Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of South Dakota’s opioid settlement shares are spent:

• 70% state share:

• 30% local share: local officials for cities and counties

Where do these monies live?

The Opioid Abatement and Remediation Fund holds South Dakota’s state share of opioid settlement funds.[1]

What can this share be spent on?

This share must be spent “exclusively to abate and alleviate the opioid crisis,”[2] and attorneys’ fees and reimbursement uses are explicitly prohibited for this share.[3] South Dakota defines “Approved Use(s)” as uses that “fall within” or are “otherwise consistent with” Exhibit A of its MOA.[4]

Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA largely mirrors the national settlement agreement’s Exhibit E, Schedule B,[5] which includes treatment, prevention, harm reduction, and other strategies.

Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

Opioid Advisory Committee recommends, Department of Social Services decides. The South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) ultimately decides specific expenditures for this share after consulting the recommendations of the Opioid Advisory Committee.[6] In making its recommendations, the Advisory Committee is required to create a process for receiving input from the state’s localities, provider organizations, and communities.[7] DSS must then make a “good-faith effort” to incorporate the Advisory Committee’s recommendations into the state’s annual budget and publicly provide a written explanation to the Advisory Committee of any substantial deviations from the recommendations.[8]

In 2023, DSS established a to distribute 25% of this share to community organizations that partner with local governments.[9] The grant program is managed by the DSS Division of Behavioral Health and is just one of DSS’s investments from this share.[10]

No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, South Dakota does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the state share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.

Yes (public reporting required). South Dakota’s MOA requires the state to publish an annual report that includes expenditures from this share, including any grants awarded (recipients, disbursement terms, and projects funded) online.[11] View annual reports .[12]

Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.

Not applicable.

1. S.D. Codified Laws Sec. 34-20B-116(1). , ↑

2. . See also (“The Statewide Share must be used only for (1) Approved Uses within the State of South Dakota or (2) grants for Approved Uses within the State of South Dakota”). ↑

3. (providing that the state’s attorneys’ fees will not be drawn from the “Statewide Share”) and (“Regardless of allocation, all Opioid Funds must be used in a manner consistent with the Approved Purposes definition. No Opioid Funds will be used as restitution for past expenditures. Rather, Opioid Funds must be used in a present and forward-looking manner”). ↑

Where do these monies live?

South Dakota’s local share is distributed directly to its 66 participating localities according to the percentages listed in the MOA’s Exhibit B.[1]

What can this share be spent on?

With limited exceptions,[2] this share must be spent on uses that “fall within” or are “otherwise consistent with” Exhibit A of its MOA.[3] Reimbursement uses of opioid settlement funds are specifically prohibited statewide.[4]

Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA largely mirrors the national settlement agreement’s Exhibit E, Schedule B,[5] which includes treatment, prevention, harm reduction, and other strategies.

Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

Local governments decide autonomously (but must certify proper uses and counties consult their cities and towns). Decisionmakers for the cities and counties decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Approved Uses,[6] provided that counties “regularly consult with and receive input” from their cities and towns and make “reasonable and good faith efforts” to collaborate with them on fund uses.[7] Additionally, localities must certify to the Opioid Advisory Committee — before and after spend — that funds were used according to Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA.[8]

Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?

No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, South Dakota does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the local share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.

Up to each locality (no public reporting required, only intrastate). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share, and local governments are required to report its expenditures only to the Advisory Committee.[9] The state has committed to include information on projects and strategies funded by local governments in its 2024 annual report,[10] but the specificity of any expenditure information remains to be seen.

Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.

Not applicable.

1. This includes 1) counties and 2) cities or towns with populations over 10,000. . Cf. (“68 partnering counties/cities”). Participating localities excludes the minority of localities that opted to redistribute their shares to the state, as permitted by the MOA. . See also Caleb Barber. . Mitchell Republic. Oct. 17, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Thirteen county governments declined to participate in the funding distribution: Bennett, Buffalo, Day, Douglas, Haakon, Hamlin, Hyde, Kingsbury, Lyman, Marshall, Miner, Moody and Stanley. That resulted in about $20,000 going back to the state pile of funds to be distributed. Commissioners for the county governments that chose not to participate in the settlement funds cited the odd intervals and negligible amounts as being a main reason why they decided against accepting them”). ↑

2. (providing merely that no attorneys’ fees will be drawn from the “Statewide Share,” and perhaps implying by omission that local governments’ attorneys’ fees will be drawn out of their own “Localized Share”).There are only superficial differences between the national settlement’s Exhibit E and South Dakota’s Exhibit A. Note that the national settlements provide for administrative expenses as an approved use, which South Dakota may incorporate but does not expressly state. I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”).