Recent Blog Posts
Farmers who operate through an LLC, S corporation, or certain other business entities are affected by significant changes in USDA payment eligibility rules. Beginning with the 2026 crop year, qualifying business entities will receive more favorable treatment for purposes of USDA payment limitations. The changes give farmers greater flexibility to use business entities for liability protection and other business purposes without unnecessarily limiting access to USDA farm programs.
LLCs and S corporations now receive pass-through treatment
Historically, the way a farm was structured could significantly affect its eligibility for USDA program payments. An operation conducted as an LLC or S corporation were subject to a single payment limitation at the entity level, even if multiple owners were actively involved in the farming operation.
Under the new rules, beginning with the 2026 crop year, qualifying LLCs and S corporations may receive multiple payment limitations. Each member of a qualifying pass-through entity who meets the applicable requirements for being actively engaged in farming can help qualify the entity for expanded payments.
This is an important change for farms that have used, or are considering using, an LLC or S corporation for business purposes. Farmers now have a greater ability to obtain the liability protection and organizational benefits of an entity while still having multiple qualifying members considered for USDA payment eligibility. Keep in mind that simply owning an interest in an LLC or S corporation is not enough. Members must satisfy the requirements for being actively engaged in farming, including making the required capital contributions and being actively involved in the farming operation.
Before making any changes solely for FSA programs, farmers should be sure to discuss the potential change with their attorney, accountant and crop insurance agent. Changes to business entities can have tax, estate planning and crop insurance coverage ramifications. Consulting with this team of advisors will help ensure that the correct decision is made for the business structure of the farming operation.
LLCs and S corporations must update their Farm Operating Plans for 2026
There is a special rule for the first year of these changes. For program year 2026 only, farms operating as an LLC, S corporation, or another newly qualifying pass-through entity must file an updated Farm Operating Plan with FSA by September 15, 2026. This deadline is particularly important because FSA needs current information regarding the ownership and structure of the entity and the contributions of its members. A farm that has been operating as an LLC or S corporation should not assume that its existing information on file with FSA is sufficient under the new rules. Farmers operating through one of these entities should contact their local FSA county office as soon as possible to determine what updates are needed. After 2026, FSA will generally return to using June 1 as the date for determining ownership interests in an entity.
Members can be paid wages or management compensation without being disqualified
Another important change addresses a concern that has existed for members of farm entities who contribute labor or management to the operation. Under the updated rules, members of an entity may receive compensation for their labor and management contributions and still use those same contributions to help qualify as actively engaged in farming. In other words, being paid wages or other compensation for work performed for the entity does not, by itself, prevent that member from using the labor or management contribution to satisfy the actively engaged in farming requirements.
This change provides more consistent treatment among different types of business entities. It is particularly important for LLCs and S corporations that compensate members or shareholders for the work they perform in the farming operation. Under previous programs, a farm had to choose between compensating an owner for labor or management and having that owner's contribution recognized for payment eligibility purposes.
ARC and PLC payment limit increases
The new provisions also increase the payment limitation for the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. Beginning with the 2025 crop year, the payment limitation increased from $125,000 to $155,000. The limitation will be adjusted annually for inflation going forward.
More Information
For more information on the new payment limitation rules, be sure to join The National Agricultural Law Center’s webinar titled Payment Limitations, Eligibility, & Ag Tax Considerations. The webinar will be held on September 16 at noon. The webinar is free but registration is required. Registration is available here.
On August 12, the Ohio Supreme Court released its opinion Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C. The majority opinion was written by Justice Brunner and joined by all of the justices, except for one section that Justice Fischer did not join. The case involves an injury sustained by an employee from equipment on the dairy farm. The case reached the Ohio Supreme Court because the employee, Camara, appealed a decision from Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals. We covered that decision in an Ag Law Harvest post back in 2023 (available here).
Background
The lawsuit, originally filed in Madison County Court of Common Pleas, alleged that Jose Camara, the employee, suffered severe injuries while operating a piece of machinery called a sand spreader. The Court explains the incident, saying that the sand spreader was connected to a tractor by a power take-off (PTO) shaft, which was equipped with a hydraulic motor that caused the PTO shaft to rotate while in use. However, the safety guards on the PTO shaft were not there on the day Camara was injured in 2019. Camara explained that he observed an oil leak in the sand spreader and first turned the sand spreader off to look for the source of the leak. He could not identify the source of the leak, so he turned the sand spreader on to investigate the matter further. As he looked for the leak, a piece of clothing on his left leg got caught in the unguarded, rotating PTO shaft. The rotation of the PTO shaft pulled Camara toward the machine, then threw him over the shaft to the other side of the tractor. Camara suffered severe and permanent injuries to both legs and his left shoulder, requiring skin grafts and multiple surgeries.
At trial, the jury found the dairy farm liable and ordered it to pay over $1.9 million in damages. Gill Dairy appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals arguing that its failure to repair or replace does not amount to a “deliberate removal” of the safety guards from the PTO shaft and sand spreader, and the appellate court agreed, and vacated and reversed the jury’s judgement. Camara appealed the Twelfth District’s ruling, taking the lawsuit to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Guiding statutory language
Before getting into the majority’s opinion, it is first important to understand the statute at the center of this case. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 2745.01 reads in part (emphasis added):
(A) In an action brought against an employer by an employee…for damages resulting from an intentional tort committed by the employer during the course of employment, the employer shall not be liable unless the plaintiff proves that the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.
(B) As used in this section, "substantially certain" means that an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.
(C) Deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance creates a rebuttable presumption that the removal or misrepresentation was committed with intent to injure another if an injury or an occupational disease or condition occurs as a direct result.
In other words, if an employee is harmed on the job and the employee proves that there was an intent to injure, or a belief that injury would occur, the employer can be found liable at trial. Further, deliberate removal of a safety guard on equipment helps the employee’s argument, because it creates a presumption under the law that there was an intent by the employer to injure, although the employer may provide evidence to rebut such a claim.
Questions before the Ohio Supreme Court
The Twelfth District’s decision conflicted with a Third District Court of Appeals decision on what an employee must prove to establish “deliberate removal” of a safety guard, so the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear to the case. In addition to that conflict, in his appeal, Camara asked the Ohio Supreme Court to answer two questions. The first question is whether an injured employee must establish both the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard and the employer’s intent to never replace the guard in order to trigger presumption of intent to injure under ORC 2745.01(C). The second question is whether the appellate court should have reviewed only the evidence provided in the pretrial stage or the evidence presented at trial when making their decision.
Question 1
The Ohio Supreme Court, with Justice Brunner writing for the majority, found that an injured employee does not have to establish both the deliberate removal of a safety guard and the employer’s intent to not replace the guard to be entitled to the “rebuttable presumption” under ORC 2745.01(C). Firstly, according to Justice Brunner, the presumption available to a plaintiff under the statute “may…be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence,” whereas the appellate court said that only direct evidence could be used to show proof of an “intent to injure another” under ORC 2745.01(A) and (C). Secondly, an injured employee only needs to provide evidence that the employer deliberately removed an equipment safety guard, not that they “specifically decided not to reattach” the guard. Brunner reasons that the “plain text” of ORC 2745.01(C) entitles the employee to the rebuttable presumption that the removal was committed with the intent to harm another. This means evidence regarding the employer’s decision not to replace a safety guard is not required for the presumption to apply. This reasoning also answered the conflict between the two appellate decisions—an employee does not have to prove both that their employer had knowledge of a missing safety guard and that they made a “deliberate decision” not to replace it. The knowledge that the safety guard is missing is enough.
Question 2
In their appeal to the Twelfth District, Gill Dairy asked the court to review the lower court’s denial of summary judgement in their favor. Summary judgement is granted when a judge finds that no genuine issue of material fact (a disagreement about facts) exists between the parties. Thus, the case is decided without continuing on to a jury trial. When overturning the lower court’s denial of summary judgement, the Twelfth District Court only looked at the evidence provided at the summary judgement stage, and not the evidence provided at trial. The Ohio Supreme Court found that this was an error; when deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the appellate court must review “the record as it existed both at the time of the summary-judgement ruling and [at] the conclusion of the trial.” Justice Fischer did not join this part of the opinion.
What might this mean for my farm?
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that an injured employee must only prove that an employer has knowledge of missing safety equipment, not that the employer deliberately removed them or decided not to replace them. What is more, this statutory rebuttable presumption may be proved with either direct or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, to protect yourself and employees, and to limit your liability, it is advisable to keep track of your equipment and replace missing safety guards and other safety measures as needed. However, this does not mean that every case will find that the employer is at fault—the presumption of intent to injure is rebuttable. Thus, in similar cases, the employer may provide evidence to a court to disprove such a claim, and a judge or jury may find such evidence persuasive. The bottom line is to protect your employees, yourself, your farm, and to avoid lengthy lawsuits like this one, safety guards on equipment should be properly installed and replaced as necessary.
Tags: Employer Intentional Tort, Ohio case law, Ohio Supreme Court, safety, Workplace Safety
Comments: 0
Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2025-26
Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management
The Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents study was conducted from January through April in 2026. This opinion-based study surveyed professionals with a knowledge of Ohio’s cropland values and rental rates. Professionals surveyed were rural appraisers, agricultural lenders, professional farm managers, ag business professionals, OSU Extension educators, farmers, landowners, and government personnel. This is a non-scientific survey that relies on those professionals willing to complete this survey. Many survey respondents do respond each year, but there is a percentage that are new respondents each year.
The study results are based on 132 surveys. Respondents were asked to group their estimates based on three land quality classes: average, top, and bottom. Within each land-quality class, respondents were asked to estimate average corn and soybean yields for a five-year period based on typical farming practices. Survey respondents were also asked to estimate current bare cropland values and cash rents negotiated in the current or recent year for each land-quality class. Survey results are summarized below for western Ohio with regional summaries (subsets of western Ohio) for northwest Ohio and southwest Ohio.
Results from the Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey show cropland values in western Ohio are expected to see minimal change in 2026 as compared to 2025. Depending on the region and land class in this survey, cropland value change is expected to range from a -0.1% to +0.9%. Cash rents are expected to range from no change to an increase of 1.5 percent in 2026 depending on the region and land class.
Tight profit margins and worsening liquidity issues continue to weigh on cropland values and cash rents while still reasonable farm equity positions and elevated property taxes continue to support values and rents. Cropland values and cash rents are expected to increase minimally in 2026 although crop prices, input costs and yields will help determine where values and rents end the year.
Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rent
Ohio cropland varies significantly in its production capabilities and, consequently, cropland values and cash rents vary widely throughout the state. Generally, western Ohio cropland values and cash rents differ from much of southern and eastern Ohio cropland values and cash rents. Local supply and demand factors are the primary drivers influencing values and rents.
Key factors affecting cropland values and rental rates are land productivity and potential crop return, and the variability of those crop returns. Soils, fertility and drainage/irrigation capabilities are primary factors that most influence land productivity, crop return and variability of those crop returns.
Other factors impacting land values and cash rents may include field size and shape, field accessibility, market access, local market prices, field perimeter characteristics and potential for wildlife damage, buildings and grain storage, previous tillage system and crops, tolerant/resistant weed populations, USDA Program Yields, population density, and competition for the cropland in a region. Factors specific to cash rental rates may include services provided by the operator and specific conditions of the lease. This fact sheet summarizes data collected for western Ohio cropland values and cash rents.
The Western Ohio Croplands Values and Cash Rents 2025-26 survey summary report is available for viewing and download:
https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-publications/cash-rents
It's been a busy year in Washington and farmers, landowners, and ag professionals are left trying to keep up. To help cut through the noise, we're hosting a live-streamed roundtable discussion with special guest Harrison Pittman, Director of the National Agricultural Law Center to break down federal issues affecting agriculture.
What we'll cover:
- Where things stand on the Farm Bill
- The federal budget, continuing resolutions, and shutdown risk
- H-2A and employment law, including the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling on protected status
- The latest on 1099 reporting requirements
- The final rule on Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting
- The Supreme Court case on the Endangered Species Act and what it could mean for landowners
- The current state of tariffs and the administration's latest trade actions
- New FSA rules on business entities and payment limitations
Whether you're a farmer, landowner, attorney, or ag professional, this roundtable is designed to give you more insight on how these federal developments could affect your operation or your clients.
Cant' watch live? The session will be recorded, so you won't miss out on the discussion either way!
Date: August 21
Time: 10:00 - 11:30 A.M.
To register or watch the recordings visit: go.osu.edu/farmofficelive
The deadline is looming for farmland owners to notify their tenant operators of the intent to terminate a verbal farm lease that doesn’t include a termination date. A landowner who attempts to terminate such a lease after September 1 could find themselves in a legal dispute with the tenant operator. That’s because Ohio’s statutory termination date states that if an agricultural crop lease agreement does not provide for a termination date or a method for giving notice of termination, then the landowner who wants to terminate the leasing arrangement must do so by giving a written notice of termination on or before September 1. Failing to do so means the leasing arrangement will continue for another lease period.
Here are several key things to know about the statutory termination date:
The parties can agree to a different termination date. If the landowner and tenant have already agreed to a termination date or a process for giving notice of a termination, the statutory termination date law does not apply. Whatever the parties agreed to dictates how the parties terminate the lease.
Ways of giving the notice. A landowner must give a written notice of termination, not a verbal notice. However, the landowner can use U.S. mail, personal delivery, fax, or e-mail to deliver the notice. The law does not specifically address using a text to send a termination notice, so landowners should avoid terminating the lease by text.
Termination language. The law does not require any specific language for the termination. Recommended information to include in the termination is the date of the notice, a clear identification of the leased property, and a statement of the date the lease will terminate, such as “on December 31, 2026” or “upon completion of harvest.”
The statutory termination date doesn’t apply to tenants. Ohio’s statutory termination date only applies to landowners, not to tenant operators.
The law creates a legal remedy for tenant operators. By requiring the landowner to deliver notice of termination by September 1, the law establishes a legal right for a tenant operator to challenge a termination given after that date. The tenant operator can argue that the termination is invalid because it did not meet the deadline. Legal remedies the tenant operator could seek include requiring the lease to continue for another lease period or paying damages for costs of the late termination, such as purchased inputs or completed field work. The law gives the tenant operator leverage to negotiate these remedies or, alternatively, to take the matter to court.
An example. To illustrate how the statutory termination law works, here’s a situation we’ve often seen in verbal farmland leases. Landowner Smith and Tenant Jones verbally agreed to a crop lease ten years ago and never discussed how or when the lease would end. Each year, Tenant Jones continues farming the land and paying the cash rent in April and December. The two have talked very little other than the two times they discussed increases in the rental rate and once when they talked about a drainage improvement needed on the land. Landowner Smith passes away in June, and his three children inherit the land. Tenant Jones harvests the crop, pays the second half of the rental payment to Landowner Smith’s estate in December, and purchases his inputs for the following crop year. In January, the children notify Tenant Jones by e-mail that they want to terminate the leasing arrangement. Because the children delivered the notice after September 1, the termination violates the statutory termination date. Tenant Jones has a legal argument that the termination is invalid and should continue for another year or alternatively, that he should receive damages for costs and losses he incurred due to the late termination.
Don’t leave your lease to chance. Many landowners and tenant operators use a verbal crop lease arrangement, but that’s a risky practice. The parties can reduce leasing risk easily by using a written farmland lease. Learn about how to establish an enforceable lease in this earlier blog post and visit our farmland leasing resources in the law library on the Farm Office.
The Ohio Farm Transition Network (OFTN) is hosting a series of regional, one-day professional training events designed to build a more unified and effective approach to farm transition planning across Ohio. The training series will bring together agricultural service providers from a wide range of disciplines to strengthen expertise, foster collaboration, and improve the quality of transition support available to Ohio farm families.
Attorneys, accountants, lenders, financial advisors, insurance professionals, Extension educators, and other agricultural professionals are encouraged to attend. The sessions are designed to promote cross-disciplinary understanding and establish consistent terminology and best practices among professionals who play a vital role in helping farm families successfully navigate transition and estate planning.
Participants will receive practical guidance on key topics including farm transition strategies, legal business structures, tax considerations, financial planning tools, and a lender's perspective on transition planning. The training sessions are open to both OFTN members and non-members, providing an excellent opportunity for professional development, networking, and alignment with emerging industry best practices.
The training series supports OFTN's mission to strengthen the future of Ohio agriculture by providing comprehensive, consistent, and accessible farm transition planning resources. Through improved coordination among service providers, OFTN seeks to empower farm families to address transition challenges, preserve farm legacies, and ensure the long-term sustainability and vitality of Ohio's agricultural communities.
Training Locations and Dates
The regional training sessions will be offered at the following locations:
- September 30, 2026 – Young's Dairy, Springfield
- October 1, 2026 – Bell Manor, Chillicothe
- October 12, 2026 – Putnam County Educational Service Center, Ottawa
- October 27, 2026 – Milestone Event Center, Norwalk
- October 29, 2026 – Pritchard Laughlin Civic Center, Cambridge
Participation in this training program is available to both OFTN members and non-members. The attendance fee is $100, and registration closes two weeks ahead each respective training.
The Ohio Farm Transition Network extends its sincere appreciation to the organizations whose support has been instrumental in funding and launching this statewide initiative. Special thanks to Ohio Farm Bureau, AgCredit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Nationwide, Ohio Corn & Wheat, Ohio Soybean Council, Ohio Department of Agriculture, USDA Farm Service Agency, and The Ohio State University Extension for their commitment to strengthening farm transition planning resources and helping secure the future of Ohio agriculture.
By establishing a shared framework for farm transition planning, these training sessions will help Ohio's agricultural professionals deliver more reliable, coordinated, and effective support to farm families preparing for the future.
This training also fulfills one of the requirements for OFTN membership; however, it is open to both members and non-members. If you would like to apply for membership, visit go.osu.edu/oftnmembership. To register for a one-day training or learn more, visit go.osu.edu/OFTN-seminars or contact Ryanna Tietje (Tietje.9@osu.edu) for more information.
OSU Extension Announces Two-Day Tax Schools for Tax Practitioners & Agricultural & Natural Resources Income Tax Issues Webinar
Jeff Lewis & Barry Ward, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University
For over 60 years, Ohio State University has helped tax preparers stay sharp, confident, and ready for filing season. Whether you're a seasoned preparer looking to stay current, a farmer or farmland owner navigating your own returns, or a new professional just getting started, our Income Tax Schools have something for you.
Why tax professionals keep coming back
Our instructors don't just teach - they work in the tax industry every day. That means you're learning from people who understand the real problems you'll face when preparing individual, business, and farm returns, not just the theory behind them. Our two-day schools even bring in instructors directly from the IRS and the Ohio Department of Taxation, so you're getting the most current, accurate guidance available.
We don't just get you through the class. We get you through the filing season.
What you'll get:
Registration for our 2-day schools (or our convenient 4-part webinar series) includes:
- A hard copy of the 600+ page National Income Tax Workbook, prepared by the Land Grant University Tax Education Foundation (LGUTEF)
- Access to past workbooks
- The chance to order the 2027 Checkpoint Federal Tax Handbook at a substantial discount
- 50% off our Ethics/PSR Webinar
Want a preview? Check out a sample chapter from a past workbook at taxworkbook.com/about-the-tax-workbook.
2026 Schools — Dates & Locations
Oct. 29-30 Ole Zim’s Wagon Shed, Gibsonburg (Fremont)
Nov. 2-3 Howard Johnson by Wyndham, Lima
Nov. 4-5 Presidential Banquet Center, Kettering (Dayton)
Nov. 9-10 Ashland University, John C. Myers Convocation Center, Ashland
Nov. 16-17 Muskingum County Conference and Welcome Center, Zanesville
Nov. 19-20 Hartville Kitchen, Hartville
Dec. 2-3 Nationwide & Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center, Columbus
Dec. 7, 8, 10, 11 Four-Part Webinar Series, Zoom
Special Offerings
- Intro to Tax Preparation Course (Nov. 23-24): Perfect for beginning tax professionals. We start with the basics and build your confidence, and by the end of Day 2, you'll have completed a full sample return. We will be offering the course in-person in Columbus, Ohio and simultaneously online.
- Ethics Webinar (Dec. 4): A focused two-hour session, approved for continuing education credit by the IRS and the Ohio Accountancy Board.
- Ag Tax Issues Webinar (Dec. 14): Designed specifically for tax practitioners who work with farmers and rural landowners, or for farmers and farmland owners preparing their own returns. This session dives into the key topics and new legislation shaping agricultural tax returns.
Topics covered across our two-day schools include:
- Gift Tax
- Payroll and Estimated Tax
- Business Entity Tax Issues
- Restaurant and Hospitality Industries
- Individual Tax Issues
- Capital Gains and Losses
- Business Tax Issues
- IRS Issues
- Agricultural and Natural Resources Tax Issues
- Retirement Issues
- New and Expiring Legislation
- Rulings and Cases
Ready to register?
Registration for 2026 is open now: go.osu.edu/tax2026. If you'd rather register by mail or need an alternative option, just email taxschools@osu.edu.
For more information, you can contact Barry Ward or Jeff Lewis at taxschools@osu.edu. They can also be reached by phone. Barry Ward - 614-688-3959, Jeff Lewis - 614-247-1720
Highlights from the 2026 Cultivating Connections Conference
The Fourth Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, held last week in Columbus, brought together attorneys, financial advisors, lenders, extension educators, and agricultural advisors for dedicated sessions on farm transition planning. Throughout the multi-day event, professionals across disciplines exchanged strategies, networked, and shared critical insights aimed at preserving family farm legacies.
Here are key highlights and takeaway summaries from this year’s expert presentations:
People & Family Dynamics
- Understanding the Real Farm Structure: David Marrison (OSU Extension) highlighted how a family farm’s formal organization chart rarely tells the full story. His presentation demonstrated that effectively advising farm families often requires peeling back the operational layers to understand the true underlying dynamics and decision-making roles
- Supporting Farm Family Well-Being: Sarah Noggle (OSU Extension) addressed mental health concerns within farm families, providing guidance on impacts of stress and connecting producers with vital support resources.
Transitions & Estate Management
- Assisting Absentee Landowners: Sandy Kuhn (Farmers National) explained how professional farm managers can bridge operational gaps and facilitate effective transition planning for absentee landowners.
- Utilizing Conservation Easements: Peggy Hall and Ellie Ewing (Ohio State) detailed how agricultural and conservation easements serve as durable but flexible legal tools within comprehensive farm succession plans.
Legal Protection & Tax Optimization
- Shielding Assets Against Divorce: Attorney Morgan Lyles (Stebelton Snider LPA) outlined essential protective provisions to incorporate into business operating agreements and estate plans to safeguard the family farm in domestic disputes.
- Navigating Corporate Asset Transfers: Ryan Conklin and Johnny Cottingim (Wright & Moore Law Co.) addressed the tax hurdles of moving assets out of legacy corporations and strategies to minimize negative tax exposure.
- Post-Death Tax Strategies: Robert Moore (Ohio State) examined key tax planning mechanisms to maximize tax basis step-ups and secure favorable tax treatment following the death of a spouse.
The conference reinforced that successful farm succession requires both technical legal tools and open, cross-professional collaboration. The best transition plans usually involve multiple advisors. Thank you to all our presenters and attendees for contributing to a productive event!
Cultivating Connections is held each year, alternating annually with odd years hosted in Iowa and even years in Ohio. Be sure to look out for details on next year’s conference and plan to join us in Iowa or online!
Tags: Cultivating Connections, farm transition
Comments: 0
Data centers, agritourism, and farm financial stress are timely topics on the agenda for the upcoming Agricultural & Natural Resources Law Summit on September 22 and 23, 2026. OSU's Agricultural & Resource Law Program is a co-sponsor of the event, which will bring attorneys and other agricultural professionals to the beautiful National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia for two days of learning and discussion on important legal issues affecting agriculture and natural resources.
Here's a quick look at the agenda and speakers:
Tuesday, September 22
Hot Legal Topics From the States
- Andrew Branan, North Carolina State University
- Jen Friedel, Virginia Tech
- Paul Goeringer, University of Maryland
- Peggy Kirk Hall, The Ohio State University
- Jesse Richardson, West Virginia University College of Law
- Audry Thompson, Penn State Dickinson Law
Farm Financial Stress: Indicators and Legal Options
- John Essman, Kingston National Bank, Ohio
- Peggy Kirk Hall, The Ohio State University
- Robert Moore, The Ohio State University
- Faith Parum, American Farm Bureau Federation
Agritourism Law
- Mark Botkin, BotkinRose PLC, Harrisonburg, VA
Wednesday, September 23
Mid-Atlantic Data Centers: Policy Drivers & Land Use Regulation
-
Evan Johns and Tom Kloehn, Appalachian Mountain Advocates
Land Use: Zoning, Exemptions & Comprehensive Plans
-
Kin Sayre, Bowles Rice, Martinsburg, WV
An Overview of Water Rights and Water Allocation in the Mid-Atlantic Region
- Amanda Demmerle, Appalachian Mountain Advocates
Right to Farm: A State Comparative Analysis
-
D. Robert Davidson, MPL Law Firm, LLP, Bloomsburg, PA
-
Anthony G. Gorski, The Law Office of Anthony G. Gorski, LLC Annapolis, MD
-
Jake Parker, North Carolina Farm Bureau
Pesticide Use & Litigation Update
- Brigit Rollins, National Agricultural Law Center
Ag Labor Law Trends & Federal Law Refresh
- Carolyn M.H. Sullivan, Varnum LLP, Grand Rapids, MI
Ethical Issues in Farm Transition Planning
- Jesse J. Richardson, Jr., West Virginia University College of Law
Attendees will have the opportunity stay on the National Conversation Training Center campus, but lodging is guaranteed only until August 13, so make reservations now! More information about lodging and the registration for the conference is at this link.
On June 25, 2026, Governor DeWine signed Senate Bill 219 into law. The new law, which will go into effect on September 23 of this year, marks the first major change to oil and gas laws in Ohio since 2012. While much has been written about the bill making it easier to drill and frack on state-owned public lands, here we will focus on the provisions in the bill that could affect landowners with wells on their land and those with the permits to drill. S.B. 219, sponsored by Senator Landis (R-Dover), makes several changes to oil and gas laws that have not been updated since the Kasich administration. Below, we will discuss some of these updates.
ODNR regulation of interstate wells
SB 219 gives the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management (part of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, or ODNR) the authority to regulate any portion of an oil and gas well located in Ohio. This applies even if another portion of the same well is located in another state. Furthermore, the bill allows the Chief of the Division to enter into a memorandum of understanding with agencies in other states regarding an interstate well.
ODNR reviews of drilling and plugging permits
S.B. 219 makes some modifications to how the Chief of the Division reviews oil and gas drilling and well plugging permits. First of all, the bill eliminates the Division’s ability to refuse requests for expedited reviews of applications for drilling and plugging permits. That being said, the bill only allows well owners to submit ten expedited review requests per calendar year. Filing an expedited permit carries with it a nonrefundable $250 fee for drilling permits and a nonrefundable $500 for expedited plugging permits. If the well owner has paid the required fee and has not exceeded ten expedited permit applications, the Chief must:
- Notify the county engineer of the filing of the permit application and request for expedited review by telephone; and
- Issue a permit within seven days of the filing request unless the application is denied.
The second change to permit reviews extends the standard review timeline for wells that require additional permits, such as Class II disposal wells, enhanced recovery projects, and solution mining projects. Current law requires the Chief of the Division to issue or deny a permit between 18 to 30 days for urban locations and 10 to 21 days for other locations. Under S.B. 219, the Chief would have 120 days after the conclusion of the public comment period to issue or deny the drilling permit.
Appeals from ODNR orders
Current law allows a person to appeal an order issued by the Chief of the Division either in the court of common pleas or to the Oil and Gas Commission. S.B. 219 changes this—appeals may now only be made to the Oil and Gas Commission. However, the bill still allows a person to appeal the Oil and Gas Commission’s decision in the court of common pleas in the relevant county.
Additionally, S.B. 219 allows a permit holder—those who have the right to drill on a tract—to appeal any of the terms and conditions included in a permit to the Oil and Gas Commission. If an appeal of the terms and conditions take place, no other person may intervene, but the Commission may allow an amicus curiae (a person allowed to offer additional information, expertise, or legal insights) to participate for good cause. This change may not be the best for landowners who don’t also own the subsurface rights, as it would make it more difficult to voice their opinion in a permit appeal.
More options when assigning or transferring wells
S.B. 219 streamlines the process for well owners to be relieved of their obligations and liabilities following the assignment or transfer of a well. (Well owners are those who have the right to drill on a tract, and are not always the same person who owns the land on the surface.) Current law requires the assignee or transferee (the person or company the owner is transferring the well to file information with the Division, obtain liability insurance, and secure the deal with a surety bond, negotiable certificates of deposit, irrevocable letters of credit, or cash. While S.B. 219 keeps this process, it also directs the Division to create a form that the well owner can fill out on behalf of the assignee or transferee with the same required information. Both parties’ signatures are required on the form. This change will give well owners more certainty, as they will have the option to take the filing into their own hands and not wait on the assignee to initiate the process.
Changes to the statute of limitations
The bill requires an action alleging that an oil and gas lease has terminated, or is no longer in effect, to be brought within ten years after the termination occurred. This is a change from both statutory and case law. Under the current statutory language, the statute of limitations is four years for an action alleging breach of any express or implied provision of an oil and gas lease that concerns the calculation or payment of royalties, and ten years for an action alleging a breach of other parts of the lease. S.B. 219 would expand the statute of limitations to ten years for any type of breach. Importantly, the new statutory language would also supplant a 2019 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, Browne v. Artex, in which the Court decided that the statute of limitations for oil and gas leases should be treated like other property leases, meaning the amount of time to file a claim would be 21 years. (You can read the case here.) Thus, landowners who have a lease with a company to drill on their land would only have 10 years to bring a claim that the lease is terminated, as opposed to 21.
Streamlined process for orphan wells
New language in S.B. 219 will simplify the Division’s notice requirements in cases where a landowner is the one to discover and report one or more orphaned wells on their land. In those cases, S.B. 219 clarifies that Chief is only required to publish notice in a local newspaper or on the ODNR website.
S.B. 219 also clarifies that a landowner may plug an orphaned well on their property and seek reimbursement from the Division. Finally, when determining the priority of plugging orphaned wells, the bill requires that the orphaned well’s proximity to an injection well be one of the criteria the Division takes into account. Each of these changes could potentially speed up the plugging process for landowners with orphaned wells on their property.
State lease extensions
The current statutory language requires the standard oil and gas lease used by state agencies to include an option to extend the term of the lease for three years. S.B. 219 changes this option to five years. This could affect landowners and subsurface right owners involved in leases with state agencies.
Again, S.B. 219 goes into effect on September 23, 2026. For more information, you can find the bill in its entirety here.
Tags: oil and gas law, oil and gas leases, plugging oil and gas wells
Comments: 0