Author Archives: Peggy Hall

About Peggy Hall

OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

U.S. EPA Wants Public Comments on Regulatory Reform

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on EPA regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.   The request for comments is in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which required the heads of agencies such as the EPA to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to repeal, replace, or modify regulations that create unnecessary burdens on the American people.

In announcing the agency’s regulatory reform plans, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that, “EPA will be listening to those directly impacted by regulations, and learning ways we can work together with our state and local partners, to ensure that we can provide clean air, land, and water to Americans.”  Pruitt also issued harsh criticism of “misaligned regulatory actions from the past administration.”

Consistent with President Trump’s Executive Order, Pruitt appointed several EPA staff to a Regulatory Reform Task Force that will guide the agency’s reform efforts.  In establishing the public comment process, the Task Force is asking entities significantly affected by federal regulations, including state, local and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations to provide comments that will help the Task Force identify regulations that:

  • Eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation;
  • Are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective;
  • Impose costs that exceed benefits;
  • Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
  • Rely on data, information or methods that are not publicly available or sufficiently transparent for reproducibility;
  • Derive from Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been rescinded or modified.

The comment period offers the agricultural community an opportunity to raise concerns with EPA regulations that may negatively impact agricultural production.   Note that agencies such as the EPA do not base regulatory decision-making on the total number of comments for or against an issue; it is not like a popular ballot vote.  Instead, the EPA must base its regulations on information contained in public comments as well as on scientific data, expert opinions, and facts.  After receiving comments in this initial public participation period, the EPA will likely develop recommendations for regulatory reform.  If so, the agency must offer the public additional opportunity to comment on its reform proposals.

The EPA will accept public comments on regulatory reform until May 15, 2017.  Instructions for submitting comments are available here.  The agency has already received over 18,000 comments on its online docket, which is available here.  Members of the public may request that the EPA allow more time to submit comments, and the EPA may consider late-filed comments if their decision-making schedule permits it.  However, commenters should be aware that agencies do not have to consider late comments.

The EPA is also hosting public meetings around the country on regulatory reform in regards to different topics such as water, chemical safety and pesticides.  A list of the public meetings is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

Clearing the Fence Row and Trimming Back Overhanging Branches

Written by: Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Farmers are gearing up for spring and preparing to plant crops and graze livestock. Part of spring-cleaning may involve clearing partition fence rows at the edge of fields and trimming back overhanging branches above the fence. Overgrown tree branches can affect crops and pose a hazard to agricultural equipment. Removing trees that obstruct the fence row, noxious weeds tangled in the fence, and other unwanted vegetation is a serious matter for Ohio farmers. Ohio law provides for ways to clear a partition fence shared between two neighboring properties. Ohio law also cautions against damaging trees when trimming overhanging branches.

Clearing the fence row

This section only applies to the removal of vegetation in the fence row. Clearing overhanging trees above the fence is a separate matter discussed further below.

A partition fence is a fence that follows the division line between adjoining properties of two owners. The term “fence row” refers to the strip of land that is on either side of the fence. In order to keep a fence in good condition, owners should occasionally clear the fence row of obstructions caused by vegetation. Clearing a fence row keeps noxious weeds, brush, briers, and other vegetation from spreading onto a neighbor’s property. Ohio law provides several methods for a landowner to clear the fence row legally.

The easiest way to clear the fence row is to ask a neighbor to clear his or her side of the partition fence. Ohio law creates a duty for owners on either side of a partition fence to clear brush, briers, thistles and other noxious weeds in a strip four feet wide along the line of the fence, after a landowner gives notice to a neighbor asking them to do so. It is best to be polite, patient, and clear when speaking with a neighbor about when you would each like to clear the fence row. A landowner and a neighboring owner should try to establish a timeline to clear each side of the fence row.

What if a landowner asks a neighbor to clear the fence row on their side of a partition fence and they refuse? Once a landowner asks a neighbor to clear a fence row, that neighbor has ten days to do so. If a neighbor does not clear it within ten days, the landowner can ask the local board of township trustees to arrange for the fence row to be cleared.

After a landowner notifies the trustees that a neighbor refused to clear the fence row within ten days, the township trustees must view the property to determine if there is just cause for the complaint. Next, if there is a cause for the complaint, the trustees will enter into a contract with a third party to clear the fence row and certify the associated costs to the county auditor. The county auditor will bill the neighboring landowner for the work to clear the fence row. The auditor will assess these costs against the neighboring landowner by adding these costs to his or her property tax bill.

Trimming back overhanging branches

Landowners have the right to trim vertically and remove overhanging obstructions from above their side of the fence. Ohio courts recognize this privilege to remove obstructions, but not without limitations. Ohio courts do not permit landowners to cause harm to the other side of the property line. A landowner should be careful not to damage the neighbor’s trees or trespass on to the neighbor’s property when trimming overhanging branches. Landowners may be liable to a neighbor if they recklessly damage a neighbor’s tree when removing overhanging branches.

Landowners should review their rights and responsibilities to maintain fences prior to clearing the fence row this spring. For more information on line fence law, visit the Ag Law Library here.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Addressing the Legal Side of Spring Agritourism Activities

Written by: Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

If you are an agritourism provider or are interested in learning more about agritourism, sign up for our AgritourismReady event on April 5th!  Details of the event are here.

Spring has sprung and many agritourism providers are busy gearing up for spring agritourism activities such as maple syrup production, school tours, and berry picking. Agritourism providers should take time this spring to review the key elements of Ohio’s new agritourism law and understand how the law affects the agritourism operation.

Ohio’s new agritourism law applies to qualifying farms, including you-pick operations and farm markets, when an agritourism activity is conducted on that farm.  A qualifying farm under the law is either at least 10 acres in size or a farm under 10 acres that grosses an average income of $2500 from production (the same requirements for qualifying for Ohio’s CAUV property tax program).  Agritourism activities include agriculturally related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural, or recreational activities.  Below are two important benefits of Ohio’s agritourism law that agritourism providers should review this spring: liability protection and zoning protection.

Liability Protection

One of the main benefits of the law is liability protection for agritourism providers against claims by participants injured as a result of an inherent risk of an agritourism activity. The law defines inherent risks to be dangers and conditions that are an integral part of the activity, including surface and subsurface land conditions, actions of wild animals and domestic animals other than vicious or dangerous dogs, dangers of farm structures and equipment, illness from contacting animals, feed or waste, and the participant’s failure to follow instructions or use reasonable caution.

There are several limitations and requirements under the law that impact this liability protection. Most importantly, agritourism providers must post signs either at the entrance to the farm or at each agritourism activity in order to receive liability protection under the law.  The signs must meet the specifications of the law.  For more information about posting signs and the law’s liability protection, our previous post on agritourism is here.

Zoning

Ohio’s agritourism law also provides some zoning protections to agritourism providers. Under the law, township and county zoning authorities cannot prohibit agritourism activities on farms.  But, townships and counties can regulate some factors related to agritourism to protect public health and safety. These factors include the size of structures used primarily for agritourism, setbacks for structures, ingress and egress from the parcel, and the size of parking areas.  A township or county that wants to regulate these limited factors must have provisions addressing the factors in the local zoning code.  We explain the zoning provisions of the agritourism law in more detail in our law bulletin, here.

Preparing for the 2017 Season

As agritourism providers prepare for the 2017 season, providers should take a few actions to ensure the benefits of the agritourism law for their operations:

  • Post the required signs at the entrance to the agritourism operation or at each agritourism activity. Also, consider adding your own signs to give instructions, guide visitors safely around the property or warn visitors of potential hazards.
  • Even with the law’s liability protection, make sure the property is as safe and clean as possible.  Spring is a good time to walk the property to identify any dangerous conditions that might put a visitor at risk and fix those conditions before inviting guests on the property.
  • Farms under 10 acres in size should take time to brush up on good recordkeeping practices. Farms that are under 10 acres may be required to prove that they qualify as a farm under the agritourism law by showing $2500 in gross receipts.  Be sure to maintain all records of farm income.
  • If starting a new agritourism activity, check the local zoning code to see if the township or county has zoning requirements for the few agritourism factors it can regulate.  Be prepared for a visit by the local zoning inspector and be ready to show the inspector that the activity falls under the new agritourism law’s zoning protections because it is “agritourism” conducted on a “farm.”

A full description of the Ohio Agritourism Law is available via our law bulletin here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Property, Zoning

Contentious Des Moines Water Works Litigation Comes to an End

Federal court dismisses Clean Water Act lawsuit against Iowa drainage districts

A federal district court has dismissed the controversial Des Moines Water Works lawsuit that put the agricultural community on edge for the past two years.  While the decision is favorable for agriculture, it didn’t resolve the question of whether the water utility could prove that nitrates draining from farm fields are harming the utility’s water sources.  The court’s dismissal prevents Des Moines Water Works from further asserting such claims.

The lawsuit by the Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) utility sued irrigation districts in three Iowa counties for allowing discharges of nitrates through drainage infrastructure and into the waterways from which the utility drew its water.  In addition to claiming that the discharges violate the federal Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements, DMWW also asserted nuisance, trespassing, negligence, takings without compensation, and due process and equal protection claims under Iowa law.   The utility sought monetary damages for the cost of removing nitrates from its water as well as an injunction ordering the drainage districts to stop the discharges with proper permits.

The federal district court first certified several questions of state law to the Iowa Supreme Court to clarify whether Iowa law provided immunity to the drainage districts for DMWW’s claims.   On January 27, 2017, the Iowa Supreme Court responded in the positive, explaining that Iowa drainage districts had been immune from damages and injunctive relief claims for over a century because drainage districts “have a limited, targeted role—to facilitate the drainage of farmland in order to make it more productive.”  The Iowa court also clarified that Iowa’s Constitution did not provide a basis for DMWW’s constitutional arguments.

Turning to the party’s claims in light of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling, the federal district court focused on the drainage district’s motion to dismiss DMWW’s claims based on the doctrine of redressability, which requires a showing that the alleged injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.  The doctrine of redressability concludes that a plaintiff cannot have standing to sue and therefore cannot proceed in a case if the defendant doesn’t have the power to redress or remedy the injury even if the court granted the requested relief.

The drainage districts argued that they could not redress DMWW’s Clean Water Act claims because the districts had no power to regulate the nitrates flowing through the drainage systems.  The court agreed, stating that “DMWW seeks injunctive relief and the assessment of civil penalties against the drainage districts arising from alleged duties and powers that the districts simply do not possess under Iowa law.  DMWW may well have suffered an injury, but the drainage districts lack the ability to redress that injury.”

The federal district court also dismissed DMWW’s remaining claims against the drainage districts.  DMWW argued that the immunity given the drainage districts as described by the Iowa Supreme Court prevented DMWW’s remaining claims and thus violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses.  The federal district court found these contentions to be “entirely devoid of merit” and dismissed the state law claims of nuisance, trespassing, negligence, takings, due process and equal protection.  Because none of the counts against the drainage districts survived the court’s scrutiny, the court dismissed and closed the case.

What does the decision mean for agriculture?

The DMWW case was a futile but somewhat inventive attempt to allocate liability for nitrate pollution to the agricultural community.  “Unregulated agricultural discharges into Iowa’s rivers, lakes and streams continue to increase costs to our customers and damage Iowa’s water quality and environment,” said DMWW’s CEO Bill Stowe upon filing the lawsuit.  A public poll by the Des Moines Register soon after Stowe brought the DMWW lawsuit showed that 42% of the respondents agreed with him in believing that farmers should pay for nitrate removal from DMWW’s waters, while 32% thought those who lived in Des Moines should pay to remove the nitrates.

If the goal is to force agriculture to reduce nutrient run off or pay for the cost of removing nutrients from waterways, the DMWW case tells us that suing those who oversee agricultural drainage infrastructure projects is not the proper mechanism for accomplishing that goal.  So will the next strategy be to sue the farmers who use the nutrients and the drainage infrastructure?

One challenge in suing farmers directly for nutrient runoff, and the issue that was not addressed in DMWW, is whether nutrient runoff from farm fields carried through drainage systems constitutes a “point source” that requires regulation under the Clean Water Act, or whether nutrient runoff fits within the agricultural exemption under the Clean Water Act.  That law defines a “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged,” but states that point sources do not include “agricultural storm water discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.”  What we still don’t know after two years of DMWW litigation is whether a court would put the transport of agricultural nutrients through drainage systems in the point source definition or would consider it an agricultural exemption from the point source definition.

A second challenge in an attempt to bring agricultural nutrients under the Clean Water Act is whether a plaintiff could prove the actual origin of a downstream nutrient—who applied the nutrient that ended up downstream?  DMWW sought to minimize this challenge by suing the drainage districts that oversee the entire region.   But DMWW still would have had to trace the nutrients to the region, a difficult task.

Meanwhile, the agricultural community expects that its voluntary efforts to reduce nitrate and phosphorus runoff from farm fields will positively impact water quality and reduce the possibility of more litigation like the DMWW case.   A multitude of voluntary efforts are underway, such as Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy and the flourish of cover crops in the Western Lake Erie Basin.  Ohio has also added a regulatory approach that requires farmers to engage in fertilizer application training.   Let’s hope these initiatives will reduce nutrient impacts before another party is willing to point its finger and agriculture and pursue a lawsuit like DMWW.

Read the federal district court’s decision in DMWW here.  Our previous post on DMWW is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Uncategorized

Ohio Senate to Consider “Purple Paint Law” for Trespassing

The Senate Judiciary today heard testimony in support of a proposed change to Ohio’s criminal trespass laws.  The “purple paint law” proposed by Sen. Bill Coley (R-Liberty Twp.) allows landowners to use purple paint to alert potential trespassers of property boundary lines.  The purple paint would serve the same purpose as a “No Trespassing” sign by indicating that a person does not have permission to enter the property.

“It is often difficult for landowners, particularly owners who have large pieces of real estate, to maintain and replace their “No Trespassing” signs on a regular basis,” states Rep. Coley.  “This legislation amends Ohio’s criminal trespass law to allow purple paint to be a warning sign for trespassers.”

Ohio’s criminal trespass law establishes misdemeanor penalties for persons who knowingly or recklessly enter or remain on land of another without authorization from the landowner.  The law allows a landowner to notify a potential intruder that access is prohibited in several ways:  by actual communication, by fencing designed to restrict access, or by signage or posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders.  The proposed bill would clarify that “posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders” would include placing identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts around the property.  The purple marks would have to be readily visible vertical lines at least eight inches long, with the bottom of the mark being at least three feet but no more than five feet from the base of the tree or post and no more than 25 yards from the next paint mark.

Today’s committee hearing is the first for the bill.  If the legislation eventually passes through the House and Senate, Ohio would join a dozen other states around the country in allowing purple paint to mark property boundary lines for trespassing purposes. Similar laws exist in West Virginia, Kansas, Arizona, Montana, Arkansas, Idaho, Florida, Maine, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Texas.

Follow the proposed purple paint law, SB 76, here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Property

Regulating Livestock Welfare Remains an Issue Around the Country

Written by:  Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Livestock producers in Ohio have been subject to standards for the care of livestock since 2011 but animal welfare is still a topic of debate around the country. Most recently, attention turned to the care of livestock raised under the National Organic Program and animals raised in confinement in Massachusetts.   In this post, we examine the proposed federal organic standards and a livestock care ballot initiative passed in Massachusetts.  The discussion provides an opportunity to take a look at the status of Ohio’s livestock care standards.

Federal Organic Standards

On January 19, 2017, the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) promulgated a final rule for the National Organic Program (NOP).  The rule concerns practices for organic livestock and poultry.  Namely, the rule “clarifies how producers and handlers participating in the NOP must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing.”  These treatment standards are applicable at numerous times throughout the lives of livestock, including when the animals are transported or slaughtered.  Additionally, the rule spells out the amount and type of indoor and outdoor space organic poultry must have under NOP.  The rule also describes the timing and methods for physically altering livestock and poultry under NOP.  The rule allows “[p]hysical alterations…only…for an animal’s welfare, identification, or safety.”  For example, the rule limits the use of teeth clipping and tail docking in pigs, and prohibits the de-beaking of chickens or face branding of cattle.  Many other banned and limited alterations are spelled out in the rule, as well as provisions that require active monitoring of animal health and treatment of injuries, sicknesses, and diseases.  The rule was originally supposed to become effective on March 20, 2017.  The Trump Administration, however, has since instituted a regulatory freeze in order to review recently made regulations.   In response to the regulatory freeze, AMS pushed back the effective date to May 19, 2017.  Barring any decisions by the new administration to the contrary, the rule should become effective on that date.  More information concerning this final rule is available here.

Massachusetts voters approve livestock confinement ballot initiative

Some states have taken it upon themselves to address various aspects of animal welfare.  This past Election Day, Massachusetts passed Question 3, a ballot initiative concerning confinement of livestock.  Question 3, also called the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, applies to farm owners and operators who raise breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens within the state, and also to business owners and operators who sell products from such livestock within the state.  When the Act becomes effective on January 1, 2022, this will mean that any farmers or businesses selling their pork, veal, or eggs in Massachusetts, even if they are not physically located within the state, would have to comply with the state’s confinement rules.  The law prohibits the aforementioned livestock being “confined in a cruel manner,” meaning that the animals cannot be “confined so as to prevent [them] from lying down, standing up, fully extending [their] limbs, or turning around freely.”  There are certain exceptions to this rule, including during transport, at fairs, during a veterinary examination, etc.  When the Act goes into effect, violators will face a $1,000 civil fine per violation, and/or an injunction

Ohio Livestock Care Standards

As many will remember, Ohio has its own laws and regulations concerning livestock welfare.  Voters passed an amendment to the Ohio Constitution in 2009.  The amendment created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, which was tasked with creating the actual “care standards” for livestock animals in the state.  The first of these “livestock care standards,” or rules, became effective on September 29, 2011.  Standards exist for different types of livestock and cover everything from acceptable euthanasia practices for each species, to the provision of food and water, to acceptable methods of transportation.  The board continues to meet regularly to review the care standards.

The regulations on livestock care include an investigation process initiated by complaints on potential violations of the standards.  Since the standards became effective, the Ohio Department of Agriculture has received a number of complaints and works with operators to bring them into compliance if the agency finds a violation. According to Farm and Dairy, there were 51 such investigations in 2012, 29 in 2013, and 23 in 2014.  In 2015, there were 33 investigations—23 of which resulted in no violations of the standards.   Producers can learn more about the livestock care standards at http://www.agri.ohio.gov/LivestockCareStandards.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Uncategorized

Pipelines, Property, and You: What Ohio Property Owners Impacted by Pipeline Projects Should Know

Written by:  Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Several major pipeline projects, which plan to crisscross the state, are in the final stages of preparation. As part of the planning process for a project, pipeline builders plot the path that the pipeline will travel across the state. That path inevitably crosses private landowners’ property. Some landowners may feel overwhelmed trying to understand the rights of private pipeline companies to cross private property in Ohio. The frequently asked questions discussed below should help answer some of the common questions about pipeline projects in Ohio.

Can a pipeline company come on to my property to conduct a survey?

Yes. Prior to building a pipeline, pipeline companies must select a route where the pipeline is to be constructed. A pipeline project usually crosses private property along a proposed route. When a pipeline must cross private property along the project’s route, the pipeline company will ask the landowner for an easement that allows for pipeline construction on the property. However, even before signing an easement, a survey of the property may be necessary to determine the feasibility of constructing a pipeline on the property. Therefore, a pipeline company may need to enter a landowner’s private property to conduct a survey.

In Ohio, the law allows private companies that are organized “for transporting natural or artificial gas, petroleum, coal or its derivatives . . . through tubing, pipes or conduits” to enter upon private land to examine or survey for pipelines. This means that a pipeline company organized for these specific purposes does have the right in Ohio to enter onto a landowner’s property to conduct a private survey for the purpose of pipeline construction.

A pipeline company is telling me that they might use Eminent Domain to acquire my property. Is that legal?

Most likely, yes. A pipeline company may negotiate an easement with landowners which compensates landowners in exchange for the right to build a pipeline. However, landowners may not want to give a pipeline company the right to cross their property. In that scenario, pipeline companies have the option of crossing a landowner’s property by using eminent domain. Eminent domain is the taking of private property for public purposes with compensation.

In Ohio, the same law that allows for companies that are organized “for transporting natural or artificial gas, petroleum, coal or its derivatives . . . through tubing, pipes or conduits” to enter upon private land for survey also allows those same companies to use eminent domain to take private land. The law states that a company organized for the above purpose “may appropriate so much of such land, or any right or interest [to the land], as is deemed necessary for the laying down or building of pipes . . .” This suggests that pipeline companies have the power of eminent domain in Ohio.

Some argue that the law only grants eminent domain rights for transporting gas, and does not extend the right of eminent domain for the transport of gas derivatives such as ethane. While there is not strong legal support for this argument, it is under litigation in Ohio courts.

To use eminent domain, the pipeline company must prove that the landowner and the company were not able to reach an agreement about granting a pipeline easement and that the taking of the pipeline easement is “necessary.” A pipeline company must establish that the taking of property will serve a “public use.” Ohio courts have noted that the term public use is flexible. Accordingly, Ohio courts have held that private pipelines are a public use if those pipelines provide an economic benefit to Ohio. After establishing necessity and public use, the pipeline company must follow the procedures for eminent domain in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 163.

For an interstate pipeline that runs between Ohio and another state, federal law could allow a company to use eminent domain to obtain land from unwilling landowners. Federal law states that a company may acquire property rights for a gas pipeline if the company has obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the company and landowner have not been able to agree on compensation for the pipeline easement. See 15 USC §717(F).

What about the pipeline cases that are in court right now, do those affect my rights?

Ohio landowners have probably heard about several high-profile pipeline projects that are planning to cut across the state. Some landowners have challenged the construction of these pipeline projects on their property.  These landowners are challenging the right of the pipeline companies to use eminent domain to acquire an easement on their property. Two pipeline projects in Ohio are of particular interest: Kinder Morgan’s Utopia Project and Rover Pipeline LLC.

A court in Wood County, Ohio decided in 2016 that Kinder Morgan’s Utopia Project, which plans to run across Ohio and into Canada, did not have eminent domain authority. The court concluded that the pipeline did not “serve the public of the State of Ohio or any public in the United States.” The court based its conclusion on the fact that Utopia did not provide a benefit to Ohio. However, Kinder Morgan quickly appealed that case to Ohio’s Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, this opinion is on hold while a higher court decides whether it agrees with the lower court’s interpretation of the eminent domain law.

A second high-profile pipeline case involves the right of Rover Pipeline LLC to use eminent domain for an interstate pipeline project. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued this pipeline project a certificate of public convenience and necessity on February 2, 2017. As a result, Rover Pipeline LLC is moving forward with construction on landowners’ property, because a federal court found that the pipeline company has eminent domain authority.

So how do these court cases affect landowners? First, landowners should be aware that other pipeline projects in Ohio likely have eminent domain authority, if they meet the requirements for eminent domain described by Ohio law. Second, landowners should be aware that that the pipeline case that began in Wood County and is currently being appealed is still pending. It is important to note that this case is reviewing the Utopia Project’s right to use eminent domain in Ohio. Therefore, this does not mean that all pipeline companies in Ohio no longer have the right to use eminent domain to acquire private property in Ohio. Instead, this case will determine the fate of that particular pipeline project and whether or not that project has the right to use eminent domain to acquire an easement. In the meantime, pipeline companies continue to have the right to use eminent domain in Ohio.

More information on pipelines in Ohio and resources for landowners considering signing an easement is available here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmental, Oil and Gas