Proposed legislation in South Dakota aims to bolster protections for farmers against potential acts of agro-terrorism. However, this new Senate Bill 14 may inadvertently restrict access to critical information regarding the state’s concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
The bill is designed to enhance existing laws that criminalize activities such as animal theft, unauthorized entry onto farms, and tampering with agricultural operations. In its current form, the legislation also introduces penalties for individuals who deceive others to gain access to agricultural sites or use surveillance equipment to spy on farm operations or research facilities. Additionally, it would criminalize actions that disrupt crops or farm structures.
Senator Casey Crabtree (R-Madison), who is at the forefront of this bill, explained that the measure seeks to safeguard property rights for farmers and ranchers. He highlighted that similar laws have been enacted in Iowa over the past 15 years to deter activists from entering farms to gather evidence of alleged animal mistreatment. Critics of these laws often refer to them as “ag-gag” laws, and previous challenges on First Amendment grounds have led to some court rulings, although a federal appeals court upheld Iowa’s laws in 2024.
While Crabtree mentioned that widespread infiltration of South Dakota farms has not been reported, he noted previous issues at a mink farm in Arlington. The primary goal of the proposed bill is to prevent “bad actors” from using deceitful tactics to portray an inaccurate image of farm operations. Crabtree remarked on reports of environmentalist groups targeting production facilities, suggesting that concerns regarding drones and surveillance have influenced this legislative effort.
Input from various agricultural organizations was instrumental in drafting SB 14, with discussions aimed at supporting farmers ahead of the 2025 legislative session. Matthew Bogue, public policy director for the South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation, emphasized that farmers must be shielded from threats that may cause physical or economic harm to their operations. He mentioned ongoing concerns from farmers about trespassing incidents and emphasized the need for proactive measures, describing this initiative as a modernization of existing laws.
However, the introduction of new sections within the bill could complicate public access to critical data regarding CAFOs, which house large numbers of livestock like cattle, hogs, and poultry. These operations are subject to extensive regulation in South Dakota, requiring permits and inspections to ensure adherence to waste management protocols and water resource protection.
One significant aspect of the bill stipulates that the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources would no longer be required to release a list of permitted CAFOs and their locations unless mandated by federal law. Furthermore, the department would have discretion over sharing information with state agencies or local governments regarding permitted CAFOs.
While individuals or government entities could still request information in person at DANR offices, this limitation raises concerns for some experts regarding oversight of CAFOs. Jay Gilbertson, manager of the East Dakota Water Development District, voiced worry that restricting access to CAFO permits could allow operators to neglect necessary waste management protocols without public knowledge. He stressed that existing permits are designed to provide clarity on operational expectations and facilitate accountability.
In recent years, the number of animals raised in CAFOs has steadily increased in South Dakota. State officials assert that CAFOs generally comply with regulations, although violations have been documented. From October 2009 to August 2019, permitted CAFOs were reported to have violated state rules 217 times, with the state fielding monthly complaints about operations.
Lawmakers have recently pursued measures to facilitate the establishment of CAFOs while reducing local opposition. Financial incentives have also been made available to expedite CAFO development. In response to queries regarding CAFO records, a DANR deputy secretary stated that the department currently evaluates each request for CAFO information, citing biosecurity and agro-terrorism concerns.
Nonetheless, Gilbertson expressed frustration that the bill could potentially limit the public’s ability to identify CAFO locations, emphasizing that the lack of accessible information undermines transparency. He noted that numerous permit details are typically available for various operations, yet accessing CAFO information requires an in-person visit to Pierre, which he believes is impractical.
This discussion raises important questions about balancing agricultural security measures with transparency and public accountability regarding major livestock operations in South Dakota.
