Modify the annual fee imposed on certain concentrated animal feeding operations.
Summary
SB 38 modifies South Dakota’s annual fee structure for certain concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and related facilities that operate under water pollution control permits. The bill applies to operations with permits that include a nutrient management plan, with specific treatment for livestock auctions, out-of-state operations, and operations located in Indian country. For those covered operations, the fee is calculated based on the maximum permitted number of animals and assigns per-animal rates for mature dairy cows, other cattle or bison, horses, swine by weight class, sheep and lambs, turkeys, chickens, ducks, and geese.
The measure is a targeted amendment to existing environmental and agricultural regulatory law, specifically § 34A-2-125.1. It does not create a new permitting program, but it changes the financial obligations of regulated livestock and manure-handling operations by adjusting the annual fee imposed in addition to any other taxes or fees. The bill therefore affects producers and operators subject to state water pollution control permits, as well as the state agencies that administer and collect these fees.
Impact
SB 38 amends South Dakota Codified Law § 34A-2-125.1, changing the annual fee schedule for certain CAFOs and manure or wastewater handling operations that are required to hold water pollution control permits under §§ 34A-2-36.2 or 34A-2-36.3. The bill directly affects regulated livestock operations by tying fees to permitted animal capacity and specified species categories, which can alter compliance costs for dairy, beef, swine, poultry, sheep, horse, and mixed-animal operations. It also reinforces the state’s existing regulatory framework for water quality and nutrient management rather than replacing it.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support, with the measure advancing through the process by comfortable margins. The recorded votes include unanimous or near-unanimous committee approval and a broader floor vote that still passed by a clear majority. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows support for the bill’s regulatory and fee adjustments, but not detailed debate.
Contention
The main area of potential contention is the cost burden placed on concentrated animal feeding operations and other regulated livestock facilities, since the bill imposes or recalibrates annual fees based on animal numbers and species. Operators subject to water pollution control permits may view the fee as an added compliance expense, while supporters likely see it as a way to fund oversight tied to environmental impacts. The bill’s specific exclusions and special treatment for livestock auctions, out-of-state operations, and Indian country also suggest possible jurisdictional and fairness issues, though no transcript is available to show direct disagreement.
Subject lithium mining operations to certain provisions regarding permitting, annual reporting, disturbed land limitations, and mined land reclamation.
Reduce a limit on the annual increases of property tax revenues payable to certain taxing districts, and to subject school districts to a limit on property taxes collected in a year.