Population Growth Slows Across the Region
Between 2023 and 2024 South Dakota kept alive its trend of population growth every year since 1989. The most recent growth is substantial, but the population grew at a slower pace than the previous year. The 2022-23 growth was in turn slower than the peak in 2021-22, leaving the most recent year at only about half of the 2021-22 increase. Details of the state growth and comparison to other states and the U.S. as a whole are discussed in the next section. The state summary is followed by look at county growth patterns, which reveal that growth was heavily concentrated in relatively few counties.
State Population Change
State population and growth over the past several years in South Dakota are shown in Table 1. Population rose to almost 925,000 by July 1 of 2024, according to US Census Bureau estimates. The state added 6,364 people from 2023 to 2024, the smallest increase in the 2020s, about 2,000 lower than the 2020-21 and 2022-23 increases. It was just under half the increase from 2021 to 2022. In percentage terms, the state grew at 0.69%. While lower than the preceding few years, the rate was within the range of growth rates seen in the 2010s, which varied from 0.53% to 1.06% percent. Although disappointing, the slower population growth should not be regarded as exceptional.
While South Dakota’s 2023-24 percentage growth still represented a modest increase, it ranked behind the country as a whole for the first time in the 2020s, as shown in Table 2. South Dakota ranked as high as seventh in the nation in growth rate in 2021-22, in the company of perennial high-growth states such as Texas, Utah, Idaho, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona. It fell to fourteenth in 2022-23 and to 28th in 2023-24. While still maintaining a middling ranking, South Dakota’s 0.69% growth was significantly lower than the aggregate national growth rate of 0.98%.
In comparing South Dakota to neighboring states, as seen in Table 2, we can see that South Dakota’s shift has differed from other states, the Midwest, and the nation as a whole. South Dakota’s population increase in 2021-22 was similar in magnitude to the nation and to North Dakota, but its subsequent fall only parallels Montana’s trend. The U.S. continued to increase since that year, and North Dakota rose again, passing South Dakota’s growth rate in 2022-23 and 2023-24. The low growth in 2020-21 and 2021-22 in Minnesota and Iowa was followed by a significant jump in 2022-23 and a modest bump in 2023-24. The Midwest Region pattern was also similar to that of Minnesota and Iowa. When all of the varying trends are pulled together, Table 2 displays an intriguing convergence. While there is not necessarily any particular demographic or economic force leading to the convergence, it is a useful way of characterizing recent trends.
South Dakota’s modest population growth is clear when viewed relative to all states (Figure 1). The leading states, with growth rates as high as 2.04% in Florida and 2.17% in Washington, DC, are largely concentrated in the Mountain West and Southeast (and Texas). The lagging states, as low as -0.03% in Vermont and West Virginia are more scattered. South Dakota sits among a middle group, both numerically and within its region.
Viewed in percentage terms, we see that deaths equivalent to about 1.0% of the state’s population and births equivalent to about 1.25% together contribute about 0.25% in annual population growth. Migration has contributed between 0.41% in 2023-24 and 1.2%, in the peak year of 2021-22. International migration has fluctuated in a fairly narrow range of 0.12% to 0.28% percent, while the larger domestic migration swings have amounted to percentage growth contributions between 0.23% and 0.91% percent.
South Dakota’s components of growth differ from comparison states and the nation, as illustrated in Table 4 for the most recent year. South Dakota’s natural change percentage is almost double that of the nation, as are the rates for Nebraska and North Dakota. Minnesota’s is somewhat smaller, while Iowa, Wyoming, and the Midwest Region have rates a bit lower than the nation, and Montana had no natural change. The higher rates in the Dakotas and Nebraska is largely driven by a relatively high birth rate.
South Dakota has the second-lowest migration rate among the areas displayed. The nation’s migration rate, all international as net domestic migration is zero at the national level, is twice that of South Dakota. Other than Wyoming, the surrounding states have migration rates between roughly 20% to 50% higher than South Dakota’s. International migration explains the lower rate in South Dakota. While most of the neighboring states have international migration rates between 0.51% and 0.65%, South Dakota lags at 0.18%, with Wyoming having a slightly higher rate and Montana having a rate near zero. South Dakota fares much better in domestic migration, with its 0.23% trailing only Montana’s 0.48%. Other than Wyoming, all of the other neighboring states have slightly negative net outmigration. It should be noted, however, that the most recent net migration rates indicate a decline in South Dakota and an improvement, i.e., are less negative, in many neighboring states.
National maps further help illuminate the components of population change. In birth rates (Figure 2), South Dakota ranks behind only Utah and Texas, well above the lower rates evident in much of the northeast, west coast, and Florida. In domestic migration (Figure 3), while South Dakota’s 0.23% is well below South Carolina’s exceptional 1.25% rate and a number of other states with values above half of a percent, it still ranks seventeenth in the nation. Persistent national trends of losses in California, New York, and Illinois stand out, especially in contrast to the continuing growth in Texas and Florida. In international migration (Figure 4), South Dakota’s inclusion with Montana, Wyoming, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi in a group with less than 0.25% growth due to immigration stands out, especially compared to Florida’s rate of close to 2.0% growth.
County Population Change
Population change within the state varied significantly. As seen in Table 5, which shows the fourteen counties with 15,000 or more residents, there was a mix of positive and negative cases in overall growth and in the components of change. Five of the larger counties experienced decreases in population, with Brown and Clay each having losses of just over 150. The largest increases by far were those in Minnehaha and Lincoln, which were almost equal at over 2,100 each. The composition of the changes was quite different, however, with Minnehaha having strong contributions from both natural increase and migration while Lincoln’s growth was almost entirely due to migration. Within the migration flows, Minnehaha benefited more from international migration than domestic migration, while Lincoln’s increase was almost entirely domestic.
The last two lines of Table 5 summarizes the role of Minnehaha and Lincoln combined relative to the state. While having just over thirty percent of the state’s population, Minnehaha and Lincoln combined for just over half of the state’s natural increase and three-quarters of total net migration. Their combined net domestic migration is almost exactly equal to the state’s value, meaning that the remaining 64 counties had zero net migration in aggregate.
Among the other counties, Pennington’s relatively small growth represents a major decrease relative to prior years: in 2022-2023, Pennington registered an increase of almost 1,600. Neighboring Lawrence County recorded a strong increase similar to 2022-2023, while Brookings and Codington repeated significant growth. Beadle again had significant international immigration, trailing only Minnehaha and Brookings, but in 2023-2024 the international migration was not sufficient to offset the larger net domestic migration loss. Natural increase was sufficient to lead to overall growth. Yankton County had a remarkably stable year. There was no change in population with births almost exactly offsetting deaths and immigration almost exactly offsetting the small net domestic inmigration loss. It was the “Even Steven” county of South Dakota.
The experiences of the two largest counties is also useful in interpreting the state’s change in population over time. Minnehaha and Pennington together had population change of 2,320 between 2023 and 2024. They had a combined change of 4,682 between 2022 and 2023. The differential growth of the two counties (2,362) is very close to the statewide differential. In other words, in aggregate the remainder of the state grew about the same in the most recent year as in the preceding one.
We can also evaluate the relative contribution to growth of the entire group of more populous counties, which comprise about three-quarters of the state’s population. Together this group gained the equivalent of about ninety percent of the total state population growth. Their aggregate natural increase was close to their population share, but their total net migration was almost equal to the state’s value, leaving the remaining counties with close to no net migration. Their net domestic migration exceeded the state total, indicating a negative balance for the remainder of the state. While the aggregate international immigration was higher than the population share, there still remained about seventeen percent of the state’s international immigration going to less populous counties.
Population change for all counties is displayed in Figure 5. In addition to the largest increases already noted, Custer County also stands out with an exceptional year of growth. The growth of the eastern and western extremes is pronounced, but numerous more central counties also exhibited growth. Almost equal numbers of counties grew and declined.
Examining growth rates reveals additional information, although low populations in many counties can exaggerate annual fluctuations. Overall population growth rates are shown in Figure 6. Ziebach and Dewey jump out immediately as exceptional cases with growth rates of 4.1% and 2.8%, respectively. Gregory, Hamlin, and Hyde also joined Lincoln and Lawrence with growth rates exceeding 2.0%. Buffalo County had the largest percentage decline (-3.1%), with the next largest percentage decrease (Aurora at -1.6%) only about half of Buffalo’s. Ziebach and Dewey Counties also had very high birth rates relative to the state and nation. Dewey County’s 5.7% birth rate was more than five times the national, easily the highest county rate in the entire nation. Ziebach (4.1%) and Jerauld (3.0%) ranked second and third in the nation. The lowest birth rates of about 0.6% occurred in Jones and Fall River. Nine additional counties had birth rates below 1.0%. Death rates had less variation than birth rates among counties. Twenty counties had death rates under 1.0%. Faulk was highest at 2.4%, with Campbell and Day having death rates around 2.0%.
Domestic migration percentages (Figure 7) vary from a low of -3.5% in Brule to a high of 2.9% in Hyde. Custer, Lawrence, and Lincoln also had net domestic migration above two percent, while no other county lost more than 2.0%. Thirty-six counties had negative domestic migration, and twenty-seven had positive domestic migration. Regionalization is more apparent in the domestic migration map, with most of the negative migration percentages occurring in more central counties.
International migration also displays a pronounced regionalization, with several East River counties having higher percentages. The highest percentage (1.9%) occurred in Jones County, but this represents only 12 immigrants. Beadle County was the only other county above the national rate of 0.82%. About half of the state’s counties had little or no immigration impact: fifteen counties had zero net immigration, while another seventeen had net immigration percentages between -0.05% and 0.05%.
The county numbers illustrate that, while most of the state’s population growth is concentrated in the same places, there are still striking differences between years. There are also large differences in the components of change among the counties. The state numbers suggest further tempering of expectations of growth, especially the arrival at the big benchmark of one million residents. Instead of a projection of a million residents by 2030 based on the higher growth of a couple of years ago, the more moderate pace pushes the projection back closer to 2035.
