Recent Blog Posts
September will bring a new law that allows for the underground storage of carbon dioxide in Ohio. H.B. 170 , the Carbon Capture and Storage bill, had a rocky voyage and multiple revisions in its long year-and-a-half run through the Ohio General Assembly. But in the end it had bipartisan support and only four legislators opposed the measure, now signed by Governor DeWine. The new law becomes effective on September 23, 2026. We’ve written several articles about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Ohio’s legislation, available here as a series.
CCS is a carbon sequestration technology that captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from airborne emissions and injects it into geologic formations known as “pore space” far beneath the land surface through Class VI injection wells. Proponents state that the technology will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, permit industries with CO2 emissions to reduce their carbon “footprint” and raise their “carbon index” and allow for innovative future reuses of C02. Because CCS requires land and can reduce the carbon index of products like ethanol, the technology has implications for Ohio agriculture.
Legislation was necessary to authorize CCS in Ohio, establish a regulatory program to oversee it, and answer important legal issues related to CCS. H.B. 170 aims to address those needs. Not surprisingly, the new law hands regulatory responsibilities to the Ohio Department of Natural Resource Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management. Much more surprising was a late amendment in the Senate Energy Committee to create a Host Community Fund for use by communities hosting CCS projects, which proponents state is the first fee of its type in the country. CCS owner fees will fuel the fund. Another surprise came in the form of a higher standard for statutory consolidation or “forced pooling” of pore space interests. The original proposal allowed a CCS operator to apply for statutory consolidation with consent of at least 65% of the pore space interests, but that increased to 75% in the final bill, putting Ohio behind only Wyoming in the higher protection for property owners.
Here’s a summary of other provisions in the new law:
Authorization of CCS and clarification of property interests – ORC 5301.58 and 5301.59
- Authorizes carbon sequestration projects for the purposes of injecting CO2 into pore space through an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit.
- Declares the land surface owner to be the owner of all pore space beneath the land surface and allows the surface owner to sever and transfer the pore space to another party though typical property transfer instruments. A pore space instrument must contain a specific description of the location of the pore space.
- Clarifies that once severed, the pore space interest is dominant and has priority over a surface interest unless provided otherwise.
- Clarifies that a severed mineral or oil and gas interest is dominant over a pore space interest on the same property.
- States that all CO2 injected into a CCS storage facility is presumed to be owned by the storage operator rather than the surface or pore space owner.
- Clarifies that ownership of pore space or any other surface or subsurface property interest owner does not establish liability for the injection of CO2 and other CCS substances.
Regulatory framework for establishing CCS projects – ORC 1509.71 to 1509.75
- Grants exclusive authority to regulate CCS activities to the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), except for any activities regulated by federal laws for which the U.S. has not delegated regulatory authority to Ohio.
- Directs ODNR to establish rules to implement the new law. The rules must include provisions for:
- Applications for and terms and conditions of UIC Class VI permits;
- Entry rights for inspection and compliance;
- Maintenance of information through monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting;
- Field drainage system review, mitigation, and repairs if ground disturbance is necessary;
- Statutory consolidation or pooling procedures;
- Well drilling, operating safety, spacing, and setback requirements;
- Protection of public and private water supplies;
- Fencing, screening, and noise mitigation;
- Containment and disposal of drilling and other wastes;
- Construction of access roads;
- Liability insurance from the commencement of construction to closing, including at least $15 million for bodily injury and property damage from construction, drilling or operation of wells and including environmental coverage.
- Maintenance of a surety bond, letter of credit, insurance, escrow, or self-insurance by the well operator.
- Allows ODNR to require seismicity monitoring prior to carbon injection and periodically throughout operations.
- Allows ODNR to create a program to incentivize innovation for the use and reutilization of captured CO2.
- Requires CCS well operators to design projects to isolate impacts on oil and gas production.
Fees, funds, and host community payments – ORC 1509.78
- Requires CCS operators to pay five cents per metric ton of CO2 injected into the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Fund and allows ODNR to use the fund for specified expenses and purposes.
- Allows ODNR to set and charge application fees, annual fees, and other fees necessary to defray administrative costs, to be deposited into the Carbon Capture Administrative Fund (CCAF).
- Establishes a “Host Community Fee” to support the needs of communities in which a CCS project exists. A CCS owner must pay the fee of three cents per metric ton of injected CO2 to be used by the county, township, municipal corporation, school district, or other subdivision for infrastructure; parks, recreation, and trails; education; or public safety.
Statutory consolidation or “pooling” of CCS projects – ORC 1509.76
- Allows a CCS project applicant to submit a request for statutory consolidation of pore space interests to ODNR if, after good-faith negotiation, the applicant has obtained the consent of at least 70 per cent of the pore space needed for the project.
- Lays out provisions for the statutory consolidation process, including a $50,000 application fee; notice requirements to pore space owners; hearing timelines; and allocations of property interests and compensation.
- Requires ODNR to approve the application if “such operation is reasonably necessary to facilitate carbon sequestration.”
- Clarifies that a statutory consolidation order does not result in a transfer of any person’s title to pore space.
Project closure – ORC 1509.77
- Establishes a “certificate of project completion” process to close a well no less than 50 years after injections cease.
- Requires ODNR to issue a certificate of completion only after satisfaction of all conditions, public notice and comment, and if necessary, a public hearing.
- Conditions for completion include proof that: the operator is in compliance with all law; CO2 is not expected to extend or migrate outside the project area or vertically and not expected to endanger public health, safety, the environment or underground drinking water sources; all equipment is in good condition and will retain mechanical integrity; and the operator has plugged well and completed required reclamation.
- States that upon issuance of a project of completion the operator is released from regulatory requirements, the financial assurance instrument is to be released to the operator, and primary responsibility and liability for the stored CO2 shall be transferred to the State except for potential criminal and contractual liability, violations of duties, provision of deficient or erroneous information, or migration that threatens public health or safety or the environment or underground sources of drinking water or the CO2 storage facility fund is insufficient to cover costs.
Liability and claims – ORC 5301.60
- States that a claim for damages based on CO2 injection or migration is not valid unless there is proof of a direct physical injury to a person, animal, or property, but exempts claims by oil and gas interest or owners of class II disposal wells from this provision.
- Limits recovery under a CCS property injury claim to the reduction in property value and prohibits punitive damages if the CCS operator acted in compliance with permit requirements.
Appeals and fines – ORC 1509.79 and 1509.99
- Establishes an appeals process for any person adversely affected by an ODNR order regarding the CCS program.
- Aligns fines for violating the CCS program with fines for violating the Oil and Gas program administered by ODNR.
What’s next?
Rulemaking. Now the ODNR must develop regulations for the CCS program. After rules are proposed, reviewed, and finalized, we can also expect Ohio to submit its primacy application to the U.S. EPA. The EPA would determine whether Ohio’s program suffices for the agency to delegate authority over UIC Class VI well permitting in Ohio to the ODNR. That delegation of authority would purportedly result in faster review of the UIC permits at the state rather than federal level. With much yet to happen, we’re not quite to the end of the CCS process in Ohio, but we’re closer than we were two years ago when we first learned that CCS could come to the state. As always, we’ll continue to follow future developments on CCS.
Landowners should still be cautious
A landowner who signs a pore space lease for a CCS project today won’t be subject to or benefit from the provisions of H.B. 170, which puts the landowner at risk of legal uncertainty. Until the new law is effective on September 23, 2026, and the ODNR establishes final regulations, there are no laws in Ohio that clearly recognize pore space interests, provide for severing or transferring those interests or prioritizing pore space with other property interests, or place requirements on CCS project operators. Operators would be required only to obtain a UIC Class VI permit from the U.S. EPA and would not be subject to state oversight. For these reasons, landowners receiving offers to lease pore space for CCS may be wise to wait a few more months for the law to be effective and provide clarity and oversight for CCS development in Ohio.
We are just weeks away from the Fourth Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, taking place August 3–5, 2026, at The Grand Event Center in Columbus, Ohio. If you haven't registered yet, this is your final reminder to secure your spot, whether you plan to join us in person or tune in virtually.
We all know that a successful farm succession plan requires a lot more than just drafting a new LLC or updating an estate plan. It requires a deep understanding of the dynamics and nuances that run a family operation. To address these issues, this year’s conference agenda pairs technical legal topics with the critical "soft" issues that are required to design and implement a successful farm transition plan.
This Year's Lineup
Our sessions are designed to give you practical, immediate strategies to help with farm transition planning. Highlights from the agenda include:
- Reverse Mentoring: The Invisible Org Chart
- Identifying and Addressing Mental Health Issues in Farm Families
- Farm Transition from a Farm Manager’s Perspective
- Agricultural and Conservation Easements in Farm Transition Planning
- Incorporating Divorce Protection in Business Entities
- Dealing with Farm Assets Trapped in Corporations
- Managing Tax Basis in Estates
- Reviewing Available Resources for Your Clients
- The State of the Farm Economy
- An Interactive Case Study
- Responsibilities in Assessing Client Capacity
In-Person Perks: Ohio Stadium Tour & Ethics CLE
For those joining us in Columbus, the conference kicks off on Monday, August 3 with two special events:
- Behind-the-Scenes Tour of Ohio Stadium: Complimentary for in-person attendees (guests can be added for $20).
- Hofbräuhaus Ethics CLE & Reception: Earn 1.0 hour of Ethics CLE credit with a focused session on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) representation, immediately followed by our welcome reception.
Note for Virtual Attendees: The main educational program on August 4–5 will be fully simulcast, allowing you to participate from your home or office.
Registration Details
Registration fees are as follows:
- In-Person Registration: $375
- Online Registration: $325
- Student Registration: $100 (To access special student pricing, please email Peggy Hall directly at hall.673@osu.edu before registering).
The agenda and registration information are available here: https://go.osu.edu/cultivatingconnections .
We look forward to seeing you in Columbus this August to connect, learn, and strengthen the network of professionals supporting our farm families.
One of the most difficult and most frequently avoided questions farm families face is: What happens to our farm when I die? To help answer this question, Ohio State University Extension is offering a free, practical webinar designed to guide farm families through the critical first steps of getting their farm and family affairs in order.
Titled “Is Your Farm and Family Ready for Your Death?”, the webinar will be held Monday, July 27 from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. via Zoom. The program will help participants move beyond uncertainty and begin building a clear, thoughtful plan for the future of their farm and family.
The session will be taught by David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist in Farm Management, and assisted by Robert Moore, Attorney with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program, bringing together both farm management and legal expertise to help families understand the process from multiple perspectives.
“Too often, farm transition conversations begin after a crisis, an illness, injury, or unexpected loss,” said Moore. “This program emphasizes that the best time to plan is now, before those events force difficult decisions.”
Rather than jumping directly into legal documents and financial arrangements, the webinar encourages a more holistic approach rooted in reflection, communication, and organization. Participants will explore key questions that shape the future of family farms, including:
- What legacy do you want to leave?
Families are encouraged to reflect on their history and define a shared vision for the future, whether that involves continuing the farm business, transitioning to rental arrangements, or planning for eventual sale. - Who should inherit the farm?
The program will challenge participants to think beyond tradition and consider stewardship to identifying who is best equipped to manage and protect farm assets for future generations. - What do you own and owe?
Attendees will learn how to develop an estate balance sheet that combines farm and personal assets and liabilities, a foundational step in effective planning. - Are you organized?
Experts will share strategies for organizing critical documents and records so that families and advisors can act efficiently when the time comes.
As part of the webinar, participants will be introduced to practical tools designed to simplify the process. One such resource is the Farm Asset and Resource Management Spreadsheet (FARMS), a free Excel-based tool developed by OSU Extension. FARMS helps farm families inventory assets and liabilities, document key contacts, and evaluate potential planning scenarios.
“Getting organized is one of the greatest gifts you can give your family,” Marrison said. “When information is accessible and conversations have already taken place, it reduces stress, confusion, and conflict during an already difficult time.”
The webinar also emphasizes the importance of communication among family members. Differing expectations about the farm’s future can lead to misunderstandings if not addressed early. By encouraging open dialogue, the program aims to help families align their goals and make intentional decisions.
This session is designed for farmers of all ages and operation sizes, whether they are just beginning to think about succession or revisiting an existing plan.
Event Details:
- Title: Is Your Farm and Family Ready for Your Death?
- Date: Monday, July 27
- Time: 7:00 – 8:30 p.m.
- Location: Online (Zoom)
- Cost: Free
Pre-registration is required and can be completed at: http://go.osu.edu/prepforfuture
Organizers encourage participants to come with questions and a willingness to begin conversations that can shape their farm’s legacy for generations to come.
“Thinking about end-of-life planning is never easy,” Marrison added. “But taking that first step to reflect on your goals, organize your information, and start the conversation can make all the difference for your family’s future.”
On June 25, The Supreme Court of the United States released its decision on Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, ruling 7 to 2 that the labeling requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempt a state failure-to-warn claim. If you will recall, we wrote about the case, its background, and each side’s initial legal arguments back in February. As a brief reminder, John Durnell sued Monsanto and its parent company Bayer in Missouri, alleging that his use of Roundup, an herbicide with the active ingredient glyphosate, had caused his non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Durnell alleged that Monsanto failed to include a cancer warning on Roundup labels. Missouri state courts agreed with Durnell, and Monsanto appealed to the Supreme Court. (For more of a refresher on the background and legal arguments of both sides, see our previous blog post here.) Below, we will discuss how the Court came to this decision, what the dissenting justices argued, and what implications this decision might have.
Majority
The majority opinion, finding that FIFRA preempts a state failure-to-warn claim, was written by Justice Kavanaugh and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. (Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion.) The Court found FIFRA and US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations promulgated under FIFRA, when read together, expressly preempt Durnell’s state-law failure to warn claim. Why did the Court find this? Distilling the Court’s opinion down to its most basic argument, the majority reasons that EPA regulations under FIFRA require companies like Monsanto to use the pesticide label approved by the EPA. Since EPA did not require a cancer warning on the label for Roundup, and FIFRA says in 7 U.S.C. 136v(b) that a “State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling...in addition to or different from” those required under the law, a state court cannot find otherwise. In other words, if Monsanto changed its Roundup labels in the state of Missouri to include a cancer warning, it would be breaking federal law by requiring labeling different from the EPA.
The Court also differentiates Monsanto v. Durnell from its previous decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences. In Bates, the Supreme Court did allow a state failure-to-warn claim to go forward because the lawsuit was about the efficacy of a pesticide, not the safety. The EPA did not review the efficacy of the pesticide in question as part of its registration, so nothing about its effectiveness would be required by EPA to appear on the label, thus a state could find that efficacy language should be added. On the other hand, EPA does thoroughly review safety claims as part of registration, so any labeling involving safety is required by EPA and therefore preempts state safety claims.
The Court also cites EPA’s “extensive review” of pesticides and their labels. For example, the Court reasons that manufacturers like Monsanto “must continue to inform EPA of additional factual information regarding” a pesticide’s “unreasonable adverse effects.” If new information is uncovered, EPA can require “additional labeling language.” EPA can also cancel or suspend a registration, which would prohibit the sale of a pesticide. Furthermore, “any person can petition EPA to modify, suspend or cancel a pesticide’s registration based on, for example, new evidence about the dangers of the pesticide.” Turning to Roundup and glyphosate products specifically, the court says that EPA has re-evaluated the product since 1974 and has “repeatedly concluded” that it is “not likely to cause cancer.” This was true even after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
Dissent
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Jackson and joined by Justice Gorsuch, contends that the failure-to-warn claim brought in this case is not preempted by FIFRA and EPA regulations. The dissenting justices do not agree that labels approved by EPA constitute a requirement. Instead, what they find is required by FIFRA is that a pesticide not be misbranded. Thus, a state could require a safety warning on a label if they were to find that not including such a warning would constitute “misbranding” under FIFRA. The dissent argues that such a state labeling requirement would not be “in addition to or different from” federal law, but would instead create a requirement equivalent or parallel to what is required under FIFRA.
What does this decision mean for farmers?
The bottom line is that the decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell will not affect farmers’ ability to buy and use Roundup. In fact, the ruling protects Roundup and other pesticides and herbicides from future state failure-to-warn claims, meaning there is one less reason for them to be taken off the shelves. Conversely, farmers with active label-based failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup or other pesticides will either have to settle or bring a lawsuit with alternative claims. Monsanto v. Durnell does not mean that litigation over the safety of Roundup or other pesticides will go away, it just means that one tool for litigating the safety—failure-to-warn claims based on the EPA-approved label, is no longer available. What is more, the decision does not bar all future failure-to-warn claims, just those based on the labels. There will certainly be more lawsuits ahead—we will keep you posted on the new arguments as they emerge.
You can read the full opinion, with the concurrence and dissent, here.
It's time for another Summer edition of Farm Office Live--the Agricultural Law & Policy Roundtable. Our July 10 Roundtable will focus on the rising costs of agricultural input issues. Are there solutions in sight? The OSU Agricultural & Resource Law team will explore that question by sharing legislative and judicial developments on input issues and gaining insight and perspective from two special guests:
- Kolesen McCoy, OSU Government Affairs Senior Analyst in Federal Relations
- Barry Ward, agricultural economist and Production Business Leader for OSU Extension
The webinar begins at 10 a.m. on Friday, July 10. If you're already signed up for Farm Office Live, you'll receive an invitation to the Zoom webinar. Others can sign up for the complimentary webinar series at go.osu.edu/farmofficelive. Recordings of all Farm Office Live webinars are also available on the same web page.
Tags:
Comments: 0
By: Clint Schroeder and Seungki Lee
Recently, final county yields for the 2025 crop were released by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA). The county yields are the final piece of information needed to calculate payments for area-based crop insurance policies. The Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) is an add-on crop insurance product that provides shallow loss protection when combined with traditional Yield Protection or Revenue Protection policies. For the 2025 growing season it was available for purchase at either the 90% or 95% level, providing coverage down to 86% of county revenue or yield. The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) provides a layer of coverage from 86% of county revenue or yield down to the coverage level of the underlying policy purchased by the farm. Revenue-based policies trigger claims based on final revenue compared to expected revenue. Expected revenue is calculated using the RMA trend adjusted yield for each county multiplied by the higher of the February projected price or harvest price. Final county revenue is calculated using the RMA final county yield multiplied by the harvest price. In recent years ECO and SCO policies have become more attractive risk management options due to increases in the share of the policy premiums covered by subsidies.
Corn
The final harvest price for 2025 corn was $4.22 per bushel, a 10.2% decrease from the $4.70 per bushel projected price. In Ohio, 83 counties saw a decrease in the final revenue of at least 5% from expected revenue, which would trigger a claim on ECO-95% policies. Fifty-seven counties had a revenue decrease of at least 10%, triggering an ECO-90% claim, with 36 of those counties also triggering a claim on SCO policies due to a revenue loss greater than 14%.
Figure 1. Ohio Corn 2025 RMA Final Yield and Revenue Coverage
County values in the map report the final RMA corn yield in bushels per acre. County shading is based on final county revenue divided by expected county revenue. Lower percentages indicate larger county-level revenue shortfalls. The ECO-95, ECO-90, and SCO labels identify the RMA payment-threshold ranges associated with each revenue ratio; actual payments depend on whether the producer purchased the relevant coverage and on specific policy details.
Soybeans
The harvest price for soybeans was $10.35 per bushel, a 1.8% decrease from the $10.54 per bushel projected price. Based on final revenue calculations, 69 Ohio counties triggered an ECO-95% claim, 37 triggered an ECO-90% claim, and 31 experienced revenue decreases large enough to trigger an SCO claim.
Figure 2. Ohio Soybeans 2025 RMA Final Yield and Revenue Coverage
County values in the map report the final RMA soybean yield in bushels per acre. County shading is based on final county revenue divided by expected county revenue. Lower percentages indicate larger county-level revenue shortfalls. The ECO-95, ECO-90, and SCO labels identify the RMA payment-threshold ranges associated with each revenue ratio; actual payments depend on whether the producer purchased the relevant coverage and on specific policy details.
Tags:
Comments: 0
By: Barry Ward1, Eric Richer2, John Barker3, Amanda Bennett4 Ohio State University Extension
1Assistant Professor & Leader, Production Business Management; 2Associate Professor & Field Specialist, Farm Management, 3Assistant Professor, Agriculture/Amos Program, Knox County; 4Assistant Professor, Agriculture & Natural Resources, Miami County (Ohio State University Extension)
Farming is a complex business, and many Ohio farmers utilize outside assistance for specific farm-related work. This option is appealing for tasks requiring specialized equipment or technical expertise. Often, having someone else with specialized tools perform tasks is more cost effective and saves time. Farm work completed by others is often referred to as “custom farm work” or more simply, “custom work”. A “custom rate” is the amount agreed upon by both parties to be paid by the custom work customer to the custom work provider.
Custom rates increased for the majority of field operations in 2026 as compared to surveyed rates in 2024 but the increases did vary by operation. Examples include an increase of 4% for Planting Corn (30 Inch Rows with Fertilizer Application), 11% for Harvesting Corn (Combine, Grain Cart, Haul Local to Farm), 12% for Variable Rate Fertilizer Application, 7% for Spraying (Self-Propelled Sprayer), 9% for Disk Chisel and 16% for Tractor Rental (Tractor/Horsepower/Hour). Some field operations saw no change or even slight decreases from the 2024 survey.
Compared to 2024, custom rates have been impacted by higher machinery and equipment costs, higher labor costs and modestly higher fuel costs.
New field operations in this year’s survey and summary include vertical tillage, weed electrocution, late season nitrogen application with coulters, and trucking for silage and hay.
Ohio Farm Custom Rates
Click here for PDF of the 2026 Ohio Farm Custom Rates
This publication reports custom rates based on a statewide survey. Surveys were mailed/emailed to past respondents and distributed at various Extension programs through the winter of 2026. The summary information included in this publication is based on the responses of 343 farmers, custom operators, farm managers, and landowners conducted in 2026. These rates, except where noted, include the implement and tractor if required, all variable machinery costs such as fuel, oil, lube, twine, etc., and labor for the operation.
Some custom rates published in this study vary widely, possibly influenced by:
- Type or size of equipment used (e.g. 20-shank chisel plow versus a 9-shank)
- Size and shape of fields,
- Condition of the crop (for harvesting operations)
- Skill level of labor
- Amount of labor needed in relation to the equipment capabilities
- Cost margin differences for full-time custom operators compared to farmers supplementing current income
- Region of Ohio with different custom services supply and demand characteristics
Some custom rates reflect discounted rates as the parties involved have family or community relationships. Discounted rates may also occur when the custom work provider is attempting to strengthen a relationship to help secure the custom farmed land in a future purchase, or rental agreement. Some providers charge differently because they are simply attempting to spread their fixed costs over more acreage to decrease fixed costs per acre and are willing to forgo complete cost recovery.
Charges may be added if the custom provider considers a job abnormal such as distance from the operator’s base location, difficulty of terrain, amount of product or labor involved with the operation, or other special requirements of the custom work customer.
The data from this survey are intended to show a representative farming industry cost for specified machines and operations in Ohio. As a custom provider, the average rates reported in this publication may not cover your total costs for performing the custom service. As a customer, you may not be able to hire a custom service for the average rate published in this factsheet.
It is recommended that you calculate your own costs carefully before determining the rate to charge or pay. It may be helpful to compare the custom rates reported in this fact sheet with machinery costs calculated by economic models. The following resources are available to help you calculate and consider the total costs of a given machinery operation. You may consider using the data contained in multiple publications as a base for future custom rates. Suggested publications are:
- Illinois Farm Management Handbook, available by searching University of Illinois farmdoc.
- Estimating Farm Machinery Costs, available by searching Iowa State University agriculture decision maker and machinery management.
Finally, fuel prices have an impact on custom rates and rates may fluctuate based on large movements in fuel prices. The average price of retail on-highway diesel in 2025 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) was $3.66 per gallon. The price of Midwest No 2 On-Road Diesel during the survey period (January – April 2026) ranged from $3.36 - $5.81 per gallon. Although geopolitical issues created a surge in energy prices in March and April, the authors assume most of the responses are reported using the assumption of diesel priced in the lower part of this range. Fuel prices at higher levels may create a need for higher custom rates or added fuel surcharges.
The authors would like to thank all the respondents who made time to complete the survey and the Extension Educators and staff who helped collect the data.
The complete “Ohio Farm Custom Rates 2026” publication is available online at the OSU Farm Office website https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management/custom-rates-and-machinery-costs
Tags:
Comments: 0
We’ve talked about data centers extensively over the past few months. We’ve shared numerous blog posts, and data centers were our topic for our last Farm Office Live Ag Law & Policy Roundtable. If you missed that discussion, it is available to watch here. When we hosted that discussion, the Ohio House was signaling that it might come back to consider House Bill 646, which appears to be main vehicle for data center legislation. That did not come to pass, and now both chambers of the General Assembly are on recess until November. How would the current version of H.B. 646 address data centers?
House Bill 646
H.B. 646, available here in its current form, has gone through many changes since it was first introduced in January by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Deeter (R-Norwalk). Its first iteration, which we discussed here, would have created a Data Center Commission with 13 appointed members. The Commission would have been tasked with looking at the impacts of data centers and submitting its findings to the Governor and the General Assembly. However, that version of the bill was scrapped in May when the Select Committee on Data Centers, with members from both chambers, was created. After the Committee held hearings in May and June, a new version of H.B. 646 was introduced. The current version of H.B. 646 would place restrictions on data centers built and operated in Ohio.
Electric use
One of the main focuses of the bill is electric use by data centers. It requires any data centers with a monthly maximum electricity demand of 250 megawatts or greater to supply its electricity using sources that offset its consumption from the electrical grid. Furthermore, it requires all direct costs for retail electric services be paid by the data center operators and prohibits other Ohio customers from paying for these costs. Further, the bill would create a separate electric rate class for data centers.
Water use
The amount of water used and discharged by data centers is often cited among those worried about the environmental impacts of the tech hubs. H.B. 646 would require data center owners or utilities that solely supply power to data centers to measure and report the data center’s consumptive use of water. The bill also requires data centers to implement best industry practices for water conservation and water-use efficiency in the design, construction, and operation of the facility. Data centers would also have to report their water usage annually to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and their water quality measurements quarterly to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). ODNR and OEPA, in turn, would be required to file an annual report on data center water usage and quality to the legislature.
Nondisclosure agreements
H.B. 646 contains language that would make nondisclosure agreements subject to public records requests. Thus, it would allow citizens to look up nondisclosure agreements made between data centers and individuals, local governments, etc.
Tax incentives
Finally, the most recent version of H.B. 646 would address tax breaks for data centers. The bill limits property tax exemptions for data centers in certain situations, and requires local governments granting property tax exemptions to obtain a security in the form of a surety bond or cash, certificates of deposit, or government securities from data center developers. The bill also excludes data centers from qualifying for megaproject tax incentives.
Most notably, the bill would also limit sales tax breaks for data centers. Governor DeWine did pause the 100% sales tax break for data centers in May, and H.B. 646 would change it to 50%. This 50% sales tax break appears to be one of the reasons that the General Assembly did not pass H.B. 646 before the legislative recess. Reportedly, some lawmakers wanted the tax break eliminated altogether. As a result, the bill remains in the Senate Energy Committee until lawmakers return to Columbus in November. We will have to wait until then to see if there are any changes made to the bill, including the 50% sales tax break.
Other data center bills
H.B. 646 was fast tracked by the legislature and seems as though it is the data center legislation most poised to pass when they return in November. With that being said, there are several other bills addressing data centers that we have been following. It appears some ideas from these bills have found their way into the newest version of H.B. 646. It’s possible additional pieces of these bills could be incorporated into H.B. 646 when the General Assembly returns, or that they could pass on their own.
House Bill 695—While this bill, sponsored by Representatives Bird (R-New Richmond) Stewart (R-Ashville) does not address data centers directly, it does target local elected officials who could have knowledge of such developments. The bill would prohibit county commissioners, township trustees, and village mayors and council members from knowingly entering into nondisclosure agreements that prohibit “disclosing, discussing, describing, or commenting on” matters related to official duties, a repeated complaint of citizens. Note that H.B. 646 would address nondisclosure agreements regarding data centers in a different way—by making them subject to public records requests. H.B. 695 had its third hearing in the House Local Government Committee on June 3.
House Bill 706—H.B. 706, sponsored by Representatives Rader (D-Lakewood) and Thomas (R-Jefferson) focuses on the infrastructure impacts of data centers. The bill aims to “ensure costs of new infrastructure and grid upgrades needed to serve these facilities are not shifted onto existing Ohio ratepayers.” The bill would require long-term service agreements of at least 12 years with electric utilities for data center customers, require the Public Utilities Commission to create standards for interconnection practices, load study deposits, and milestone requirements. It would also prohibit utilities from recovering data center costs from other customer classes, set minimum billing standards, and require financial assurance prior to facility construction. H.B. 706 had its third hearing in House Energy on June 3.
House Bill 784—Sponsored by Representatives Cockley (D-Columbus) and Lett (D-Columbus), H.B. 784 would require any data center that withdraws from waters of the state to submit monthly and annual data center water consumption reports to the Division of Water Resources. The bill also contains non-disclosure prohibitions similar to H.B. 695. H.B. 784 was referred to the House Energy Committee in March.
Senate Bill 381—Introduced by Senator Weinstein (D-Hudson), S.B. 381 would require interconnection approval from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio prior to connecting a data center with a monthly maximum demand of more than 25,000 kilowatt hours. The bill was referred to the Senate Public Utilities Commission in March.
We will continue to closely monitor data center legislation in Ohio when the General Assembly returns this fall!
Last week, 34 State Certified Mediation Programs gathered for the Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs (CAMP) annual conference, including three of us from the Ohio Farm Resolution Services (OFRS) program. Wyoming's Agricultural & Natural Resource Mediation Program hosted us in Laramie, Wyoming (home of the University of Wyoming College of Law, where I earned my law degree!). Our OFRS team gained information and insight that will help us help Ohio agriculture. But because our OFRS program is still quite new, many in Ohio agriculture don’t know about it or what the program can do for them. So now is good time to share what OFRS does and what we learned as we met with other state agricultural mediation programs from around the country. Here are several key points:
OFRS is Ohio’s Certified Mediation Program. The USDA’s Farm Service Agency provides grant funding for each state to establish a certified mediation program to serve agricultural producers. The OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program applied for the USDA grant, and in 2024 was approved to establish OFRS as the Certified Mediation Program for Ohio. The certification and funding allow us to use USDA funds to provide mediation services for no-to-little cost to agricultural producers.
Certified Mediation Programs were born from the farm financial crisis of the early 1980s. The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 created the framework for state Certified Mediation Programs after widespread foreclosures on farms during the 1980s financial crisis. The goal was to provide impartial mediators who could help producers and lenders mediate financial issues, prevent litigation, and keep farms in business.
More “covered issues” has expanded the Certified Mediation Program. Since the program’s origin in 1987, the federal government has expanded the types of “covered issues” a mediation program can help producers with in addition to agricultural loans. The list of “covered issues” eligible for mediation services now includes compliance with farm and conservation programs, family farm transition, farmer-neighbor disputes, pesticides, wetland determinations, leasing, credit counseling, and other issues a State Department of Agriculture deems appropriate.
Our mediation services are probably broader than you think. We have quickly learned that mediation is frequently misunderstood and conference attendees joked about the constant confusion with the practice of “meditation.” For our program, mediation is a broad term that means using a variety of approaches to attempt to resolve agricultural issues and conflicts. We offer “formal” structured mediations that place an impartial mediator between two parties with the goal of reaching an agreement that resolves a conflict, such as an agricultural credit problem. But OFRS can also provide “informal” mediation services such as consultation and education, which can help farmers identify solutions for issues and conflicts that are affecting the farm, such as determining how to transition the operation to the next generation or resolve a drainage problem with a neighbor. The common thread is that our staff steps in to share knowledge and strategies to help an agricultural producer make decisions or overcome an issue or conflict, whether formally or informally. Meditation is not under our mediation umbrella, however.
Mediators must be “qualified.” USDA requires a mediator in a state mediation program to be qualified either by meeting state mediation licensing or training requirements or, if none, by completing a minimum of 40 hours of approved mediator training and an additional 20 hours of training every two years. Mediation training emphasizes building skills for listening, maintaining neutrality, facilitating conversations, negotiating conflicts, and enabling problem solving. We’ve learned, both through our work and from the CAMP conference, that qualified, trained mediators can benefit Ohio agriculture immensely.
Farm stress is a concern among State Certified Mediation Programs. The CAMP agenda focused largely on helping producers deal with farm financial stress. Keynote speaker and agricultural attorney Sarah Vogel, who navigated producers through the farm financial crisis of the 1980’s, shared insights into the financial challenges today’s farmers may face. Sarah is currently working to encourage Attorney Generals in each state to understand and monitor financial legal developments that could negatively impact agricultural producers in their states. Other CAMP conference sessions concentrated on developing skills for working with agricultural lenders and understanding how other stressors such as climate and weather can affect agricultural operations.
But family farm transition has become a common mediation service for state programs. While agricultural credit problems were the impetus for USDA’s Certified Mediation Program, many state programs now spend most of their efforts on meeting farm transition needs. OFRS is one of them. About 70% of our mediation docket consists of working with families on farm transition and family communication needs. Mediating business practices, farm leases, and farm-neighbor disputes rounded out our mediation work in the first two years of OFRS.
Funding for state mediation programs is usually in jeopardy. At the conference, longtime mediation professionals shared that because the USDA’s Certified Mediation Program depends upon federal funding, program funding is not stable and instead is on a perpetual roller coaster ride. The Trump administration, for example, proposed zeroing out funding for the program the past two years, stating that farmers should pay for their own mediation needs. But Congress disagreed, funded the program in the last budget, and currently proposes continued funding for 2027. For the time being, it appears our OFRS program will have funding for at least for another year.
Do you need our mediation services? Are you an agricultural producer who's trying to sort through an issue or conflict? If so, learn more about OFRS and check out our team of five qualified mediators at farmoffice.osu.edu/ofrs. Consider what we can do for you, and contact us at ofrsmediation@osu.edu.
Ohio landowners regularly face requests from utilities and government agencies seeking easements and rights-of-way across their property. In recent years, major natural gas pipelines originating in southeastern Ohio have crossed large portions of the state. Today, new electric transmission lines are being built to serve expanding manufacturing facilities and data centers. At the same time, new road improvements and roadway projects continue to accommodate Ohio’s growing population and economy. In many of these situations, the utility or government entity possesses the power of eminent domain. What does that mean for landowners, and what rights do they have when their property is targeted for a public project?
Eminent domain is the power of a government agency or utility to acquire private property for a public project. The rationale behind eminent domain is that a single landowner, or a small group of landowners, should not be able to prevent projects that provide a broader public benefit. Both the United States and Ohio Constitutions authorize the use of eminent domain, provided that the property is being taken for a public use and the landowner receives just compensation. While the exercise of eminent domain can be difficult and frustrating for affected landowners, many roads, utility lines, and other public infrastructure projects would likely never be completed without this authority.
Many landowners mistakenly believe that if their property is subject to eminent domain, they have no say in whether a government agency or utility acquires their land. In reality, that is not the case. Government agencies and utilities generally prefer to avoid eminent domain proceedings whenever possible. The process is often time-consuming, expensive, unpredictable, and can generate negative public attention. As a result, these entities are strongly motivated to reach a voluntary agreement with landowners rather than resorting to eminent domain. Landowners should recognize and use this leverage during negotiations.
Landowners should carefully negotiate any proposed easement or property purchase. Like any buyer, a government agency or utility typically seeks to acquire property rights at the lowest reasonable cost. The initial offer is often neither the best offer nor the final offer. In addition to negotiating compensation, landowners should seek terms that protect their property and minimize the project's impact. For example, a landowner in northwest Ohio may want to require that any disturbed drainage tile be repaired to the landowner's satisfaction. Other provisions may address matters such as access routes, restoration obligations, crop damages, fencing, and construction timing. These types of protections can and should be negotiated into easement agreements.
In evaluating compensation, landowners should remember that the value of the property rights acquired is not always limited to the acreage within the easement or right-of-way. Depending on the circumstances, the project may affect the value or use of the remaining property. Impacts to drainage, access, farming operations, future development opportunities, and other aspects of the property should be considered when negotiating compensation.
Proceeding through the eminent domain process may be necessary when a landowner believes the compensation offered by the government agency or utility is insufficient and cannot be resolved through negotiation. The eminent domain process is essentially a legal proceeding in which the government or utility seeks the right to acquire property rights in exchange for compensation. During the proceeding, the government or utility presents evidence supporting its valuation of the property rights being acquired, while the landowner presents evidence demonstrating why greater compensation is warranted. As discussed above, eminent domain proceedings are generally costly, time-consuming, and uncertain for both parties. As a result, negotiated resolutions are often preferable when a fair agreement can be reached. However, when the parties remain far apart on compensation, the process may be necessary to reach a resolution.
Landowners should also understand that eminent domain authority is not unlimited. In some cases, landowners may have legal grounds to challenge whether a proposed acquisition satisfies statutory and constitutional requirements. Simply because a government agency or utility claims it has eminent domain authority does not necessarily mean that it does. As discussed above, eminent domain is generally intended for projects that serve a public use or public purpose. If a landowner believes a proposed taking primarily benefits a limited number of private parties rather than the public at large, the landowner should consult experienced legal counsel to evaluate whether a challenge may be appropriate.
Experienced legal counsel can also be invaluable when negotiating easements and property purchases. Many attorneys specialize in representing landowners in negotiations with government agencies and utilities and are familiar with the unique issues these transactions present. Landowners should strongly consider retaining an attorney with experience in this area. When negotiating an easement or property purchase, the landowner typically has only one opportunity to secure favorable terms. Once an agreement is signed, it generally cannot be modified without the consent of both parties. A poorly negotiated easement can affect the use, value, and marketability of property for decades and may impact future generations of landowners. Taking the time to negotiate appropriate compensation and protective provisions at the outset can help avoid significant problems later.
Eminent domain can be intimidating, but landowners should not assume they are powerless when approached by a government agency or utility. Understanding the eminent domain process, negotiating carefully, and obtaining experienced legal advice can help ensure that landowners receive fair compensation and appropriate protections for their property. While negotiated agreements are preferable, landowners may need to pursue their legal rights through the eminent domain process when a fair agreement cannot be reached.