Mention of agricultural causes comes too late in state’s water pollution report

Big Sioux River floodwaters flow over farm fields, sending sediment downstream toward Lake Kampeska and beyond on April 13, 2023. (Brad Johnson/For South Dakota Searchlight)

When you put the fox in charge of the henhouse, it’s entertaining to see who gets blamed for the chicken parts scattered around.

The fox is the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR), created from Gov. Kristi Noem’s 2021 merger of the Department of Agriculture with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The hens, unfortunately, are our lakes, rivers and streams.

The disingenuous story now being told is found in the 2024 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment . Every two years, federal law requires the state to report on the status of water pollution.

The 2024 report says 78% of the assessed river and stream miles and 80% of the assessed acreage of lakes are too polluted to support one or more assigned beneficial uses. Those uses may include domestic water supplies, fishing, swimming or irrigation, among others.

80% of tested surface water in South Dakota fails to meet state standards

The DANR, sometimes derisively described as the Department of Agriculture and “No Rules,” blames lake pollution primarily on mercury and describes m ercury pollution as a global problem beyond the ability of South Dakota to solve. How convenient, then, to blame it for South Dakota’s polluted water.

“The primary source of mercury in South Dakota comes from global atmospheric deposition,” the report says. “Therefore, the high incidence of nonsupport for lakes is not likely to improve until measures to reduce mercury are implemented at a global scale.”

Guess that’s as good a reason as any for the state not to invest in fighting water pollution.

The state not only diverts the blame for lake pollution, but also makes only a glancing mention of agricultural contributions to river and stream pollution.

“Total suspended solids (TSS) contamination from nonpoint sources and natural origin was the primary cause of nonsupport for fishery/aquatic life uses. Escherichia coli (E. coli) contamination from livestock and wildlife contributions was the primary cause of nonsupport for recreational uses,” the executive summary says.

The report later reveals that 91% of lakes fell below the good category for total nitrogen and 94% fell below the good category for phosphorous pollutants.

“Similar to lakes, the rivers and streams survey points to excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus with over 73% and 60%, respectively, falling into the poor category when compared to their ecoregional benchmarks,” the report says.

Based on reading the executive summary, one can only guess the source of those pollutants.

Travel back in time to the 2014 report , before the EPA lowered its mercury standard, and there was little mention of mercury.

About 69% of rivers and streams and 56% of the lakes did not support all their beneficial uses, that report said: “ Similar to previous reporting periods, nonsupport for fishery/aquatic life uses was caused primarily by total suspended solids (TSS) from agricultural nonpoint sources and natural origin.”

Notice how the word “agricultural,” which was important in the 2014 executive summary, disappeared from the same part of the 2024 report.

It is only when the reader gets to page 37 in the new report, a point far beyond what the general public likely would read, that you find in reference to lakes, “Runoff carrying sediment and nutrients from agricultural land is the most significant source of nonpoint pollution.”

“The major water quality problems in South Dakota lakes continue to be excessive nutrients, and algae due to nonpoint source pollution (primarily agricultural),” the 2024 report continues, on page 40. “Nonpoint source runoff and internal phosphorous cycling continues to negatively impact the trophic state of many lakes. Aging reservoirs have also become more eutrophic as many are now approaching their expected life spans.”

In other words, some of our surface water bodies are dying, and we aren’t doing much to stop it.

The effect of these subtle shifts in reporting is that political leaders do not see water pollution as a problem. Very little state money is spent on cleaning up our lakes and streams, and the state’s approach to agricultural pollution is all voluntary.

But when the state’s own report fails to mention the “agricultural” contributions to water pollution until the 37th page, it does not create any urgency for landowners to voluntarily participate in water quality programs.

South Dakota, which depends on its surface water for tourism, fishing, hunting and community health, may not spend much money on protecting one of its more precious resources.

But at least we should be honest in acknowledging that the fox isn’t the best guard for the henhouse.

The post Mention of agricultural causes comes too late in state’s water pollution report appeared first on South Dakota Searchlight .