A claim that the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s (ODA) anhydrous ammonia regulations are unreasonable and fail to protect public health and safety has again been rejected by the courts. A recent decision by Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals concluded that the challenge by Sharon Township’s Board of Trustees in Medina County failed to establish a valid legal claim.
The case raised considerable controversy in Sharon Township, where the owner of South Spring Farms requested ODA approval to install a 12,000 gallon anhydrous ammonia storage tank. Ohio law grants ODA the authority to adopt rules concerning the handling and storage of anhydrous ammonia and other fertilizers and also prohibits any local regulation of fertilizers. ODA created anhydrous regulations in the late 1970s; those regulations require ODA approval of the location and design of a stationary ammonia system.
ODA approved South Spring Farms’ application in 2010 and granted a permit for installation of the tanks. Sharon Township filed a lawsuit against ODA, asking the trial court to grant an injunction prohibiting the ODA from permitting the installation of anhydrous storage tanks “until the ODA established regulations which would reasonably protect the health, safety, and welfare of people and property which can be reasonably foreseen to be exposed to the toxic and deadly effect of an uncontrolled release of this dangerous material, anhydrous ammonia.”
The legal basis for the denial of Sharon Township’s request for an injunction by both the trial and appeals courts concerns the issue of whether there is a “real and substantial controversy” that necessitates injunctive relief by the court, rather than “an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” The Court of Appeals could not find any support for Sharon Township’s claim that the ODA regulations are unreasonable or fail to protect public health and safety. Without such support, the court concluded that there was no controversy it could resolve. Granting the township’s request for an injunction would thus amount to “judicial legislation,” said the court.
The case is one that raises questions about the relationships between agriculture and its surrounding communities. Are communities becoming less willing to tolerate agricultural activities, even though Ohio laws are often set up to support and encourage agriculture?
The use of anhydrous ammonia is a routine practice farmers have engaged in for several decades, yet it upset a surprising number of local leaders and residents in this instance. The large size of the tank may have been a factor, as well as the extent of non-farm residents in the area. In addition to the possibility of a leak or spill, concerns raised by the community included proximity to many residents, fear of tampering by methamphetamine producers, an earlier chemical spill by the farm and lack of requirements for fencing. Whether these are real or perceived threats, the fact that they were raised so strongly and taken to the court of appeals gives us cause for concern.
The case is Bd. of Twp. Trustees Sharon Twp. v. Zehringer, 2011-Ohio-6885 (Dec. 28, 2011).