Recent Blog Posts
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
Attorneys, accountants, business developers, cooperative leaders, students, and others are invited to the 2026 Cooperative Law Conference on September 15 & 16 at the Nationwide & Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center at The Ohio State University in Columbus.
This year’s theme, “Capital Strategies for Cooperation,” will explore how cooperative enterprises align finance, governance, and growth through effective capital strategies.
Cooperatives are embedded in communities across Ohio and the United States, from farmer-owned agribusinesses to community-owned grocery stores, retailer-owned wholesalers, and resident-owned communities, among many others.
Cooperatives play an integral role in agriculture. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that the country’s agricultural cooperatives’ share of total farm marketing was 25%, including crops, livestock, and poultry, and 30% of major farm production supply sales, including feed, seed, fertilizer, petroleum, and crop protectants. Ohio ranks 10th nationally in agricultural co-op net sales and has an estimated 39,000 memberships in farmer-owned co-ops, among roughly 74,000 farms.
This year’s two-day conference will feature a diverse group of expert speakers, including agricultural economists, attorneys, accountants, and others. Attendees will gain practical insights to strengthen their ability to advise and support cooperative businesses.
Registration is $260 per person and includes both days of programming. Thanks to support from the Ralph K. Morris Foundation, undergraduate, graduate, and professional students may attend at no cost on a first-come, first-served basis. Ohio attorneys may also be eligible for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit, pending approval.
The conference will be at 2201 Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, Ohio, with complimentary parking available for attendees. To learn more and register, visit: go.osu.edu/lawconference
A farmland lease is one of the most important legal agreements a farmer and landowner will sign. It establishes the rights and responsibilities of both the tenant and landowner, protects their interests, and provides a roadmap for resolving disputes. But even a carefully negotiated lease may not be enforceable if it fails to meet Ohio's legal requirements.
Ohio law sets out several basic requirements for creating an enforceable lease. In addition to those legal requirements, a well-drafted lease should clearly address the business terms of the farming arrangement to reduce misunderstandings and avoid future disputes. Landowners and tenants should review their lease to be sure it contains these essential elements:
1. Put the lease in writing.
Ohio law generally requires a lease involving an interest in land to be in writing. While verbal farm leases remain common, relying on an oral agreement can make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to enforce the lease if a dispute arises. A written lease provides certainty for both the landowner and the tenant.
2. Clearly identify the farmland.
A lease should accurately describe the property being rented. Include the legal description, property address, and acreage. A clear description eliminates uncertainty about what land is covered by the agreement.
Just as important as identifying the land that is included in the lease, be sure to identify any portion of the property that is not included in the lease. It is normal to omit woods, buildings and facilities from the lease.
3. Identify all parties correctly.
Every landowner should be listed in the lease using the correct legal name. If the property is owned by spouses or multiple family members, each owner should be included. When a business entity is a party to the lease, the individual signing on behalf of the entity should have legal authority to do so.
A common oversight with identifying parties involves land in trusts. Many owners forget that their land is in trust and sign as an individual, not as the trustee of the trust. Failing to sign the lease in the trustee's capacity on behalf of the trust could make the lease unenforceable against the trust.
It is a good idea for the tenant to check the ownership on the county Auditor’s website. Look up the specific parcel being leased to determine who is identified as the legal owner. Then, make sure the names on the lease match the names on the Auditor’s site.
4. Make sure everyone signs the lease.
A lease generally cannot be enforced against someone who did not sign it. Every party to the agreement should sign the lease before it becomes effective.
5. Follow the additional requirements for long term leases.
If the lease is for more than three years, Ohio law requires the parties' signatures to be notarized. Not notarizing a long-term lease causes the lease to be treated as a year-to-year lease by Ohio law.
6. Record long-term leases or a memorandum of lease.
Recording a lease, or a memorandum of lease, with the county recorder helps protect the tenant's interest against future purchasers of the property. A recorded memorandum provides notice of the lease without disclosing all of its terms. It is good practice to record long-term leases to ensure the lease remains in effect even if the landowner sells or transfers the land to another person.
Including these terms is only part of creating a good farm lease. A well-drafted lease should also clearly address important business conditions such as the rental amount, payment dates, lease term, responsibilities for repairs and improvements, conservation practices, insurance requirements, termination procedures, and other provisions that fit the needs of the parties. Spending time to develop a thorough written lease can help prevent disputes and provide certainty throughout the leasing relationship.
Several resources are available to assist with drafting farm leases at ohiofarmlaw.com. The publications Creating an Enforceable Farm Lease and What’s in Your Farmland Lease? A Checklist of Farmland Lease Provisions explain the terms and conditions that should be in a farm lease. Farm lease templates can be found at aglease101.org, a resource provided by the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee.
Remember the September 1 Deadline for Verbal Farm Leases
As harvest approaches, Ohio landowners and tenants should also keep an important legal deadline in mind. Under Ohio law, a year-to-year verbal farm lease, or a written lease with no termination provision, automatically renews unless the landlord gives notice of termination by September 1. If notice is not provided by that date, the lease continues for another year. Landowners and tenants who are considering changes to their leasing arrangements should review their current agreements well before September 1 and provide timely notice if they intend to end a verbal lease.
For more information about farmland leasing and other agricultural law topics, visit the Farm Office at farmoffice.osu.edu.
Tags: Lease, lease termination, lease terms
Comments: 0
On July 14, 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a final rule rescinding the regulatory definition of “harm” promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). How did the two executive agencies come to this decision, and might it mean going forward?
Endangered Species Act and regulations
The Endangered Species Act became law in 1973, with the goal of conserving and protecting endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Among other things, the ESA makes it illegal to “take” any species listed as endangered “within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States.” Under the ESA, the term “take" means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The FWS and NOAA were charged with implementing the ESA and created rules to help with that implementation. These rules further clarified the definition of “take” by defining additional words like “harm.”
In 1981, the FWS published a rule defining “harm.” According to the FWS at that time, “‘harm’ under the definition of ‘take’ in the [ESA] means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” In 1999, on the heels of Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (Sweet Home), in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the FWS’ definition of “harm,” NOAA published a rule defining “harm” in the same way.
The agencies’ reasoning for the change
In explaining their reason for rescinding the definition of harm, the agencies reveal that their biggest issue with definition is that it included “significant habitat modification or degradation.” FWS and NOAA say that this language changed the focus of the regulations from protecting endangered animals and plants to regulating land-use.
Interestingly, to bolster their argument for removing the definition of “harm” from the ESA regulations, FWS and NOAA also point to the 1995 Sweet Home decision. At first, it might not make sense that the agencies cite this case, since the Supreme Court upheld the definition of “harm.” However, the new rule cites Justice Scalia’s dissent as the crux of its argument. Scalia’s dissent hinged on the idea that the definition of “take,” throughout history, “when applied to wild animals, means to reduce those animals, by killing or capturing, to human control.” Because the definition of “take” is so well known, the word “harm,” which is part of the definition, should be read in that context—in other words, Scalia argued that taking should require an “affirmative act…directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal,” and not an “omission that indirectly and accidentally causes injury to a population of animals.” Following this line of thinking, habitat modification and degradation that results in the taking of an endangered species would be an indirect taking of the species, not an affirmative act as Scalia thought was required under the ESA. Scalia also felt that the definition of “harm” in the regulations did not fit with the use of “take” throughout the ESA.
Further helping the agencies’ argument, the precedent relied on by the Supreme Court in Sweet Home was recently overturned. In Sweet Home, the majority of the Court relied on the Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which established a doctrine that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if Congress did not directly address the precise issue and if the agency’s interpretation was reasonable. In Sweet Home, the Court found that FWS’ interpretation the ESA was reasonable, and therefore it upheld the agency’s 1981 definition of “harm.” However, in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Although Loper Bright did not automatically overturn every case that relied on Chevron, according to the agencies, it “left open the possibility that the executive branch could…depart from regulations that do not match the single, best meaning of the statute[.]” Under the current administration, FWS and NOAA do not believe that including the previous definition of “harm” matches the “single, best meaning” of the ESA. This, coupled with Scalia’s dissent in Sweet Home, is the agencies’ basis for rescinding the definition of “harm.”
What’s next?
Unsurprisingly, several groups have already filed lawsuits in federal court against FWS and NOAA’s new rule. In fact, a coalition of environmental groups filed a request for an injunction against the rule in the Western District of Washington on the very day the rule was published. The groups, led by Earthjustice, argue that the new rule goes against the very meaning of the ESA since “any activity that destroys the habitat where imperiled fish and wildlife shelter, sleep, feed, or raise their young just as plainly destroys the species itself.” You can read their full complaint here. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, together with the Squaxin Island Tribe also filed a complaint against the rule in the Western District of Washington, alleging that rescinding the definition of “harm” will hurt fisheries that the tribes rely upon, and that the federal government is obligated by treaty to protect. Their complaint is available here. Essentially, the environmental groups and the tribes feel that the rescission of the rule will make it easier for lands with critical endangered species habitat to be opened for development, mining, logging, drilling, ranching, and farming, which will lead to less protection for the species.
On the other hand, FWS, NOAA, and proponents of the rule, such as the American Petroleum Institute, and the Associated General Contractors of America, applaud the rule change for “reduc[ing] unnecessary regulatory burdens.” The Nebraska Farm Bureau also supports the new rule, saying that it “effectively ends the practice of using broad, indirect interpretations of ‘harm’ to regulate land use.” The American Farm Bureau Federation has long found parts of the ESA overbroad, and calls for “modernizing” the Act, as well as promoting voluntary efforts to protect endangered species. In sum, these industry and agricultural interests feel that the rescinding the rule will create less uncertainty for landowners when it comes to endangered species and what constitutes a “taking.” If habitat modification or degradation are off the table, then landowners will have more flexibility to make decisions about their land without the fear of violating the ESA.
It is important to note that statutory language of the Endangered Species Act still requires agencies to consider whether an action would destroy or adversely modify an endangered species’ critical habitat when making decisions, so it remains to be seen how FWS and NOAA will interpret this part of the statute in the future. That being said, Congress is also considering legislation that would limit what land may be designated as critical habitat. That bill, HR 1897, is available here.
While the new rule is set to take effect on September 14, 2026, as always, we will have to wait and see how it plays out. Not only could lawsuits prohibit the new rule from being implemented, but down the line, a new presidential administration could also have the agencies restore the definition of “harm” to the ESA regulations. Congressional amendments to the ESA itself may also come into play.
If you’re interested in further reading on this subject, see the links below.
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Tags: endangered species act, endangered species, land use, Agricultural Land
Comments: 0
If farm transition and succession planning are on your mind, now is a great time to take the next step. Ohio State University Extension is offering two upcoming educational programs that provide practical guidance for farm families and the professionals who work with them. Whether you're looking for an in-depth conference or a free introductory webinar, these programs offer valuable information to help you prepare for the future.
Cultivating Connections Conference Returns August 3–5
Registration is now open for the Fourth Annual Cultivating Connections Conference, taking place August 3–5, 2026, in Columbus, Ohio, with a virtual attendance option available. Registration closes July 27th.
The multi-day conference brings together attorneys, tax professionals, educators, farm transition planners, and agricultural professionals from across the country to explore the legal, financial, business, and family issues involved in farm transition and succession planning.
Participants will hear from leading experts and engage in discussions on topics including:
- Farm transition and succession planning
- Estate and tax considerations
- Business entities and asset protection
- Conservation easements
- Mental health in farm families
- Farm economy outlooks
- Interactive case studies and client scenarios
The conference offers practical education, valuable networking opportunities, and real-world strategies that attendees can apply to their farms and clients.
Registration Rates
In-person: $375
Virtual: $325
Student: $100
To learn more and register, visit: go.osu.edu/cultivatingconnections
Is Your Farm and Family Ready for Your Death?
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 that question, Ohio State University Extension is offering a free webinar, "Is Your Farm and Family Ready for Your Death?", on Monday, July 27, from 7:00–8:30 p.m. via Zoom.
The webinar is designed to help farm families move beyond uncertainty and begin building a thoughtful plan for the future of their farm and family. The program will be presented by David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist in Farm Management, and Robert Moore, attorney with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program.
Rather than jumping immediately into legal documents, the program encourages participants to first focus on the conversations and organization that lay the foundation for a successful transition plan.
Participants will explore important questions such as:
- What legacy do you want to leave?
- Who should inherit the farm?
- What do you own and owe?
- Are your important records and documents organized?
- The webinar will also introduce participants to practical planning tools, including the Farm Asset and Resource Management Spreadsheet (FARMS), a free Excel-based resource developed by OSU Extension that helps families inventory assets and liabilities, organize key information, and prepare for future planning discussions.
The program is appropriate for farmers of all ages and operation sizes, whether they are just beginning to think about succession planning or updating an existing plan.
Webinar Details
Title: Is Your Farm and Family Ready for Your Death?
Date: Monday, July 27
Time: 7:00–8:30 p.m.
Location: Zoom
Cost: Free
Pre-registration is required at: go.osu.edu/prepforfuture
Taking time to begin these conversations today can reduce uncertainty, minimize family conflict, and help ensure your farm's future for generations to come. Both of these upcoming programs provide practical guidance to help you take that important first step.
The OSU Ag Law Team has been busy digging into policy issues this summer, and another Ag Law & Policy Roundtable is in the works. We'll be back on August 21, 2026 at 10 a.m. with our next roundtable discussion, Washington watch: federal ag law and policy update.
Our special guest for the discussion will be Harrison Pittman, director of the National Agricultural Law Center. Harrison continuously follows federal Congressional issues and walks the halls of the USDA to keep up with federal agricultural law and policy. Join Harrison and the OSU Ag Law Team as we talk about the USDA, other agencies, Congress, and other developments in D.C. that could impact agriculture.
The Ag Law & Policy Roundtable is our Summer version of Farm Office Live, a monthly webinar series on ag law and farm management topics for Ohio agriculture. If you're already registered for Farm Office Live, you'll receive a reminder of the upcoming webinar. Those who aren't registered can sign up for this next roundtable and the entire Farm Office series at https://go.osu.edu/farmofficelive.
Did you miss our other Ag Law & Policy Roundtables?
You can view recordings at https://go.osu.edu/farmofficelive of these previous roundtables:
- Ag input issues: are solutions in sight? With guests Kolesen McCoy, OSU CFAES Federal Government Relations and Barry Ward, OSU Extension Production Business Leader
- Data centers, agriculture, and Ohio's policy future. With guest Dr. Gabe Lade, C. William Swank Chair in Rural Urban Policy, OSU Dept. of AEDE
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 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.