The Governor's office recently announced the merger of the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Agriculture to create a new agency, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Governor Noem says, “Agriculture is our number one industry, and under Secretary Roberts’ leadership, this department will serve our producers better than ever before.” So much for the environment. Serving producers might be the primary goal of the Department of Agriculture, but it cannot be the primary goal of the new agency. The environmental voice and responsibilities of government will now be part of the agriculture department. The fox is truly guarding the hen house.

To what end does the Governor's office think this is a good idea? To streamline an agency? This is not streamlining; this is eliminating oversight.

Below are our main reasons for opposing this merger.

• The DENR's mission is to protect South Dakota's environment and natural resources for today and tomorrow. The South Dakota Department of Agriculture's mission is to promote, protect, and preserve South Dakota agriculture for today and tomorrow. These mission statements conflict as agriculture is a primary source of much water pollution in our state. There has been little acknowledgment or effort by the Department of Agriculture to address these issues. South Dakotans face an array of serious environmental threats – many originate with certain agricultural practices - that require bold, committed actions. We do not think the new department can objectively address these rising issues.

• We saw hopeful signs from Secretary Roberts and his staff that the DENR was going to be more assertive in the protection of our natural resources, like the addition of interactive maps on water quality and algal blooms. But this merger by the Governor is a move to quash any move for long-term protection of our public health and natural resources. You can look across the state and find examples of this failure to protect public health and natural resources, like the failure to set lower nitrate limits on Smithfield or the Sioux Falls wastewater treatment plant and opposition to a 72-hour turnaround on citizen complaints on spills from agriculture operations.

• This merger is a signal that the goals of Agriculture will overshadow any real conservation practices. The new name of the department does not even mention "Environment" in its title! We worry that dropping the word “environment” from the title of the new agency has less to do with streamlining the agency’s title, and more to do with opposition to anything that hints at environmentalism or concern for the environment. The new agency cannot be solely focused on agriculture and natural resources. It must highlight protecting the health of the environment, as well as champion sustainability of natural resources.

• Agriculture should be the cleanest and most sustainable industry in the state as it relies on a healthy environment to produce its products. However, big agriculture, as represented by the large industrial producer groups in South Dakota, works against nature and fights conservation’s best management practices (BMPs), which would preserve soil health, lessen the use of toxic chemicals, protect pollinators, protect surface and underground water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat. Most farm organizations are against regulations which would require buffers along streams to prevent soil runoff and filter out chemicals applied for crops. About half the producers today still are resistant to using cover crops, no-till cultivation, and crop rotation to enhance their soil health and prevent stream and well water contamination. Our tax structure favors annual crops over perennials. The farm organizations even defeated a commonsense measure of managing water by watersheds. Instead, they prefer to fight their neighbors in court over drainage issues that ultimately damage roads, culverts, and bridges, destroying county infrastructure.

• There are producers who implement BMP's as they want to do the right thing for their land and water. Some producers have also stated that many of the farm groups don't represent them, however, the farm lobby has influence and access to the money needed for public relations campaigns.

• The DENR is tasked with regulating animal feeding operations. Unfortunately, there has been no move to enhance regulations for larger CAFOs, increase the fees for larger operations, and to increase the inspection of, or better enforce current CAFOs. With this merger, we doubt that any of these common-sense economic protections, environmental protections, or local control protections will ever be enacted, which will result in more cattle waste being dumped or migrating into our waterways and rural neighborhoods.

• How much will this cost? Merging two statewide agencies is not free. There will be infrastructure changes, employee changes, and branding changes. We need a clearer picture of the cost. We are concerned about precious tax dollars being funded for an idea that reduces public protections.

It is not just the fact that the fox is guarding the henhouse, it is that the fox now manages the hens and directs how their money is spent. Pretty good deal for the fox.

If you think this merger is bad for South Dakota, let your representatives know. The Governor can implement these changes, but they can be reversed with a majority vote in the Legislature. Make your voices heard.

Board of Directors | Friends of the Big Sioux River