Ohio legislation
Although it was first introduced in August of 2025, House Bill 406 just had its first hearing in the House Agriculture Committee on March 25. During the hearing, an amended substitute version of the bill, sponsored by Representatives Deeter (R-Norwalk) and Dean (R-Xenia) was accepted by the Committee. This means that at future hearings, the House Agriculture Committee will consider the substitute version of the bill, which is available to read here.
The sale and consumption of raw milk have been widely debated across the country over the past few years, with proponents of raw milk claiming its health benefits, and opponents citing safety concerns (historically, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cautioned consumers to avoid raw milk because it could cause illness). So, if passed, how would Substitute H.B. 406 change the landscape for raw milk in the state of Ohio?
Current law
First things first—what does Ohio law currently say about raw milk? For all intents and purposes, Ohio Revised Code Section 917.04 (available here), outlaws the sale of raw milk to end, or “ultimate,” consumers in the state.
It is important to note that while current Ohio law does prohibit the sales of raw milk to the “ultimate consumer,” it does not prohibit animal owners from consuming raw milk from their own animals. As a result, the use of “herd share agreements” has proliferated throughout the state. 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 (ODA) 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.
Proposed language
Definitions
If passed, Sub. H.B. 406 would legalize the sale of raw milk and raw milk products for retailers who register as raw milk retailers with ODA. The bill defines “raw milk” as “unpasteurized milk from a cow, goat, or sheep,” and “raw milk products” as “all products derived from raw milk, including cream, butter, yogurt, cheese” and other products specifically allowed by ODA.
The bill would also formally define “herd-share agreement” as “an agreement in which a person acquires an undivided interest in a milk-producing mammal with the owner of such a mammal that includes an arrangement under which the person receives raw milk for personal use not to be sold or distributed for profit,” thus codifying the decision reached in Schitmeyer v. ODA.
Registration
To sell raw milk or raw milk products, Sub. H.B. 406 would require retailers to register annually with ODA. The bill further charges ODA with setting the fees and process for this registration, as well as with “establishing requirements governing the sanitary production, storage, transportation, manufacturing, handling, sampling, testing, examination, and sale of raw milk and raw milk products.”
Labeling, liability, and location requirements
Sub. H.B. 406 specifically spells out some of the basic requirements for the labeling and sale of raw milk and gives ODA the authority to establish other rules and regulations.
For the sale of raw milk or raw milk products to ultimate consumers, the bill requires that the label must state: “RAW MILK: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria.”
Sub. H.B. 406 would require registered raw milk retailers to provide a liability waiver that must be signed by each consumer “acknowled[ing] the risks of consuming raw milk or raw milk products.” Further, the retailer would be required to keep the signed liability waiver in their records for a minimum of two years.
Finally, the bill would only allow raw milk and raw milk products to be sold on the farm where the raw milk or raw milk products are produced, or at a registered farm market.
Testing
Retailers would have to pass several safety tests in order to sell raw milk. Sub. H.B. 406 would require raw milk retailers to have a licensed, accredited veterinarian test all milking animals for brucellosis and tuberculosis at a frequency determined by ODA. Raw milk retailers would also be required to report every brucellosis and tuberculosis test result to ODA.
In addition to testing animal health, the bill would require raw milk retailers to test their water source and their milk monthly with an accredited laboratory. The milk would have to be tested for salmonella, listeria, e. coli 0157:H7, campylobacter, and staphylococci. Farms would also be subject to routine ODA inspections.
Ohio Quality Milk Production Service Program
Finally, Sub. H.B. 406 would establish the Ohio Quality Milk Production Service Program under ODA. The program’s purpose would be to improve the quality, health, and safety of milk and milking animals through research, testing, sampling, and education. The program would be modeled after the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine’s Quality Milk Production Services program, which tests milking animals, milk, and equipment and water sources used on dairies. More information about their services is available here.
Stay tuned
Sub. H.B. 406 would change Ohio law significantly. Current law essentially outlaws the sale of raw milk to the end consumer, and Sub. H.B. 406 would legalize and set up a regulatory framework for the sale of raw milk and raw milk products. Stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law blog as we follow this bill on its way through the General Assembly.
As we move into March, we thought it’d be a good time to look back at what committees in both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly got up to in February. Committees in both the House and Senate are considering bills to regulate carbon capture, change the levy process, study the effects of data centers, and more. Here is an update on the bills we are following.
H.B. 170, Carbon Capture—On Tuesday, February 17, the Ohio Senate Energy Committee held its first hearing on House Bill 170, which would give the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) the authority to regulate carbon sequestration in the state. We previously wrote about H.B. 170, sponsored by Representatives Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Peterson (R-Sabina) when it was passed by the Ohio House in October 2025. For a more detailed discussion of the bill, please see our previous blog post, available here.
The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony from Representative Peterson, along with five proponents of H.B. 170. Most of the testimony centered on the idea of the state gaining “primacy,” or in other words, seeking approval from the U.S. EPA for the state to regulate Class VI injection wells instead of the federal government through the U.S. EPA. Basically, sponsors and proponents argued that if the state can regulate Class VI injection wells within Ohio, that will result in a faster permitting process for carbon sequestration projects within the state. Representative Peterson pointed out that by gaining “primacy,” the regulatory decisions would be more connected to the Ohio communities where the wells are located.
Several proponents of the bill also testified, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Vault 44.01, Tenaska, and Hocking Hills Energy and Well Service, LLC. Proponents testified that states with primacy over Class VI injection wells were usually able to approve a project within 9-12 months, whereas the federal EPA process could take around two years. Furthermore, not obtaining primacy could mean that Ohio might lose projects and jobs to other states who do have primacy. Faster state approval could create jobs and economic benefits in Ohio for projects that the proponent companies are considering. Some of those projects would be centered around sequestering carbon from ethanol facilities located in Ohio. At present, North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arizona, and Texas have obtained primacy to regulate Class VI injection wells. Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are currently considering legislation to gain primacy. You can read H.B. 170 here.
H.B. 420, Property Tax—House Bill 420 had its first hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee on February 11. Sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Willis (R-Springfield), H.B. 420 would prohibit new continuous levies from being placed on ballots, require continuous levies currently on the books to be converted to fixed-term or renewed levies prior to 2030, and prohibit continuous levies in the state after 2030 unless such levies are specifically authorized by voters. The House Ways & Means Committee heard sponsor testimony from Representatives Click and Willis. Representative Click argued that “each generation deserves the right” to approve or disapprove of a levy tax, and that continuous levies prohibit this right by imposing taxes upon people who didn’t originally vote for them. Questions from members of the committee clarified that if passed, the longest levies would last 10 years, however, levies could also exceed that timeframe if they are fixed to loans for long-term investments made by a school, locality, etc. Representative Rogers (D-Toledo) expressed concerns that if passed, the bill could lead to an upheaval in local funding. You can read H.B. 420 here.
House bill 420 is part of what Representative Click has dubbed a “Taxpayers Freedom Trilogy” bill package that also includes House Bills 421 and 422. H.B. 421 would allow ballot measures to reduce inside millage, and H.B. 422 would establish higher thresholds for levy requests over 1 mill (60%) and 2 mills (66%). Neither of the second or third parts of the “trilogy” have received committee hearings yet. Of note, a second hearing on H.B. 420 was scratched from the February 18 House Ways & Means Committee agenda, and House Speaker Huffman has indicated that it is unlikely that these property tax proposals will pass the House before the summer legislative recess. You can find H.B. 421 here and H.B. 422 here.
H.B. 646, Create the Data Center Study Commission—House Bill 646 had its second hearing in the House Technology & Innovation Committee on February 24. We covered the details of H.B. 646, sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Deeter (R-Norwalk) in an earlier blog post, available here. The hearing drew interested party testimony from numerous groups and individuals, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Farm Bureau. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supported the creation of a Data Center Study Commission but implored the committee to include representation from the tech industry on the Commission, noting that data centers would bring with them jobs, increased GDP, and increased local revenues. Ohio Farm Bureau supported the creation of a Commission to study the impacts of data centers, including the impacts on agricultural land and resources long term, water use, water quality, and other potential environmental impacts. Ohio Farm Bureau also cited the need for a robust regulatory framework for data centers and long-term land use planning, worrying that without such planning, agriculture in the state of Ohio will suffer from loss of land to development and other problems. Individual citizens testified that they would like H.B. 646 to include a moratorium on building data centers while the study takes place and noted that the Commission should consider what happens to data center property after it is no longer in use. You can find H.B. 646 here.
S.B. 285, Recoupment Charges—The Senate Ways & Means Committee heard proponent testimony for Senate Bill 285 during its February 10 meeting. S.B. 285, sponsored by Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster), would make it explicit that agricultural land converted to certain conservation uses would be exempt from a CAUV recoupment penalty if it was previously used for agricultural purposes. Specifically, land would be exempted if it is given to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to use as a nature preserve, if it is owned or held by an organization with the purposes of natural resources protection or water quality improvement. The president of the Stream and Wetlands Foundation, based in Lancaster, Ohio, explained during his testimony that the bill would basically be a small technical clarification to previous legislation passed in 2022. Since 2022, some county governments have interpreted current law as requiring CAUV recoupment charges to be paid for land used to protect natural resources, while other counties have not. S.B. 285 would clear up this confusion and affirm that CAUV does not apply to exempted land used for conservation purposes. S.B. 285 is available here.
S.B. 361, Eminent Domain—During its meeting on February 17, the Senate General Government Committee heard sponsor testimony from Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on Senate Bill 361. The bill would prohibit the taking of land by eminent domain for use as a trail for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing, or other nonmotorized forms of travel. During his testimony, Senator Schaffer gave an example of a property owner in his district whose land would be cut in half by a recreational trail, and asserted that local government shouldn’t be able to take land from a property owner just for recreational purposes. Senator DeMora (D-Columbus) asked for clarification about whether pathways for pedestrian and bike safety along roadways would fall under this prohibition. Senator Schaffer responded that that is not the intent of the bill, and that he would be willing to work with the Committee on language if necessary. S.B. 361 is available here.
Tags: Ohio legislation, property tax, cauv, carbon capture and storage, eminent domain, data centers, land use
Comments: 0
Providing relief for rising property taxes has been top of mind in the General Assembly this past year. Two weeks ago, the legislature passed four bills meant to tackle this issue. The bills, which each take different approaches to lowering property taxes, are now awaiting consideration by Governor DeWine. But how would each bill address property taxes?
House Bill 129—School District Millage
House Bill 129, available here, was introduced by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson). In Ohio, we collect property taxes in units of measure called “mills.” Each mill is equivalent to one-tenth of a cent. In the late 1970s, the Ohio General Assembly passed the “20 mill floor” for school districts, which was meant to guarantee districts a baseline of funding.
However, under current law, not all school district levies count toward the 20-mill floor, which can result in higher property taxes. H.B. 129 would change this by including emergency, substitute, incremental growth, conversion levies, and the property tax portion of combined levies when calculating the 20-mill floor for school districts. The thought is that including more types of levies in the 20-mill floor will reduce property tax rates in school districts with these additional levies. For some more background on school districts and the 20-mill floor, Ohio’s Legislative Service Commission (LSC) has a brief on the subject, available here.
House Bill 186—School District Revenue
House Bill 186, sponsored by Representatives James Hoops (R, Napoleon) and David Thomas (R, Jefferson) also focuses on the 20-mill floor for school districts. The bill, available here, would create a tax credit which would prevent increases in school district property taxes from exceeding the rate of inflation. This would only apply to property owners in a school district on the 20-mill floor. LSC’s analysis of the bill, available here, includes helpful examples of how the tax credit would work.
H.B. 186 also modifies property tax “rollbacks” for residential property, which would ultimately increase the total rollback, or savings, for owner-occupied homes, while eliminating the rollbacks for all other residential property.
House Bill 309—County Budget Commissions
House Bill 309 takes a slightly different approach to lowering property taxes by revising the authority and rules for county budget commissions. Sponsored by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson), the bill’s text is available here.
County budget commissions are made up of the auditor, treasurer, and either the prosecuting attorney or tax commissioner in each county. If passed, H.B. 309 would allow county budget commissions to reduce millage on any voter-approved levy if the commission deems the revenue is “unnecessary” or “excessive.” This authority to reduce millage on levies would not include debt levies. Further, county budget commissions would not be permitted to reduce a school district’s operating levy below the 20-mill floor, or to reduce any levy collected below the previous year’s revenue unless they are able to offset the reduction using reserve balances, nonexpendable trust funds, or carryover amounts.
House Bill 335—Property Tax Overhaul
Finally, House Bill 335 was also introduced by Representative David Thomas (R, Jefferson). H.B. 335, available here, would limit inside millage collections to the rate of inflation. This would be accomplished by requiring county budget commissions to adjust the rate of each inside millage levy during the reappraisal of all real property performed every six years under Ohio law, or during the update, which occurs every three years. To see some examples of this language in action, see the LSC’s analysis of the bill, available here.
What’s next?
Each of these four bills aimed at lessening the burden of property taxes have been delivered to Governor DeWine, and await his signature before they can become law. We will certainly keep you updated on what happens with each bill. In the meantime, if you’d like more information about property taxes in Ohio, the Ohio Department of Taxation has a great informational guide here.
A trio of senate bills related to agriculture were introduced in the Ohio General Assembly this month. The bills touch on a variety of topics, from CAUV recoupment charges, to training an agricultural workforce, to creating a state food and agriculture policy council.
Senate Bill 285, available here, was introduced by Senator Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on October 8 and referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The bill would exempt certain conservation uses from recoupment charges when land is converted from an agricultural use. Typically, if agricultural land is converted to another use, it is subject to a recoupment charge equal to the previous three years of tax savings it received because it was valued using its current agricultural use value (CAUV). SB 285 would not require a recoupment charge to be paid if the agricultural land is acquired by a conservation organization and is used for certain environmental response projects related to water quality or wetlands, or if it is used for an H2Ohio water project. That being said, if the land ceases to be used for conservation, recoupment charges would apply. SB 285 had its first hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee on October 28.
Sponsored by Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), SB 287, entitled “Farming And Workforce” was introduced on October 8, and had its first hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on October 28. The bill, which is available here, would create the Farming and Workforce Development Program. This program would provide training for Ohio residents between 16 and 35 years of age to prepare them for employment in seasonal crop farming. The program would not exclude people who have been convicted or pled guilty to a felony from eligibility. The bill would require Ohio State University Extension and Central State University Extension to develop guidelines and policies for the application process, coursework, and running of the Farming and Workforce Development Program, and would appropriate $500,000 from the state general revenue fund to get the program started.
Finally, Senate Bill 288 was also introduced on October 8. Also sponsored by Senator Hicks-Hudson, the bill, available here, would create the Ohio Food and Agriculture Policy Council. The Council would be tasked with making recommendations to the General Assembly that strengthen Ohio’s food and farm economies, engaging in advocacy, education, and policy work for the health of Ohio’s citizens and the sustainability of the state’s natural resources. Specifically, the Council would be charged with delivering an annual report to the General Assembly detailing its recommendations on:
- Food security;
- Food access;
- Food production and distribution;
- Food waste;
- Economic development;
- Food procurement;
- Food chain workers; and
- Food systems resilience.
The Council would be housed under the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). The Director of ODA would serve on the council, as well as the following members, who would be appointed by the Governor:
- One member who is a representative of the Ohio Hospital Association;
- One member from Ohio State University Extension;
- One member from Central State University Extension;
- Three members from Ohio Farm Bureau;
- One member who represents urban farming;
- One member who represents rural farming;
- One member who represents statewide food banks; and
- One member who is a registered lobbyist representing Ohio Cooperatives.
Senate Bill 288 would appropriate $500,000 to create the Ohio Food and Agriculture Policy Council and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
Be sure to stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for continuing updates on Ohio Legislation affecting agriculture!
Tags: Ohio legislation, conservation, H2Ohio
Comments: 0
Governor DeWine signed H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, into law on June 30. Over the last few months, we have reported on provisions in the biennial budget related to agriculture. In this week’s installment, we will examine the changes the bill makes to what is permissible in the practice of veterinary medicine in the state of Ohio.
In the beginning of June, we reported on S.B. 60, which would allow veterinarians to practice telehealth in Ohio. You can find our previous post here. Instead of being passed as a stand-alone bill, the provisions about veterinary telehealth were included in the state operating budget, H.B. 96. Looking broadly at the provisions included in H.B. 96, there are four main changes to veterinary law. The language in the budget bill:
- Allows the use of veterinary telehealth services;
- Allows a veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) to be established via a telehealth visit in some cases;
- Creates special requirements for the use of telehealth services for livestock animals; and
- Allows veterinarians to prescribe medication via telehealth visit with certain exceptions.
Telehealth services for veterinary care permitted
During the Covid-19 pandemic and in the years following, most of us have become familiar with visiting our doctors via telehealth appointments using a computer or smartphone. H.B. 96 allows this appointment method to also be used in veterinary care in the state of Ohio.
Under the budget bill, a licensed veterinarian may conduct the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth services if all the following apply:
- The veterinarian obtains the informed consent from the client, including an acknowledgement that the standards of care required by Ohio law equally apply to in-person and telehealth visits. The veterinarian shall maintain documentation of the consent for at least three years after receiving the informed consent.
- The veterinarian provides the client with the veterinarian's name and contact information and secures an alternate means of contacting the client if the telehealth visit is interrupted. Following the telehealth visit, the veterinarian shall make available to the client an electronic or written record of the visit. The electronic or written record shall include the veterinarian's license number.
- Before conducting an evaluation of a patient via a telehealth visit, the veterinarian advises the client of all the following:
- The veterinarian may ultimately recommend an in-person visit with the veterinarian or another licensed veterinarian;
- The veterinarian is prohibited under federal law from prescribing certain drugs or medications based only on a telehealth visit;
- The appointment for a telehealth visit may be terminated at any time.
- A licensed veterinarian may prescribe drugs or medications after establishing a veterinary-client patient relationship via telehealth services within certain parameters and with certain exceptions (see the “Prescribing medication via telehealth visit” heading below).
Once the veterinarian shares all of this information with their client, and if the rules for prescribing drugs are followed, a telehealth veterinary visit is legally permitted in the state of Ohio under the language of H.B. 96.
Changes to veterinary-client-patient relationships
Much like a doctor-patient relationship takes place between a doctor and a person who is their patient, a veterinary-client-patient relationship takes place between a veterinarian, their client (the animal’s owner), and the patient (the animal). According to Ohio law, a VCPR relationship exists when the following conditions have been met:
- A veterinarian assumes responsibility for making clinical judgments regarding the health of a patient and the need for medical treatment, medical services, or both for the patient, and the client has agreed to follow the veterinarian's instructions regarding the patient.
- The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the patient to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the patient. In order to demonstrate that the veterinarian has sufficient knowledge, the veterinarian must have seen the patient recently, and must be personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the patient by doing any of the following:
- Making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the patient is kept;
- Examining the patient in person; or
- Under the new provisions of H.B. 96, by examining the patient in real time via telehealth.
- The veterinarian is readily available for a follow-up evaluation, or has arranged for emergency coverage, in the event the patient suffers adverse reactions to the treatment regimen, or the treatment regimen fails.
H.B. 96 keeps previous Ohio law concerning the establishment of a VCPR intact, but it also broadens the law by allowing for “sufficient knowledge” of a patient to be gained by a telehealth examination. However, as we will discuss below, this is not the case when it comes to livestock animals.
Telehealth for livestock
Up until now, we have discussed requirements for veterinary telehealth broadly. When a telehealth visit includes a client who raises livestock for human food consumption, the new language is a bit more strict. In the case of livestock, a VCPR must be established in person prior to the use of telehealth services. While a VCPR for non-livestock animals may be established via a telehealth appointment, VCPRs involving livestock must first include that in-person meeting. This means that a veterinarian may not treat or diagnose an injury or illness in a livestock animal using telehealth if the veterinarian has not previously established an in-person VCPR with the patient and client. Once an in-person VCPR is established with respect to the livestock, the veterinarian may subsequently treat the livestock via telehealth appointment.
That being said, the language in H.B. 96 allows veterinarian may give tele-advice to a client raising livestock prior to establishing a VCPR in person. Tele-advice means a veterinarian giving “health information, opinion, or guidance that is not intended to diagnose, treat, issue certificates of veterinary inspection, or issue prognoses of the physical or behavioral illness or injury of an animal.” According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, tele-advice can consist of broad recommendations via phone, text, or internet. Examples include recommendations that animals receive annual wellness checks, or that animals should receive preventive medicine to prevent worms or other pests. Under the new language, a veterinarian may give these kinds of general tele-advice regarding livestock, but they may not specifically treat or diagnose a livestock animal using telehealth without first establishing a VCPR in-person.
Prescribing medication via telehealth visit
Is a veterinarian permitted to prescribe medication for an animal via a telehealth visit under the new language? The answer is yes, but certain rules apply. After a VCPR relationship is established, a veterinarian may issue a prescription lasting up to fourteen days for the patient via tele-health visit. The veterinarian may additionally issue one refill of the medication for up to fourteen days if another tele-health visit with the patient and client occurs. However, for additional refills, the veterinarian must see the patient in person. Remember that for livestock animals, the VCPR must be established in person before a veterinarian may prescribe drugs. Further, a veterinarian may not prescribe a controlled substance (see the list of controlled substances in section 3719.01 of the Ohio Revised Code) to a patient unless a physical examination takes place in person.
With the passage of this language in H.B. 96, Ohio becomes the eighth state to allow the practice of veterinary medicine via telehealth. Other states include Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, Vermont, and Virginia. Proponents of the language cite that it will make veterinary care more accessible in the state, and that it will lessen the stress caused to animals by transporting them to and from a vet’s office H.B. 96 becomes effective on September 30, 2025. To read the budget bill in its entirety, click here.
Tags: Ohio legislation, legislation, Animals, livestock, veterinary telehealth, veterinarians
Comments: 0
Over the past month, we’ve shared several blog posts examining aspects of the State Operating Budget, HB 96 and how it makes changes to agricultural law in Ohio. Below, we note some more assorted provisions in the bill related to agriculture.
Pork Marketing
HB 96 establishes a state “pork marketing program to promote the sale of pork and pork products,” but only if the National Pork Checkoff created under federal law ceases to operate. Checkoff programs for agricultural commodities gather fees on products in order to better promote the products and to conduct research. If the National Pork Checkoff ends, the new law would require the Ohio Pork Council to accept nominees and hold elections for a state pork marketing program operating committee. The committee would consist of 12 members, including the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, the executive vice president of the Ohio Pork Council, four pork producers appointed by the director, and six members from each of the six districts established throughout the state. The operating committee would be able to levy assessments on the value of animals, pork, or pork products sold or imported in the state. This provision of HB 96, which again, is only triggered if the National Pork Checkoff ceases to operate, was likely included in the State Operating Budget due to reports in February of this year that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was reviewing and possibly cutting federal agricultural checkoff programs.
Animal and Consumer Protection Fund
The Operating Budget establishes the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund, which will be used to fund the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the regulation of captive deer producers, the regulation of wild animals and snakes, and the regulation of garbage-fed swine and poultry. The new language would channel various fees collected from permits for the possession of dangerous wild animals to go to the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund, when they previously went to the “dangerous and restricted animal fund.”
HB 96 also gives ODA the power to assess civil penalties against those who violate livestock dealer laws. The civil penalties would replace the finding of first-degree misdemeanor for violators (however, the fifth-degree felony penalty for violating certain provisions of the livestock dealer law remains). Money collected from these civil penalties would also go to the Animal and Consumer Protection Fund.
Food Processing Establishments
Under Ohio law, a food processing establishment is defined as a premises or part of a premises where food is processed, packaged, manufactured, or otherwise held or handled for distribution to another location or for sale at wholesale.” New language included in HB 96 would exempt small egg producers (those who annually maintain 500 or fewer birds) from food processing establishment requirements.
Hemp
HB 96 gives ODA permission to transfer the authority to regulate hemp cultivation in Ohio to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and requires ODA to establish a program to monitor and regulate hemp processing. On July 25, 2025, ODA started the process of transferring the regulation of hemp cultivation in the state to the USDA. As of January 1, 2026, hemp growers must be licensed through USDA, and ODA cultivation licenses will be voided. More information about the transition is available here.
Although the steps are in motion to transfer regulation of cultivation of hemp to USDA, HB 96 still allows ODA and universities with agricultural programs to cultivate and process hemp without a license for research purposes.
Finally, the budget bill allows ODA to issue hemp processing licenses if either of the following apply:
-
- The individual holds the applicable license in another state
- The individual has satisfactory work experience, a government certification, or private certification as a hemp processor in a state that does not issue the applicable license.
H2Ohio
It has been widely reported that the state budget made cuts to the H2Ohio Program. In Governor DeWine’s proposed budget released in January, he called for $270 million to fund the program, but in the final version of the budget as passed by the General Assembly, only around $165 million was allocated to the program for 2026 and 2027. ODA’s H2Ohio funds will be $107.2 million for 2026-2027, compared to $171.4 million received in 2024—2025. Bigger cuts were made to ODNR , which will have $42.4 million for H2Ohio (down from $69.4 million in 2024—2025), and Ohio EPA, which will receive $15 million for H2Ohio (down from $ 51.4 million in 2024—2025).
In the version of HB 96 delivered to Governor DeWine, the General Assembly also added a provision that money in the H2Ohio fund could not be used for the purchase of land or for the purchase of conservation easements to further the goals of the H2Ohio program. This provision, however, was vetoed by Governor DeWine.
We hope you’ve found our series on agriculture in the state budget informative thus far! You can find HB 96 in its entirety here. There has been talk of legislation to “fix” certain parts of the budget bill as passed. Please stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law Blog, where we will be sure to update you on any changes the General Assembly makes this fall!
Tags: Ohio legislation, hemp, hemp cultivation, hemp processing, pork checkoff, H2Ohio, Ohio livestock care standards
Comments: 0
Welcome to our third installment in our continuing series on provisions affecting agriculture in the recently passed State Operating Budget, or House Bill 96. Our previous blog posts in this series focused on changes to ag permits and licensing and to pesticide application laws, which you can find here and here. This week, our focus will be on the effects of H.B. 96 on apiaries throughout the state of Ohio.
Adjustments and additions to definitions
Under current Ohio law, an “apiary” is defined as “any place where one or more colonies or nuclei of bees are kept,” and “queen rearing apiaries” are defined as “any apiary in which queen bees are reared for sale or gift.” H.B. 96 changes the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to “any apiary in which queens are raised or purchased for sale, trade, or gift; or otherwise distributed or used to create, for sale, trade or gift, nucs, packages or colonies.” Thus, the budget bill expands the definition of “queen rearing apiaries” to not only include apiaries where queens are raised for distribution, but also apiaries where queens are purchased for distribution in order to create bee colonies.
H.B. 96 also adds a definition to the law governing apiaries. In the budget bill, “nuc” is defined as a small colony of bees in a hive box to which all of the following applies:
- The hive box contains three to five frames.
- The hive box contains a laying queen bee and the queen’s progeny in egg, larval, pupa, and adult stages.
- The small colony has honey and a viable population sufficient enough to develop into a full-sized economy.
These changes to definitions under the apiary law appear to have been made to increase the number of apiaries ODA has the authority to regulate, as you will see in the next section. The ultimate goal of these changes seems to be for ODA to have more oversight over the health and safety of apiaries in Ohio.
Compliance, registrations, certification
Ohio apiarists should also be aware that H.B. 96 makes changes to compliance requirements under the apiary law. New language in H.B. 96 requires any person engaged in the rearing of queen bees to have a written compliance agreement with ODA. Under the agreement, the person must agree to comply with the requirements stipulated by ODA.
Furthermore, new language states that each person intending to sell, trade, gift, or otherwise distribute queen bees, packaged bees, nucs, or colonies will now be required to request that ODA certify all of a person’s queen rearing apiaries. A certification fee of fifty dollars or another amount specified by ODA in rulemaking is also created. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the introduction of this $50 fee will bring in approximately $41,000 annually to benefit the Plant Pest Program Fund.
H.B. 96 authorizes ODA to require all queen rearing apiaries to be inspected as specified in rules at least annually, whereas the previous language required inspections once each year with no authority to alter inspection frequency. This change would seemingly give ODA the ability to inspect apiaries more frequently, and as a result, they could keep a better eye on any problems with individual apiaries. Previously, if such an inspection found that there was a serious bee disease or that Africanized honey bees were present, bee owners were subject to certain rules. The new language also includes the finding of bee “pests” to trigger these rules, which appears to give ODA another tool to keep bee populations throughout the state safe. Once disease or pest problem is resolved, ODA can issue an official certificate attesting to this. Producers must include a copy of this certificate with each queen, nuc, or colony they distribute. Such a certificate will expire on May 31st of the following year and may be renewed annually. H.B. 96 also outlaws the distribution of bees, honeycombs, or used beekeeping equipment that contains a serious bee disease or pest.
Ohio law requires any person owning or possessing bees to register with ODA, and H.B. 96 makes some tweaks to this registration process. Under the new language, a person must apply for registration on or before the first day of June each year, or thereafter within thirty days after owning or possessing the bees or moving bees into Ohio from another state. Previously, an owner had ten days to apply for registration, so the new language gives people a bit more time. New language also requires owners to register each of their apiaries, regardless of whether the apiary is located at their place of residence or elsewhere. H.B. 96 also eliminates the five dollar registration fee.
H.B. 96 also gives the director of ODA the power to suspend any apiary registration, certificate, permit, or compliance agreement for cause.
When will these changes become effective?
The budget bill becomes effective on September 30, 2025. The Ohio State Beekeepers Association (OSBA) has been working with ODA throughout the month of July to get more clarity about what the language changes mean for beekeepers, and how regulations will be carried out under the new law. OSBA’s page dedicated to information about H.B. 96 is available here. ODA’s website on apiaries is located here.
As always, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for more updates on the State Budget and its effect on agriculture.
After months of deliberation, the General Assembly delivered H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, to Governor Mike DeWine. Governor DeWine signed the bill into law on June 30, vetoing several provisions. DeWine issued a number of line-item vetoes, and the General Assembly plans to hold a session on July 21 to override the vetoes related to property tax provisions in the bill. There is also a chance that the General Assembly may override additional vetoes unrelated to property tax in the fall. While we will certainly keep an eye on these possible veto overrides, the provisions of the budget bill affecting agriculture remain mostly intact. This is the second in our continuing series of blog posts about the newly passed state operating budget and its implications for agriculture in Ohio. In today’s installment, we will be looking into how H.B. 96 modifies Ohio’s pesticide application statutes.
Pesticide-related licensing, registration, and permitting
If you sell or distribute pesticides, apply pesticides, or hire someone to do so on your farm, H.B. 96 puts some changes in motion that you should be aware of. The first affects distributors of pesticide products. The cost to register each pesticide product they distribute has increased from $150 to $250, with a late fee of $125 if registration renewal is filed after the deadline. Another change affects pesticide businesses. Under the new law, a pesticide business must obtain a license for every location that is owned by the business. Furthermore, a copy of the license must be displayed at each business location.
Turning to pesticide applicators, the examination for those applying to become licensed pesticide applicators was previously free, but the new language creates a $30 examination fee in addition to the existing $30 licensing fee. In another notable change, H.B. 96 increases the amount of time the Ohio Department of Agriculture can suspend any pesticide license, permit, or registration without a hearing from 10 days to 30 days.
New limits for restricted use pesticides
The most significant change in the law is to who may legally apply restricted use pesticides (RUPs). Under H.B. 96, a state or federally listed RUP may only be used by licensed applicators, whether they apply privately or commercially. Previously, if you were a trained serviceperson acting under direct supervision of a commercial pesticide applicator, or immediate family members and subordinate employees acting under the direct supervision of a private applicator, you would have been permitted to apply RUPs. The new language does not permit any “use” of RUPs by anybody other than a licensed applicator. The definition of “using” a RUP includes the following:
- Performing pre-application activities involving mixing and loading the pesticide;
- Applying the pesticide;
- Performing other pesticide-related activities, including transporting or storing pesticide containers that have been opened, cleaning equipment, and disposing of excess pesticides, spray mix, equipment wash waters, pesticide containers, and other pesticide-containing materials.
When does this all become effective?
One question many will have is when the language regarding who may legally use RUPs will actually go into effect. While most legislation becomes effective 90 days after it is signed into law, these changes are very technical and will likely have to go through a lengthy administrative rulemaking process. According to the Ohio Agribusiness Association, the Ohio Department of Agriculture “has committed to several months’ notice to applicators before any changes go into effect.”
We plan to follow the developing regulations on the use of RUPs very closely and will keep you updated when the new provisions of the law become effective. In the meantime, if you’d like to look into H.B. 96 yourself, it is available here. We will be back next week to discuss more agricultural implications in the budget bill!
Tags: Ohio legislation, legislation, pesticide registration, restricted use pesticides, pesticides
Comments: 0
After months of deliberation, the General Assembly delivered H.B. 96, the two-year state operating budget, to Governor Mike DeWine. Governor DeWine signed the bill into law on June 30, vetoing several provisions. DeWine issued a number of line-item vetoes, and the General Assembly plans to hold a session on July 21 to override the vetoes related to property tax provisions in the bill. There is also a chance that the General Assembly may override additional vetoes unrelated to property tax in the fall. While we will certainly keep an eye on these possible veto overrides, the provisions of the budget bill affecting agriculture remain mostly intact. Over the next few weeks, we will be sharing a series of blog posts about the newly passed state operating budget and its implications for agriculture in Ohio. Today’s focus will be on several licensing, permit, and fee changes affecting the ag and food sectors.
Various fee increases and changes
H.B. 96 increases inspection, licensing, and registration fees in many ag and food related industries. For instance, the budget bill:
- Increases the cost of a license to manufacture and distribute fertilizer in the state of Ohio from $5 to $50. If the manufacturer/distributor fails to renew its license, the late fees increase from $10 to $25.
- Increases the annual base inspection fee for plant nurseries that produce, sell, or distribute woody nursery stock from $100 to $200. On top of the inspection fee, there is a charge of $15 per acre for nursery stock grown in intensive production areas, and a charge of $10 per acre for nursery stock grown in non-intensive production areas.
- Changes the annual registration fees for bakeries. The fee used to begin at $30 and go up depending on how much product the bakery produced. H.B. 96 changes the annual bakery registration fee to a flat $200.
- Increases the license fee for frozen food manufacturing facilities, chill rooms, sharp freezing rooms and facilities, or sharp freezing cabinets from $50 to $200.
Seed labeler permits
In Ohio, no person is allowed to label agricultural, vegetable, or flower seed that is intended for sale in the state without a seed labeler permit. The budget bill makes the following changes to commercial seed labeler permits:
-
- Increases the cost of permits from $10 to $50.
- Moves the expiration date for seed labeler permits from December 31st to January 31st of each year.
- Requires labelers to submit a sales report to the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) annually instead of semiannually.
- A seed fee based on the amount of seed sold is typically due at the same time as the annual sales report. H.B. 96 changes how this seed fee is collected for alfalfa, clover, grass, native grass, mixtures containing any of these, and all agricultural, vegetable and flower seeds not specifically mentioned in the law. The new language states that if the total amount of fees due is less than $50, then seed labelers no longer need to pay a minimum fee.
Livestock dealer licensing
Ohio law defines livestock “dealers” or "brokers,” with some exceptions, as “any person found by the department of agriculture buying, receiving, selling, slaughtering, exchanging, negotiating, or soliciting the sale, resale, exchange, or transfer of any animals in an amount of more than two hundred fifty head of cattle, horses, or other equidae, or five hundred head of sheep, goats, or other bovidae, swine and other suidae, poultry, alpacas, llamas, or monitored captive deer, captive deer with status, or captive deer with certified chronic wasting disease status during any one year.” H.B. 96 modifies the law regarding licensing for these livestock dealers and brokers in the following ways:
-
- Licensing fees for dealers and brokers used to be based on the number of head of livestock they sold per year. The new language creates a flat fee of $250 per annum.
- Increases licensing fees for small dealers from $25 to $50, and late fees for small dealers from $25 to $100.
- Increases licensing fees for each licensed weigher and each employee appointed by a livestock dealer from $20 to $30.
Registration and inspections for manufacturers and distributors of commercial feeds
Finally, the budget bill modifies registration and inspection requirements for manufacturers and distributors of commercial feeds. Commercial feed includes “all materials…that are distributed for use as feed or for mixing in feed for animals.” Under the new language in H.B. 96, the following changes have been made:
-
- Manufacturers and distributors of commercial feed must register annually with ODA. Registration is due on February 1st of each year and expires January 31st each year.
- Manufacturers and distributors must pay an annual registration fee of $50.
- Inspection fees for commercial feed distributors will be collected annually instead of semiannually.
- ODA will not collect inspection fees on the first two hundred tons of commercial feed sold by a distributor of commercial feed in a calendar year.
If you’re up for some light reading, H.B. 96 is available in its entirety here. Stay tuned for our continuing series on the state operating budget!
Governor DeWine recently signed H.B. 15, which repeals parts of the controversial energy bill passed in 2019, H.B. 6. Introduced by Roy Klopfenstein (R, Haviland), H.B. 15 specifically repeals subsidies for coal-fired power plants introduced in H.B. 6, but it also does much more to promote energy production within the state of Ohio.
H.B. 15 is wide-ranging, but certain provisions may be of particular interest to Ohio agriculture and those living in rural areas of the state. The bill allows county commissioners, municipal corporations, or townships to adopt legislation requesting that the director of the Ohio Department of Development “designate the site of a brownfield or former coal mine within the subdivision’s territory as a priority investment area.” When considering the designation of a priority investment area (PIA), the director of the Ohio Department of Development is required to “prioritize the designation of areas negatively impacted by the decline the coal industry.” Under the law, the property becomes a PIA when the Director of Development notifies the local legislative authority, or within ninety days if no notification is sent. Once designated as a priority investment area (PIA), a property will be exempt from taxation for five years, which encourages public utilities to use the property for energy development. The law also requires the Power Siting Board to adopt rules for the accelerated review of energy projects located in an approved PIA.
Agricultural commodity groups like Ohio Corn & Wheat, as well as environmental groups like the Nature Conservancy, have praised the bill, noting that generating power on brownfields and former coal mines will have the added benefit of protecting farmland and native habitats. The thinking is that with more PIAs available for energy generation and accelerated approval from the Power Siting Board of PIAs, the need to use farmland and other areas for renewable energy projects would diminish. Instead, under the new law, political subdivisions and energy generators would be incentivized to use brownfield and former coal mine land that has already been developed, helping Ohio to both protect farmland and meet the demand for more energy generation. H.B. 15 will go into effect on August 14, 2025. The bill is available in its entirety here.
Pages
