HB 1021 revises South Dakota’s fee structure for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and certain other permitted livestock operations. The bill replaces the prior annual fee system with a new schedule based on animal type and permitted capacity for operations with water pollution control permits that include nutrient management plans, while setting flat annual fees for permitted livestock auctions and certain operations without nutrient management plans. It also imposes a separate $600 application fee for specified permit actions, including new operations, expansions, added manure storage capacity, certain land-application field additions, individual permit applications, and some general permit applications submitted after July 1, 2027.
The bill creates a concentrated animal feeding operation administrative subfund within the environment and natural resources fee fund. Revenue from the annual fees, application fees, and other sources may be used to help defray the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ costs of administering the CAFO program, with expenditures still subject to the normal legislative budget process. The bill also repeals § 34A-2-125, which previously governed the fee structure being replaced.
In practical terms, HB 1021 changes the financial obligations of CAFO operators, livestock auctions, and certain out-of-state or Indian country operations that apply manure or process wastewater on land under South Dakota jurisdiction. It also formalizes a dedicated funding stream for program administration and establishes new billing and payment deadlines, with fees accruing July 1, billed by August 1, and due by September 30.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill was supported but contested. It advanced through committee and floor votes, including a 47-21 House vote on the amended bill and a 23-12 Senate vote on the amended bill, indicating meaningful but not overwhelming support. The absence of transcript excerpts limits direct insight into debate, but the split votes suggest lawmakers disagreed over the size, structure, or fairness of the fee changes.
Likely points of contention include whether the new fees place too much burden on livestock producers, whether the fee schedule is appropriately tied to regulatory costs, and how the bill treats different categories of operations, including out-of-state facilities and operations in Indian country. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to better fund environmental permitting oversight and administration, while opponents may have viewed it as a new or increased cost on agricultural operations.
HB 1021 amends South Dakota’s environmental and agricultural permitting framework by replacing the prior CAFO annual fee statute and adding a new permit application fee for operations regulated under water pollution control permit provisions in chapter 34A-2. It establishes a dedicated administrative subfund for CAFO program costs, directs fee revenue into that fund, and repeals the existing fee statute in § 34A-2-125. The bill affects permitted livestock operations, CAFOs, livestock auctions, and certain operations outside the state or in Indian country that are subject to South Dakota jurisdiction for manure or wastewater application activities.
The bill appears to have had mixed but ultimately sufficient support. It moved forward through both chambers with amended versions and passed on divided votes, suggesting legislators generally accepted the need to update CAFO fee collections but disagreed on details. The vote margins indicate the measure was not broadly unanimous and likely drew concern from members wary of additional regulatory costs on agriculture.
The main contention likely centered on the financial impact on livestock and CAFO operators versus the state’s need to fund permitting oversight. Critics may have objected to the new annual fee schedule, the $600 application fee, and the treatment of certain out-of-state or Indian country operations, while supporters likely emphasized cost recovery and program administration. The split votes in both chambers indicate disagreement over whether the fee levels and structure were fair and proportionate.