Yearly Archives: 2019

The Ohio Ag Law Blog–Ag Law Harvest

Written by Ellen Essman

Hemp, drones, meat labeling and more—there is so much going on in the world of ag law!  With so much happening, we thought we’d treat you to another round of the Harvest before the holidays.

Hemp for the holidays.  As 2020 and the first growing season approach, there has been a flurry of activity surrounding hemp.  States have been amending their rules and submitting them to the USDA for approval in anticipation of next year.  In addition, just last week USDA extended the deadline to comment on the interim final hemp rule from December 30, 2019 to January 29, 2020. If you would like to submit a comment, you can do so here. To get a refresher on the interim rule, see our blog post here.

In other hemp news, EPA announced approval of 10 pesticides for use on industrial hemp.  You can find the list here.  Additional pesticides may be added to the list in the future.

Congress considers a potential food safety fix.  It’s likely that over the last several years, you’ve heard about numerous recalls on leafy greens due to foodborne illnesses.  It has been hypothesized that some of these outbreaks could potentially be the result of produce farms using water located near CAFOs to irrigate their crops.  A bill entitled the “Expanded Food Safety Investigation Act of 2019” has been introduced to tackle this and other potential food safety problems.  If passed, the bill would give FDA the authority to conduct microbial sampling at CAFOs as part of a foodborne illness investigation.  The bill is currently being considered in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Animal welfare bill becomes federal law.  In November, the President signed the “Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act” (PACT), into law.  PACT makes it a federal offense to purposely crush, burn, drown, suffocate, impale, or otherwise subject non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians to serious bodily injury.  PACT also outlaws creating and distributing video of such animal torture.  The law includes several exceptions, including during customary and normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, and other animal management practices, as well as during slaughter, hunting, fishing, euthanasia, etc.

No meat labeling law in Arkansas? Last winter, Arkansas passed a law that made it illegal to “misbrand or misrepresent an agricultural product that is edible by humans.” Specifically, it made it illegal to represent a product as meat, beef, pork, etc. if the product is not derived from an animal.  Unsurprisingly, the law did not sit well with companies in the business of making and selling meat substitutes from plants and cells.  In July, The Tofurky Company sued the state in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, claiming the labeling law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the dormant Commerce Clause. On December 11, the District Court enjoined, or stopped Arkansas from enforcing, the labeling law.  This means that the state will not be able to carry out the law while the District Court considers the constitutionality of the law.  We will be following the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit closely.

Ag wants to be part of the drone conversation. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is currently considering a bill called the “Drone Advisory Committee for the 21st Century Act.” If passed, the bill would ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) includes representatives from agriculture, forestry, and rangeland, in addition to representatives from state, county, city, and Tribal governments on the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).  Thus, such representatives would be part of the conversation when the DAC advises the FAA on drone policies.

Ag financing tools may get an upgrade. The “Modernizing Agriculture and Manufacturing Bonds Act,” or MAMBA (what a great name) was introduced very recently in the House Committee on Ways and Means.  Text of the bill is not yet available, but when it is, it should be located here. According to this fact sheet, the bill would make a number of changes to current law, including increasing “the limitation on small issue bond proceeds for first-time farmers” to $552,500, repealing “the separate dollar limitation on the use of bond proceeds for depreciable property” which would mean famers could use the full amount for equipment, breeding livestock, and other capital assets, and modifying the definition of “substantial farmland” to make it easier for beginning farmers to gain access to capital.

Shoring up national defense of agriculture and food is on the docket.  The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry sent the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Act of 2019 (NBAF) to the floor of the Senate for consideration. Among other things, the bill would allow the USDA, through the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, to address threats from human pathogens, zoonotic disease agents, emerging foreign animal diseases, and animal transboundary diseases, and to develop countermeasures to such diseases.  Essentially, USDA and NBAF would see to national security in the arena of agriculture and food.

We hope you have a wonderful holiday season! We will be sure to continue the ag law updates in the next decade!

Leave a comment

Filed under ag law harvest, Animals, Drones, Food, livestock facilities, Uncategorized

What’s on our Christmas wish list? More written farmland leases in 2020

Christmas is a good time to make wishes for the peace and well-being of others.  One of our top wishes this year does that:  we hope for all Ohio farmers to have written farmland leases.  It’s an odd wish, we know.  But putting leases in writing can help landowners and farm tenants live in peace, and we like that.

Farm leases have always been prone to being verbal agreements, sealed with a handshake.  Simplicity and trust are two plausible reasons we’ve done business that way.  But a written farm lease can be simple, and using one doesn’t have to mean that the parties don’t trust each another.  Instead, a lease can keep distrust from arising between the parties by anticipating needs and foreclosing uncertainties and disagreements.

One of the strongest disagreements we hear about verbal farm leases is whether one party can terminate the lease without giving the other much notice of that termination.  For example, if Riley has rented land from Dale every year for the past ten years, can Dale terminate the lease for the 2020 planting season in February of 2020?  What if Riley has already purchased inputs, added nutrients, or planted a cover crop?  Or perhaps Dale passes away at the end of the year.  Will Riley lose the lease if Dale’s children sell the land before planting season begins?  These are the uncertainties that can lead to fighting, distrust, and sometimes, costly and difficult litigation.

A written farmland lease can prevent these uncertainties that can arise with verbal leases.  A written lease can state how much notice is required in order for one party to terminate the lease.  It can address other potentially problematic issues, such as who repairs drainage tiles, fences and access points, how to address new subsurface drainage and soil fertility needs, and whether and how to adjust annual lease rental rates.  When an issue or question about the arrangement develops, the written farm lease can provide the already agreed-upon answer or solution.

When it comes to the peace and well-being of farmers, written farmland leases are a good thing to wish for.  So let’s keep the Grinch of uncertainty from showing up in 2020, and put those farmland leases in writing.   For our resources on what to include in a written farm lease, how to create an enforceable lease, and other farm lease needs, please visit this page.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crop Issues, Leases, Property

The Ohio Ag Law Blog–The Ag Law Harvest

Written by Ellen Essman and Peggy Hall

The holidays are almost here, 2019 is almost over, but the world of ag law isn’t taking a break.  From cannabidiol, to Ohio bills on water quality and wind power, to a cage-free egg law in Michigan, here’s the latest roundup of agricultural law news you may want to know:

FDA warns companies about cannabidiol products. If you’ve been following the hemp saga unfold over the past year, you know that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been contemplating what to do with cannabidiol, or CBD from derived hemp products.  In addition to manufacturing standards, FDA has also considered how CBD products are marketed and labeled.  Although FDA has issued no official rules on CBD marketing and labeling, the agency has warned a number of companies that their marketing of CBD violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). On November 25, FDA sent warning letters to 15 companies.  FDA asserts that the companies “are using product webpages, online stores and social media to market CBD products in interstate commerce in ways that violate the FD&C Act.”  In particular, FDA is apprehensive about those companies who market CBD products in ways that claim they can treat diseases or be used therapeutically for humans and animals.  Since CBD has not been approved by FDA or found safe for these uses, companies cannot make such claims.  You can see FDA’s news release for more information and for the list of companies.

It won’t be as difficult for financial institutions to serve hemp related businesses.  Federal agencies and state bank regulators released a statement clarifying what is required of banks when hemp businesses are customers.  Since hemp was removed from the federal list of controlled substances, banks no longer have to file a Suspicious Activity Report on every customer involved in growth or cultivation of hemp just because they grow hemp.  This action will make it easier for those legally cultivating hemp to work with banks and obtain loans for their farms.  For more information, the agencies’ press release is available here.

Ohio House considers the Senate’s water quality bill.  Ohio’s House Energy & Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 2 just last week.  The bill would implement a Statewide Watershed and Planning Program through the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). Under the bill, ODA would be charged with categorizing watersheds in Ohio and appointing coordinators for each of the watersheds.  ODA and the coordinators would work closely with soil and water conservation districts to manage watersheds.  Ag groups such as the Sheep Improvement Association, the Cattleman’s Association, the Pork Council, the Dairy Producers Association, and the Poultry Association testified in favor of SB 2.

Ohio House committee debates wind bill.  The House Energy & Natural Resources
Committee was busy last week—in addition to SB 2, they also discussed House Bill 401.  In the simplest terms, if passed, HB 401 would allow townships to hold a referendum on approved wind projects.  This means that with a vote, townships could overturn decisions made by the Ohio Power and Siting Board (OPSB).  In the committee hearing, wind industry representatives argued that such a referendum would be harmful, since it would overturn OPSB decisions after companies have already spent a great deal of money to be approved by the Board.  They also argued that the bill singles out the wind industry and does not allow referendums on other energy projects.  Republican committee members signaled that they may be willing to revise the language of HB 401 to allow a referendum before OPSB decisions.

Iowa’s ag-gag law is paused.  In May, we wrote about Iowa’s new ag-gag law, which was the state’s second attempt to ban undercover whistleblowers and journalists from secretly filming or recording at livestock production facilities.  In response, numerous animal rights groups sued the state, claiming that the law unconstitutionally prevents their speech based on content and viewpoint.  On December 2, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa issued a preliminary injunction, which means that the state will not be able to enforce the ag-gag law while the lawsuit against it is being considered. The preliminary injunction can be found here.

Cage free eggs coming to Michigan in 2024. Michigan lawmakers recently passed Senate Bill 174, which, among other things, will require that all birds producing eggs both in and out of the state be housed in “cage-free” facilities by 2024.  The cage-free facilities will have to allow hens to roam unrestricted with the exception of exterior walls, and some types of fencing to contain the birds.  In an indoor facility, the farmer must be able to stand in the hens’ usable floor space while caring for them.  In addition, the facilities must have enrichments for hens such as scratch areas, perches, nest boxes, and dust bathing areas. Michigan joins California, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington in banning non-cage-free eggs.  Note that Michigan’s law will apply to Ohio egg producers who sell eggs to buyers in Michigan.

Case watch:  hearing set in Lake Erie Bill of Rights case.   The court has set a January 28, 2020 hearing date for the slow moving federal lawsuit challenging the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR) enacted by Toledo voters in February.  The hearing will likely focus on several motions to dismiss the case filed by the parties on both sides of the controversy, but Judge Zouhary indicated that he’ll set the agenda for the hearing prior to its date.  Drewes Farm Partnership filed the federal lawsuit against the City of Toledo in February, claiming that LEBOR is unconstitutional and violates several Ohio laws.  The State of Ohio was permitted to join the farm as plaintiffs in the case, but the court denied motions by Toledoans for Safe Water and the Lake Erie Ecosystem to join as defendants in the case.   For more on the LEBOR lawsuit, refer to this post and this post.  For our explanation of LEBOR, see this bulletin.

Stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law Blog as we continue to track these and other developments in agricultural law through the holidays and beyond.

Leave a comment

Filed under ag law harvest, Animals, Environmental, Food, livestock facilities, Renewable Energy, Uncategorized, Water

A hunting we will go: laws landowners need to know

With archery season in full swing and deer gun season opening today, hunters will be out in full force across Ohio.  That means it’s also high season for questions about hunting laws, trespassers, property harm, and landowner liability.  Below, we provide answers to the top ten frequently asked questions we receive on these topics.

  1. I gave them permission to hunt on my land, but do I have to sign something?   Permission to hunt should be in writing.  Ohio law requires a person to obtain written permission from a landowner or the landowner’s agent before hunting on private lands or waters and to carry the written permission while hunting.  A hunter who doesn’t obtain written permission can be subject to criminal misdemeanor charges.  ORC 1533.17.  The ODNR provides a permission form at http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/pdfs/publications/hunting/Pub8924_PermissiontoHunt.pdf.   If a hunter uses another form, read it carefully before signing and ensure that it only addresses hunting and doesn’t grant other rights that you don’t want to allow on the land.
  2. Do family members need a license to hunt on my land? Some of them will, depending on their relationship to you.  Resident landowners, their children of any age and their grandchildren under the age of 18 are exempt from the hunting license requirement when hunting on the landowners’ private lands and waters.  The same rule applies if a limited liability company (LLC), limited liability partnership (LLP) or a trust holds the land and the LLC, LLP or trust has three or fewer members, partners, trustees and beneficiaries, as long as the LLC member, LLP partner or trustee is a resident of Ohio.   When the landowner is not a resident, only the landowner, spouse and children of any age may hunt without a license, and only if the landowner’s state of residency grants the same rights to Ohioans who own land in that state.  ORC 1533.10.  Family members who don’t fall under the license exemption must obtain a hunting license and follow the written permission requirement.
  3. Does a hunter need my permission to retrieve an animal injured on another property?   The written permission requirement applies to all of these activities:  shooting, shooting at, catching, killing, injuring, or pursuing a wild bird, wild waterfowl or wild animal.  ORC 1533.17.
  4. Will I be liable if a hunter is injured on my land? Probably not.  Two laws apply to this situation, depending upon whether you gave the hunter permission.   A landowner is not liable for injuries to or harm caused by a hunter who does not have written permission to be on the land.  ORC 1533.17.  Ohio’s Recreational User Statute applies when a hunter does have permission to be on the land; it states that a landowner has no legal duty to keep the premises safe for a hunter and assumes no responsibility for or incurs liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of a hunter.  ORC 1533.181.  Note that this immunity doesn’t apply if the landowner charges a fee for hunting, unless the fee is a payment made under a hunting lease with a hunter or hunting group.  ORC 1533.18.  Read more about the law in our law bulletin, here.  These laws provide significant protection from liability for hunter injuries, but won’t protect a landowner who willfully or recklessly causes harm to hunters.  One situation that might rise to the level of willful or reckless conduct by a landowner is granting permission to too many hunters and failing to inform or manage the hunters, explained below.
  5. What if several people want to hunt on my land—how many should I allow? Ohio law does not state how many hunters can have permission to hunt on a parcel, but be careful about setting up a dangerous situation by allowing multiple hunters on the land at onceIf you do give permission to several hunters, let them know that others could also be hunting on the land and designate a particular parking area so that they know when other hunters are present.  You could even consider scheduling hunters on certain days.  If the hunters are part of a hunting club, consider leasing your land to the hunting club and letting the club decide how to manage multiple hunters (see our Hunting Lease checklist, here).  Taking such steps to manage multiple hunters will ensure that you aren’t behaving recklessly and have immunity from liability under the Recreational User Statute.
  6. Should I allow a hunter to bring along someone who’s not hunting? In regards to liability for that person, the Recreational User Statute described above applies to any person engaging in any kind of recreational activity, in addition to hunting. Hiking or walking on the land is a recreational activity covered under the law. As long as you give permission and don’t charge the recreational user a fee, the law provides immunity from liability for their injuries.
  7. What if a hunter leaves a tree stand or a blind on my land—can I get rid of it? It depends.  It’s okay to carefully remove a stand or blind from the area, but be careful about damaging or getting rid of it too soon if it’s the property of a hunter who had permission to be on the land.  According to Ohio common law, you might be liable for the property under a claim of “conversion” if the property is not “abandoned” or “lost.”  Abandoned property is that to which the owner has relinquished all rights with the intention of not reclaiming it, while lost property is that which the owner has involuntarily parted with through neglect, carelessness, or inadvertence.  A finder who possesses abandoned property takes absolute title to the property, while a finder of lost property takes title against everyone except the owner.  In either case, destroying or disposing of property that is not abandoned or lost could lead to a claim of conversion, and you could be liable for the damages.
  8. What if a hunter who had my permission to hunt ends up harming my property? There are two ways with deal with property harm from hunters.  First, the hunting laws prohibit a hunter from acting in a negligent, careless or reckless manner so as to injure persons or property.  Violating this law can lead to first degree misdemeanor charges and compensation to the landowner, as well as revocation of the hunting licenses and permits.  ORC 1533.171 and 1533.99.  Second, Ohio law allows a landowner to seek compensation for the “reckless “destruction of vegetation, trees and crops under ORC 901.51.  Reckless means acting intentionally and without regard for consequences.  If successful, a landowner can receive triple the amount of the harm caused to the property.
  9. What can I do to a trespasser who’s hunting on my land?  Dealing with trespassers is tricky.  First, don’t willfully harm the trespasser, as you could be liable for causing intentional harm.  Second, call your local ODNR wildlife officer or the Turn in a Poacher program, below, to report the incident.  Third, read our law bulletin on “Do’s and Don’ts of Dealing with Trespassers on the Farm,” available on farmoffice.osu.edu, here.
  10. What if I see someone violating hunting laws? ODNR’s “Turn in a Poacher” program encourages the public to report wildlife violations such as hunting out of season or without a license or permission.  The program provides several ways to report:  complete an online form available at http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/stay-informed/turn-in-a-poacher-tip and submit it through the internet or via mail,  call the TIP hotline at 1-800-POACHER, or use the same number to text photos of suspects, vehicles or signs of violations.  All reports are confidential.

The nursery rhyme “A Hunting We Will Go” paints a happy-go-lucky picture of hunting.  But hunting raises many questions and concerns for agricultural landowners.  Ohio law offers rules and remedies that can ease those concerns.  Landowners who know and use the laws just might be able to hum along with the nursery rhyme through hunting season.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Property

How not to let food safety liability risk ruin your appetite

Food is likely on the minds of many people as we head into the holiday season.  Being an agricultural attorney, it’s hard to think about food without also worrying about food product liability.  Whether growing turkey or romaine lettuce, producing food for human consumption is a risk-laden endeavor that can lead to legal liability for a farmer.  That’s why knowing and following Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) is imperative for farmers who raise produce, eggs, meats, and other foods for direct human consumption.  Employing those production practices is critical to producing a safe food product.   But what if a food isn’t safe and causes illness or death?

No one wants to believe their food product would harm someone or that their customers would sue them for such harm.  But it’s a reality that food producers must face.  I’ve recently had the pleasure of working with farmers in OSU’s Urban Master Farmers Program and OEFFA’s Begin Farming Program who are taking these risks to heart and learning not only about GAPs, but also about tools that address food product liability risk.  Teaching these producers has reminded me of how important it is to remind all producers about these tools.  So here’s a rundown on four important food product liability tools:

  1. Management practices.  In addition to using production practices such as GAPs, a producer’s management practices can also manage food liability risk.  Thorough employee training, for instance, ensures that everyone is following GAPs and other risk management procedures.  Documentation of production procedures can be useful evidence when determining liability for a food product.  Keeping records of such documentation along with other records such as sales and training records can help inform what caused the incident and whether it can be traced to a producer’s product.  Regulatory compliance, such as following Ohio’s Uniform Food Safety Code, might also be necessary, depending upon the food product.  Each of these management practices feed into a solid risk management plan.  This requires a producer to engage in continuing education.
  2. Insurance.  An insurance policy can be an excellent way to manage food safety liability risk.  But to obtain adequate insurance coverage, a producer should review all food products and food sales activities with an insurance professional.  A farm’s standard liability policy might offer adequate coverage for the foods and food sales activities.  Alternatively, a producer may need to add an endorsement or “rider” or obtain a separate commercial food product liability policy.  The goal is to ensure coverage for medical and related costs if someone contracts a food borne illness from a particular food product sold in a particular way.  It’s also important to revisit the insurance coverage when taking on a new activity or creating a new food product.  Doing so will ensure maximum protection and reduce the possibility that an incident is not covered.
  3. Recall insurance and planning.  A producer who sells a sizeable quantity of food products through a number of sources or a food broker may need to consider recall insurance.  This type of policy will kick in when a food product must be recalled because it has been identified as a food safety risk.  It can help cover the costs of notifying the public about the product and removing the product from stores, institutions and consumers.  Likewise, having a detailed recall plan can minimize such costs by ensuring that the recall process is responsive, efficient and effective.
  4. Business entity formation.  “Do I need an LLC?” is a common question we receive, and the answer is usually “it depends.”  Organizing as a Limited Liability Company (LLC) or Corporation won’t prevent a producer’s liability, but it can limit the liability to the assets of the business.  An LLC, for example, contains a producer’s business assets and separates them from the producer’s personal assets, such as a home.  If there is a legal liability incident, the LLC assets would be subject to that liability.  It would be difficult for someone to get beyond the LLC and into the producer’s personal assets.  The LLC doesn’t relieve the producer from liability, but it can safeguard those personal assets.

Talking about legal liability has a way of ruining one’s appetite, but hopefully that won’t stop food producers from thinking seriously about food product liability risk.  The good news is that like most liability exposure areas, tools can help minimize liability risks for our food producers.  Using those tools might just help settle our worries about food product liability.

Leave a comment

Filed under Food, Uncategorized

Ohio Ag Law Blog–Be prepared for new waves of WOTUS lawsuits

Written by Ellen Essman

You’re never going to make everyone happy.  This is especially true when it comes to the federal definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  The definition of WOTUS has changed over the years in order to adapt to numerous court decisions.  The Obama administration’s 2015 rule has been litigated so much that a patchwork of enforcement has been created across the country, with some states falling under the 2015 rule and others falling under the previous iterations of the rule from 1986 and 1988.  In fact, in New Mexico, parts of the state follow one rule and other parts follow the other.  You can see the current state breakdown here.

To add even more chaos to all of this confusion, the Trump administration decided to repeal and replace Obama’s 2015 rule.  In September, a rule was announced that would repeal the 2015 WOTUS rule and replace it with the 1986 and 1988 rule.  This reversion would not be permanent; the 1986/1988 rule is simply a placeholder until the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers finalize a new WOTUS rule to replace it. The repeal is set to become effective in December.  You can read our blog post on the repeal here.

Of course, there are those who are unhappy with the 1986/1988 rule being reinstated, even if only for a time.  In October, two lawsuits were filed against the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in federal district courts.  In South Carolina, environmental groups sued because they feel that the 1986/1988 rules do not go far enough to protect waters.  On the other hand, in the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association sued because they feel that returning to the 1986/1988 rules goes too far in regulating water.  Below, we will briefly break down the arguments in each of these lawsuits.

South Carolina lawsuit

Following the October repeal announcement, environmental groups, including the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and the Natural Resources Defense Council, sued the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, claiming that the repeal rulemaking was unlawful.  In their complaint, the environmental groups make several arguments.  They allege that the repeal rulemaking violates the Due Process Clause, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and Supreme Court precedent.  They say that the Due Process Clause has been violated because the rulemaking was not undertaken with an open mind, instead it was already pre-judged or all but decided before the process even started.  They cite many violations of the APA—including failing to provide a “reasoned explanation” for the repeal, failing to discuss alternatives to repealing the rule, and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment on the rulemaking.  Additionally, the environmental groups claim that the repeal “illegally departs from Justice Kennedy’s” opinion in the Rapanos case. Ultimately, Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos is what led the EPA and Corps to scrap the 1986/1988 rule and create the 2015 rule to be more consistent with that opinion.  Therefore, the environmental groups argue that going back to the 1986/1988 version would violate Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test for WOTUS, which invalidated the old version of the rule.  In other words, the environmental groups believe that going back to the 1980s rules will result in less waters being protected.

New Mexico lawsuit

The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association (NMCGA) sued the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.  In the complaint, NMCGA asks the court to enjoin, or stop the enforcement of the repeal rule, claiming that the rule violates the CWA, the Congressional Review Act, the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Non-delegation Doctrine, and the Tenth Amendment.  The NMCGA’s argument hinges on the definition of “navigable waters.” Under the CWA, “navigable waters” are the same as WOTUS.  Like the environmental groups in South Carolina, NMCGA interprets the Rapanos decision as invalidating provisions of the 1986/1988 WOTUS rule.  NMCGA, however, reads Rapanos as limiting “navigable waters” to only the waters that are actually navigable, or “navigable-in-fact.” Thus, unlike the environmental groups, NMCGA believes that both the 1986/1988 rule and the 2015 rule result in more waters being regulated than is allowed under the CWA and Supreme Court decisions.

Will the tide turn on WOTUS in the future?

Despite the Trump EPA’s repeal and upcoming replacement of the 2015 rule, the future of WOTUS is anything but certain.  The lawsuits in South Carolina and New Mexico are just the latest proof of that. What is more, the lawsuits to enjoin the 2015 rule are still ongoing, and it is unclear whether they will be wiped out when the repeal rule becomes effective in December.  When the replacement rule is finally published, there is no doubt even more lawsuits will follow. It’s also important to remember that we have an election next year, so if there’s a new administration, they’ll probably put their own stamp on WOTUS.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized, Water

Ohio Ag Law Blog–Ohio Legislation on the Move

Written by: Ellen Essman

We haven’t done a legislative update in a while—so what’s been going on in the Ohio General Assembly? Without further ado, here is an update on some notable ag-related bills that have recently passed one of the houses, been discussed in committee, or been introduced.

  • House Bill 7, “Create water quality protection and preservation”

This bill passed the House in June, but the Senate Finance Committee had a hearing on it just last month.  HB 7 would create both the H2Ohio Trust Fund and the H2Ohio Advisory Council.  To explain these entities in the simplest terms, the H2Ohio Advisory Council would decide how to spend the money in the H2Ohio Trust Fund.  The money could be used for grants, loans, and remediation projects to address water quality priorities in the state, to fund research concerning water quality, to encourage cooperation in addressing water quality problems among various groups, and for priorities identified by the Ohio Lake Erie commission.  The Council would be made up of the following: the directors of the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) the executive director of the Ohio Lake Erie commission, one state senator from each party appointed by the President of the Senate, one state representative from each party appointed by the Speaker of the House, and appointees from the Governor to represent counties, municipal corporations, public health, business or tourism, agriculture, statewide environmental advocacy organizations, and institutions of higher education. Under HB 7, the ODA, OEPA, and ODNR would have to submit an annual plan to be accepted or rejected by the Council, which would detail how the agencies planned to use their money from the Fund. You can find the bill in its current form here.

  • House Bill 24, “Revise Humane Society law”

HB 24 passed the House unanimously on October 30, and has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources.  The bill would revise procedures for humane society operations and require humane society agents to successfully complete training in order to serve.  Importantly, HB 24 would allow law enforcement officers to seize and impound any animal the officer has probable cause to believe is the subject of an animal cruelty offense.  Currently, the ability to seize and impound only applies to companion animals such as dogs and cats.  You can read HB 24 here.

  • House Bill 160, “Revise alcoholic ice cream law”

Since our last legislative update, HB 160 has passed the House and is currently in Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee in the Senate.  At present, those wishing to sell ice cream containing alcohol must in Ohio obtain an A-5 liquor permit and can only sell the ice cream at the site of manufacture, and that site must be in an election precinct that allows for on- and off-premises consumption of alcohol.  This bill would allow the ice cream maker to sell to consumers for off-premises enjoyment and to retailers who are authorized to sell alcohol. To read the bill, click here.

  • House Bill 168, “Establish affirmative defense-certain hazardous substance release”

This bill was passed in the House back in May, but there have been several committee hearings on it this fall.  HB 168 would provide a bona fide prospective purchaser of a facility that was contaminated with hazardous substances before the purchase with immunity from liability to the state in a civil action.  In other words, the bona fide prospective purchaser would not have the responsibility of paying the state of Ohio for their investigations and remediation of the facility. In order to claim this immunity, the purchaser would have to show that they fall under the definition of a bona fide prospective purchaser, that the state’s cause of action rests upon the person’s status as an owner or operator of the facility, and that the person does not impede a response action or natural resource restoration at the facility. You can find the bill and related information here.

  • House Bill 183, “Allow tax credits to assist beginning farmers”

House Bill 183 was discussed in the House Agriculture & Rural Development Committee on November 12.  This bill would authorize a nonrefundable income tax credit for beginning farmers who attend a financial management program.  Another nonrefundable tax credit would be available for individuals or businesses that sell or rent farmland, livestock, buildings, or equipment to beginning farmers.  ODA would be in charge of certifying individuals as “beginning farmers” and approving eligible financial management programs. HB 183 is available here. A companion bill (SB 159) has been introduced in the Senate and referred to the Ways & Means Committee, but no committee hearings have taken place.

  • House Bill 373, “Eliminate apprentice/special auctioneer licenses/other changes”

HB 373 was introduced on October 22, and the House Agriculture & Rural Development Committee held a hearing on it on November 12. This bill would make numerous changes to laws applicable to auctioneers.  For instance, it would eliminate the requirement that a person must serve as an apprentice auctioneer prior to becoming an auctioneer; instead, it would require applicants for an auctioneers’ license to pass a course. The bill would also require licensed auctioneers to complete eight continuing education hours prior to renewing their license.  HB 373 would give ODA the authority to regulate online auctions conducted by  a human licensed auctioneer, and would require people auctioning real or personal property on the internet to be licensed as an auctioneer. To read the bill in its entirety and see all the changes it would make, click here.

  • Senate Bill 2, “Create watershed planning structure”

Since our last legislative post, SB 2 has passed the Senate and is now in the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. If passed, this bill would do four main things. First, it would create the Statewide Watershed Planning and Management Program, which would be tasked with improving and protecting the watersheds in the state, and would be administered by the ODA director.  Under this program, the director of ODA would have to categorize watersheds in Ohio and appoint watershed planning and management coordinators in each watershed region.  The coordinators would work with soil and water conservation districts to identify water quality impairment, and to gather information on conservation practices.  Second, the bill states the General Assembly’s intent to work with agricultural, conservation, and environmental organizations and universities to create a certification program for farmers, where the farmers would use practices meant to minimize negative water quality impacts. Third, SB 2 charges ODA, with help from the Lake Erie Commission and the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission, to start a watershed pilot program that would help farmers, agricultural retailers, and soil and water conservation districts in reducing phosphorus.  Finally, the bill would allow regional water and sewer districts to make loans and grants and to enter into cooperative agreements with any person or corporation, and would allow districts to offer discounted rentals or charges to people with low or moderate incomes, as well as to people who qualify for the homestead exemption. The text of SB 2 is available here.

  • Senate Bill 234, “Regards regulation of wind farms and wind turbine setbacks”

Senate Bill 234 was just introduced on November 6, 2019.  The bill would give voters in the unincorporated areas of townships the power to have a referendum vote on certificates or amendments to economically significant and large wind farms issued by the Ohio Power and Siting Board. The voters could approve or reject the certificate for a new wind farm or an amendment to an existing certificate by majority vote.  The bill would also change minimum setback distances for wind farms might be measured.  SB 234 is available here.  A companion bill was also recently introduced in the House.  HB 401 can be found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Business and Financial, Conservation Programs, Environmental, Food, Property, Renewable Energy, Uncategorized, Water