South Dakota Wetlands Vanishing: Urgent Call for Conservation Amid Supreme Court Ruling
South Dakota has lost nearly 30% of its historic wetlands, and a recent Supreme Court decision may strip protections from another 30 million acres. Environmentalists urge stronger federal policy in the next Farm Bill to save "wild places worth fighting for."
At 80 years old, duck hunter and lifelong conservationist John Cooper can still rise before dawn, don his waders, and wander the edges of wetlands searching for waterfowl. For him, the hunt is about more than sport-it is about connection to ecosystems and decades spent trying to protect wildlife. Today, Cooper fears those systems are unraveling faster than they can be saved.
A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists warns that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA removed federal protection from wetlands lacking direct surface connection to larger bodies of water. The ruling could leave as many as 30 million acres in the Upper Midwest unprotected and speed up wetland loss that has already reduced historical wetland coverage by nearly half.
Key Data: Wetland Decline & Threats
| Wetland coverage on mainland U.S. | ~300,000 square miles (pre-colonial) | Nearly half remaining by 2019 |
| South Dakota wetlands (200 years ago vs now) | ~2.7 million acres | ~1.9 million acres ( 30% decline) |
| Acres at risk from Supreme Court decision | - | ~30 million acres in Upper Midwest |
South Dakota, where agriculture covers over 85% of land, has virtually no wetland protections beyond what's required by federal law. Stakeholders say federal policy-especially in the coming Farm Bill-represents one of the few levers left to fund wetland restoration and conservation, particularly programs that pay farmers to preserve wetlands on their land.
(Courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Many landowners already feel pressure from farm subsidies, seed and equipment costs, land consolidation, and tile drainage systems that lower water tables. The drainage accelerates runoff into rivers, exacerbating flooding downstream while removing wildlife habitat upstream.
Cooper's concerns are rooted in long experience. He's seen wildlife habitat disappear, grasslands tilled, wetlands drained. Hes the issue not as an ideological divide but a systemic challenge: incentives favor production over conservation.
Scott VanderWal of the South Dakota Farm Bureau argues improvements in crop genetics, equipment, and climate shifts allow more crop production in formerly marginal lands-and that farmers do not drain "true wetlands" as defined by federal rules. Still, Cooper and conservation scientists say the broader scientific definitions of wetlands (including those seasonally saturated or isolated) are essential for ecosystem health.
Wetlands act as natural sponges: absorbing heavy rains and snowmelt, slowing flood peaks downstream.
They store carbon, slow plant decomposition, generate peat-like material-helping mitigate climate change.
South Dakota has experienced multi-billion-dollar flood events, including recent storms dumping 10-20 inches of rain over parts of the state. Healthy wetlands can reduce damage in such events.
What Must Change in Policy & Practice
Advocates argue for:
Stronger wetland protections in federal law, closing loopholes exposed by the Supreme Court decision.
Conservation programs that reward farmers for preserving wetlands, reducing tillage, planting cover crops.
Linking crop insurance subsidies to environmentally friendly practices.
More robust monitoring of tile drainage and wetland loss across counties.
Cooper believes policy must be rebalanced: "until the feds make conservation as competitive as production, I don't see it changing."