in Madison. The plant was subjected to a "worksite enforcement action" on May 13, 2025, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
Recent Comments