EPA issues “existing stocks” order for over-the-top dicamba sale and use

A federal court decision last week vacated the registrations of dicamba products XtendiMax, Engenia, and Tavium for over-the-top applications on soybean and cotton crops, making the use of the products unlawful (see our February 12, 2024 blog post).  The decision raised immediate questions about whether the U.S. EPA would exercise its authority to allow producers and retailers to use “existing stocks” of dicamba products they had already purchased.  Yesterday, the U.S. EPA answered those questions by issuing an Existing Stocks Order that allows the sale and use of existing stocks of the products that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the federal court decision on February 6, 2024.  For Ohio, the EPA’s order allows the sale and distribution of existing stocks until May 31, 2024 and the use of existing stocks until June 30, 2024.

Here is the EPA’s order:

1. Pursuant to FIFRA Section 6(a)(1), EPA hereby issues an existing stocks order for XtendiMax® with VaporGrip® Technology (EPA Reg. No. 264-1210), Engenia® Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 7969-472), and A21472 Plus VaporGrip® Technology (Tavium® Plus VaporGrip® Technology) (EPA Reg. No. 100-1623). This order will remain in effect unless or until subsequent action is taken. The issuance of this order did not follow a public hearing. This is a final agency action, judicially reviewable under FIFRA § 16(a) (7 U.S.C. §136n). Any sale, distribution, or use of existing stocks of these products inconsistent with this order is prohibited.
2. Existing Stocks. For purposes of this order, “existing stocks” means those stocks of previously registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to February 6, 2024 (the effective date of the District of Arizona’s vacatur of the dicamba registrations). Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(a)(1), this order includes the following existing stocks provisions:

a.  Sale or Distribution by the Registrants. As of February 6, 2024, sale or distribution by the registrants of these products is prohibited, except for the
purposes of proper disposal or to facilitate lawful export.
b.  Sale or Distribution by Persons other than the Registrants. Persons other than the registrants, including but not limited to co-ops and commercial distributors, who are already in possession of these products as of February 6, 2024, may sell or distribute these products until the end date for sale and distribution of existing stocks identified in Table 1; except that such persons may distribute these products after the date identified in Table 1 solely for purposes of proper disposal, lawful export, or to facilitate return to the manufacturer.
c.  Distribution or Sale by Commercial Applicators. Notwithstanding paragraph 2.b, for the purpose of facilitating use no later than the relevant end date for use of existing stocks identified in Table 1, distribution or sale of existing stocks of these dicamba products that are in the possession of commercial applicators is permitted
until the relevant end date for use in Table 1.
d.  Use of Existing Stocks. As of the date of this order, use of XtendiMax, Engenia, and Tavium is permitted until the relevant date identified in Table 1, provided that such use of existing stocks is consistent in all respects with the previously approved labeling accompanying the product.

What happens next? 

The Existing Stocks Order addresses dicamba over-the-top applications for the current growing season, but it’s not the end of the dicamba controversy.  One potential next step could come from the petitioners in the federal case that vacated the dicamba product registrations, Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA.  The petitioners could file a motion asking the Court to review the Existing Stocks Order–an action that took place in the previous dicamba cancellation case, National Family Farm Coaltion v. EPA (Monsanto).  The petitioners in that case unsuccessfully sought an Emergency Motion to enforce the vacatur and hold the EPA Administrator in contempt for issuing an Existing Stocks Order.  A second next step that may yet play out is an appeal of the recent federal decision by either the EPA or the dicamba product manufacturers–those parties have 30 days from the February 6 decision date to file an appeal.  At least one thing is clear at this point:  the long-term future of dicamba over-the-top products will continue to exist in a state of uncertainty.

Read the full text of the EPA’s Existing Stocks Order.

Ohio Farmland Leasing Update webinar is March 1

As we enter the 2024 crop season, it’s time for an update on economic and legal information that affects Ohio farmland leasing. Join our Farm Office team members on March 1, 2024 from 10 a.m. until noon for a special edition of our Farm Office Live webinars.  In the Ohio Farmland Leasing Update, we’ll be sharing the latest information on these leasing topics:

• Cash Rent Outlook – Key Issues and Survey Data
• Negotiating Capital Improvements on Leased Farmland
• Dealing with Conservation Practices in a Farmland Lease
• Executing and Recording Farm Leases
• Legal updates and new Farmland Leasing Resources

Our speakers for the webinar include:

• Barry Ward, Leader, OSU Production Business Management
• Peggy Hall, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
• Robert Moore, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

There is no cost to attend the Ohio Farmland Leasing Update, but registration is necessary unless you’re already registered for our Farm Office Live webinars.  To register, visit go.osu.edu/register4fol.

Dicamba’s future is uncertain, again

A federal district court in Arizona has vacated the registrations for dicamba products XtendiMax, Enginia, and Tavium, finding that the U.S. EPA violated pesticide registration procedures when it approved the product registrations in 2020.  As a result of the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, the dicamba products are no longer legally authorized for use and application in the U.S.  Although there will likely be appeal of the decision, the new ruling creates uncertainty over the use of dicamba products for the upcoming crop season.

History of the case

If the court’s ruling feels familiar, that’s because it is a repeat of a 2020 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA (Monsanto).  In that case, the court vacated the first “conditional” dicamba product registrations granted by the EPA in 2018.  The court found that the EPA had “substantially understated” and failed to acknowledge the risks of dicamba’s volatility and its effects on non-users.  The EPA then cancelled the product registrations in June of 2020, but allowed producers to use “existing stocks” of already purchased products to apply the products until July 31, 2020.  The Ohio Department of Agriculture shortened that timeline in Ohio due to growing conditions within the state, prohibiting applications of dicamba after June 30, 2020.

Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta immediately revised the label application instructions and restrictions for their dicamba products and resubmitted their registration requests to the EPA. In October of 2020, the EPA granted the applications and issued “unconditional” five-year registrations for over-the-top applications (OTT) of the products on cotton and soybean crops.  The EPA did not provide a notice and opportunity for the public to submit comments before it made the registration decision. The National Family Farm Coalition, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, and Center for Biological Diversity filed the current lawsuit, claiming that the EPA violated federal law by granting the unconditional registrations without a notice and comment period.

The court’s reasoning in this case

EPA’s error.The primary basis for the court’s decision is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 136a(c)(4), which contains the notice and comment requirement for registration of a “new use” of a pesticide or herbicide.  It states that the EPA:

“. . . shall publish in the Federal Register. . . a notice of each application for registration of any pesticide that contains any new active ingredient or if it would entail a changed use pattern. The notice shall provide for a period of 30 days in which any Federal agency or any other interested person may comment.”

FIFRA further states that a “new use” of a product means, in part, “any additional use pattern that would result in a significant increase in the level of exposure, or a change in the route of exposure, to the active ingredient of man or other organisms.”

The EPA took the position that it did not have to provide the FIFRA notice and a comment period because the 2020 registration requests were not applications for a “new use” since EPA had previously approved the products.  The court strongly disagreed, however, emphasizing the previous court decision that had vacated those registrations because the EPA had failed to fully consider the risks of the products.  The EPA’s conclusion that the 2020 registrations were not for a new use “is so implausible that the Court cannot ascribe it to be a mere difference in view,” the court stated.  Stakeholders who would be affected by the dicamba registrations should have had an opportunity to “meaningfully weigh in during the decision-making process before EPA concluded whether OTT dicamba has unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,” said the court.

Remedy for the error.  The court explained that upon finding an agency has violated federal law, the presumed remedy a court must grant is to vacate the agency’s action.  The law requires that only in limited circumstances, when equity requires it, should a court remand without vacating an agency decision.  There are two factors the law requires a court to review in determining the remedy:  the seriousness of the agency’s error and the disruptive consequences of vacating the agency’s decision.  The court’s next step was to review those two factors and determine whether it should remand the issue with or without vacating the dicamba registrations.

Examining the first factor, the court concluded that the EPA’s error was “very serious” because it was likely that, had the agency considered field studies, data, and other information that would have been submitted during the comment period, the EPA’s registration decision likely would have differed from the decision it made to grant the five-year unconditional registration.  The history of the dicamba registrations were important to the court, and the judge noted that there had not been a notice and comment period for stakeholders who were opposed to approving dicamba products since 2016, when the EPA considered the original registration.  The court reiterated a long list of field studies, incident reports, and data generated since 2016 that the agency could have considered had it provided a comment period.  Noting that the EPA was “highly confident that control measures would eliminate dicamba offsite movement to only a minimal effect,” the court pointed to years of incident reports on dicamba offsite movement and concluded:

“This Court believes hearing from all stakeholders is likely to change the OTT dicamba registrations at least from unconditional to conditional, with data gathering requirements reinstated. Hearing from non-users of OTT dicamba may change the EPA’s circular approach to assessing costs for risks from OTT dicamba offsite movement. Instead of simply concluding there is no risk and, therefore, no costs to these stakeholders, EPA is likely to include the costs to these stakeholders when balancing the risks and benefits for OTT dicamba. Accordingly, the Court finds the EPA’s procedural error to unconditionally issue the “new use” 2020 dicamba registration, without notice and comment, was serious.”

The court then examined the second factor, the disruptive consequences of vacating the agency’s decision. The court recognized the benefits of dicamba products to the agricultural industry and that growers, through no fault of their own, would be in the difficult position of finding legal herbicides to protect their crops if the dicamba registrations were vacated.  Nevertheless, the court agreed with the reasoning in the previous dicamba case, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA (Monsanto), that the seriousness of the EPA’s failure to assess the risks and costs for non-users of dicamba warranted vacating the registration despite the disruptive consequences.

What happens next?

There are two issues to watch now in the wake of the court’s decision. First is whether the EPA and the dicamba manufacturers will appeal the federal district court’s decision.  The appeal would go the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the same appellate court that reviewed the decision in the first dicamba appeal, National Family Farm Coalition v. EPA (Monsanto).  An appeal would put the federal district court’s decision on hold.

If there is not an appeal, the second issue to watch for is how the EPA and state agencies will direct the use of existing stocks of dicamba products.  The EPA could use its authority to allow continued use of existing stocks of dicamba products until a certain date, as it did in the previous case.  If the EPA does issue an existing stocks order, states could also address the extent of existing stocks use within their borders, as Ohio did in the previous case.

Follow the Ohio Ag Law Blog for continued legal information about Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA and review the federal district court’s opinion through this link.  Ohio growers should also refer to information from OSU’s Weed Science Extension Specialist, Dr. Allyssa Essman, available through OSU’s C.O.R.N. newsletter.

Ohio ag legislation we’ll be watching in the new year

Written by Ellen Essman, J.D., OSU CFAES Government Relations

Just like there won’t be snow flurries on Christmas this year, there was not a flurry of activity at the Statehouse over the last few months. That being said, we will be carefully following several ag-related bills that progressed in committees but have not yet been passed by the full body, as the calendar turns to 2024. Here’s a summary of the bills we’re watching. 

H.B. 162—Agriculture Designations. H.B. 162 was introduced by Representatives Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) on May 5, 2023, and was passed by the House in October, and had its first hearing in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on December 5. The bill would designate the following days and weeks to honor Ohio Agriculture:

• March 21 of each year as “Agriculture day;”
• The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of each February through the last Saturday in February as “FFA Week;”
• October 12 of each year as “Farmer’s Day;” and
• The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”

H.B. 347—Farming Equipment Taxes. This bill was introduced by Representative Don Jones (R-Freeport) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee in early December.  The bill would change the way farmers claim a tax exemption on certain purchases. 

Currently, when an Ohioan engaged in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture is buying a product for “agricultural use,” they must provide the seller with an exemption certificate. This certificate comes from the Ohio Department of Taxation and relieves the seller of the obligation to collect the sales tax on behalf of the state.  However, the Department of Taxation can later determine that the purchase does not qualify for exemption, and then the farmer would be expected to pay the tax. 

H.B. 347 would slightly alter this current way of doing things when it comes to the purchase of certain vehicles and trailers.  Under the bill, the purchaser could receive an agricultural use exemption for taxes on these vehicles if the purchaser shows the seller copies of the purchaser’s Schedule F—the federal income tax profit of loss from farming form—for three most recent preceding years. Alternatively, a farmer could obtain a certificate from the Department of Taxation verifying that they have filed a Schedule F for three years in lieu of providing the forms directly to the seller.  Notably, the bill states that “no other documentation or explanation shall be required by the vendor or the tax commissioner” to prove that the purchase qualifies for the agricultural use exemption.

The following vehicles and trailers would be included under the bill:

• Trailers, excluding watercraft trailers;
• Utility vehicles, (vehicles with a bed, principally for the purpose of transporting material or cargo in connection with construction, agricultural, forestry, grounds maintenance, land and garden, materials handling, or similar activities);
• All-purpose vehicles, (vehicles designed primarily for cross-country travel on land and water, or on multiple types of terrain, but excluding golf carts);
• Compact tractors (garden tractors, small utility tractors, and riding mowers).

H.B. 364—Agriculture (seed sharing). House Bill 364 was introduced in the House by representatives Dave Dobos (R-Columbus) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) on December 14.  The bill would allow the Ohio Prairie Association to distribute milkweed seeds non-commercially to its members, with the intent of promoting habitats for pollinators like monarch butterflies.

The bill would legally define “non-commercial seed sharing” as the distribution or transfer of ownership of seeds with no compensation or remuneration.  Also included in the definition are a list of situations that are not considered “non-commercial seed sharing,” including when:

• The seeds are given as compensation of work or services rendered;
• The seeds are collected outside of Ohio;
• The seeds are patented, treated, or contain noxious weed species or invasive plants.

H.B. 364 also includes a definition of “seed library,” which it defines as a non-profit, governmental, or cooperative organization or association to which both of the following apply:

• It is established for the purpose of facilitating the donation, exchange, preservation, and dissemination of seeds among the seed library’s members or the general public.
• The use, exchange, transfer, or possession of seeds acquired by or from the non-profit governmental, or cooperative organization or association are obtained free of charge.

The bill would further exempt non-commercial seed sharing for the purposes of pollinator conservation, creating and conserving native habitats, and operation of a seed library from labeling, advertising, handling, and sales restrictions under Ohio law.

To further the goal of promoting pollinators and habitats, H.B. 364 would make changes to the requirements for maintaining toll roads, railroads, or electric railways. Current law requires managers of such thoroughfares to destroy a number of noxious weeds along the roadway or in right of ways. The bill would no longer require the destruction of Russian thistle, Canadian thistle, common thistle, wild lettuce, wild mustard, wild parsnip, ragweed, milkweed, or ironweed. 

Open burning restrictions lift December 1, but don’t get burned by the laws

With the warm, dry, and windy months of October and November behind us, Ohio farmers will soon have legal clearance to conduct open burning during the daylight hours.  Ohio law prohibits all open burning from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. during October and November.  That’s because ground cover and weather conditions create high fire risk and volunteer firefighters with daytime jobs aren’t readily available to fight the fires. 

December 1 marks the end of the daytime burn restriction, but other open burning laws remain in effect. Farmers can burn “agricultural waste,” but must follow burning conditions.  Burning other types of waste can require prior permission or notification and it is illegal to burn some wastes due to the environmental harms they cause.  Failing to know and follow the open burning laws can burn you, so here’s a summary of important provisions in the open burning laws that affect farmers and farmland owners.

What you can burn.  Ohio law allows the burning of “agricultural wastes” under certain conditions.  Ohio law defines what is and is not “agricultural waste” as follows:

• Agricultural waste is any waste material generated by crop, horticultural, or livestock production practices, and includes such items as woody debris and plant matter from stream flooding, bags, cartons, structural materials, and landscape wastes that are generated in agricultural activities.
• Agricultural waste does not include buildings; dismantled or fallen barns; garbage; dead animals; animal waste; motor vehicles and parts thereof; or “economic poisons and containers,” unless the manufacturer has identified open burning as a safe disposal procedure.
• Agricultural waste does not include”land clearing waste,” which is debris resulting from the clearing of land for new development for agricultural, residential, commercial or industrial purposes.  Burning of “land clearing waste” requires prior written notification to Ohio EPA.
• If an agricultural waste pile is greater than 20 ft. wide x 10 ft. high (4,000 cubic feet), permission from Ohio EPA is necessary.

Where you can burn.  Two rules that affect the burning location relate to where the waste is generated and whether the burn is in or near a village or city:

• It is legal to burn agricultural waste only if it is generated on the property where the burn occurs.  It is illegal to take agricultural waste to a different property for burning and to receive and burn agricultural waste from another property.
• Burning inside a “restricted area” requires providing a ten day written notice to Ohio EPA.  A restricted area is any area inside city or village limits, within 1,000-feet of a city or village with a population of 1,000 to 10,000, or within one-mile zone a city or village with a population of more than 10,000. 
• A burn must be located more than 1,000 feet from any neighboring inhabited building.

How to manage the burn.  Ohio laws impose practices a person must follow when conducting open burning, which includes:

• Remove all leaves, grass, wood, and inflammable materials around the burn to a safe distance.
• Stack waste to provide the best practicable condition for efficient burning.
• Don’t burn in weather conditions that prevent dispersion of smoke and emissions.
• Take reasonable precautions to keep the fire under control. 
• Extinguish or safely cover an open fire before leaving the area.

Local laws matter too. A local government can also have laws that regulate burning activities, so it’s important to check with the local fire department to know whether any additional regulations apply to a burn.

A bad burn can burn you.   Violation of state and local open burning laws creates several risks for farmers and farmland owners. First is the risk of enforcement by the Ohio EPA, which has the authority to issue fines of up to $1,000 per day per offense for an illegal burn.  According to the EPA, the most common violations by farmers include burning substances that are not “agricultural wastes,” such as tires and plastics, failing to meet the 1,000 foot setback requirement, and burning waste from another property. EPA enforcement officers regularly patrol their districts, investigate fires they see, and investigate complaints from neighbors or others who report burning activities, so “getting caught” is quite possible.

An illegal burn might also bring in the Ohio Division of Forestry or local law enforcement.  Beyond the environmental provisions, other violations of the open burning laws can result in third degree misdemeanor charges.  Penalties of up to $500 and 60 days of jail time per violation could result.  

A final risk to consider is liability for harm to yourself, other people, or other property if a burn goes wrong.  It’s possible for a fire to escape and burn unintended property, to reduce roadway visibility and cause an accident, or to interfere with people, animals, crops, or buildings.  These situations can cause personal injuries, property harm, and could result in insurance claims or a negligence or nuisance lawsuit.  Using common sense and taking reasonable safety precautions when conducting a burn can go a long way toward reducing the risk of harm and resulting liability for harm.

To learn more about Ohio’s open burning laws, visit the Ohio EPA website at https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/permitting/open-burning.

When neighbors share subsurface drainage systems, who has what rights?

It’s a common problem in Ohio: a dispute between two neighbors over connecting a subsurface drainage tile system that crosses property lines.  Can one neighbor cut off the other neighbor’s access to a tile?  Can one go onto the other’s property to maintain the tile?  If one replaces their system, can they still connect to the other’s tile?  Answers to neighbor drainage questions can be, like subsurface water, a little murky.  But a recent appeals court decision on a Licking County drainage dispute provides a few clear answers.

The drainage system at issue.  Landowner Foor’s clay subsurface drainage system had been on his farm for over fifty years.  Foor’s system connected to a larger drainage tile that ran across neighbor Helfrich’s property and eventually emptied into a pond on Helfrich’s land. Foor and his predecessors had uused and maintained the line on Helfrich’s property prior to Helfrich’s ownership.

The dispute.  Foor planned to replace his old system and also offered to replace the tile he connected to on neighbor Helfrich’s property.  Helfrich refused the replacement.  During installation of Foor’s tile, Helfrich dug up the tile area near the boundary and filled the hole with rocks and refuse, after which water welled up and flowed over the properties rather than through the tile on Helfrich’s property.  Foor installed a standpipe on his side of the boundary.  Helrich filed a complaint against Foor, claiming that Foor’s drainage was excessive and harmful.  Foor responded by asking the court to establish his rights to a drainage easement and irrevocable license to use the property where the tile ran across Helfrich’s property. A jury ruled in favor of Foor, awarding him $30,000 in damages and both an easement and irrevocable license where the tile ran across Helfrich’s property.

The appeal.  The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed two conclusions on the drainage rights of the two neighbors:

• First, the court held that Foor’s replacement of the pre-existing subsurface drainage system was not an “alteration” of the flow of surface water that would trigger Ohio’s “reasonable use” rule for drainage.  The reasonable use rule allows a legal claim when an alteration of surface water flow causes an unreasonable interference with someone’s property.  Because the newly installed tile did not increase the amount of water draining from Foor’s property and maintained the same amount of drainage that had occurred for over fifty years, the court concluded there was no “alteration” of surface water flow. Without an alteration, the reasonable use rule did not apply and Helfrich did not have a claim against Foor based on the reasonable use rule.
• Second, the court refused to overturn the jury’s award of a drainage easement and irrevocable license across Helfrich’s land to Foor.  Helfrich argued there was not sufficient evidence for the jury’s verdict but the court disagreed. The jury determined that an “easement by estoppel” existed when Helfrich purchased the property, based on evidence that the easement was apparent and not hidden to Helfrich when he purchased the property; that Foor and his predecessors relied on the drainage access and had previously repaired the tile on the neighboring property; and that the prior owners of the Helfrich property had gone along with Foor’s maintenance and use of the drainage tile on their land.  Likewise, the court held there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the previous owners of the Helfrich property had granted the prior owners of the Foor property a “license” or right to enter their property and maintain the tile.  The jury determined that substantial investment by Foor and his predecessors suggested that the license was intended to be permanent, and the appeals court found that sufficient evidence also existed to support that conclusion.

How does this affect future drainage disputes between neighbors?  The Fifth District decision provides useful precedent for the difficult questions neighbor drainage disputes raise. The case supports the argument that a landowner has a legal right to maintain a subsurface drainage system that crosses property lines.  As long as there is not an “alteration” of surface water flow and history shows prior use, reliance, and maintenance of the connecting tile line on a neighbor’s property, a landowner can be in a strong legal position for continued use and maintenance of the tile.  Will other appellate courts agree with the Fifth District’s analysis, or will Helfrich ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the decision?  Answers to those questions, like subsurface water, are a little murky.

Read the Fifth Appellate District’s decision in Helfrich v. Foor Family Investments.

Noxious weeds and neighbors

Did you know yellow grove bamboo is on Ohio’s “noxious weeds” list?  We’ve seen an increase in legal questions about bamboo, a plant that can cross property boundaries pretty quickly and create a neighbor dispute.  Weeds often cause neighbor issues, which is why Ohio has a set of noxious weed laws.  The laws aim to resolve problems around yellow grove bamboo and other species designated as “noxious weeds.”

The noxious weeds list

The Ohio legislature designated shatter cane and Russian thistle as noxious weeds years ago, then granted the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) the authority to determine other noxious weeds that could be prohibited in Ohio.  Since that time, the noxious weed list has grown to include 31 weed species.   Two of the species, yellow grove bamboo and grapevines, are noxious weeds only if not managed in a certain way.  The list includes the following:

Shatter Cane	Kudzu
Russian Thistle	Japanese knotweed
Johnsongrass	Field bindweed
Wild parsnip	Heart-podded hoary cress
Canada thistle	Hairy whitetop or ballcress
Poison hemlock	Perennial sowthistle
Cressleaf groundsel	Russian knapweed
Musk thistle	Leafy spurge
Purple loosestrife	Hedge bindweed
Mile-A-Minute Weed	Serrated tussock
Giant Hogweed	Columbus grass
Apple of Peru	Musk thistle
Marestail	Forage Kochia
Kochia	Water Hemp
Grapevines: when growing in groups of 100 or more and not pruned, sprayed, cultivated, or otherwise maintained for 2 consecutive years	Yellow Grove Bamboo, when spread from its original premise of planting and not being maintained
Palmer amaranth

Talking about noxious weeds

Since noxious weeds can be harmful to all, the hope is that all landowners will manage noxious weeds effectively and reduce the possibility that the weeds will invade a neighbor’s property.  But for many reasons, that isn’t always the case.  When it appears that noxious weeds on a neighbor’s property are getting out of hand, we always encourage first trying to address the issue through neighbor communications.  A “friendly” discussion about the weeds might reveal helpful information that can reduce the neighbor conflict.  Maybe the neighbor has recently sprayed the weeds or isn’t aware of the weeds. Maybe the neighbor’s tenant is responsible for managing the land. Or, as is sometimes the case, maybe the suspected plants aren’t actually noxious weeds.  Good communication between the neighbors could bring a quick resolution to the situation.

Agronomic help with noxious weeds

Knowledge and management might be the solution to a noxious weeds problem between neighbors. For assistance identifying and managing noxious weeds, check out OSU’s guide on Identifying Noxious Weeds of Ohio at https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/ohionoxiousweeds/ and refer to helpful articles posted on OSU’s Agronomic Crops Network at https://agcrops.osu.edu.

Legal procedures may be necessary

If communication isn’t helpful or possible, the laws establish procedures for dealing with noxious weeds. Different procedures in the law apply for different weed locations.

• If the weeds are in the fence row between two properties, a landowner has a right to ask the neighbor to clear the row of weeds within four feet of the line fence.  If the neighbor doesn’t do so within 10 days, the landowner may notify the board of township trustees.  Once notified, the trustees must visit the property and determine whether the fence row should be cleared.  If so, the trustees must hire someone to clean up the fence row.  The costs of the clearing are then assessed on the neighbor’s property taxes.
• If the weeds are on private land beyond the fence row, a landowner can send written notice of the noxious weeds to the township trustees.  A letter describing the type and location of the weeds, for instance, would serve as written notice.  Once the trustees receive a written notice, they must notify the neighbor to cut or destroy the weeds or alternatively, to show why there is no need for such action.  If the neighbor doesn’t respond to the trustees and take action within 5 days of the notice being given, the trustees must order the weeds to be cut or destroyed.  The cost of destroying the weeds is then assessed on the neighbor’s property taxes.
• If the neighbor is a railroad, the railroad must cut or destroy noxious weeds along the railway between June 1 and 20, August 1 and 20, and if necessary, September 1 and 20.  If a railroad fails to do so and the township trustees are aware of the problem, the trustees may remove the weeds and recover costs in a civil action against the railroad.  While the law doesn’t state it, a landowner may have to document whether the railroad follows the required cutting schedule and notify the trustees if it does not.
• If the neighbor is the Ohio Department of Natural Resources or a park owned by the state or a political subdivision, the landowner must provide information about the noxious weeds to the township trustees.  The trustees then notify the county Extension educator, who must meet with a park authority and a representative of the soil and water conservation district within five days to consider ways to deal with the problem.  The Extension educator must report findings and recommendations back to the township trustees, but the law doesn’t require the trustees to take action on the report.  Apparently, the hope is that the problem would be resolved after considering ways to deal with it.

What if the neighbor leases the land?

We mentioned that sometimes a neighbor might not be tending to noxious weeds because it’s actually the responsibility of the neighbor’s tenant under a leasing arrangement, such as a farmland lease or a solar lease.  These types of leases should state which party is responsible for noxious weeds.  Note that the law recognizes the possibility of a leasing situation by requiring the trustee to notify the “owner, lessee, agent, or tenant having charge of the land” when the weeds are on private land and the “owner or tenant” when the weeds are in the fence row.  The “or” in these provisions can be problematic though, as that doesn’t require the township to notify both the neighbor and tenant.  A landowner might need to ask the trustees to communicate with both the neighbor and its tenant so that the parties are both aware and can resolve which is responsible for managing the noxious weeds according to the leasing arrangement. 

For more information about noxious weeds, refer to our law bulletins in the property law library on https://farmoffice.osu.edu. 

When someone harms your crops, Ohio laws provide a remedy

Farm neighbor laws have been around nearly as long as there have been farm neighbors.  From trees to fences to drainage, farmers can impact and be impacted by their neighbors.  In the spirit of managing these impacts and helping everyone get along, our courts and legislatures have established a body of laws over the years that allocate rights and responsibilities among farm neighbors.  Explaining these laws is the goal of our new series on farm neighbor laws. 

Here’s a timely farm neighbor problem that we’ve heard before: Farmer’s soybeans are looking good and Farmer is anxious for harvest.  But some neighbors drive their ATV into the field and flatten a big section of Farmer’s beans.  What can Farmer do about the harm? 

Ohio’s “reckless destruction of vegetation law” might be the solution. The law, Ohio Revised Code Section 901.51, states that “no person, without privilege to do so, shall recklessly cut down, destroy, girdle, or otherwise injure a vine, bush, shrub, sapling, tree, or crop standing or growing on the land of another or upon public land.” This law could provide a remedy if its three components fit Farmer’s situation:

1. Recklessness
2. Destruction or injury to a vine, bush, shrub, sapling, tree, or crop on the land of another
3. No privilege

A key requirement of the law is “recklessness.”  Under Ohio law, a person is “reckless” if the person acts with heedless indifference to the consequences or disregards the risk that the person’s conduct is likely to cause a certain result.  For example, if the neighbors were out driving the ATV at night and simply didn’t care where they were and that their actions could be harming Farmer’s property, that behavior is likely to rise to the level of “recklessness.”  Alternatively, if another driver ran the neighbors off the road and the neighbors tried but could not avoid going into the bean field, their behavior isn’t likely to be deemed “reckless.”

A second requirement is destruction or injury to vegetation on another’s land.  In the unlikely event that Farmer’s soybeans aren’t actually injured or destroyed, the law wouldn’t apply.  Note that the law doesn’t just apply to a crop like soybeans, but also includes other vegetation such as vines, bushes, shrubs, and trees, recognizing that all of these types of vegetation have value for a landowner.

The final requirement is “without privilege to do so.”  Privilege in the context of this law means “permission.”  As long as Farmer didn’t tell the neighbors they could drive their ATV through his field, Farmer could prove that the neighbors did not have privilege or permission to cause the destruction and injuries to Farmer’s beans.

So what?  The law clearly prohibits the neighbors from recklessly destroying Farmer’s beans, but what happens if they do?  The law also addresses this question by stating that a violator of the law is liable “in treble damages.” Attorneys always take notice of treble damages language because it requires the damages award to be tripled after a judge or jury determines the amount of the actual harm. This tripling of damages is intended to punish the person for their “recklessness.”  So, if a jury decided that the value of Farmer’s lost beans is $1,000, the treble damages would result in a $3,000 award against the neighbors due to their reckless destruction of Farmer’s crop.

There is also a criminal element to the law.  The law states that a violator is also guilty of a fourth-degree misdemeanor.  That would require a criminal proceeding by the local law enforcement, and the result could be no more than 30 days in jail and up to $250 in fines.

If the reckless destruction law doesn’t apply, Farmer would need to look to other mechanisms for resolving the harm.  If the neighbors were trespassing, trespass laws could provide a remedy but wouldn’t award treble damages.  Or the Farmer’s property insurance might address the harm.  But if the neighbors destroyed Farmer’s beans by behaving recklessly, the reckless destruction of vegetation law can help resolve this farm neighbor issue.

Find the “reckless destruction of vegetation” law at Ohio Revised Code Section 901.51.

Landowner crop lease termination deadline is September 1

September 1 is fast approaching, and this year it’s an especially important date for landowners leasing cropland under an existing lease that doesn’t address when or how the lease terminates.  In those situations, September 1 is the new deadline established in Ohio law for a landowner to notify a tenant that the landowner wants to terminate the lease.  If the landowner does not provide notice by September 1, the lease continues for another lease term. 

This September 1 deadline only applies to verbal or written leases that don’t have a termination date or a deadline for giving notice of termination.  If a crop lease already includes a termination date or a deadline for giving notice of termination, those provisions are unchanged by the new law. The new September 1 termination date also only affects leases of land for agricultural crops.  It does not apply to leases for pasture, timber, farm buildings, horticultural buildings, or leases solely for equipment.

To meet the new legal requirements, a landowner must give the notice of termination in writing and deliver it to the tenant operator by hand, mail, fax, or email on or before September 1.  While the law does not specify what the termination must say, we recommend including the date of the notice, the identity of the lease property being terminated, and the date the lease terminates, which the law states will be the earlier of the end of harvest or December 31, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Tenant operators are not subject to the new September 1 termination deadline—the law applies only to the landowner.  Even so, it’s important for tenant operators to understand the new law because it protects a tenant if a landowner attempts to terminate a lease after September 1.  In those instances, the law allows the tenant to continue the lease for another term because the termination notice was late.

A lesson this new law teaches is the importance of having a written farm lease that includes termination provisions. The parties can agree in advance when the lease will terminate or can set a deadline for notifying the other party of the intent to terminate the lease.  Such terms provide certainty and reduce the risk of conflict and litigation over a “late” termination.

Read the new “termination of agricultural leases” law in Section 5301.71 of the Ohio Revised Code.

The Ag Law Roundup

It’s time for another roundup of legal questions we’ve been receiving in the Agricultural & Resource Law Program.  Our sampling this month includes registering a business, starting a butchery, noxious weed liability in a farm lease situation, promoting local craft beer at a farmers market, herd share agreements, and agritourism’s exemption from zoning.  Read on to hear the answers to these questions from across the state.

I want to name my farm business but am not an LLC or corporation.  Do I have to register the name I want to use for the business?

Yes, if your business name won’t be your personal name and even if the business is not a formally organized entity such as an LLC.  You must register the business with the Ohio Secretary of State.  First, make sure the name you want to use is not already registered by another business.  Check the name availability using the Secretary of State’s business name search tool at https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/.  If the name is available, register the name with the Secretary of State using the form at https://www.sos.state.oh.us/businesses/filing-forms–fee-schedule/#name.  If there is already a business registered with the name you want to use, you might be able to register a similar name if your proposed name is “distinguishable” from the registered name. The Secretary of State reviews names to make sure they are not already registered and are distinguishable from similar names.  See the Guide to Name Availability page for examples of when names are or are not distinguishable from one another.

I am interested in starting a small butchery.  What resources and information are helpful for beginning this endeavor?

There are legal issues associated with beginning a meat processing operation, and there are also feasibility issues to first consider.  A good resource for initial considerations to make for starting a meat processing business is this toolkit from OSU at https://meatsci.osu.edu/programs/meat-processing-business-toolkit.   A similar resource that targets niche meat marketers is at https://www.nichemeatprocessing.org/get-started/.  On the legal side, requirements vary depending on whether you will only process meat as a custom operator or fully inspected operator, and if you also want to sell the meat through your own meat market.  The Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Division of Meat Inspection has licensing information for different types of processors here:  https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/meat-inspection/home.  If you also want to have a retail meat market, you’ll need a retail food establishment (RFE) license from your local health department.  To help you with that process, it’s likely that your health department will have a food facility plan review resource like this one from the Putnam County Health Department.

Is Ohio’s noxious weeds law enforceable against the tenant operator of my farm, or just against me as the landowner?

Ohio’s noxious weed law states that the township trustees, upon receiving written information that noxious weeds are on land in their township, must notify the “owner, lessee, agent, or tenant having charge of the land.”  This language means that the trustees are to notify a tenant operator if the operator is the one who is in charge of the land where the noxious weeds exist.  The law then requires the notified party –which should be the tenant operator—to cut or destroy the noxious weeds within five days or show why there is no need to do so.  The concern with a rental situation like yours is that if the tenant does not destroy the weeds in five days, the law requires the township to hire someone to do so and assess the costs of removal as a lien on the land.  This puts you as the landowner at risk of financial responsibility for the lien and would require you to seek recourse against the tenant operator if you want to recover those costs.  Another option is to take care of removing the noxious weeds yourself, but that could possibly expose you to a claim of crop damages from the tenant operator.  A written farm lease can address this situation by clearing shifting the responsibility for noxious weeds in the crop to the tenant operator and stating how to deal with crop damages if the landowner must step in and destroy the noxious weeds.

Can we promote local craft beers at our farmers market?

Ohio established a new “F-11” permit in H.B. 674 last year.  The F-11 is a temporary permit that allows a qualifying non-profit organization to organize and conduct an event that introduces, showcases, or promotes Ohio craft beers that are sold at the event. There are restrictions on how long the event can last, how much beer can be sold, who can participate in the event, and requirements that food must also be sold at the event. The permit is $60 per day for up to 3 days.  Learn more about the permit on the Department of Commerce website at  https://com.ohio.gov/divisions-and-programs/liquor-control/new-permit-info/guides-and-resources/permit-class-types.

Can a goat herdsman legally provide goat milk through a herd share agreement program? 

Herd share agreements raise the raw milk controversy and whether it’s legal or safe to sell or consume raw milk.  Ohio statutory law does clearly prohibit the sales of raw milk to an “ultimate consumer” in ORC 971.04, on the basis that raw milk poses a food safety risk to consumers.  But the law does not prohibit animal owners from consuming raw milk from their own animals.  A herd share agreement sells ownership in an animal, rather than selling the raw milk from the animal.  Under the agreement, a person who pays the producer for a share of ownership in the animal may take their share of milk from the animal.  The Ohio Department of Agriculture challenged the use of herd share agreements as illegal in the 2006 case of Schitmeyer v. ODA, but the court did not uphold the ODA’s attempt to revoke the license of the dairy that was using herd share agreements.  As a result, it appears that the herd share agreement approach for raw milk sales is currently legally acceptable.  But many still claim that raw milk consumption is risky because the lack of pasteurization can allow harmful bacteria to exist in the milk. 

Can the township prohibit me from having a farm animal petting zoo on my hay farm?

It depends whether you qualify for the “agritourism exemption” granted in Ohio law.  The agritourism exemption states that a county or township can’t use its zoning authority to prohibit “agritourism,” although it may have same zoning regulations that affect agritourism buildings, parking lots, and access to and from the property.  “Agritourism” is an agriculturally related entertainment, recreational, cultural, educational or historical activity that takes place on a working farm where a certain amount of commercial agricultural production is also taking place. If you have more than ten acres in commercial production, like growing and selling your alfalfa, or you have less than ten acres but averaged more than $2,500 in gross sales from your alfalfa, you qualify under the agritourism exemption and the township zoning authorities cannot prohibit you from having your petting zoo.  However, any zoning regulations the township has for ingress and egress on your property, buildings used primarily for your petting zoo, or necessary parking areas would apply to your petting zoo activity. If you don’t qualify as “agritourism,” the township zoning regulations could apply to the petting zoo activity, and you must determine whether a petting zoo is a permitted use according to your zoning district, which could depend upon whether or not you want to operate the petting zoo as a commercial business.