The federal government has found a strange way to practice conservation: put billions of dollars on the table, then cut many of the people needed to turn that money into work on the ground.

That is the disconnect South Dakota’s congressional delegation should be concerned about, because right now the two policies are moving in opposite directions.

The latest example is the America the Beautiful Act. Sen. Mike Rounds cosponsors the Senate bill, and Rep. Dusty Johnson cosponsors the House effort. It would renew the Legacy Restoration Fund and provide nearly $2 billion a year to repair deteriorating infrastructure in national parks, wildlife refuges and on other federal lands.

There is good reason to support it. South Dakota has Badlands and Wind Cave national parks, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Jewel Cave National Monument, Minuteman Missile National Historic Site, five national wildlife refuges and hundreds of waterfowl production areas.

If the federal government owns these places, it ought to maintain them. But Congress cannot keep applauding the money while ignoring the missing people.

The urgent need for Congress to renew critical funding for South Dakota’s national parks 

The National Park Service lost about 24% of its permanent workforce last year. The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 proposal would take staffing from about 16,000 full-time-equivalent positions to roughly 13,100 — about 20% lower. Fish and Wildlife Service staffing would fall about 25%.

So, Congress may spend billions repairing yesterday’s backlog while shrinking the workforce needed to prevent tomorrow’s.

A big appropriation can rebuild a park road. It cannot inspect the culvert next spring. Congress has not yet figured out how to issue a press release that clears a clogged drainageway.

The disconnect is even larger on farms and ranches.

Congress has pushed conservation spending to historic highs. The Inflation Reduction Act added $19.5 billion over five years for programs administered largely by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump last year repealed the remaining IRA conservation funding but shifted much of that investment into the regular farm bill baseline, boosting major conservation programs through 2031.

A Democratic administration sharply increased conservation funding. A Republican Congress and Trump kept much of it going while cutting the workforce needed to deliver it.

Between January 2025 and January 2026, NRCS lost about 23% of its workforce. USDA’s own budget documents brought the issue home. They projected NRCS technical-assistance staffing in South Dakota falling from 113 full-time-equivalent positions to 40.

Those were projections, not evidence that 73 positions disappeared. But a nearly two-thirds reduction needs explaining. At some point, calling that efficiency starts to resemble admiring the emperor’s new suit.

The South Dakota Farmers Union warned U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that NRCS staffing losses were increasing workloads and reducing the agency’s ability to process applications.

NRCS work does not happen by mailing a check. Someone has to walk the land, examine soils, design the grazing or water system, complete engineering, prepare contracts and inspect finished work.

Cut enough people, and historic conservation funding can produce a historic waiting list.

That is where Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Rounds and Johnson could speak up.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Johnson said early in 2025 that USDA cuts and layoffs would not affect farmers. Given what has happened since, he should say whether he still believes that. Rounds supports nearly $2 billion a year for public-land repairs. Good. Then he should explain how cutting Park Service and Fish and Wildlife staffing protects that investment.

And Thune is not a spectator. As Senate majority leader, he helped Congress maintain historically high agricultural conservation funding. Now he should insist that enough people remain to put it to work.

The administration says fewer employees, more contractors and greater efficiency can make this work. Fine. South Dakota’s delegation should ask for the proof: How many NRCS field employees remain in the state? Are producers waiting longer? How many Park Service and Fish and Wildlife positions have been lost here?

Those answers would tell us whether Washington is becoming more efficient or simply creating the next backlog.

These are not partisan questions. They are basic management questions anyone running a farm, ranch or business would ask before putting more money into an operation after sharply reducing its workforce.

What Washington has created is not a temporary mismatch. It is a structural contradiction.

Congress can appropriate billions. But somewhere between the press release and the finished project, somebody still has to show up and do the work.