Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight
A $3 million program created by the state in 2021 to reduce agricultural pollution in the Big Sioux River has attracted two sign-ups, while drawing criticism for duplicating existing local projects.
Meanwhile, the state has doubled the financial incentives for landowners in an effort to attract more interest.
Rep. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, introduced the 2021 bill that allocated the $3 million. He questions why the state Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources created a new program.
“What they’re doing makes no sense,” he said in an interview with South Dakota Searchlight. “When I pitched this bill, I suggested we put the money into existing programs.”
Department spokesperson Brian Walsh did not speak with South Dakota Searchlight but answered questions in writing via email. He said there isn’t a similar local program that covers the entire Big Sioux River watershed. Having multiple programs available as conservation tools, he wrote, “provides us with a great opportunity to implement on-the-ground practices to improve water quality throughout the watershed.”
Both the state and local programs offer payments to landowners who agree to grow and maintain grass strips along the river and its tributaries. That helps filter out livestock waste and runoff from farm fields before it enters the Big Sioux River. The river starts in northeast South Dakota and flows through cities including Sioux Falls before joining the Missouri River at Sioux City.
New state program
The new state program, called the Riparian Buffer Initiative, is managed by the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The 2021 law that provided the $3 million of funding includes a deadline of June 30, 2025, to spend the money.
Participating landowners cannot cut the grass (to make hay, for example) during peak summer recreational months, nor can their livestock graze it until fall. Enrolled land must otherwise have at least 4-inch-high grass. Buffer strips must range from 50 to 120 feet wide, and participants must enroll for at least 10 years.
The program initially offered landowners annual payments ranging from $131 to $219 per acre of enrolled cropland and $36 to $53 for pastureland, depending on local land rental rates.
“We found that was not enough to move the needle,” said Bill Smith, of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, while speaking recently to the Legislature’s budget committee during a public meeting in Pierre.
So the department increased annual payments. They’re now up to $575 per acre for cropland and up to $157 per acre for pastureland, depending on local land rental rates.
Smith said the program had two enrolled landowners — totaling 51 acres in Day County and costing $32,050 of the $3 million — as of Oct. 19. The department anticipates another three enrollments totaling 53 more acres by the end of 2023.
Smith said the program can be “stacked” on top of other conservation programs, like the federal Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, both of which offer landowners payments to keep environmentally sensitive land out of agricultural production.
The department is also offering funding from the program to help farmers and ranchers create different water sources for livestock, because the buffer strips along the creek are fenced off during certain seasons. Funding can also be used to help small and medium livestock operations manage waste, up to $250,000 for each project.
The department said there is one waste management system in the later stages of design in Codington County that will use $63,000 of program funding.
Existing local programs
Meanwhile, there are already at least three similar local initiatives.
Two of them are the Seasonal Riparian Area Management program for pastureland created in 2013, and the Riparian Area Management program for cropland and pastureland created in 2008. They’re part of the Big Sioux River Project, sponsored by the East Dakota Water Development District and Minnehaha Conservation District.
The programs were created in response to Big Sioux River water quality concerns. They’ve enrolled over 100 landowners and nearly 3,600 acres, totaling almost 89 miles of stream protection.
While similar to the new state program, there are differences, including contracts up to 15 years and a slightly different window of time for grazing livestock in the seasonal program. Money for the local programs comes from a combination of federal, state and local funds. The highest payments from those programs are less than the highest payments now offered by the state.
The Big Sioux River Project efforts cover all but the northeastern corner of the watershed. That corner has another similar effort by the Prairie Coteau Watershed Project, which administers a Riparian Area Management program. The project is sponsored by eight county conservation districts.
Cory Zirbel manages the Prairie Coteau project. He wasn’t sure how many of the acres and landowners the program has enrolled specifically in the Big Sioux River watershed, because the project also includes areas outside the watershed, but he felt confident saying dozens of landowners and hundreds of acres.
Zirbel and Barry Berg, of the Big Sioux River Project, said they do not know why the state developed a new program rather than giving the $3 million to the existing programs and projects. They said they were not part of that discussion in Pierre.
Berg said his team and the state are currently working to figure out how the programs compare and the best way to administer them. He said one possibility is making landowners eligible for payments from both the state and local programs.
Karr is disappointed in what’s come of his bill and the new program.
“The goal was to get the dollars out and start educating landowners on the importance of the program, and now we’ve lost two years,” Karr said. “There’s a timeline on this money. Why did we spend two years trying to do, essentially, what was already working?”
Charlie Johnson, an organic farmer just south of Madison with land in the Big Sioux River watershed, said he had never heard of the new state program. He said the doubled incentives are indicative of a struggling program.
“To me, it looks like a public official trying to save face for a program that’s fallen flat on its face,” Johnson said. He said that while the state’s updated offer is attractive, he’s curious how landowners enrolled in the older programs are going to feel about a new state program raising its rates.
“I’d be upset,” he said.
At the recent public meeting of the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee, Smith said the department sent letters to 1,293 landowners about the upgraded program, which have resulted in 28 calls and emails. Plus, the department is planning to promote the program at some upcoming events. He said the department is also working with partners including the state Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever to help promote the program.
Smith said that beyond the payment amounts, losing flexibility and control over land is the primary thing keeping landowners from participating.
David Kruger is a conservation-focused farmer living near Twin Brooks. He said committing a piece of land to one purpose for a decade can prove a financial or land management mistake, and giving up that freedom and control makes people nervous.
“You can’t know what the future holds,” Kruger said. However, he said the higher payments might encourage more enrollments.
Pollution problems and enforcement
The nonprofit Friends of the Big Sioux River has water samples from one of the river’s tributaries showing E. coli levels almost 200 times higher than safe levels. The group has also identified livestock manure as the primary culprit. Heavy rainfall can wash manure from a ranch, fertilized field or feedlot into the river, especially if buffer strips are not in place.
Smith showed the legislative committee an eastern South Dakota map with multiple dots representing small- to medium-sized cattle operations in the watershed. He elaborated on one that “had a drainage ditch that ran right near it that dumped into the Big Sioux. That’s one we’d like to get into the program.”
Sen. Jim Bolin, R-Canton, asked Smith if the department is considering using penalties in addition to incentives.
“Currently, you’re in the persuasion mode,” Bolin said. “Do you anticipate going into a different type of situation, like in states like Minnesota, where there are requirements that are brought forward?”
“Our intent is to be in persuasion mode,” Smith replied. “We don’t have anything as far as requiring people to do buffers.”