Bluestem's move to Northeastern South Dakota put us very close to the headwaters of the Big Sioux River, an impaired tributary of the Missouri River.
Via Keloland's running Rivers At Risk: State, Cities Place Few Limits On Farm And Urban Runoff Into Rivers, we read in Bart Pfankuch's report for South Dakota News Watch investigation:
Cattle beat the heat on a Moody County farm recently by wading into a stretch of Bachelor Creek that flows into the Big Sioux River. The cattle moved into the waterway unencumbered because there are no fences.
Corn stretches out in neat rows near Mitchell, planted nearly to the shore of the James River. Riparian buffer strips that slow erosion and limit pollution from manure or fertilizers are nowhere to be seen, allowing runoff from the field to flow directly into the waterway.
Similar scenes are visible across South Dakota as chemicals, animal waste and other contaminants flow from farms and ranches into rivers and streams with only limited efforts to control their path or pollution level.
South Dakota’s largest industry is one of the biggest contributors to the impairment of state rivers. The polluting occurs with almost no consequence to producers, even those who openly flout best management practices.
Pollution that has caused nearly three-quarters of South Dakota rivers to be labeled impaired by the federal government arrives in two basic forms: direct, or so-called “point source” pollution from pipes that dump municipal or industrial wastewaters; and indirect, or “non-point source” pollution such as agricultural wastes and urban runoff that flow off the land and into rivers slowly and steadily over time.
A South Dakota News Watch investigation into state river quality shows that while point-source pollution dischargers are subject to a highly regulated, if occasionally flawed, form of government oversight, non-point polluters are generally guided only by volunteer or incentivized attempts to improve their processes to limit pollution releases.
Despite the growth of proven new technologies and methods to reduce pollution from farms and cities, and good-hearted efforts by some producers and municipalities to reduce runoff in South Dakota, the problems persist.
Agricultural operations put high levels of oxygen-depriving nitrates, dangerous E.coli bacteria and harmful suspended solids into state rivers and lakes. Meanwhile, urban runoff that flows into waterways picks up sand and grit, pet droppings, oil, grease, fuels and toxic metals from vehicle emissions, salt and other roadway additives, and pesticides and fertilizers from lawns. . . .
The state of South Dakota in 2017 enacted an incentive program to encourage farmers to install riparian buffer strips along lakes or streams to naturally filter pollutants out of runoff before it enters waterways.
The plan, which passed after an initial veto, gives farmers a 40-percent tax reduction on buffer strips that are 50 to 120 feet wide and are closed to grazing for part of the year.
Even though land along 575 lakes and 11,000 miles of rivers and streams is eligible, the voluntary pollution reduction plan so far has had minimal impact. According to Department of Revenue data, in its first year the program drew 27 successful applications on only 292 acres of land in 12 counties, even though farmers who already have buffer strips in place only needed to apply in order to get the tax credit. . . .
That reading made us pause and think about Minnesota's decades' old buffer law, which was recently given teeth--well, used dentures maybe--much to the caterwauling of ag lobbyists and some actual farmers. The tax credit that would have raided the Clean Water Fund (violating the amendment to the state constitution that created it) went down with Governor Dayton's veto of the massive omnibus spending bill--though Dayton supported funding the credit from general revenue.
But before Bluestem could get too smug about Minnesota's stricter regulation of non-point water pollution, we saw the chart (a snapsot of water quality in 2014) at the top of this post in another article in the Rivers at Risk series, Rivers at Risk: S.D. waterways serve as dumping grounds for human, industrial, ag wastes.
We're not even going to wade into the question of Minnesota's lakes.
Some Minnesota lawmakers envy the regulatory abandon of their neighbor to the west. We can only wonder how nasty things might be in the Gopher State were they to get their wishes under extreme anti-environmental rule abandonment hinted at by Republican candidates hoping for total control of state government.
One final note: the Rivers at Risk series demonstrates the need and use for watchdog, investigative and public service journalism such as that provided by South Dakota News Watch. Links to the series in reverse chronological order:
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, 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. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments