Trash. We all produce it, every home, every business, and every store and restaurant. It’s got to go somewhere, and if it doesn’t, well, then all business and daily life as we know it would grind to a halt.
Garbage-N-More has worked hard to build their reputation for reliable service, and they aren’t going away. However, as of March 1st, there’s a new set of hands on the wheel with a new owner. Judd Sopoci has purchased Garbage-N-More from Jeff and Julie Schreurs.
Left is Jessie Koob and Julie and Jeff
Schreurs and new owner Judd Sopoci
in the center back. Garbage-N-More
was sold on March 1st, 2023.
Sopoci hails originally from Mitchell, SD. He attended the University of South Dakota in Vermillion and got his MBA at the University of Sioux Falls. Since then he’s lived in both Arizona and Texas, working in technology and fiber optics. Looking for a change and looking to come back home to South Dakota, he decided to take the plunge into small business ownership.
“I met Jeff and Julie thanks to a mutual friend back in October,” he said. “They’ve been looking to sell their business to the right person. I came up to Garretson and saw what a great business they’d built and as a business opportunity it was a no brainer.”
When we asked Jeff Schreurs how things had changed since he started the company back in 2008, he said, “Boy I’m not sure how to answer that… other than to say a lot. We’ve gone from just 130 customers to over 3,500 customers. More trucks, more people, more schedules. We could not have gotten as far as we have without our great customers, the people who’ve believed in us and believed in Garbage-N-More. We’re truly grateful.”
“I don’t plan on changing anything about Garbage-N-More and the way we do business,” said Sopoci. “When I met Jeff and Julie, I saw right away that they were solid, salt of the earth people who built a business based on their own strong work ethic. I believe in what they’ve done and I want to continue it into the future. We’re a Monday through Friday operation, with some weekends as needed. We have an excellent team, all our drivers and staff, great people with good energy and a solid work ethic. In the last few months we’ve picked up a lot of new clients from our most direct competitor because we’ve made the effort to get out there, even with the storms and horrible conditions, and people see that. This is the kind of company that Jeff and Julie have built and I’d be a fool to change anything about that. Jeff and Julie aren’t going anywhere, they’ll be at the company for as long as they want to be here.”
In fact, Jeff Schreurs is starting a side business in roll-off dumpsters.
“Roll-offs are larger containers, usually deployed when there is a major construction project or housing remodel going on with a lot of demolition/construction type trash produced for a job site. With the large amount of construction going on in the area, this will be a going venture that I can specialize in and do comfortably until I’m ready to fully retire.”
And if a customer calls up Garbage-N-More looking for a service like that, Sopoci said he’ll happily pass the request along to Jeff.
Sopoci is divorced with two sons, one in high school and one finishing his last year of tech school, who will be coming up to join his dad in the new family business once he finishes school this summer.
“It’s been about a week since we signed the official paperwork, but it’s been great so far,” Sopoci said. “Getting an SBA (small business loan) and working with the local bank and interacting with small business community has so far been very rewarding. I’m working on getting my CDL license and a whole lot of other things, but I’m looking forward to all of them, and to being a part of the business community in Garretson.”
“It’s a process that maybe couldn’t happen in a big town,” said Schreurs. “Things in Garretson can get settled on a promise and a handshake and you can count on them to get done, whereas in the big city it doesn’t work out that way.”
One final thing, Jessie Koob (Jeff and Julie’s daughter), from her spot at the front desk at Garbage-N-More asks readers to follow them on social media, as that way they can get up to the minute details posted to Facebook during the big storm events on route changes and if there will be delays in service.
A state Senate committee unanimously rejected a bill last Thursday that would prevent two proposed carbon pipeline projects from using eminent domain.
The bill had already passed the House of Representatives 40-28, but it was defeated 9-0 in the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee.
Opponents of the bill said it would be unfair to remove the possibility of eminent domain for projects that are already being actively considered for permits.
“We can’t keep changing the rules,” said Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown.
Eminent domain is a legal process for obtaining access to land from landowners who aren’t willing to grant it.
Two proposed underground carbon pipelines, Navigator CO2’s Heartland Greenway project and another proposal by Summit Carbon Solutions, would pass through South Dakota. The projects would capture carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol plants in the Midwest and transport it in liquified form through multi-state pipelines, to be sequestered underground in Illinois and North Dakota, respectively.
Ethanol producers can get more money for their products in states with stricter emission standards by shrinking their carbon footprint. Sequestering carbon keeps it out of the atmosphere, where it traps heat and contributes to climate change. Ethanol producers would also benefit from a federal tax credit for sequestered carbon.
In South Dakota, ethanol plants are a major component of the agricultural industry.
“Sixty percent of the corn that we grow goes into ethanol plants,” said Sen. Casey Crabtree, R-Madison.
Current state law says “all pipelines holding themselves out to the general public as engaged in the business of transporting commodities for hire by pipeline” are common carriers. The law also says common carriers may exercise eminent domain.
The bill would have removed carbon pipelines from the list of common carriers, and by extension, eliminated their ability to use eminent domain. Proponents of the bill argued carbon pipelines are different from oil, natural gas or water pipelines, which deliver a product used by the public.
Critics of the carbon pipeline proposals have argued that while the projects would capture carbon, they wouldn’t do anything to reduce emissions. Landowners along the pipeline route are also concerned about potential leaks.
After Thursday’s committee hearing, the prime sponsor of the bill described the committee’s decision as “economic development over individual rights, industry over farmers, and investors over landowners.”
“This is a precedent that should concern every property owner in South Dakota,” said Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, in a written statement to South Dakota Searchlight.
When asked if she will attempt any procedural maneuvers to resurrect the bill, Lems replied, “That remains to be seen.” Legislators can use a procedure known as a “smoke out” to bring a bill to the floor if it fails to pass out of a committee.
“Whether we smoke this out or not, the landowner rights issue will continue to be fought,” Lems said. “Our people are not against economic development. They just want the choice to be part of a private project or have the ability to say ‘no thank you.’”
South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence.
My husband and I moved to Garretson almost four years ago after working in Nebraska for 29 years. This move has allowed us to be closer to our families. It has also allowed me to finish my teaching career in South Dakota. (I started in Wessington Springs and Canistota – teaching three years in each community).
This is my fourth-year teaching Title 1 Reading at Garretson Elementary. I am thrilled to spend the last years of my career in a K-12 school building. The students, families, and staff have been a pleasure to work with. I love the feeling of community, and the school spirit that is an integral part of the size of the school - Blue Dragon pride is strong here!
I’d like to discuss the elephant in the room regarding the opt-out election. What will happen if this does not pass, and the Garretson Public Schools are $500,000 short for the 23-24 school year budget? Let’s look at an example working only with the amount of money the State Legislature allows us through state funds and the local tax levy. One way to save that money would be to cut three staff members this year and transfer money from the Capital Outlay Fund. Three additional teachers would need to be cut the following year to stay in the black after spending down the Capital Outlay Fund. Cutting six teachers from our current staff will result in students leaving the district. When students and families leave, we will get even less money to put into the school coffers. The outcome of students transferring out because of large class sizes and/or reduced programing would cause a downward spiral. I hate to be an alarmist, but if that happens, there most likely will not be a school in Garretson five years from now.
I’ve seen first-hand what happens in small towns across Minnesota and Nebraska when the local school is no longer operating. The K-12 school building I attended as a student has been torn down. Businesses closed because when parents weren’t bringing their kids to school/school events, they stopped buying gas, groceries, etc., in town. The local kids no longer play little league at the local ballpark, they travel to another town where their friends are playing. Many other changes occurred.
I’m not raising the alarm to save my job. I am eligible to retire if I need to or choose to. I am making this plea to you because of the students I have met in this district. They deserve to have a local school where they can have smaller class sizes, shorter bus rides and participate in all the activities that they do. I want them to be able to raise their children to be Blue Dragons. And I also want our community to continue to grow - both in population and in the business community.
This vote cannot be about bad feelings you may be harboring about the football complex being built 17 years ago, a beef with an administrator, or a decision made by a past or present school board. Your vote needs to be about the future of our students and community. Reach out, get your questions answered, make a tough decision, and then go out to vote on March 21st. Thank you for your time.
Garretson Auxiliary Americanism Poems and Essay 2023 Award Winners
The 2023 Americanism Poem, “Thanking our Veterans for our Freedom”. The topic was chosen by our State Department President, Joyce Smith. This is offered to all students in Grades 3-6th broken into five classes. The following Students were awarded:
Class II-4th grade-Caylix Buchholz---Honorable Mention
Class III-5th grade-Mariah Moulton—Honorable Mention
Class IV -6th grade-Harper Andera---1st Place
Brooklyn Schwebach---2nd Place
Colton Buchholz---3rd Place
The 2023 Americanism Essay, “What does patriotism mean to you?” The topic was chosen by our National President, Vickie Koutz. Essays are offered to all students grades 3-12, broken into six classes.
Class II-5th & 6th grades—Cecilia Fiegen---1st Place
Gavin Coburn---2nd Place
Colton Buchholz---3rd Place
Class III-7th & 8th grades---Blair Ellefson---1st Place
Carter Siemonsma---2nd Place
Taisa Westover---3rd Place
Class IV-9th & 10th grades--Addison Hove---1st Place
Martin Welch---2nd Place
Audra Genzler---3rd Place
Class V-11th & 12 grades---Emily Miles-Honorable Mention
First Place entries (@ the discretion of the Unit judges) have been sent to our District 7 President.
District winners will be announced in April at our District meeting.
South Dakota received nearly $14 billion in federal COVID-19 funding from March 2020 through January, according to an internal state fiscal report obtained exclusively by South Dakota News Watch.
The document tallies the $13.84 billion intended to help governments, businesses, organizations and individuals survive and recover from a pandemic that killed 1 million Americans and more than 3,100 South Dakotans.
The federal funding came from six separate acts of Congress and was part of an overall $4.6 trillion in federal COVID-19 aid provided to states.
State government received about $4.2 billion, while the remaining $9.6 billion went directly local governments, health care providers, the education system, businesses and individuals, according to Gov. Kristi Noem’s office.
South Dakota nursing homes encountered unexpected expenses to keep residents, staff and visitors safe during the pandemic. In this 202o photo, Tim Mercy hugs his mother, 88-year-old Patsy Mercy, through a "hugging wall" built with plastic barriers at the Edgewood Rapid City assisted-living facility. Photo: News Watch file
The specific answer of where the money went lies amid a complicated conglomeration of spending initiatives undertaken by the state, local governments and federal agencies. The effort sought to save lives, protect a fragile economy and provide a sense of normalcy to how people will live in a post-pandemic world.
The state report reveals that multi-million-dollar initiatives were enacted to diagnose and treat people with COVID-19; to reduce further infections and provide life-saving vaccines; to help businesses stay afloat and keep individual workers employed, fed and in their homes; to provide critical aid to low-income and elderly populations; and to help educate children and adults during a massive disruption in the public education system.
The state report notes that some of the stimulus money was allocated but has not yet been spent. Some funding may have shifted from one program or agency to another after it was received.
U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said the early days of the pandemic were a time of strong bipartisan efforts by Congress to provide states with the funding and resources necessary to battle one of the biggest crises in American history.
“The context was one of a national emergency,” he told News Watch. “And it was a matter of trying to save lives and at the same time to prevent a total economic collapse because of what was anticipated to be a very severe pandemic.”
Where the money came from
Here is South Dakota’s share of the six major COVID-19 stimulus funding packages, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the state of South Dakota:
$5.85 million of the $8.3 billion Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Appropriations Act, March 6, 2020
$194 million of the $192 billion Families First Coronavirus Response Act, March 11, 2020
$8.74 billion of $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), April 24, 2020
$64.3 million of the $483 billion Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, March 27, 2020
$1.1 billion of the $1.4 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 ($900 billion for COVID), Dec. 27, 2020
$3.8 billion of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act, March 11, 2021
Where the money went
Here is a summary of how much federal COVID-19 funding flowed into 14 separate state agencies and hundreds of businesses, community agencies and local relief efforts, as of January:
Local programs: $8.8 billion (grants and loans to medical providers, small businesses, employees, community groups and local agencies, etc.)
Bureau of Finance and Management: $2.9 billion
Department of Education: $675.1 million
Governor’s Office of Economic Development: $488.8 million
Department of Social Services: $289.1 million
Department of Health: $282.1 million
Board of Regents/Technical Education: $162.3 million
Department of Transportation: $160.1 million
Department of Public Safety: $16.9 million
Department of Human Services: $16.5 million
Department of Labor and Regulation: $16.2 million
Department of Tourism: $6.8 million
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources: $1.1 million
Secretary of State: $3 million
Unified Judicial System: $99,500
Total: $13.84 billion
Noem declined a request for an interview but through her spokesman said the state used the federal stimulus money “wisely” to aid the state during the pandemic.
Spokesman Ian Fury said in an email to News Watch that the governor approached use of federal pandemic funding in a conservative fashion. She rejected former President Donald Trump’s offer of extended unemployment benefits for state workers in August 2020 and also sent back more than $80 million in rental assistance.
“We focused on solving long-term problems with one-time investments rather than creating new government programs,” Fury wrote. “We are confident that we utilized that money more wisely than other states would have.”
Life-saving help
Tim Rave, CEO of the South Dakota Association of Health Care Organizations, said the federal funding provided to public and private health care providers in South Dakota is unquestionably a large amount.
But that funding must be considered amid the context of a once-in-a-century crisis that brought both medical and financial challenges to the state’s health care industry and the population at large, he said.
“It was a lot of money, an unprecedented amount, but with what the world went through and with the pressures, certainly in the health care space, we really didn’t have a choice,“ Rave said.
The federal funding saved lives during the height of the pandemic as well as after those initial uncertain months, he said.
“The big thing it bought was access, because without that money, it’s not hard to imagine closures of health care facilities or limits on services. And when you start taking away access to health care, it ultimately leads to loss of life or increased burdens on families and patients,” Rave said.
‘Erred on the high side’
Rounds said the congressional funding packages generally followed a timeline that addressed four major needs during the pandemic:
The initial emergency funding was aimed at bolstering capacity and access to the health care system that was diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients.
The second package provided money directly to help individuals, families, businesses and the national economy survive a potential “meltdown.”
Congress then shifted its focus and funding to Operation Warp Speed, which provided $10 billion to seek a cure for COVID-19 and vaccines to limit its spread.
And finally, later funding packages including the Paycheck Protection Program, helped keep businesses and employees afloat over a longer time period.
Rounds said Trump and Congress allocated funding to states and allowed some leeway on how money was spent on the local level, though Rounds argued for even more flexibility. Overall, federal lawmakers wanted to be generous in funding programs and at times approved supplemental funding efforts where need was demonstrated, he said.
“If anything, we erred on the high side in terms of authorizing resources,” Rounds said. “There was a concern if we did nothing, there was a concern we could lose 5% of our population.”
Health care
Resting at the center of the entire COVID-19 pandemic, the health care industry in South Dakota endured some of the toughest challenges and also received some of the largest federal funding levels in response.
The state Department of Health received more than $282 million in federal funding, and the state medical industry was allocated hundreds of millions more to diagnose, treat and respond to patients sickened by the coronavirus.
“I’ve been in health care since 1992, and it was by far the toughest thing I’ve ever seen,” said Rave, whose group represents health providers and long-term care facilities across South Dakota. “The impact it had was hard to describe, from the health care capacity issues on top of 3,100-some people dying directly from COVID, it was tough sledding and I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Hospitals and other medical facilities endured difficulties on several levels, from trying to learn about and treat COVID-19 cases early on, to keeping staff and administrators safe from infection, to coping with a workforce crisis in which many employees retired, stayed home to help family members or caught the virus themselves.
“The (number of) people who retired or just left the health care field was unprecedented during that time,” Rave said.
Major federal funding initiatives within the Department of Health included more than $135 million for COVID-19 testing in communities and schools, at least $70 million to administer vaccines and more than $50 million to aid rural health care facilities or those that treated low-income patients.
Urban and rural hospitals received another $445 million in other pandemic aid known as Provider Relief Funds that did not flow through the state health department.
Many health care providers had to pay bonuses to employees or hire traveling nurses and other providers that added significant operating costs, Rave said.
The pandemic funding was critical to aid in diagnosing and treating patients but also to maintain the financial viability of hospitals in South Dakota, which are mostly not-for-profit entities that operate at a profit margin of near zero up to 3%, he said.
“Without those dollars we’ll never know what could have happened,” Rave said. “It totally, totally stabilized the system. If you just objectively look at that and think about where the margins are in a normal year, and dump all that pressure of increased cost on it, you could only imagine if that had gone on much longer.”
The federal funding helped keep people healthy in other ways.
About $100 million was provided to provide food and nutrition to families and schoolchildren. Another $235 million was provided in additional unemployment compensation to people who could not work during the pandemic.
Below, Tracy Vik, principal of Sonia Sotomayor Elementary School in Sioux Falls, sat at a desk in a classroom where protective barriers were built to protect students in fall 2020. School districts faced major new expenses to keep staff and students safe during the pandemic. Photo: News Watch file
Nursing homes
Some of the federal funding went directly to help nursing homes and other long-term care facilities in South Dakota stay open and as safe as possible during the pandemic, said Mark Deak, executive director of the South Dakota Health Care Association.
The federal government provided $50 billion in aid from the Provider Relief Fund to facilities that accept Medicare, including hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, which was aimed at giving providers up to 2% of their annual spending, he said. Nursing homes across the U.S. then received another $7.4 billion from that fund, Deak said.
In South Dakota, skilled nursing facilities received about $145 million overall in federal pandemic funding, which helped keep facilities open and keep staff and residents alive, Deak said in an email to News Watch.
“This funding was absolutely crucial during the height of the pandemic,” he wrote. “No other health care providers were impacted by the pandemic to the extent that nursing homes were, particularly in the absolutely critical area of staffing.”
Despite the federal funding, seven long-term care facilities in South Dakota have closed in the past year and others are struggling with continued challenges, particularly due to workforce shortages and underfunding of Medicaid programs.
Deak said that a recent analysis by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that nursing home staffing is down by more than 14% since early 2020, while hospital staffing has risen slightly since then.
Business and industry
A sense of pure panic struck businesses both small and large across South Dakota in the spring of 2020 as initial fears of the pandemic brought supply chains and customer visits in large part to a halt.
Retail and service workplaces were shuttered; restaurants closed temporarily or for good; offices were unable to function; and the entire state economy slowed to a crawl as many people stayed home as dozens were dying and no vaccines were yet in sight.
News Watch documented a wide range of negative effects on South Dakota businesses in 2020-21. Articles focused on businesses that couldn’t maintain inventory or had lost their customer bases in the tourism, dining, entertainment and retail industries. Worker shortages plagued health care, construction and government. Unexpected consequences befell numerous industries, including newspapers that saw advertising dry up, arenas that canceled big events, and even funeral homes that saw a temporary end to in-person wakes and services.
Tom Martin, an instructor at the Beacom School of Business at the University of South Dakota, called the multitude of challenges facing businesses at the time “a perfect storm” of negative influences and outcomes.
But businesses across the state and their employees were some of the biggest benefactors of federal programs aimed at keeping the state and national economies from entering a free fall.
The state Bureau of Finance and Management was the single-largest recipient of federal pandemic funds among all state departments, receiving almost $2.9 billion, according to the state fiscal report.
The department allocated funding to public and private business entities through four major funding mechanisms: the Coronavirus Relief Fund ($1.25 billion); the State Fiscal Recovery Fund ($974 million); the Municipal Liquidity Facility fund ($548 million) and the Capital Projects Fund ($116 million.)
Availability of some of that money will stretch into 2024, according to the state report.
But huge amounts of federal funds flowed to South Dakota businesses and employees without moving through state agencies.
More than $2.7 billion went to businesses to keep employees on the payroll through the Paycheck Protection Program of 2021. Another $895 million in 30-year Economic Injury Disaster Loans were offered to small businesses and non-profit organizations in 2021. The state report also includes line items for Economic Impact Payments to businesses of $795 million under the CARES Act and another $1.1 billion in Economic Impact Payments that are available through the ongoing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
The funding provided to businesses, much of it intended to counter direct losses caused by the pandemic, proved critical to keep businesses afloat during very hard times, said Scott VanderWal, president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau.
“The money that was sent to offset losses – that was frankly used to keep people in business,” VanderWal said. “It literally kept some people in business and helped us to just go on.”
K-12 education
The state K-12 public education system was hit with an unprecedented crisis when the COVID-19 pandemic struck midway through the second semester of the 2019-20 school year.
In mid-March 2020, as the coronavirus began to appear in South Dakota, Noem declared a state of emergency, ordered state employees to work from home and instructed public schools to shut down.
The closure put school districts, teachers, staff and students in a tough spot. Across the state, administrators and educators worked together to quickly develop a system to conduct remote instruction of students to close out the 2019-20 school year.
Over the summer of 2020 and into the fall semester, schools also took expensive and time-consuming steps to make schools safer when students returned and to allow for effective instruction of students whose parents elected to have them taught remotely.
With nearly 24,000 students, 1,800 teachers and nearly 40 instructional buildings, the Sioux Falls School District had two main objectives, according to Kirk Zeeck, director of federal programs and language immersion for the district.
“We took steps to help kids and staff be safe and yet still try to get some learning done,” he said. “It definitely wasn’t like the traditional classroom setting prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In total, the South Dakota Department of Education received about $675 million in federal pandemic relief funds, according to the state fiscal report. Most came through three rounds of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, which allocated about $595 million to public schools across the state.
The Sioux Falls district received about $58 million of that money, which was used the past three years and into this school year for a variety of efforts to keep schools and students on track, Zeeck said.
Initially, some money was used to accommodate remote learning, including buying laptops for all teachers and students and upgrading computer white boards in classrooms to reach both in-person and remote learners, he said.
The district also hired 14 reading specialists in elementary schools to help students catch up after the 2020 shutdown and added a summer academy program with the same goal.
In middle and high schools, additional teachers and educational assistants were hired to boost learning. New counselors helped students who suffered social or mental problems.
Federal money also paid for safety barriers in schools to block the spread of the coronavirus and for an upgrade of air filtration systems to make schools safer from all airborne diseases.
The federal money was critical because all those needs weren’t budgeted, and the district worked hard to use the funding wisely, Zeeck said.
“I think (in the end the) district did very well to help determine the best way to utilize those funds to maintain safety and help kids grow academically,” he said.
Universities
With workforce challenges a chronic problem in South Dakota, prior to and since the pandemic, keeping the state’s public university system running during the COVID-19 crisis was critical, according to Brian Maher, executive director of the South Dakota Board of Regents.
“You plan and prepare for almost any eventuality, but not for a worldwide pandemic,” Maher said. “It was a ‘developing the airplane while you’re flying it’ situation.”
Maintaining the education of students was a challenge heightened by the need to keep students, faculty and staff safe during an uncertain time, Maher said in an interview with News Watch.
Significant federal funding received by the university system aided in both those missions, Maher said.
The federal government provided about $86 million to the regental system over roughly the past three years and about $83 of that funding has been spent so far, Maher said.
In a general breakdown, about $39 million was used to provide as many as 33,000 students statewide with expenses related to disruption of campus operations. That money paid for food, lodging, technology, health care and child care for students, Maher said.
The system spent about $8 million in federal funds to replace system revenues lost during the pandemic. Another $1.3 million was used to reimburse students for monies paid in advance for services they did not then receive, he said.
Another $33 million went to things to keep teaching and learning moving forward, such as for computer hardware and software, building safety renovations and cleaning and medical supplies.
Maher said the federal funding allowed the university system to keep staff and students safe while maintaining the pipeline of graduates needed to fill the many open jobs in the state.
“It was crucial, and that’s not an overstatement,” he said. “Think of the number of students we had in South Dakota at that time who were preparing to leave the university system and go into the workforce. That interruption could have caused a real blockage in preparing our workforce, and that was something we can’t have in South Dakota.”
Agriculture
The pandemic hit South Dakota farmers, ranchers and food processors hard, especially in the early days, said VanderWal, of the Farm Bureau.
Supply chain interruptions prevented producers from getting materials needed to operate and stopped them from selling or shipping their goods, he said. Meanwhile, major COVID-19 infections at meatpacking plants and other indoor ag facilities disrupted the ability of processors to accept livestock and keep their plants operational.
“From supply chain disruptions, to getting parts and livestock transported and processed, there were a lot of very negative impacts,” VanderWal said.
News Watch reported on several effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the agricultural industry, including widely varying and generally low prices paid to beef producers; major losses by corn growers and the ethanol industry as Americans stopped traveling; and even how sheep farmers lost a major revenue pipeline when the cruise industry shut down.
Some employers in the agriculture industry in South Dakota benefited from the federal Paycheck Protection Program that allowed them to keep workers on the payroll during the most acute COVID-19 outbreaks in 2020, VanderWal said.
The primary program that helped farmers, ranchers and other producers was the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. The state report shows that nearly $1.4 billion in funding from that program was or will be provided directly to agriculture producers hit with price declines and additional marketing costs.
South Dakotans in the agriculture industry also benefited from the state Coronavirus Relief Fund, a part of the federal CARES Act, which provided roughly a half-billion dollars to nearly 6,000 businesses and individuals in 2021 who suffered losses due to the pandemic. About $71 million of that money went to the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries, according to state records.
VanderWal said that agriculture, like many other industries, continues to suffer fallout from the supply chain interruptions and workforce shortage that began during the pandemic.
“One little thing affects everything down the line, and we’re still suffering from that to some extent,” he said.
Agriculture
The pandemic hit South Dakota farmers, ranchers and food processors hard, especially in the early days, said VanderWal, of the Farm Bureau.
Supply chain interruptions prevented producers from getting materials needed to operate and stopped them from selling or shipping their goods, he said. Meanwhile, major COVID-19 infections at meatpacking plants and other indoor ag facilities disrupted the ability of processors to accept livestock and keep their plants operational.
“From supply chain disruptions, to getting parts and livestock transported and processed, there were a lot of very negative impacts,” VanderWal said.
News Watch reported on several effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the agricultural industry, including widely varying and generally low prices paid to beef producers; major losses by corn growers and the ethanol industry as Americans stopped traveling; and even how sheep farmers lost a major revenue pipeline when the cruise industry shut down.
Some employers in the agriculture industry in South Dakota benefited from the federal Paycheck Protection Program that allowed them to keep workers on the payroll during the most acute COVID-19 outbreaks in 2020, VanderWal said.
The primary program that helped farmers, ranchers and other producers was the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. The state report shows that nearly $1.4 billion in funding from that program was or will be provided directly to agriculture producers hit with price declines and additional marketing costs.
South Dakotans in the agriculture industry also benefited from the state Coronavirus Relief Fund, a part of the federal CARES Act, which provided roughly a half-billion dollars to nearly 6,000 businesses and individuals in 2021 who suffered losses due to the pandemic. About $71 million of that money went to the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries, according to state records.
VanderWal said that agriculture, like many other industries, continues to suffer fallout from the supply chain interruptions and workforce shortage that began during the pandemic.
“One little thing affects everything down the line, and we’re still suffering from that to some extent,” he said.
— This article was produced by South Dakota News Watch, a non-profit journalism organization located online at SDNewsWatch.org.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Monday announced new steps the Department of Agriculture is taking to recenter U.S. agriculture and benefit small and midsized operations, including a proposed new “Product of USA” labeling rule and an $89 million expansion of the USDA intermediary lending program.
At the National Farmers Union conference in San Francisco, Vilsack also discussed creating a new “seed liaison” in the department to increase fairness in the commodity biotech industry, and proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Packers and Stockyards Act governs competition in the livestock and poultry industries, and prevents unfair market manipulation or consolidation.
The secretary said these developments mark progress in the Biden administration’s approach to transform the existing food system, and increase resilience and profitability.
“I want this audience — and every audience I’ve been speaking to — to understand that it’s not just this ‘organic over here, and local original food over here, and processing over here,’” Vilsack said.
“It’s part of a concerted effort to create another model. One that doesn’t necessarily require us to not produce — we want to produce what the world needs us to produce. But one that creates more revenue opportunities within that same small and midsize farming operation.”
The National Farmers Union is a nonprofit organization with the mission to “protect and enhance the quality of life of American family farmers and ranchers and their communities,” according to its website.
Negative farm income
Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, broke out a whiteboard and marker to illustrate the challenges American farmers are facing with land consolidation and declining returns. He said that despite record farm income in 2022, 50% of farms nationwide brought in negative farm income.
The secretary added that while 10% of farms made a net profit, nearly 40% of these profitable farms were owned by investment banks and large landholders who bring in more than $1 million per year in revenue.
Vilsack attributed this imbalance to the “get big or get out” structure of production-based agriculture, which took hold in the 1970s. He noted that his Trump administration predecessor, former Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, was honest about this reality. Yet Vilsack said the approach is one he refuses to accept.
“That does raise the question of what do we do,” Vilsack said. “This is the game, but it’s based on production. I think we’ve got to develop a new game. A game where farmers can not only raise crops and sell them, and raise livestock and sell them, and get government payments, but they can get other ways to make money from the same landmass.”
Loan program
To punctuate his vision, Vilsack announced new investments in diversifying local and regional meat processors, including $89 million in guaranteed loans through the USDA’s intermediary lending program.
The loan program will provide credit to independently owned-and-operated meat processing facilities to expand or purchase equipment. The investment comes in addition to the more than $100 million being invested in grants this year to expand processing supply chain capacity.
“These are resources that didn’t exist before, that creates competition to create better value,” Vilsack said.
Vilsack also mentioned a USDA rule proposed Monday that would alter the criteria for a product to use a “Product of USA” label. The secretary noted that while producers voluntarily put this label on packages for marketing purposes, prior criteria only required that labeled food products be processed in the United States. As such, the primary agricultural product could be grown, slaughtered, or raised outside the country.
Vilsack said that the new rule would require goods that use a “Product of USA” label to have their whole production cycle based in the United States.
A South Dakota cattle producer, Scott Kolousek, praised the move in a news release from the South Dakota Farmers Union.
“This proposed ruling will allow us to differentiate our product from foreign beef,” Kolousek said.
Vilsack also said that the USDA was releasing a “seed report” on Monday, which details agency plans to provide oversight on intellectual property within the plant science sector. He said that the report outlines plans to create a “seed liaison” through the Agricultural Marketing Service, which will address concerns over intellectual property claims in the commodity seed market.
Vilsack said that this individual’s responsibility would be to gather input from farmers and breeders on the fairness of a given patent claim during the process of approval.
“They will now have a place and person to go to, to share information and to make sure that information is supplied in the complex formal process of a patent,” Vilsack said. “This now gives these folks an opportunity to have input.”
Vilsack added that the USDA will also partner with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on a task force designed to limit unnecessary trait-stacking in genetically modified seeds, and encourage seed market competition.
Packers and Stockyards Act
Vilsack also addressed the USDA’s proposed changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act, and efforts to bring increased fairness to the meat industry
The secretary noted that the department expects to push through four new rules related to the act over the next two years, which would drive market competition and open space for small and mid-sized producers to prosper.
The first rule Vilsack discussed would require increased financial disclosures for large-scale processors and integrators in the poultry supply chain. The secretary noted this first rule is in the comment analysis period, and will likely be approved in 2023.
The other rule Vilsack expects the agency to issue this year would prohibit large-scale operations from retaliating against independent producers if these large commercial farms are reported to a regulatory agency. He said that this rule is currently in the comment gathering stage, and will likely become law in 2023.
The third Packers and Stockyards rule would alter the structure of the tournament system, in which poultry breeders are forced to compete over processor markets. Vilsack said he expected the process of approving this rule to “bleed over into 2024.”
“That rule is in the process of being worked on as a kind of a new concept,” the secretary said. “When we first started this, we weren’t actually thinking about it. But by virtue of the comments that we got, we thought we needed to do that.”
Vilsack also touched on a fourth rule which is in the process of being written. The rule will address the scope of harms required to bring an unfair competition or injury claim under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
“It is the most complicated rule,” Vilsack said. “That rule is obviously going to attract a lot of attention.”
Vilsack said the goal would be to have all four rules in place by 2024.
South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence.
PIERRE — Because of the growth in the number of participants, it has been proposed that a separate girls’ wrestling tournament be held next year. Currently the state wrestling tournament includes boys’ and girls’ divisions.
The South Dakota High School Activities Association board of directors heard about the proposal at its meeting Wednesday. The change will be voted on at the annual athletic directors’ meeting before being formally proposed to the board.
GHS’ Hannah Frewaldt vs Johanna Steinlicht of Brookings at the 2023 State Wrestling Tournament in Rapid City. (Photo by Oran Sorenson)
SDHSAA Assistant Executive Director Randy Soma told the board that the sport of girls’ wrestling has grown significantly during its three years of existence. He said the program started with 125 girls in 2021, grew to 284 participants in 2022 and this year the field of female wrestlers grew to 416.
Because of the growth in the number of participants, the state wrestling tournament days can go from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. “They are working long days at that tournament,” Soma said.
If approved by the athletic directors and the SDHSAA board, the tournament would take place next year in the week before the boys’ tournament at a venue to be determined.
States that have large enough venues are able to keep their boys’ and girls’ wrestling tournaments together, according to Dan Swartos, SDHSAA executive director. The only place with enough in the state is the DakotaDome at the University of South Dakota. Swartos said Vermillion would need to add 10 more motels to be able to handle the teams and spectators.
According to Soma, having the two tournaments on the same weekend in different locations isn’t an option. At some schools, both squads have the same coach.
PIERRE — A discussion about appreciation events for high school sports officials led to the revelation that there have been 87 ejections of players, coaches and fans at high school sporting events this year.
At Wednesday’s South Dakota High School Activities Association board of directors meeting, SDHSAA Assistant Executive Director Randy Soma said there have been 87 ejections this year compared to 30 last year.
The increase in ejections may be due to officials being more aggressive at taking charge of games, according to SDHSAA Assistant Executive Director Jo Auch. “We did encourage officials to take care of business,” Auch said.
Board member Eric Denning of Mount Vernon said at his school students have taken the message about the need for better sportsmanship home to their parents. He said students were reminded about how embarrassed they would be if the game was stopped and one of their parents was escorted out of the gym.
Students were told, “you need to go home and talk to your parents,” said Denning, who noted that behavior in the stands is 75% better since talking to the students.
Board member Kelly Mesmer of Harding County High School said he talked to an official who said “he’s appalled at the amount of technicals he’s given to players. They’re just not getting it.”
Auch noted that in some school districts, officials are expected to police the crowd as well as officiate the game.
“That’s what administrators are for,” Auch said. “It’s asking an awful lot of our officials.”
This winter has been tough on officials, as many games have been postponed and rescheduled due to weather. “Our officials are tired,” Auch said. “Their legs are just shot.”
Schools have had appreciation events for sports officials during the fall and winter sports seasons and more events are planned for April for the officials of spring sports. The sportsmanship tab on the association’s home page offers a look at some of the ways officials are being honored at South Dakota schools.
PIERRE — On Wednesday, the South Dakota High School Activities Association board of directors passed the first reading of a procedure that will provide a structure for adding new sports and fine arts activities.
“There’s not really a formalized process,” SDHSAA Executive Director Dan Swartos told the board. “We thought a more structured policy in place would help us.”
The new policy calls for a formal written request for a new sport or activity from a member school or the SDHSAA staff. That would be followed by a completed proposal with information about the history of the sport/activity, data about how many schools would be interested in offering the activity, recommendations for when during the school year the sport would be played and projected start-up costs for member schools.
After the proposal was made, the SDHSAA staff or a steering committee would study post season finances and venues, the impact on the staff, the impact on the school calendar of activities and sports and the impact on current programs.
If the new sport or activity is approved by the board, the SDHSAA staff would establish an advisory committee and develop a handbook.
The board approved the first reading of the policy. A second reading will be held at the board meeting in April or June.
Even with a formalized procedure in place, Swartos said he doesn’t anticipate adding “a ton of activities” though he has fielded requests for adding rodeo, hockey, bass fishing and robotics.
At the meeting, the board also approved a report from its E-sports committee that recommends offering a pilot program for the sport in the 2023-2024 school year and fully sanctioning the sport in the 2024-2025 school year.
The committee recommended using Fenworks of Fargo, N.D., as the E-sports provider.
According to Swartos the pilot year will allow the association to develop a handbook and create guidelines for the kinds of video games that schools will use. “We obviously won’t have any first-person shooters,” Swartos said.
During that pilot year, schools can get the equipment they’ll need and start competing.
Because the teams will be competing against other teams via the internet, there will be no travel involved until the state finals. Swartos said he hopes one of the state’s universities would serve as a host for the tournament.
The Garretson Youth Wrestling team participated in the SDWCA District 8 competition last week Saturday, with 33 athletes registered. The following athletes placed in the top 8, qualifying them for Regions in Madison on Saturday, March 11!
2023 SDWCA District 8 Tournament Results for Garretson
Photo by Erin Miller
Tots 46
Levi Harr's place is 8th and has scored 7.0 team points.
Tots 49
Landon Bekaert's place is 1st and has scored 26.0 team points.
Tots 49
Grady Tempel's place is 4th and has scored 14.0 team points.
Tots 57
Lewis Schrank's place is 3rd and has scored 14.0 team points.
Bantam 47
Jack Frerk's place is 5th and has scored 7.0 team points.
Bantam 57
Mitchell Christensen's place is 1st and has scored 28.0 team points.
Alex Olson's place is unknown and has scored 4.0 team points.
Bantam 61
Logan Bekaert's place is 5th and has scored 15.0 team points.
Bantam 65
Matthew Miller's place is 2nd and has scored 20.0 team points.
Miles Christensen's place is 1st and has scored 27.0 team points.
Wyatt Howe's place is 7th and has scored 5.0 team points.
Bantam 70
Chase Johnson's place is 1st and has scored 19.0 team points.
Bantam HWT
Grady Costello's place is 1st and has scored 6.0 team points.
Midgets 56
Xavier Rodengen's place is 6th and has scored 6.0 team points.
Midgets 63
Jacob Miller's place is 3rd and has scored 21.0 team points.
Midgets 67
Collin Whitley's place is 5th and has scored 5.0 team points.
Midgets 123
Dalton Story's place is 2nd and has scored 4.0 team points.
Novice 72
Caleb Miller's place is 3rd and has scored 9.0 team points.
Novice 93
Cameron Roberts's place is 4th and has scored 10.0 team points.
Novice 100
Lukas Ludewig's place is 1st and has scored 7.0 team points.
Novice 138
Beckett Dickey's place is 2nd and has scored 4.0 team points.
Novice HWT
Mason Story's place is 2nd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Schoolboy 70
Zachary Hermanson's place is 2nd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Schoolboy 95
Jasper Moore's place is 3rd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Schoolboy 105
Chase Costello's place is 3rd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Schoolboy 110
Talon Miller's place is 2nd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Girls A (Grades PreK-2) 40
Josephine Schmid's place is 1st and has scored 5.0 team points.
Girls A (Grades PreK-2) 45
Luella Larson's place is 2nd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Girls A (Grades PreK-2) 50
Isabella Rodengen's place is 1st and has scored 6.0 team points.
Girls A (Grades PreK-2) 90
Eleanor Zimmer's place is 2nd and has scored 0.0 team points.
Girls B (Grades 3-5) 73
Kendra Howe's place is 4th and has scored 4.0 team points.
Girls B (Grades 3-5) 82
Macie Miller's place is 2nd and has scored 14.0 team points.
Girls B (Grades 3-5) 91
Olive Story's place is 3rd and has scored 0.0 team points.
South Dakota received $14 billion of federal pandemic relief" title="South Dakota received $14 billion of federal pandemic relief" />
