The Sackett decision has sent shockwaves through South Dakota’s agricultural sector, leaving farmers grappling with uncertainty and environmentalists sounding the alarm over potential wetland losses. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2023 has upended decades of wetland protections, and the fallout is being felt acutely in the state’s eastern region. The Environmental Protection Agency’s subsequent revision of the Waters of the United States rule has only added to the confusion, with farmers now facing the prospect of losing their prior converted cropland exemptions and seeing their land reclassified as wetlands.
South Dakota farmers are caught in a regulatory whirlwind. The Sackett decision has removed federal oversight from millions of acres of wetlands, including many in South Dakota. The EPA’s new guidance has left farmers uncertain about their land’s status, with even temporary changes due to flooding or crop rotation potentially leading to reclassification. This uncertainty is a significant blow to an industry that accounts for nearly 30 percent of the state’s economic output. A drop in land values or productivity could have far-reaching effects, impacting rural tax bases, school funding, and local businesses.
The Sackett decision has also reignited the debate over the balance between agricultural productivity and environmental protection. Environmental groups warn that the ruling puts South Dakota’s wetlands at risk, with potentially severe consequences for flood protection and water quality. Dr. Stacy Woods of the Union of Concerned Scientists has highlighted the increased value of wetlands in mitigating the impacts of climate change, particularly flooding. With South Dakota lacking state-level laws to fill the regulatory gap left by the Sackett decision, environmentalists fear incremental losses that could lead to permanent damage.
Lawmakers and farm groups are pushing back against the uncertainty, with Senator Mike Rounds introducing the Farmers Freedom Act of 2025. The bill aims to provide “regulatory certainty” by allowing land to be farmed at least once every five years to maintain its exemption. The South Dakota Farm Bureau and American Farm Bureau Federation have thrown their support behind the bill, arguing that farmers need flexibility to manage their land in a changing climate and market.
However, the path forward is far from clear. Congress is deadlocked on the next Farm Bill, and ongoing legal challenges add another layer of complexity. Farmers are left in limbo, with the new planting season approaching and no clear regulatory framework in sight. The outcome of this fight will shape the future of farming, land values, and rural economies across South Dakota. It will also set a precedent for how other states navigate the shifting landscape of wetland protections and agricultural regulations.
The Sackett decision has sparked a contentious debate that goes beyond South Dakota’s borders. It challenges us to consider the true value of wetlands, the role of federal regulations in protecting them, and the balance between environmental conservation and agricultural productivity. As the situation unfolds, it’s crucial to engage in open, informed dialogue that considers all perspectives. The future of South Dakota’s wetlands—and the farmers who depend on them—hangs in the balance.
