Recent Blog Posts

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

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

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

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

The Ohio Senate has approved a bill directing the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) to establish a fertilizer applicator certification program in Ohio.  The sponsors of Senate Bill 150, Senator Cliff Hite and Senator Bob Peterson, designed the legislation to address agricultural nutrient runoff into Ohio waterways and the algae problems in Grand Lake St. Marys and Lake Erie.  According to Senator Hite, the bill hinges on a new education and certification program that will give farmers additional information about fertilizer and nutrient use best practices.    

Here are answers to a few basic questions farmers might have about the proposed program:

When would the program begin?  If the bill is passed by the Ohio House of Representatives, the fertilizer application certification program would begin on September 30 on the third yearsfollowing the law’s effective date.   

Who would have to be certified?  Someone who applies “fertilizer” for agricultural production on land more than 50 acres in size would have to be certified by ODA as a fertilizer applicator, or would have to be acting under the instruction of a certified fertilizer applicator. 

Would there be any exemptions from the program?  Those who would make applications of fertilizer on land parcels of 50 acres or less would be exempt from the certification requirement.  The bill would also allow the ODA director to establish additional exemptions for certain persons or certain “types of cultivation.”

What fertilizers would the program cover?  Under the bill, “fertilizer” means any substance containing nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium or any recognized plant nutrient element or compound that is used for its plant nutrient content or for compounding mixed fertilizers.  The definition of fertilizer does not include lime, manure and residual farm products such as bedding, wash waters, waste feed, silage drainage and certain dead animal composts, unless those are mixed with fertilizer materials or distributed with a guaranteed analysis.

What would the certification program involve?  The Senate’s bill directs that the program must educate applicants on the time, place, form, amount, handling, and application of fertilizer—commonly referred to as the "4-Rs" of nutrient stewardship (right fertilizer source at the right rate, at the right time and in the right place).  The bill also states that the program must "serve as a component of a comprehensive state nutrient reduction strategy addressing all sources of relevant nutrients" and must "support generally practical and economically feasible best management practices."

Would there be a certification fee?  The bill allows the ODA to establish a fee for applicants who seek certification, but the fee may not exceed the fee charged for the state’s pesticide applicator certification program.  Additionally, the bill exempts persons who hold an Ohio commercial or private pesticide applicator’s license from paying an additional application fee if they also seek fertilizer application certification.

Other important provisions in Senate Bill 150 include:

Recordkeeping requirements.  Certified applicators would have to maintain fertilizer application records for at least three years from the date of a fertilizer application.  The records must include the date, place and rate of application, an analysis of the fertilizer and the name of the person applying the fertilizer.  Applicators would not be required to submit the records to ODA on a regular basis, but would have to make the records available upon a request by the agency.

Emergency revocation and suspension powers.  The bill would allow the ODA director to immediately deny, suspend, revoke, refuse to renew or modify a fertilizer applicator certificate if there is "substantial reason to believe the certificate holder recklessly applied fertilizer in such a manner that an emergency exists that presents a clear and present danger to human or animal health."

Voluntary Nutrient Management Plans.  The bill would allow a person who owns or operates agricultural land to develop a voluntary nutrient management plan in collaboration with Ohio State University, the Soil and Water Conservation District or the Natural Resource Conservation Service or its certified providers and submit the plan for approval by the Soil and Water Conservation District.  A voluntary nutrient management plan would be an important critieria for immunity from civil liability, discussed below.

Legal Defense against Civil Actions.   Under the bill, a person sued in a claim involving liability for an application of fertilizer would have a legal defense that would prevent liability upon showing these three criteria:

• The person is a certified fertilizer applicator or under the control of a certified applicator;
• The person properly maintained fertilizer application records as required by the certification program;
• The fertilizer was applied according to and in substantial compliance with an approved voluntary nutrient management plan.

Watch now for the agricultural nutrient management bill to be introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives for final approval.  More information about S.B. 150 is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peggy Hall, Asst. Professor, OSU Extension Agricultural & Resource Law Program

We often explain the Ohio Recreational User's Statute to farmland owners because the  law provides liability protection when someone asks to hunt, fish, snowmobile or conduct other recreational activities on the farm.  As long as the landowner grants permission for the use and does not receive a fee from the recreational user, the landowner does not owe a legal duty to assure that the premises are safe for the user.  This immunity from liability encourages those who own non-residential land to open the land for recreational activities.

Landowners always have "what if" type questions when we explain this law.  Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court answered one of those "what if" questions:  what if I modify the property in some way and create a hazardous condition that causes an injury; does the Recreational User's Statute still protect me from liability?  The Supreme Court's response:  yes.  But the court was not in complete agreement on the issue.

The accident at the heart of the case occurred when an 18 year old boy went sledding in a park owned by the City of Circleville, Ohio.  The boy slid head first into a wooden railroad tie which the city had transported to the park from a construction site.  The city planned to temporarily store the railroad tie and other construction debris at the park because no storage space was available at its maintenance facility.  Upon hitting the railroad tie, the boy broke his neck and became paraplegic.

In its decision in the lawsuit filed by the boy, the trial court determined that the city was immune from liability because of the Recreational User's Statute, which grants recreational immunity to governmental as well as private landowners.  The boy appealed the case to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision.  The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

The question before the court was whether the city's action of placing the railroad ties in the park created an exception from the immunity provided by the Recreational User's Statute.  The boy's legal counsel argued that storage of the railroad ties and other construction debris in the park had changed the property's essential character so that it was no longer a recreational property and should not fall under the protection of the Recreational User's Statute.   A majority of the court disagreed, concluding that the city’s alleged creation of a hazard on the premises did not affect the city’s immunity.

"We cannot accept as reasonable any contention that the presence of a railroad tie in a public park changes its essential character as a recreational space,” wrote Justice Sharon Kennedy.  “Critics may claim that our decision reaches a harsh result.  However, the language of the recreational-user statute is plain; a property owner owes no duty to a recreational user to keep the property safe for entry or use.  Creating an exception to this immunity is a policy decision that comes within the purview of the General Assembly, not the courts. … [W]e will not create an exception by judicial fiat.”

Justice William O’Neill entered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Paul Pfeifer, who also wrote a separate dissent.   “[L]et’s be accurate here — we are not talking about a single railroad tie," stated Justice O'Neill.  "That tie that crippled this child was part of an overall scheme of disposal of huge mounds of debris that the city had incredibly decided to place in the middle of a recreational park! Cover it with a light dressing of snow, and the perfect killing field was created. . . . [T]he city made a decision to dump huge mounds of debris into a city-owned park. When it did that, it lost its “recreational user” immunity entirely."

In his dissent, Justice Pfeifer questioned the protection afforded by the Recreational User's Statute.  The immunity provisions in those statutes, he stated, "provide unreasonable and unconstitutional protection to government entities that own property."

What does the Court's decision mean for agricultural landowners? 

While the case did not involve an agricultural property, the decision does have impact for agricultural landowners.  A few lessons from the case:

Affirmation of broad landowner immunity.  The court's decision affirms the broad immunity afforded by Ohio's Recreational User's Statute.  We often hear questions such as "but what if I left my equipment out in the field?" or "but what if they fall into that hole I just dug?"   Based on the court's decision, the landowner has no duty to make the property safe and won't be liable for injuries caused by any "hazards" the landowner created on the property.   Remember that this immunity applies to "recreational users"-- property visitors who have the landowner's permission to engage in recreational activities such as hunting, fishing and snowmobiling on non-residential property and who haven't paid the landowner for the recreational activity (with an exception for hunting lease payments; landowners may receive hunting lease payments and still retain recreational user immunity).

Take recreational permission seriously.   This lawsuit arose because someone suffered a serious injury.  Even with immunity protection, landowners should think twice about allowing recreational users on the property when highly dangerous situations are present.  If there's a good chance that someone could suffer harm from the situation, avoid the potential of harm and simply don't grant permission for people to be on the property.

Immunity comes at a cost.    While it can prevent landowner liability, the Recreational User's Statute can't stop a harmed party from taking the landowner to court.    The city incurred not only the costs of defending itself through three court hearings, involving attorney fees and the city's time, but also the cost of negative publicity.  Surely, more responsible land management decisions would have cost less and kept someone from suffering harm.

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Pauley v. Circleville is available here.  The Ohio Recreational User's Statute is in Ohio Revised Code Sections 1533.18 and 1533.181.