Crop Issues

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) faced harsh criticism recently when the agency inspected and issued fines to small farms engaged in grain storage activities.  The farms argued that OSHA had no authority to do so because of the "small farm exemption" that limits OSHA’s authority to enforce safety regulations on small farms.  This week, OSHA released a guidance memorandum that attempts to clarify how its regional administrators should interpret the small farm exemption.  The agency's new guidance focuses on whether an activity on a small farm is “not related to farming operations and not necessary to gain economic value from products produced on the farm.”

The small farm exemption and OSHA's earlier interpretation

Since 1976, Congress has prohibited OSHA from using any of its funds to enforce safety regulations on "small farms," those farm operations that employ 10 or fewer employees and do not maintain a temporary labor camp.  In recent years, however, the agency turned its regulatory attention to grain operations on small farms.  OSHA justified its inspections and enforcement actions for grain storage activities by arguing that “post-harvest” grain storage and processing activities differ from “farming operations” and “core agricultural operations” and thus do not fit within the small farm exemption (see our earlier post).  The agency withdrew this interpretation of the small farm exemption earlier this year.

OSHA’s new guidance memorandum

In its July 29, 2014 memorandum to OSHA regional administrators, the agency now states that a small farm would not be subject to OSHA enforcement if it simply stores its own grain on the farm, sells grain from the farm or grows, stores and grinds grain on the farm to feed its own livestock.  These activities fit within the definition of a "farming operation" because the activities are "necessary to gain economic value from grain grown on the farm."

But the agency also explains that other types of activities on a small farm could be subject to OSHA authority.   According to the agency, if a small farm engages in activities that “are not related to farming operations and are not necessary to gain economic value from products produced on the farm, those activities are not exempt from OSHA enforcement.”

The agency provides a few examples of activities on small farms that would not be exempt because they are not related to farming operations or are not necessary to gain economic value from farm products. The list includes grain-based activities, but also addresses food processing examples:

• A grain handling operation that stores and sells grain grown on other farms.
• A food processing facility for making cider from apples grown on the farm or for processing large carrots into "baby" carrots.
• Milling of grain into flour used to make baked goods.
• The agency also explains that food manufacturing operations are not exempt from OSHA enforcement activities under the appropriations rider, even if they take place on a small farm.

OSHA's new guidance memorandum on the small farm exemption is available here.

The Ohio Legislature is one step closer to creating a unique fertilizer applicator certification program for Ohio agriculture.  The Ohio House of Representatives recently approved the measure in S.B. 150, which had already passed the Senate in January (see our related post.)   The legislation aims to reduce fertilizer runoff into Ohio's waters in response to recent problems with algae blooms in Lake Erie and Grand Lake St. Mary's.   Other states with fertilizer applicator certification programs focus on professional, turf or urban applications of fertilizer, but Ohio's program would require farmers applying fertilizers on their own land to complete the knowledge-based certification program. 

An amendment by the House extends the certification requirement to anyone applying fertilizer for agricultural production on more than 50 acres of land, rather than on more than 50 "contiguous" acres as approved by the Senate.  The amendment will likely expand the program to more smaller-acreage farmers.    Although urged to do so, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate agreed to extend the proposal even further by including "manure" in the definition of "fertilizer."

The Senate must now approve the House-amended version when it reconvenes in early May.  Upon Senate approval, the legislation would move to the Governor by mid-May.  If enacted, the bill gives the Ohio Department of Agriculture three years to establish and implement the fertilizer applicator certification program.  The bill also contains provisions for voluntary nutrient mangement plans, operation and management plans for animal feeding operations, and a few changes to Ohio's fertilizer license laws.

Watch for our final analysis of S.B. 150 as it continues the legislative process next month.

The federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) generated controversy recently when several of its enforcement actions against farms with grain bin storage hit the news headlines.   The enforcement actions are contrary to a general understanding in the agricultural community that OSHA does not have authority to enforce its regulations against farms with ten or fewer employees, referred to as the “small farms rider.”  While claiming that it does not intend to enforce beyond its authority, OSHA justifies its actions in an internal agency memorandum that interprets the small farms rider.  Is OSHA’s justification reasonable or contrary to law?  Here’s the language of the small farms rider and OSHA’s explanation of its authority:

• The Small Farms Rider.  The 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act passed by Congress, like every previous appropriations bill since 1976, states that none of the funds appropriated by Congress to OSHA “shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Act which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees.”  (emphasis added)

• OSHA's Memorandum.  In its standard interpretation memorandum titled “Authority to Perform Enforcement Activities at Small Farms with Grain Storage Structures Involved in Postharvest Crop Activities” dated June 28, 2011, OSHA begins by acknowledging the small farms rider but then lays out several reasons why grain storage facilities, even if located on farms, do not fall under the rider and are not exempt from OSHA enforcement:

• The agency focuses on the small farm rider’s use of the term “farming operation” which, according to the agency’s prior interpretation, means “any operation involved in the growing or harvesting of crops, the raising of livestock or poultry, or related activities conducted by a farmer on sites such as farms, ranches, orchards, dairy farms or similar farming operations.”  
• Not included in the definition of “farming operations,” according to the agency, are those establishments engaged in performing services on crops subsequent to their harvest with the intent of preparing them for market or further processing, including activities such as crop cleaning, sun drying, shelling, fumigating, curing, sorting, grading, packing and cooling, corn drying and shelling, grain drying, cleaning, and fumigating.  Why are these not considered farming operations?   Because the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Codes (SIC) differentiate agricultural businesses that conduct crop and livestock production from those that conduct post-production activities.   Small farms with grain storage structures where grain is fumigated, dried, or processed subsequent to harvest and sold into the market would fall under the post-harvest NAICS codes rather than the agricultural production codes and therefore are not “farming operations” exempted by the small farms rider, states OSHA.    
• The agency also notes that grain handling operations are not “core agricultural operations” according to OSHA’s federal regulations.  These regulations state that “core agricultural operations” include activities such as growing and harvesting crops, plants, vines, fruit trees, nut trees, ornamental plants, egg production, the raising of livestock, poultry, fish and livestock products.

Litigation that arose from a drainage improvement project completed in 2002 has finally ended with a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court.  The court announced today that it will not accept the case for review, which allows the ruling by the Third District Court of Appeals in favor of the Henry County Engineer to remain in place.

Richard and Rodney Rohrs sued the county engineer  and several staff members in 2005 after a drainage project completed by the county flooded several acres of a farm field the Rohrs had rented from Gerald Westhoven.  In the late 1990s, Westhoven approached the Henry County Engineer about flooding problems on Westhoven's farm and the possibility of cleaning out the open drainage ditch that ran between his land and the county road.  The engineer proposed an alternative solution, to lay drainage tiles and fill the ditch, and offered to classify the work as a road safety improvement project to be handled through the engineer's budget rather than through the petition ditch process that would result in assessments on property owners.

The county engineer installed the new drainage system in 2002.  Westhoven entered into a lease for the land with the Rohrs in the Spring of 2003.  The Rohrs planted a tomato crop on the parcel; by July, part of the field was under water.   After the harvest season, the county engineer and Westhoven attempted to locate a drainage tile that could be the source of the flooding but they could not find any tile in the flooded area.  The county then installed a new catch basin near Westhoven's property to resolve the flooding problem, with plans to tie in any field tile that Westhoven might later discover on his land.  The Rohrs continued to lease the farmland from Westhoven.

According to witness testimony, the cause of the 2003 flooding was a drainage tile and catch basin just south of Westhoven's property that had been cut off during construction of the road improvement project drainage system; the engineer's staff  had filled the tile and catch basin because it did not appear to be a functioning tile and did not exist on any of the county's plans.  Excavation on the Westhoven property several years later revealed a drainage tile located just 15 feet from the filled tile and catch basin.  The newly discovered tile, which Westhoven had not previously reported to the engineer,  had a seed bag stuffed into its outlet, which was near the filled catch basin.   The Rohrs claimed that the engineer's staff had intentionally stuffed the seed bag into the functioning tile, while the engineer's staff claimed they did not know about the tile.   The county surmised that the seed bag had been used in the previous filling of the tile and catch basin that they had believed to be non-functioning.

The Rohrs sought $70,000 for losses to their 2003 tomato crop as a result of the flooding.  Their legal causes of action included several tort claims and violations of federal and state due process rights.  They also asked the court for a writ of mandamus to order the county to compensate them for a partial "taking" of their property by the county engineer.   The Henry County Court of Common Pleas, after seven years of litigation, rejected each of the Rohrs' claims.

The Rohrs appealed with no avail to the Third District Court of Appeals.  The appellate court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that state law prevented tort liability for the flooding because the county was entitled to governmental immunity under Ohio Revised Code 2744.02(A)(1) i.  The court stated that the Rohrs had failed to prove that any of the law's exceptions to governmental immunity applied to the situation.  In response to the Rohrs' argument that the county had committed a partial "taking" of property, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that a "taking" had not occurred for three reasons:  because the flooding was accidental and incidental rather than an intentional taking of property, because the alleged taking was not for a public use as required by the Constitution and because the Rohrs had other remedies for their harm, such as a tort claim against Westhoven and the failed tort claims against the county engineer.  As such other remedies were available, the court also agreed with the trial court that the Rohrs failed to prove violations of their due process rights.

In their request for a review by the Ohio Supreme Court, the Rohrs focused on the lower courts' conclusions that a "taking" had not occurred.  The Henry County Farm Bureau and the Ohio Farm Bureau filed a brief in support of the Rohrs, urging the Supreme Court to accept the case and review the takings issue.  The Court today declined to accept the case by a vote of 5--2 with Justices Paul Pfeifer and Judith French dissenting.  Without a review by the Ohio Supreme Court, the appellate court decision stands as the final resolution of the case.

The decision of the Third District Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Rohrs v. Germann is available here.