I read the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources final draft of its 2024 report on surface water quality that's linked in the South Dakota Searchlight article republished below, and that experience has left me pleased that Joshua Haiar decoded the document for readers.
What didn't please me? Freedom may work here, as our sloganeering governor may pay an outside firm to say, but it might not want to eat the fish in this part of the state.
But South Dakota isn't alone in its water quality problems. The New York Times reported late last month Iowa Fertilizer Spill Kills Nearly All Fish Across 60-Mile Stretch of Rivers, echoing Jared Strong's earlier report for the Iowa Capital Dispatch, Fertilizer killed more than 750,000 fish in Nishnabotna.
To compare apples-to-apples, three weeks ago Strong reported More than half of Iowa’s tested streams and lakes are ‘impaired.’
And Minnesota? Minnesota Public Radio's Dan Kraker reported in November's State officials add dozens of lakes and streams to impaired waters list for sulfate and PFAS pollution:
The draft 2024 list includes nearly 200 new impairments for a variety of pollution issues, including nutrients that grow algae, mercury levels that lead to limits on fish consumption, sediment that clouds water and unhealthy conditions for fish and bugs.
That brings the total amount of listings for all years to nearly 2,800 water bodies, with more than 6,300 impairments. A single lake or stream can be listed for multiple reasons.
I'd think this is a competition a state would only want to win by being in last place for impaired waters.
From the South Dakota Searchlight:
80% of tested surface water in South Dakota fails to meet state standards
By Joshua HaiarAbout 80% of the rivers, streams and lakes tested in South Dakota are too polluted for at least one of their intended uses.
The state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources recently released the final draft of its 2024 report on surface water quality.
The state has criteria to ensure a body of water is safe for its assigned uses. That means a lake where people swim and fish may have a stricter standard than a creek that’s rarely used for recreation.
The percentage of sites not supporting all of their intended uses is about the same as the last report in 2022.
The report is required as part of the federal Clean Water Act and is reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
South Dakota’s rivers and streams span 11,929 miles, with an additional 135,128 miles of streams that are dry at least part of the year. Of these, 6,148 stream miles were evaluated over the last five years, and 22% were clean enough to support all of their assigned beneficial uses. Those could include fishing, swimming, irrigation or supplying domestic water, among other uses.
Causes of river and stream pollution include runoff bringing too much soil and other solids into the water, and E. coli contamination from livestock and wildlife waste.
The report also covers the state’s 577 lakes and reservoirs, of which 180 have been assessed. Eighty percent of tested lakes were too polluted to support all of their assigned beneficial uses, and the report primarily blames mercury detected in fish.
Mercury levels in freshwater fish across the U.S. are rising due to more mercury in the atmosphere as a result of coal combustion and other human activities.
Agriculture also contributes to lake pollution, according to the report: “These lakes have sizeable watersheds of nutrient-rich glacial soils that are extensively developed for agriculture. Runoff carrying sediment and nutrients from agricultural land is the most significant source of nonpoint pollution.” Nonpoint pollution comes from many sources via runoff, as opposed to a single point source like a factory.
The report includes public comments that were submitted about the draft report. Two groups, including the Environmental Protection Agency, shared their thoughts. The EPA praised the state for finishing the report but suggested making the data easier to understand.
Jay Gilbertson, speaking for the East Dakota Water Development District, raised some questions. He noted a portion of the report that says South Dakota “primarily” uses volunteer efforts to prevent pollution from runoff, like when rain washes waste from livestock feedlots into waterways.
Gilbertson said the word “primarily” made it sound like regulatory enforcement is also used, but he doesn’t know of any examples of that happening. He suggested the report should either drop the word “primarily” or change it to “exclusively.”
The state changed the report to say it “encourages volunteer efforts.”
Among other comments and questions, Gilbertson also said the report indicates the state didn’t get any information from the Department of Game, Fish and Parks or any group that monitors beaches in the state. He found it worrisome that one state department wouldn’t share needed data with another, especially since it could affect public safety.
The state’s response to that was a single word: “Noted.”
Gilbertson told South Dakota Searchlight that the state’s binary “pass-fail” approach to the water quality report masks some progress. He said along the Big Sioux River, for example, the state financially incentivizes better livestock waste management and the planting of grass buffers to filter out waste before it reaches the water, which has improved the water quality.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Lake Andes in southeast South Dakota (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight).
Related posts
- Agency soup: MPCA, DNR, MDH & Ag release "Preventing fish kills in MN driftless region"
- Decline in freshwater mussels an indicator of poor river and stream health in South Dakota
- More Minnesota lakes and rivers placed on impaired waters list
- WRAPS: erosion, stormwater & ag practices dirty water in Yellow Medicine River watershed
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
Comments