The holidays aren’t distracting the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee from considering three legislative proposals concerning scenic rivers, small beer brewers, and state agriculture day designations. On December 12, the committee will hear testimony on all three bills. Here’s a summary of the proposals.
S.B. 156 – Designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. Senators Bill Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Bob Hackett (R-London) introduced this legislation to revise portions of the Ohio Scenic Rivers Program that were raising concerns from private property owners. The committee will hold its fourth hearing on the bill on December 12. The proposal makes the following changes to the Ohio Scenic River Law:
Clarifies that the designation of a Wild, Scenic or Recreational River does not grant authority to oversee private activities on private property or enter private land within the river area to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), which administers the program.
States that the agency has management and oversight of lands along a designated river only for those lands the state owns.
Requires ODNR to adopt rules to govern the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and to establish facilities and improvements within the areas necessary for visitation, use, restoration, and protection of the lands.
Clarifies that certain public entities must obtain approval from the ODNR Director to perform certain construction activities within 1,000 feet of a wild, scenic, or recreational river.
Extends the public comment period following the announcement of intent to designate a new river from 30 days to 60 days.
S.B. 138 – Alcohol Franchise Law exemption for small brewers. This bill introduced by Senator Andrew Brenner (R-Delaware) aims to help small brewers who annually manufacture less than 250,000 barrels (7.75 million gallons) of beer. The bill exempts small brewers from Ohio’s Alcohol Franchise Law, which requires a beer or wine manufacturer to enter into a franchise agreement with a distributor and lays out requirements for the franchise agreement. The exemption would allow small brewers to establish agreements with distributors under their own negotiated terms rather than the state-required terms. S.B. 138 will see its second committee hearing on December 12.
H.B. 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act. The House of Representatives passed H.B. 162 in October, and it will have its second hearing on December 12. Proposed by Reps. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville), the bill designates the following federal agriculture days as state days in Ohio:
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”;
The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”
The summertime slowdown hasn’t affected the number of agricultural law questions we’ve received from across Ohio. Here’s a sampling of recent questions and answers:
Is a tree service business considered “agriculture” for purposes of Ohio rural zoning?
No, tree trimming and tree cutting activities are not listed in the definition of agriculture in Ohio’s rural zoning laws, although the definition does include the growing of timber and ornamental trees. The definition ties to the “agricultural exemption” and activities that are in the “agriculture” definition can be exempt from county and township zoning. Here is the definition, from Ohio Revised Code sections 303.01 and 519.01:
“agriculture” includes farming; ranching; algaculture meaning the farming of algae; aquaculture; apiculture; horticulture; viticulture; animal husbandry, including, but not limited to, the care and raising of livestock, equine, and fur-bearing animals; poultry husbandry and the production of poultry and poultry products; dairy production; the production of field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, flowers, sod, or mushrooms; timber; pasturage; any combination of the foregoing; and the processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with, but are secondary to, such husbandry or production.
What are the benefits of being enrolled in the “agricultural district program” in Ohio, and is there a penalty for withdrawing from the program?
There are three benefits to enrolling farmland in the agricultural district program:
The first is the nuisance protection it offers a landowner. A landowner can use the defense the law provides if a neighbor who moves in after the farm was established files a lawsuit claiming the farm is a “nuisance” due to noise, odors, dust, etc. Successfully raising the defense and showing that the farm meets the legal requirements for being agricultural district land would cause the lawsuit to be dismissed.
The second benefit is that the law also exempts agricultural district land from assessments for water, sewer and electric line service extensions that would cross the land. As long as the land remains in agricultural district program, the landowner would not be subject to the assessments. But if the land is changed to another use or the landowner withdraws the land from the agricultural district program, assessments would be due. The assessment exemption does not apply to a homestead on the farmland, however.
A third benefit of the agricultural district program law is that it requires an evaluation at the state level if agricultural district land is subject to an eminent domain action that would affect at least 10 acres or 10% of the land. In that case, the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture must be notified of the eminent domain project and must assess the situation to determine the effect of the eminent domain on agricultural production and program policies. Both the Director and the Governor may take actions if the eminent domain would create an unreasonably adverse effect.
As for the question about a penalty, the law does allow the county to assess a penalty when a landowner withdraws land from the agricultural district program during the agricultural district enrollment period, which is a five-year period. If a landowner removes the land from the agricultural district, converts the land to a purpose other than agricultural production or an agricultural conservation program, or sells the land to another landowner who does not elect to continue in the agricultural district program, the landowner must pay a withdrawal penalty. The amount of the penalty depends on whether the land is also enrolled in the Current Agricultural Use Value program. See the different penalty calculations in Ohio Revised Code 929.02(D(1).
Read the agricultural district program law in Chapter 929 of the Ohio Revised Code and contact your county auditor to learn about how to enroll in the program.
My farmland is within the village limits and the village sent me a notice that I must cut a strip of tall grass on my land. Do I have to comply with this?
Yes. Ohio law allows a municipality such as a village to have vegetation, litter, and “noxious weeds” laws. These laws can set a maximum limit for the height of grass, require removal of litter on the property, and require ridding the land of “noxious weeds.” The purpose of the laws is to protect property values, protect public health by preventing pests and nuisances from accumulating, and keep noxious weeds from spreading to other properties. The village is within its legal authority to enforce its grass, litter, and noxious weeds laws on a farm property that is within the village limits. Failing to comply with an order by the village can result in a fine or financial responsibility for all expenses incurred by the village to remedy the problem.
Is it legal to pull water from a river or stream to irrigate land in Ohio?
Yes, as long as the withdrawal occurs on private land or with the consent of the public or private landowner. Registration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is required, however, if the amount withdrawn exceeds 10,000 gallons per day and the State has the ability to scale the 10,000 gallon amount back if the withdrawal is within an established groundwater stress area. Withdrawal registration information is available on the Division of Water Resources website.
Note that according to Ohio’s “reasonable use” doctrine, if a water withdrawal causes “unreasonable” harm to other water users, a legal action by harmed users could stop or curtail the use or allocate liability for the harm to the person who withdrew the water. To avoid such problems, a person withdrawing the water should ensure that the withdrawal will not cause “unreasonable” downstream effects.
An urban farmer wants to build a rooftop greenhouse to grow hemp and then wants to make and sell cannabis-infused prepared foods at a market on her property. Who regulates this industry and where would she go for guidance on legal and regulatory issues for these products?
Regulation and oversight of food products that contain cannabis is a combination of federal and state authority. Federal regulation is through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state regulation is via the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Division. She should refer to these resources:
As for the growing of hemp, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) regulates indoor hemp production in Ohio. There is a minimum acreage requirement for indoor production—she must have at least 1,000 square feet and 1,000 plants. See these resources from ODA:
She should also look into zoning regulations that could affect her farm market and the greenhouse structure she wants to build. If she is within a municipality (unlike outside of a municipality in a township or county), there may be zoning regulations that apply to both of these land uses. And food licensing regulation could come into play. If she is selling other types of food items along with the cannabis foods, she’ll likely need a Retail Food Establishment (RFE) license from the County Health Department. See our Law Bulletin for an explanation of when an RFE license is necessary.
It was a long time coming, but the Ohio EPA has presented a final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report for the Western Basin of Lake Erie to the U.S. EPA. The agency submitted the “Maumee Watershed Nutrient TMDL ” report on June 30, 2023. This was the exact deadline agreed to in the Consent Decree that settled litigation against the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA over the lack of a TMDL for Lake Erie’s Western Basin.
What is a TMDL?
A TMDL provides a framework for future decisions that affect water quality in waters designated as “impaired waters” that fail to meet water quality standards. The Ohio EPA declared Western Lake Erie waters as “impaired” in 2018, and the TMDL is the plan for addressing shoreline and open water impairments in the basin. According to the Ohio EPA, the TMDL report “identifies the links between the waterbody use impairment, sources of impairment, and the pollutant load reductions needed to meet water quality standards.”
How will it affect Ohio agriculture?
A major source of the impairment in the Lake Erie Western Basin is cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms caused by high phosphorus loads. The report identifies many sources of phosphorus that contribute to the impairment, with the largest component being “nonpoint” sources that include row crop commercial fertilizers and manures. “Point” sources of phosphorous sources include water treatment facilities; stormwater discharges; and home sewage treatment systems. The TMDL calls for phosphorus load reductions in the Maumee watershed to remedy the lake’s impairment. Agriculture would be affected by increased emphasis on management practices for agricultural fertilizers, manures, soils, and drainage.
How does the TMDL address phosphorus reductions?
The TMDL embraces an “adaptive management” approach that involves developing strategies, establishing milestones, implementing strategies, monitoring environmental responses, evaluating progress, and adjusting strategies. For row crops, the report focuses on management practices such as soil testing and developing a nutrient management plan. It proposes other agricultural phosphorous reductions from soil erosion management, increasing cropping diversity through rotations and cover crops, reductions of phosphorus applications, edge-of-field management, two-stage ditch designs, and controlled drainage. The report points out that many of the proposed actions have already been underway on farms in the watershed for over a decade, and monitoring, evaluations, and adjustment strategies will continue the progress made to-date. Figure 50 in the report, below, highlights phosphorous reduction strategies.
What happens next?
The U.S. EPA now must review the TMDL and decide whether to approve or disapprove the report. It has up to 90 days to do so, according to the Consent Decree. If the U.S. EPA does not approve the TMDL report, it must then prepare a TMDL for the Western Basin.
What is the key to resolving disagreements over water quality issues in Lake Erie? Cooperation, according to the federal court judge overseeing a legal battle over Lake Erie. The judge, U.S. District Judge James G. Carr, recently approved a plan that is the result of cooperation between the U.S. EPA, State of Ohio, Lucas County Commissioners, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center. For almost six years, the parties have been in a legal battle over how to deal with water quality in Western Lake Erie. But at the encouragement of the court, the parties developed and agreed to a Consent Decree to settle the case. Judge Carr approved the Consent Decree on May 4, 2023. Time will soon tell if the cooperation approach will satisfy the parties holding interests in Lake Erie’s water quality.
What led to the Consent Decree?
In the midst of growing concerns about harmful algal blooms and water quality in Western Lake Erie, the Environmental Law & Policy Center and Lucas County Commissioners filed a lawsuit against the U.S. EPA, claiming that the federal agency had failed its obligations to oversee Ohio’s duties to meet water quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA requires states to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards and designate them as “impaired waters.” Once it lists a water as impaired, the state must also rank which waters have the highest need for determining Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that set maximum amounts of pollutants that may enter the water. TMDLs provide a framework for future decisions that affect water quality in the impaired water.
Following a separate lawsuit that challenged Ohio EPA’s designation of some but not all waters in Western Lake Erie as impaired, Ohio EPA assigned impaired water status to all Western Lake Erie waters by 2018. But Ohio identified the waters as a “low” TMDL priority and stated that it would address water quality the western basin through “alternative measures” rather than preparation of a TMDL. The U.S. EPA, charged with reviewing state actions for compliance with the CWA, approved Ohio’s designation. The Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Lucas County Board of Commissioners each filed lawsuits against the U.S. EPA for approving Ohio’s approach, and the two lawsuits were consolidated into the current case. The State of Ohio, not an original party to the litigation, received the court’s permission to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Several years and many motions and hearings later, Judge Carr admonished both sides of the lawsuit for dragging the matter out in court and leaving Lake Erie’s water quality problem “largely unattended.” In 2021, before considering separate summary judgment motions the parties had made, the Judge pointed out that no matter his decision, the other party would appeal it and continue the litigation and that “nothing is going to get done.” Resolving the problems in Lake Erie would only happen if the U.S. EPA, the plaintiffs, and the State of Ohio would “work cooperatively towards accomplishing a meaningful outcome and resolution,” Judge Carr stated. His resolution on the summary judgment motions would only “kick the can down the road for another two years, at least…” A better solution, said Judge Carr, would be for the parties to resolve the matter through settlement.
With the court’s oversight, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations for nearly two years. They reached an agreement in 2022. As required by law, the U.S. EPA filed the proposed agreement, or Consent Decree, in the Federal Register last November and sought public comments to the proposal. The parties then filed a joint motion to the court, asking Judge Carr to approve the proposed Consent Decree.
The Consent Decree
The Consent Decree outlines a timeline Ohio EPA must follow to create a TMDL designed to address nutrient and algae impairments for drinking water, aquatic life, and recreational uses by establishing pollutant limits for all Western Lake Erie waters. The agreement requires the plaintiffs to allow additional time for the U.S. EPA to step in and prepare a TMDL if Ohio fails in its efforts to do so. The Consent Decree also sets up a status report schedule and a dispute resolution process and awards attorney fees and costs to the Plaintiffs. The agreement does not address the legal sufficiency of the TMDL, and the plaintiffs still hold the right to challenge the legal sufficiency or adequacy of the TMDL. The Consent Decree will end upon performance of all obligations by all parties.
The following summarizes the steps of the agreed upon TMDL schedule.
Approval of the Consent Decree
Judge Carr’s role in reviewing the proposed agreement was to determine if it is “fair, adequate, and reasonable, as well as consistent with the public interest.” The parties’ submitted a joint motion in support of the Consent Decree that laid out their arguments as follows:
The proposed agreement is fair because it was negotiated at length, in good faith, and in recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of each side.
Because the proposed agreement addresses Defendant’s alleged violations by providing a schedule for developing a TMDL for Western Lake Erie, it is adequate and reasonable.
The Consent Decree is in the public interest and furthers the goals of the Clean Water Act by providing for the timely development of a TMDL that will help “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” as intended by the Act. It also allows continued citizen rights to participate in the TMDL, does not alter existing regulations for TMDLs, and avoids significant time and expenses associated with ongoing litigation.
Judge Carr agreed with the parties’ arguments and approved the Consent Decree. In doing so, he praised the work of U.S. District Judge Polster, who oversaw the settlement negotiations, the lawyers for each party, and the State of Ohio. “Though the work that today’s agreement brings is but a first step, it is a step that has to be taken. How many more steps lie ahead, and how long they will take, is beyond even guessing,” he stated. “But there’s reason to hope that, in time, the Maumee River will no longer display, as it has for countless summers, a loathsome foul and slimy green surface as it flows through Toledo on its constant and irresistible course on to Lake Erie’s Western Basin.”
What’s next?
Implementation of the Consent Decree schedule is already underway. The Ohio EPA issued a draft TMDL or “Nutrient Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Maumee River Watershed” on December 30, 2022, and is currently reviewing comments made during the public comment period that ended on March 8, 2023. The agency appears to be on schedule for meeting the June 30 deadline for submitting the TMDL to the U.S. EPA for its review. Information on the Draft TMDL is available at https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/surface-water/reports-data/maumee-river-watershed.
But is continued cooperation on the TMDL for Western Lake Erie possible? Both the plaintiffs in this case submitted comments on the draft TMDL, and both raised concerns about its “shortcomings.”
“It is critical that the draft TMDL not lack the necessary steps to reduce agriculture phosphorous runoff into Lake Erie and place limits on dissolved reactive phosphorous,” said Lucas County Commissioner Wozniak in comments summarized at https://co.lucas.oh.us/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1750. “We shouldn’t be fooled into settling for half measures and voluntary practices any longer. We are talking about the health of our most valuable resource, and we must have a meaningful TMDL to protect it.”
While the spirit of cooperation encouraged by Judge James G. Carr is at play in the development of a TMDL for Western Lake Erie, whether that spirit will thrive in the debate over the content and future implementation of the TMDL is a critical question. In the words of Judge Carr, how many more steps lie ahead, and how long they will take, is beyond even guessing. Let’s hope that more litigation isn’t one of those steps.
The Consent Decree is available through this link.
Judge Carr’s Order on the Consent Decree is at this link.
The United States Supreme Court began its new term last October with the now famous wetlands case of Sackett v. U.S. EPA. The case is one in a long line of legal battles over how to define which waters are “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) that are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. We expected quiet waters for WOTUS as we awaited the Sackett decision. But we were wrong.
New EPA rule. The U.S. EPA made a big splash on January 18, when the agency published a new WOTUS rule to define which waters are WOTUS. Although the rule had been under consideration since the beginning of the Biden administration, many expected the EPA to hold off on finalizing the rule until after the Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling because that decision could affect the rule. The EPA chose not to wait, and the new rule became effective on March 20, 2023.
New litigation begins. Not surprisingly, the new WOTUS rule set off a new wave of litigation. A string of four federal lawsuits were filed in January and February of 2023 by many states and interest groups. The cases contest the validity of the rule and ask for preliminary injunctions preventing implementation of the rule while the cases are pending.
Two cases, two different outcomes. The Southern District of Texas made the first decision on the new litigation in Texas v. U.S. EPA, granting an injunction on March 19 for two of the lawsuits filed by Texas, Idaho, and the American Farm Bureau and other interest groups. The injunction prevents the rule from going into effect in Texas and Idaho. The federal district court determined the plaintiffs would expend significant resources complying with the rule although the rule was unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, creating potential irreparable harm and justifying an injunction against the rule. The Kentucky district court recent an opposite decision on March 31 in the case filed by the State of Kentucky. The Eastern District court in Kentucky v. U.S. EPA declined to issue Kentucky’s request for a preliminary injunction, concluding that because the EPA has not begun enforcing the rule in Kentucky, there is no impending injury that warrants an injunction. In both the Kentucky and Texas cases, the courts declined to issue a nationwide injunction against the new WOTUS rule.
Another injunction decision to come. Twenty four states joined together to file West Virginia v. EPA, the fourth federal lawsuit against the new WOTUS rule. Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states in the case, which challenges the rule and seeks injunctions in the states as well as a nationwide injunction. We should see a decision on the injunction request soon from the federal district court in North Dakota.
There are waves in Congress, too. Not satisfied to sit back and watch the battles over the new WOTUS rule, Congress recently took action to void the rule. Congress used its authority under the Congressional Review Act, a little-used federal law that allows Congress to invalidate an agency action. The House passed a resolution to void the rule on March 9 by a margin of 227 to 198, and the Senate voted on March 29 with 53 for and 43 against nullifying the WOTUS rule. President Biden has the power to veto the legislation, however. Neither the House nor the Senate appear to hold the two-thirds majority necessary to override a Biden veto.
Back to SCOTUS. And still, we circle back to the Sackett case and await the Supreme Court’s analysis of the proper test to use to define a “waters of the United States.” How will the ruling affect the new WOTUS rule and its litigation? Will Congress act on the Supreme Court’s ruling to establish a statutory definition for WOTUS that would preempt the EPA’s rule? As we have learned, there are more WOTUS waves yet to come.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made quite a splash when it released its final rule for defining “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) on December 30. Immediate criticism and support for the new rule surfaced as many undertook the unenviable task of interpreting the rule’s 514 pages of text. Perhaps some enjoyed the challenge of deciphering the latest development in WOTUS. But I wonder how many responded with a bit of weariness, asking what this “new” rule really means for agriculture and, more importantly, does it really matter?
What does the new final WOTUS rule mean for ag?
There are several answers to this question. The first and most practical answer is that the rule changes which waters are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Through its permit programs, the CWA aims to protect water quality by preventing discharges of pollutants, dredge, or fill into a water that fits within the rule’s definition of “waters of the United States.” A water that falls into any of five categories now laid out in the new WOTUS rule is a “water of the United States” that will be subject to CWA permit requirements and regulations, once the rule is effective. But the rule also contains exceptions and exclusions to CWA jurisdiction, and waters that fall into these categories won’t be subject to CWA regulation.
The categories, exceptions, and exclusions all attempt to draw lines around waterways that are at risk for pollution and dredge and fill activities and thus should be protected under the CWA. It is the less “obvious” waterways, like wetlands and ephemeral streams, that create consternation and raise the eternal question: when is a water sufficiently connected to an “obvious” water body, and thus at risk for harm, to warrant CWA regulation? The new rule tries, once again, to answer this difficult question. As it does so, it repeats many of the categories, exceptions, and exclusions that we’ve seen in previous WOTUS rules, but there are some changes and attempts at clarification. For an explanation of the new rule’s categories, exceptions, and exclusions, see this summary of the rule by our partner, the National Agricultural Law Center. Agricultural interests have reacted to the changes in the rule; see this article for those reactions.
A second and more skeptical answer to the question of what the rule really means for agriculture is that it modifies the landscape for legal challenges to WOTUS. As history illustrates, the new WOTUS rule will be challenged as the agencies interpret and enforce the rule against agriculture and other regulated communities. New rule, new arguments, new court decisions–it’s a cycle we’ve witnessed before. And a legal challenge to the validity of the rule itself, not just to an application of the rule, is also likely. The court cases that arise from such challenges might help answer the question of what the rule really means for agriculture or might instead create more confusion and continued battles.
Does the new rule really matter?
If you’ve followed WOTUS recently, you may know that the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard an appeal in October by the Sacketts, landowners who were affected by an agency interpretation that subjected their property to CWA jurisdiction. That challenge centered on whether the “significant nexus” test is an appropriate test for determining whether the wetlands on the Sackett property fall into the definition of “waters of the United States.” The new WOTUS rule contains a renewed EPA attempt to clarify the “significant nexus” test and also introduces a new “material influence” standard for smaller waters and wetlands. As we await the SCOTUS decision, we must acknowledge that its outcome could require EPA to rewrite any parts of the rule, especially the significant nexus and material influence provisions, that conflict with the Court’s holding.
Due to the impending SCOTUS decision and potential legal challenges to the rule, the WOTUS rule might not even go into effect. The rule cannot be effective until 60 days have passed from the date it is published in the Federal Register. It has not yet been published in the Federal Register, so the 60-day time clock is not yet ticking. There’s a slight possibility SCOTUS will rule before that effective date, and also a possibility that if the rule does become effective, immediate legal challenges will put the rule on hold. In both situations, we have an answer to the question of what the rule means for ag: possibly nothing.
WOTUS weariness
I have never experienced such exhaustion over a legal issue as I have with WOTUS. That’s because we have yet to solve the problem despite a long, long, parade of court cases and revised rules. We still await clarity to the definition of WOTUS and certainty on which waters should be subject to CWA. Congress could take a shot at doing so, given that Congress enacted the CWA and established the very term, “waters of the United States.” Yet Congress sits silent on the issue.
It is the overlooked questions, and need to examine the big picture, that most contribute to WOTUS weariness. Is the WOTUS battle effectively addressing water quality? Is it time to admit that a fix to WOTUS might require a new approach? Under the old adage of “check your premises,” perhaps we should examine the premise upon which WOTUS rests—waters that are “inside” the scope of the definition are similar, all under the same risks, and should all be regulated by CWA. While the obvious and easily identifiable water bodies can benefit from WOTUS and CWA, should we instead focus on different mechanisms that manage water quality risks to other types of waters? Would we get further, faster, with a new approach?
The final question: is there actual improvement in water quality that comes with yet another rule, another change, and more challenges to the scope of the definition of WOTUS? The answer to that question, I fear, is no–but a focus on that question could be a way to overcome WOTUS weariness. Read the new WOTUS rule from the EPA, and additional EPA resources about WOTUS. More on the Sackett case is in this recent blog post
The first two weeks of the U.S. Supreme Court’s new term are important ones for agriculture. The Court will hear arguments in two critical cases: the “Sackett” wetlands case and a challenge to California’s animal welfare law, Proposition 12. The new term for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) begins October 3, with the Sackett case up as the Court’s first hearing. The Court will hear the Proposition 12 case on October 11. We focus this article on the Sackett case and will preview the Proposition 12 case next week.
The Sackett wetlands case, round 1. The Sacketts may have become household names across the country in 2012, after the U.S. EPA prohibited Michael and Chantell Sackett from building a home on land they had purchased near Priest Lake, Idaho. The Sacketts had filled wetlands on the property in preparation for construction, but the EPA issued a compliance order prohibiting further filling or construction and requiring restoration of the site. The agency claimed authority to do so by declaring the wetlands to be “navigable waters of the United States” subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Sacketts challenged the order and EPA’s authority over their land. However, lower federal courts declined to hear the case, believing the compliance order was not yet a “final agency action” that could be reviewed since the EPA had not yet enforced the order. The case proceeded to its first appearance before SCOTUS, where the Court held that the compliance order was indeed a final agency action that could be reviewed in court.
Back in court. The Sackett case returned to the lower courts for determining whether the EPA had authority over the Sackett property. The issue became a common one for CWA cases: whether the Sackett wetlands were “waters of the United States” that fall under the CWA and the EPA’s authority. The challenge of that issue, however, is determining which “test” to apply to the situation. A court establishes a “test” as a framework for analyzing an issue. Over the years, courts have struggled to agree on a clear test for determining when a wetland qualifies as “waters of the United States” that are subject to the CWA. At this time, there are two competing tests developed by the Supreme Court: the “significant nexus” test advocated by Justice Kennedy and the “continuous surface connection” test proposed by Justice Scalia. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have also attempted to clarify the proper test by way of agency rulemaking, but those efforts are now tied up in litigation and revised rulemaking.
The Ninth Circuit decision. The Sacketts are now before SCOTUS for a second time because they believe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not use the proper test in their case. The appellate court applied the “significant nexus test,” which states that wetlands are “waters of the United States” when there is a “significant nexus” between the wetlands and navigable waters, as determined when the wetlands “either alone or in combination with the similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other cover waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’” The significant nexus test represents a broader definition and would subject more wetlands to EPA authority than Justice Scalia’s test. Many argue that it’s also unclear and creates uncertainty for landowners.
The SCOTUS appeal. The question the Sacketts now raise with SCOTUS is whether the significant nexus test applied by the Ninth Circuit was the proper test to use for its wetland determination. The Sacketts argue that it isn’t. They also urge SCOTUS to adopt an alternative test akin to Justice Scalia’s test in Rapanos v. U.S., which states that wetlands should have a “continuous surface connection” to “relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” to be deemed “waters of the U.S.” The Scalia test, by requiring a continuous surface connection between wetlands and “permanent” waters, would narrow the extent of wetlands that are subject to the Clean Water Act.
Predictions. The Supreme Court surprised many when it announced its decision to once again review the Sackett case. Given the changes to the composition of the Court since it heard the Rapanos case back in 2006, a logical prediction is that the Court will not only set aside the Ninth Circuit’s application of the significant nexus test, but will also adopt Justice Scalia’s test as the proper way to determine when a wetland is a “water of the United States” subject to EPA jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. We won’t know whether those predictions will become truth until sometime in 2023, when we can expect another Sackett decision from the Court.
It’s time to round up a sampling of legal questions we’ve received the past month or so. The questions effectively illustrate the breadth of “agricultural law,” and we’re happy to help Ohioans understand its many parts. Here’s a look at what has come our way:
I’m considering a carbon credit agreement. What should I look for? Several types of carbon credit agreements are now available to Ohio farmers, and they differ from one another so it’s good to review them closely and with the assistance of an attorney and an agronomist. For starters, take time to understand the terminology, make sure you can meet the initial eligibility criteria, review payment and penalty terms, know what types of practices are acceptable, determine “additionality” requirements for creating completing new carbon reductions, know the required length of participation and how long the carbon reductions must remain in place, understand how carbon reductions will be verified and certified, be aware of data ownership rights, and review legal remedy provisions. That’s a lot! Read more about each of these recommendations in our blog post on “Considering Carbon Farming?”
I want to replace an old line fence. Can I remove trees along the fence when I build the new fence? No, unless they are completely on your side of the boundary line. Both you and your neighbor co-own the boundary trees, so you’ll need the neighbor’s permission to remove them. You could be liable to the neighbor for the value of the trees if you remove them without the neighbor’s approval, and Ohio law allows triple that value if you remove them against the neighbor’s wishes or recklessly harm the trees in the process of building the fence. You can, however, trim back the neighbor’s tree branches to the property line as long as you don’t harm the tree. Also, Ohio’s line fence law in ORC 971.08 allows you to access up to 10 feet of the neighbor’s property to build the fence, although you can be liable if you damage the property in doing so.
I want to sell grow annuals and sell the cut flowers. Do I need a nursery license? No. Ohio’s nursery dealer license requirement applies to those who sell or distribute “nursery stock,” which the law defines as any “hardy” tree, shrub, plant, bulb, cutting, graft, or bud, excluding turf grass. A “hardy” plant is one that is capable of surviving winter temperatures. Note that the definition of nursery stock also includes some non-hardy plants sold out of the state. Because annual flowers and cuttings from those flowers don’t fall into the definition of “nursery stock,” a seller need not obtain the nursery dealer license.
Must I collect sales tax on cut flowers that I sell? Yes. In agriculture, we’re accustomed to many items being exempt from Ohio’s sales tax. That’s not the case when selling flowers and plants directly to customers, which is a retail sale that is subject to the sales tax. The seller must obtain a vendor’s license from the Ohio Department of Taxation, then collect and submit the taxes regularly. Read more about vendor’s licenses and sales taxes in our law bulletin at this link.
I’m an absentee landowner who rents my farmland to a tenant operator. Should I have liability insurance on the land? Yes.A general liability policy with a farm insurer should be affordable and worth the liability risk reduction. But a few other steps can further minimize risk. Require your tenant operator to have liability insurance that adequately covers the tenant’s operations, and include indemnification provisions in your farm lease that shift liability to the tenant during the lease period. Also consider requiring your tenant or hiring someone to do routine property inspections, monitor trespass issues, and ensure that the property is in a safe condition.
My neighbor and I both own up to the shoreline on either side of a small lake–do I have the right to use the whole lake? It depends on where the property lines lay and whether the lake is connected to other waters. If the lake is completely surrounded by private property and not connected to other “navigable” waters, such as a stream that feeds into it, the lake is most likely a private water body. Both of you could limit access to your side of the property line as it runs through the lake. You also have the legal right to make a “reasonable use” of the water in the lake from your land, referred to as “riparian rights.” You could withdraw it to water your livestock, for example; but you cannot “unreasonably” interfere with your neighbor’s right to reasonably use the water. The law changes if the lake is part of a “navigable” waterway. It is then a “water of the state” that is subject to the public right of navigation. Others could float on and otherwise navigate the water, and you could navigate over to your neighbor’s side. Public users would not have the riparian rights that would allow them to withdraw and use the water, however, and would be trespassing if they go onto the private land along the shore.
If I start an agritourism activity on my farm, will I lose my CAUV status? No, not if your activities fit within the legal definition of “agritourism.” Ohio law states in ORC 5713.30(A)(5) that “agritourism” activities do not disqualify a parcel from Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) program. “Agritourism,” according to the definition in ORC 901.80, is any agriculturally related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural, or recreational activity on a “farm” that allows or invites members of the general public to observe, participate in, or enjoy that activity. The definition of a “farm” is the same as the CAUV eligibility—a parcel devoted to commercial agricultural production that is either 10 acres or more or, if under 10 acres, grosses $2500 annually from agricultural production. This means that land that is enrolled in the CAUV program qualifies as a “farm” and can add agritourism activities without becoming ineligible for CAUV.
Send your questions to aglaw@osu.edu and we’ll do our best to provide an answer. Also be sure to check out our law bulletins and the Ag Law Library on https://farmoffice.osu.edu, which explain many of Ohio’s vast assortment of agricultural laws.
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural and Resource Law Program
Did you know that ants are the only creatures besides humans that will farm other creatures? It’s true. Just like we raise cows, sheep, pigs, and chickens in order to obtain a food source, ants will do the same with other insects. This is particularly true with aphids. Ants will protect aphids from natural predators and shelter them during heavy rain showers in order to gain a constant supply of honeydew.
Like an ant, we have done some heavy lifting to bring you the latest agricultural and resource law updates. We start with some federal cases that deal with the definition of navigable waters under the Clean Water Act, mislabeling honey products, and indigenous hunting rights. We then finish with some state law developments from across the country that include Georgia’s right to farm law and California’s Proposition 12.
Supreme Court to review navigable waters definition under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case of an Idaho couple who have been battling the federal government over plans to build their home. Chantell and Mike Sackett (“Plaintiffs”) began construction on their new home near Priest Lake, Idaho but were halted by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The EPA issued an administrative compliance order alleging that Plaintiffs’ construction violates the Clean Water Act. The EPA claims that the lot, on which the Plaintiffs are constructing their new home, contains wetlands that qualify as federally regulated “navigable waters.” Plaintiffs are asking the Court to revisit its 2006 opinion in Rapanos v. United Statesand help clarify how to determine when a wetland should be classified as “navigable waters.” In Rapanos, the Court found that the Clean Water Act regulates only certain wetlands, those that are determined to be “navigable waters.” However, two different tests were laid out in the Court’s opinions. The Court issued a plurality opinion which stated that the government can only regulate wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to other regulated waters. A concurring opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, put forth a more relaxed test that allows for regulation of wetlands that bear a “significant nexus” with traditional navigable waters. Justice Kennedy’s test did not take into consideration whether there was any surface water connection between the wetland and the traditional navigable waters. In the lower appellate court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test to uphold the EPA’s authority to halt Plaintiffs’ construction. Now, Plaintiffs hope the Supreme Court will adopt a clear rule that brings “fairness, consistency, and a respect for private property rights to the Clean Water Act’s administration.”
SueBee sued for “bee”ing deceptive. Sioux Honey Association Cooperative (“Defendant”) finds itself in a sticky situation after Jason Scholder (“Plaintiff”) brought a class action lawsuit against the honey maker for violating New York’s consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the company’s honey products marketed under the SueBee brand. Plaintiff claims that the words “Pure” or “100% Pure” on the Defendant’s honey products are misleading and deceptive because the honey contains glyphosate. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit and a federal district court in New York granted Defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part. Defendant asked the court to find that its labels could not be misleading as a matter of law because any trace amounts of glyphosate in the honey is a result of the natural behavior of bees interacting with agriculture and not a result of Defendant’s production process. However, the court declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s mislabeling claims. The court concluded that a reasonable consumer might not actually understand that the terms “Pure” or “100% Pure” means that trace amounts of glyphosate could end up in honey from the bees’ foraging process. The court also declined the Defendant’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because of the alleged misrepresentations of the honey. However, the court did dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty claim and request for injunctive relief. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty claim because Plaintiff failed to notify Defendant of its alleged breach of warranty, as required by New York law. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was also dismissed because the court could not find any imminent threat of continued injury to Plaintiff since he has now learned that the honey contains trace amounts of glyphosate. The court ordered the parties to proceed with discovery on Plaintiff’s remaining claims, keeping the case abuzz.
Indigenous Hunting Rights. Recently, two members of the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (“Northwestern Band”) were cited for hunting on Idaho lands without tags issued by the state. The Northwestern Band filed suit against the state of Idaho declaring that its members possessed hunting rights pursuant to the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 (the “1868 Treaty”). The 1868 Treaty provided that the Shoshone Nation agreed to permanently settle on either Fort Hall Reservation, located in Southeastern Idaho, or Wind River Reservation, located in Western Wyoming. By agreeing to settle on one of the two reservations, the Shoshone Nation was granted hunting rights on unoccupied lands of the United states. However, the Northwestern Band ended up settling in Northern Utah and not on one of the two named reservations. After considering the 1868 Treaty, the Federal District Court of Idaho dismissed Northwestern Band’s lawsuit. The court held that the hunting rights contained in the 1868 Treaty were tied to the promise to live on one of the reservations, and that a tribe cannot receive those hunting rights without living on one of the appropriate reservations. Thus, the court found that because the Northwestern Band settled in Northern Utah and not on one of the reservations, the hunting rights of the 1868 Treaty did not extend to the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation.
Tensions rise over Georgia’s Freedom to Farm Act. A few days ago, Georgia lawmakers introduced legislation that seeks to further protect Georgia farmers from nusiance lawsuits. House Bill 1150 (“HB 1150”) proposes to change current Georgia law to protect farmers and other agricultural operations from being sued for emitting smells, noises, and other activities that may be found offensive by neighboring landowners. Georgia’s current law, which became effective in 1980, does provide some protection for Georgia farmers, but only from neighboring landowners that have moved near the farm or agricultural operation after the current law went into effect. All neighboring landowners that lived near the farming operation prior to the current law going into effect have retained their right to sue. HB 1150, on the other hand, will prevent these nuisance lawsuits by all neighboring landowners, as long as the farm or agricultural operation have been operating for a year or more. Passing a right to farm law has proven to be difficult in Georgia. In 2020, House Bill 545, also known as the “Right to Farm bill” failed to pass before the final day of the 2019-2020 legislative session. Private landowners, farmers, and their supporters, are divided on the issue and seek to protect their respective property rights. It doesn’t look like HB 1150 will have the easiest of times in the Georgia legislature.
Confining California’s Proposition 12. Meat processors and businesses that sell whole pork meat in California (collectively the “Petitioners”) have delayed the enforcement of California’s Proposition 12 (“Prop 12”), for now. Prop 12 is California’s animal confinement law that has sent shockwaves across the nation as it pertains to raising and selling pork, eggs, and veal. Last week, the Superior Court for Sacramento County granted Petitioners’ writ of mandate to delay the enforcement of Prop 12 on sales of whole pork meat. Petitioners argue that Prop 12 cannot be enforced until California has implemented its final regulations on Prop 12. To date, California has yet to implement those final regulations. California, on the other hand, suggests that final regulations are not a precondition to enforcement of Prop 12 and the civil and criminal penalties that can be brought against any farmer or business that violates Prop 12. The court disagreed. The court found that the language of Prop 12, as voted on by California residents, explicitly states that California voters wanted regulations in place before the square-footage requirements of Prop 12 took effect. Therefore, the court granted Petitioners’ writ of mandate to prevent the enforcement of Prop 12 until final regulations have been implemented. The court’s writ will remain in effect until 180 days after final regulations go into effect. This will allow producers and businesses to prepare themselves to comply with the final regulations. Opponents of Prop 12 believe this is another reason why the Supreme Court of the United States should review California’s Proposition 12 for its constitutionality.
We’ve quickly reached the end of January, and several of the legal issues I’ve talked about in OSU’s “Agricultural Outlook” meetings have surfaced this month. If the current pace keeps up, 2022 promises to be a busy year for agricultural law. Here’s a review of three legal issues I predict we’ll see that have already begun to emerge in 2022.
Water, water. From defining WOTUS to addressing Lake Erie water quality, water law will continue to be everywhere this year. The U.S. Supreme Court just announced on January 24 that it will hear the well-known case of Sackett v EPAto review whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used the proper test to determine whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The case is one example of the ongoing push-pull in the WOTUS definition, which establishes waters that are subject to the federal Clean Water Act. The Biden administration proposed a new WOTUS rule last December that would replace the Trump-era rule, and comments remain open on that definition until February 7. Ohio has wrangled with its own water issues, particularly with agricultural nutrient impacts on water quality. We’ll see this year if the state will continue to rely on H2Ohio and similar incentive-based programs and whether the Ohio EPA will face additional litigation over its development of a Total Maximum Daily Load for Lake Erie.
Pesticide challenges. The EPA announced a new policy on January 11 to more closely evaluate potential effects of pesticide active ingredients on endangered species and critical habitats. That was the same day the agency re-registered Enlist One and Enlist Duo pesticides, but with new label restrictions and prohibited use in hundreds of counties across the U.S., including a dozen Ohio counties. An EPA report documenting dicamba damage in 2021 could form the basis for yet another lawsuit this year demanding that EPA vacate dicamba’s registration. Meanwhile, we await a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it will review Hardeman v. Monsanto, one of dozens of cases awarding damages against Monsanto (now Bayer) for personal injury harms caused by glyphosate.
Opposition to livestock production practices. Ohio pork producers watching California’s Proposition 12 will be happy with a recent California court decision prohibiting enforcement of one part of the law that went into effect on January 1. The provision requires any pork and eggs sold in the state to be from breeding pigs and laying hens that are not raised in a “cruel manner,” meaning that the animals have a certain amount of usable pen space. The California court agreed with grocers and other retailers that the law could not be enforced on sales of pork meat because the state hasn’t yet finalized its regulations. The law could be subject to further scrutiny from a higher court. Several agricultural organizations have unsuccessfully challenged the law as a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, but one of those cases currently awaits a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it will review the case. Other livestock production issues we’ll see this year include continued battles over Right to Farm laws that limit nuisance lawsuits against farms, and challenges to “ag gag” laws that aim to prevent or punish undercover investigations on farms.
There’s more to come. Watch for more of our predictions on what 2022 may bring to the agricultural law arena in upcoming posts. Or drop into one of our Agricultural Outlook and Policy meetings to hear my Ag Law Outlook. As quickly as the year is moving, we’ll soon know how many of those predictions are correct.
It’s time to round up a sampling of legal questions we’ve received the past month or so. The questions effectively illustrate the breadth of “agricultural law,” and we’re happy to help Ohioans understand its many parts. Here’s a look at what has come our way:
Ohio Agricultural Law Blog 