Recent Blog Posts
We are excited to announce that the Ohio Farm Resolution Services (OFRS) has been recertified by the USDA and will begin its second year of operation. OFRS is part of the USDA’s certified mediation program which provides the opportunity for each state to establish an agricultural mediation service. This program, established under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, provides a cost-effective, voluntary, and confidential alternative for resolving a wide range of issues affecting the agricultural community.
OFRS primarily offers three key services. First, we facilitate mediation between parties in disputes, with the goal of finding a resolution before the costly and time-consuming process of litigation. For example, we can help neighboring landowners resolve boundary disputes or assist business owners in negotiating a buyout for a departing partner.
Second, we provide mediation for farmers and landowners who may be appealing a USDA or ODA determination. For instance, if a farmer is denied eligibility for a commodity support program, we can facilitate a face-to-face discussion between USDA/FSA and the farmer to provide them an opportunity to try to work through the issues in an attempt to reinstate eligibility.
Our third service, a more non-traditional but equally important offering, involves assisting farm families with farm transition planning. This service is especially helpful for families who need guidance to get started or have encountered obstacles in their planning process. We've sat down with many farm families at their kitchen tables to discuss and navigate their farm transition plans.
OFRS can address a wide range of issues, including:
- Farm transition planning
- Family communication and management succession
- Business entities/ business practices
- Energy leases
- Farm leases
- Zoning
- Land Use
- Farm labor issues
- Neighbor issues
- Lender/creditor
- Property disputes
- Farmland drainage
- Crops/Agronomics
- USDA/ODA appeals
- Estate disputes
If you're interested in OFRS services, feel free to reach out via email at moore.301@osu.edu or call us at 614-247-8260. Thanks to USDA funding, we can offer our services at a minimal fee, typically just enough to cover travel and out-of-pocket expenses.
In our last blog post, we explored how an LLC affects liability when owning machinery. However, liability isn’t the only consideration when evaluating the benefits of an LLC for your machinery. In this article, we'll focus on the tax implications of establishing a machinery LLC. As with most legal and tax strategies, there are both advantages and disadvantages to weigh before making a decision.
Section 179 Deductions
Farmers often use Section 179 to immediately expense the purchase of machinery rather than taking depreciation over a number of years. If the machinery is used in the farming operation, Section 179 can be taken regardless of whether the machinery is owned individually or in a business entity. However, Section 179 may not be available to retired farmers who still own machinery.
A common farm transition plan is for the retiring farmer to continue to own the machinery and lease it to the next generation farmer. This leasing strategy avoids a sale of the machinery that would result in significant income taxes. Leasing also helps the next generation’s cash flow. However, a challenge with this strategy is that Section 179 expensing is not available for individuals who lease their machinery. Consider the following example:
Mom and Dad decide to retire from farming and transition their operation to Daughter. To avoid significant taxes on a sale and to help Daughter cash flow her farming operation, Mom and Dad continue to own the machinery and lease to Daughter. If Mom and Dad purchase new machinery to add to their inventory, they will likely not be eligible for Section 179 expensing.
Using an LLC can allow for Section 179 eligibility because business entities who lease machinery are eligible for Section 179. Let’s continue the example:
Mom and Dad set up an LLC and transfer their machinery to the LLC. This new entity leases the machinery to Daughter. If the LLC buys new machinery, the newly purchased machinery will likely be eligible for Section 179.
As the examples illustrate, using an LLC can be an effective strategy to maintain Section 179 eligibility for farmers who may have retired but maintained ownership of the farm machinery.
Reducing Self-Employment Tax
Leasing personal property, including farm machinery, generally results in self-employment tax, unless the machinery is leased along with real estate. One potential strategy to mitigate self-employment tax is to establish an LLC taxed as an S-Corporation and contribute the machinery to the LLC. In theory, some of the rental income is distributed to the owners without being subject to self-employment tax. However, this strategy carries several risks.
The first major risk is the loss of a stepped-up tax basis upon the owner's death. When machinery is owned by an individual or by an entity taxed as a partnership, heirs may receive a stepped-up tax basis on the machinery, allowing them to re-depreciate or sell the equipment with little to no taxable gain. When machinery is held by a corporation, the stepped-up basis only applies to the ownership interest, not the machinery. Let’s explain this concept by continuing the previous example:
Mom and Dad’s LLC holds $1,000,000 of machinery and is owned in equal shares. They decide to tax their LLC as a partnership. If Dad dies, his estate can either receive a $500,000 stepped-up basis on his ownership interest or the machinery in the LLC will receive a stepped-up basis of $500,000. Mom, as the executor, elects to take the stepped-up basis on the machinery. Mom now has $500,000 of additional tax basis in the LLC that can be depreciated offsetting $500,000 of income.
Conversely, Mom and Dad decided to tax their LLC as an S-Corporation. Dad’s estate will only receive a stepped-up basis on his shares of stock. Mom cannot depreciate the stock. The stepped-up basis will only help Mom if she sells the stock, which is unlikely.
The stepped-up basis upon the death of an owner can be a huge financial windfall to the surviving spouse or heirs. A loss of stepped-up basis on the inside assets of an entity taxed as a corporation should be taken into consideration when deciding upon the tax structure of a business entity that will hold machinery.
Another downside of holding leased machinery in an S-Corporation is the potential passive income tax. If more than 25% of the S-Corporation’s total income comes from passive activities, including machinery leasing, the corporation may face a tax on its net passive income. If this passive income exceeds 25% for three consecutive years, the S-Corporation risks losing its status and may be forced to convert to a C-Corporation, which could have more complex tax consequences.
Beware of Debt on the Machinery
Normally, contributing machinery to an LLC does not trigger any tax. However, there is an exception when the debt on the machinery exceeds the tax basis. In this circumstance, the IRS may treat the excess amount as a gain for the individual transferring the asset. This gain is subject to income tax and can create an unexpected tax liability for the owner of the machinery. Consider the following example:
Mom and Dad own a tractor that has a $20,000 tax basis. They have $50,000 of debt on the tractor. They contribute the tractor to their LLC. When their accountant prepares their tax return the following year, the accountant informs Mom and Dad that they owe income tax on the $30,000 difference between the debt and tax basis.
Before contributing machinery to an LLC, be sure to consult with your tax advisor to be sure that there will be no unexpected tax liabilities.
Importance of a Written Lease
No matter which entity or tax structure you choose, it’s important to have a written lease for your machinery. A formal written agreement clearly outlines the responsibilities of both the lessor and lessee, helping to prevent misunderstandings or disputes down the road. A written lease also reinforces the legitimacy of the arrangement as a formal business transaction. Without a proper lease, the IRS might scrutinize the leasing arrangement, potentially treating it as a disguised sale or disallowing certain tax benefits, such as Section 179 deductions. To avoid these issues, always use a comprehensive, well-drafted lease for machinery leasing arrangements.
Seek Legal and Tax Advice
Using an LLC to hold farm machinery can provide tax benefits but is also fraught with potential pitfalls. Be sure to consult with your legal and tax advisor before establishing an LLC and transferring your machinery to the LLC. A careful analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of an LLC and its tax structure must be done to determine the best strategy to pursue.
By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management
click here for PDF version of article
Drought conditions continued to degrade across Ohio. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor report on September 17, 59.56% of Ohio is experiencing severe or greater drought conditions with 9.5% classified as D4 or exceptional drought conditions (Figure 1). It is important to remember that D4 conditions only occur once every 50 to 100 years. Approximately 98% of the state is experiencing at least abnormally dry conditions. One silver lining is the current seven-day forecast shows the potential for rain in many areas of Ohio next week which should help slow the progress of drought should it occur.
The drought conditions have impacted both pastures and hayfields across Ohio. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) administered under the USDA Farm Service Agency permits emergency haying and grazing on certain CRP practices in a county designated as D2 or higher on the U.S. Drought Monitor, or in a county where there is at least a 40 percent loss in forage production.
Emergency use of CRP acres is available in eligible counties if the stand is in condition to support such activity and is subject to a modified conservation plan. Producers should contact their FSA office to determine if the county remains eligible and to obtain a modified conservation plan.
After a county is approved for emergency haying and grazing, conditions are reviewed monthly to determine whether continuing the emergency activities is warranted. To date, 70 counties (79.5%) in Ohio are eligible (as of 9/17/2024). These can be found in Table 1:
Table 1: Ohio Counties Eligible for Emergency CRP Grazing
|
County |
State Date |
|
County |
Start Date |
|
County |
Start Date |
|
Adams |
8/20/2024 |
|
Hamilton |
9/17/2024 |
|
Noble |
7/16/2024 |
|
Allen |
9/17/2024 |
|
Hancock |
9/17/2024 |
|
Ottawa |
9/10/2024 |
|
Ashland |
9/17/2024 |
|
Hardin |
9/10/2024 |
|
Paulding |
9/17/2024 |
|
Athens |
7/16/2024 |
|
Harrison |
7/30/2024 |
|
Perry |
7/23/2024 |
|
Auglaize |
9/10/2024 |
|
Henry |
9/10/2024 |
|
Pickaway |
7/16/2024 |
|
Belmont |
7/16/2024 |
|
Highland |
7/30/2024 |
|
Pike |
7/30/2024 |
|
Brown |
8/20/2024 |
|
Hocking |
7/23/2024 |
|
Preble |
9/17/2024 |
|
Butler |
9/10/2024 |
|
Holmes |
9/17/2024 |
|
Putnam |
9/17/2024 |
|
Carroll |
8/20/2024 |
|
Jackson |
7/30/2024 |
|
Richland |
9/17/2024 |
|
Champaign |
9/03/2024 |
|
Jefferson |
7/23/2024 |
|
Ross |
7/16/2024 |
|
Clark |
9/03/2024 |
|
Knox |
9/17/2024 |
|
Sandusky |
9/10/2024 |
|
Clermont |
9/10/2024 |
|
Lawrence |
12/19/2023 |
|
Scioto |
8/20/2024 |
|
Clinton |
8/20/2024 |
|
Licking |
8/27/2024 |
|
Shelby |
9/10/2024 |
|
Coshocton |
9/03/2024 |
|
Logan |
9/10/2024 |
|
Tuscarawas |
7/30/2024 |
|
Crawford |
9/17/2024 |
|
Lucas |
9/10/2024 |
|
Union |
9/03/2024 |
|
Defiance |
9/10/2024 |
|
Madison |
7/16/2024 |
|
Vinton |
7/23/2024 |
|
Delaware |
9/03/2024 |
|
Marion |
9/17/2024 |
|
Warren |
9/03/2024 |
|
Fairfield |
7/16/2024 |
|
Meigs |
7/16/2024 |
|
Washington |
7/16/2024 |
|
Fayette |
7/16/2024 |
|
Miami |
9/10/2024 |
|
Wayne |
9/17/2024 |
|
Franklin |
7/16/2024 |
|
Monroe |
7/16/2024 |
|
Williams |
9/10/2024 |
|
Fulton |
9/10/2024 |
|
Montgomery |
9/03/2024 |
|
Wood |
9/10/2024 |
|
Gallia |
7/30/2024 |
|
Morgan |
7/16/2024 |
|
Wyandot |
9/17/2024 |
|
Greene |
9/03/2024 |
|
Morrow |
9/17/2024 |
|
|
|
|
Guernsey |
7/16/2024 |
|
Muskingum |
7/16/2024 |
|
|
|
More information about the emergency grazing of CRP acreage can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/emergency-haying-and-grazing/index
Producers are encouraged visit their local Farm Service Agency office to report crop and livestock losses. By providing this data, producers can learn their eligibility for the FSA disaster programs. Producers can locate their local office at: www.fsa.usda.gov/oh FSA has also developed an on-line disaster assistance discover tool which allows producers to learn which of the many USDA assistance programs which might fit their operation due to this year’s drought. This easy-to-use tool can be accessed at: https://www.farmers.gov/protection-recovery/disaster-tool
References:
OSU Drought Response Page. Accessible at: https://kx.osu.edu/page/early-drought-response
US Drought Monitor. Accessible at: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Emergency Conservation Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/emergency-haying-and-grazing/index
Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management
Writing this feels like déjà vu. It feels like we’ve lived through this before and for good reason. The article I wrote last year about significant increases in Current Ag Use Value of farmland can be repeated almost word for word.
Again, large increases in the Current Ag Use Value (CAUV) of farmland in 2024 will result in higher property taxes for farmland owners in 2025. Twenty-four of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties will see property tax increases in 2025 due to higher CAUV. Several factors have led to this increase in ag use valuation. The average current ag use value is expected to be $1,616 per acre across all soil types (proposed final value). This compares to a value of $759 per acre in 2021 which represents an increase of 113%.
The Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) Program is a differential real estate tax assessment program for owners of farmland. The program allows for the assessment value of farmland parcels to be taxed according to their use value in agriculture (or their value related to income from agriculture) rather than the market value (defined as the value if the land were sold by a willing seller to a non-related willing buyer). To arrive at this “use value”, a formula is used that includes several variables to capitalize the net income from agricultural products.
Landowners with farmland and woodlands in Ohio are eligible to sign-up for the CAUV program through their county auditor’s office if they meet the requirements.
There are two paths for a parcel to qualify for the Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) Program. To qualify for CAUV, land must meet one of the following requirements during the three years preceding an application.
•Ten or more acres must be devoted exclusively to commercial agricultural use; or
•If under ten acres are devoted exclusively to commercial agricultural use, the farm must produce an average yearly gross income of at least $2,500.
Each of the 3517 different soil types in Ohio is assigned a current ag use value (CAUV) each tax year. The value represents the expected net present value of an acre of land devoted solely to agricultural production for the dominant crops in Ohio. To determine this value, an average of yields and prices for corn, soybeans, and wheat is used to determine gross income. Non-land costs are then subtracted from gross income for a measure of net income. Finally, this net income is divided by a capitalization rate based upon recent values of farm interest and equity rates.
Counties are subject to an update in CAUV every 3 years so only a portion (24 of the 88) have been updated in 2024 that will impact 2025 property taxes. As counties see updated values only every three years, there is the opportunity for large changes as many farmland owners will see this year.
Several factors have led to much of this increase in ag use valuation. Higher crop market prices and increased crop yields included in the formula have been significant drivers in the higher current ag use values. Price increases have been substantial as compared to the prices used in the 2021 calculations (the last time these counties underwent CAUV updates). Corn price has increased 22.6%, soybean price increased 18.8% and wheat price increased 16.0%.
Although we have seen substantial decreases in crop market prices this year, the prices used in the formula don’t reflect this yet. The prices used in the formula are based on a 7 year “olympic average” of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) marketing year average prices. The higher crop prices in 2020 through 2022 continue to keep this price variable high in spite of recent falling crop prices.
Yields used to determine values for each soil type increased 8.0% for corn, 5.7% for soybeans and 8.5% for wheat as compared to the yields used for the 2021 calculations.
Although Ohio farmers have seen significant increases in input costs since 2021 and the Ohio Crop Enterprise Budgets reflect this, there haven’t been enough years of these higher costs to significantly impact the cost variables used in the formula.
Low interest rates (capitalization rate) have also contributed to the increasing current ag use values as recent higher interest rates aren’t yet fully represented in the formula. The capitalization rate used in the formula in 2024 CAUV calculations was an increase at 8.2% as compared to the rate of 7.8% used in 2021, the last time these counties saw an update in CAUV. Recent higher interest rates will continue to increase the capitalization rate (denominator in the CAUV calculation) in future years which will help to moderate current ag use values.
For a detailed look at the variables and calculations that are used to determine CAUV for farmland, access the Ohio Department of Taxation online publication “2024 Current Agricultural Use Value of Land Tables Explanation of the Calculation of Values for Tax Year 2024”.
The Ohio Department of Taxation annually publishes this explanation of the CAUV valuation method complete with the measures used to calculate CAUV and examples of the calculations for certain soil units for the present year. This year’s document is titled “2024 Current Agricultural Use Value of Land Tables Explanation of the Calculation of Values for Tax Year 2024” and is available online at:
https://tax.ohio.gov/government/real-state/cauv
Woodlots
Those with woodlots will likely see decreases in CAUV for their parcels which will decrease property taxes on these parcels in 2025. This year the Ohio Department of Taxation updated the CAUV woodland clearing cost from $1,000 per acres to over $4,000 per acre based on data from the Ohio Forestry Association (OFA) and inflation data. The larger land clearing costs will result in all woodlands to be valued at the minimum CAUV of $230 per acre in 2024.
Legislative Changes
There has been quite a lot of conversation about legislative changes in determining property taxes in Ohio. There are a number of bills that have been initiated that address changes in valuation and/or taxation of property but none have made much progress. One bill that includes some language that would impact CAUV is Ohio House Bill 447.
Ohio House Bill 447 would modify and expand property tax homestead exemptions, gradually reduce school districts’ 20-mill floor for tax levies and modify the formula for determining farmland’s current agricultural use value (CAUV). The change to CAUV language in the bill would increase the tax additur (a value that reflects the statewide effective property tax rate on agricultural land) to include a 10% floor. In practice, this change would serve to lower the current agricultural use value for land devoted exclusively to agricultural use. This bill has seen little movement recently and remains in committee. Part of the reason that this bill and others haven’t progressed very far through the legislative process is the existence of the Joint Committee on Property Taxation Review and Reform.
A provision in the Senate version of the last biennial state budget was to require CAUV be determined by averaging the last three years of Current Ag Use Values. (This provision was ultimately excluded from the final biennial budget.) The current method for determining CAUV requires an update or reappraisal every 3 years. Significant changes in the variables that are used to calculate CAUV can lead to big changes in values during this this three-year interval. These large increases or decreases are often unanticipated by taxpayers. The provision that was considered would have required the Current Ag Use Value be calculated taking the current year calculated value plus the two prior years’ calculated values (for each soil type) and averaging the three. This proposed method would likely result in smaller increases and decreases in a given 3-year cycle for CAUV calculations. This provision continues to be discussed and may yet see further legislative consideration.
Joint Committee on Property Taxation Review and Reform
The Joint Committee on Property Tax Review and Reform in Ohio was created in the state's operating budget in 2023 to review the state's property tax system and make recommendations to the General Assembly. The committee is considering a wide range of legislative and administrative changes that may change the property tax system in Ohio and is required to issue a report by the end of the 2024.
A common question related to farm business planning is: should I put my machinery in a separate LLC for liability protection? Like most answers to legal questions, the answer is “it depends”. Let’s discuss this issue further.
First, let’s look at the strategy behind using a machinery LLC. Machinery is put into an LLC and then the farming operation leases the machinery from the LLC. The idea is that if the machinery is involved in a liability incident, such as an accident on the road, the liability is trapped in the machinery LLC and does extend to the farming operation or other assets.
Unfortunately, strategy and reality are not always the same. Machinery LLCs do provide some liability protection but do have definite limitations. The problem is that the source of the liability may be the operator of the machinery, not the machine itself. If the liability is due to operator error, the liability will likely come back to the operator. If the operator is working on behalf of the farming operation, the liability can and likely will come back to the farming operation. Let’s look at an example:
Farmer operates a grain farm and often has large equipment traversing narrow roads. Understandably, Farmer is concerned about the potential liability of the machinery. He places his machinery in Machinery LLC. Farmer leases the machinery from Machinery LLC.
After the LLC is established, Farmer’s employee is moving the corn planter from one field to another and is involved in a traffic accident. It is determined that employee was at fault for the accident.
Machinery LLC, in this situation, will probably not provide much liability protection. The source of the liability for the accident is not the machine but the operator. So, liability follows the operator which brings the liability back to the farming operation. Farmer’s farming operation is at risk to the liability caused by the accident.
If the accident referred to above was caused solely by a failure of the machine and not operator error, then the LLC would provide liability protection to the farm operation. However, most accidents involving farm machinery are due to operator error rather than machinery malfunction.
LLCs can provide liability protection, even if operator error causes the liability, but they must be operated in a very specific manner that will require considerably more management. To maximize liability protection, the LLC must be the employer of the machine operator. The farm operation then contracts with the machinery LLC to essentially provide custom operations. This strategy requires separate payrolls for both the farming operation and the machinery LLC and tracking which employee is working for which business. Frankly, this strategy is not feasible for most farm operations.
Where this strategy does sometimes work is with grain trucks. An LLC can be established for holding the grain trucks. The truck LLC has a payroll separate and apart from the farming operation. When an employee is hauling grain, they are paid by the trucking LLC rather than the farming operation. The farming operation pays the truck LLC a custom hauling rate. If an accident occurs while hauling grain, the farming operation has considerable protection from the resulting liability. Let’s look at an example:
Farmer sets up Truck LLC and transfers his grain trucks to the LLC. The new LLC establishes a payroll and instructs all employees to keep separate hours depending on whether they are doing farm work or trucking work. Farmer’s farm operation pays Truck LLC a custom hauling rate for all grain hauled.
Employee is hauling grain to the elevator when they cause a traffic accident. The employee and Truck LLC (as the employer) is likely to be liable for the accident. However, the farm operation is likely insulated from liability because it neither employed the driver nor owned the truck.
The above example illustrates how LLCs can be set up to maximize liability protection for farming operations. However, this maximized liability protection requires considerably more management including leases, tax returns, and separate payrolls. This situation usually works best when the farming operation has already been doing some custom hauling and is familiar with managing custom hauling contracts.
So, what do we do to overcome the limitations of LLCs? The answer is liability insurance. The most important and effective liability protection is liability insurance. Using business entities for liability protection should only ever be as backup to the liability insurance. Before spending time on machinery LLCs, farmers should take the time to review their insurance policy with their insurance agent to make sure all activities and assets are covered. There is no substitute for good liability insurance.
While machinery LLCs have limitations for liability protection, there are still many reasons they may be beneficial to a farm operation. The following are a few benefits of machinery LLCs:
- Consolidation of ownership. It is common for different family members to own different pieces of equipment or to share ownership in equipment. Over time this can become complicated and cumbersome. For convenience and easier management, it can be beneficial to put all machinery in one LLC and then each family member receives an ownership interest in the LLC.
- Transition planning. It is very easy to transfer ownership in an LLC –essentially just signing a piece of paper. In situations where we may want to transfer the ownership of machinery over time, LLCs are a great method to do this.
- Avoiding probate. Machinery is untitled so cannot be made transfer on death to avoid probate. However, the ownership interests of a machinery LLC can be transfer on death avoiding probate. By transferring machinery to an LLC then making the LLC ownership transfer on death, probate can be avoided on machinery.
- Tax planning. LLCs can be taxed as partnerships, C-Corporations, S-Corporations or sole proprietorships. The flexibility of the LLC tax structure can allow for creative tax planning.
Machinery LLCs do provide at least some liability protection for farming operations but in many situations the protection may be limited. However, there are many other good reasons to consider establishing a machinery LLC. Discuss the strategies and their advantages and disadvantages with your legal and tax advisors to determine if a machinery LLC may be the best strategy for you.
The fifth season of our Farm Office Live webinar will kick off at the Farm Science Review next Thursday, September 19, 2024. Grab a cup of coffee and join us from 10:00 a.m. to Noon for updates from the legal and farm management experts on OSU's Farm Office team.
Here are the topics we'll address live from the Farm Science Review:
-
Crop Inputs and Budgets Outlook for 2025
-
Extreme Weather Management, featuring guest Aaron Wilson, OSU's Ag Weather and Climate Field Specialist
-
USDA Drought Assistance Programs
-
Legal Update
-
OSU Custom Rates
-
Quarterly Fertilizer Price Summary
-
Retirement Planning
-
1099 Employees
-
Quicken vs Quickbooks
Register for our Farm Office Live webinars, which will continue through next April, through this link on farmoffice.osu.edu.
By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist - Farm Management and Aaron Wilson, OSU Extension Ag Weather and Climate Field Specialist
Click here for PDF version of article
Drought conditions started in Ohio back in mid-June and have intensified all summer. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor report on August 27, 2024, D4-exceptional drought was introduced to Ohio (Meigs and Athens Counties) for the first time since the U.S. Drought Monitor’s inception in 2000. On September 5, D4 increased to 7.35% of the state, while other categories of drought (D1-D3) significantly expanded. It is important to remember that D4 conditions only occur once every 50 to 100 years.
Despite much needed rainfall occurring last week from Meigs and Athens counties to Belmont County, it was not enough to overcome the drought conditions made worse by scorching heat with many days with high temperatures in the mid to upper 90s. Farther north, very little rain fell in August or during the summer. At the Zanesville Municipal Airport for example, only 0.17” of rain fell in August and 4.95” fell in June-August. This marks the driest August on record and second driest summer for this location for the period 1946-2024. Similar conditions are present for many counties across south central and east central Ohio.
Impacts are numerous and widespread including very poor pasture conditions, lack of hay growth, low ponds, dry creeks, water hauling, and failing crops. Even for counties in lower drought categories, drought stress is present with early changing leaves on trees and stress on native plants. With drought conditions expanding nearly statewide, there will be increased combine and field fire risk this harvest season as well.
The Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued two natural disaster designations (August 30 and September 3) which designated 23 counties as primary disaster counties with an additional 16 counties classified as contiguous. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, these counties suffered from a drought intensity value during the growing season of 1) D2 Drought-Severe for eight or more consecutive weeks or 2) D3 Drought-Extreme or D4 Drought-Exceptional. The following are the counties which have been designated as of September 3.
Primary counties eligible in Ohio: Athens, Belmont, Fairfield, Fayette, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Vinton and Washington counties.
Contiguous counties also eligible in Ohio: Adams, Brown, Carroll, Champaign, Clark, Clinton, Columbiana, Coshocton, Franklin, Greene, Lawrence, Licking, Scioto, Tuscarawas, and Union counties.
These designations allow the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) to extend assistance to agricultural producers through a variety of programs. These programs are available to both new and existing users of FSA services. Please note that each program has eligibility requirements and payment limitations.
Below are short descriptions for each of the drought assistance programs:
Emergency Loan Program: This program provides emergency loan assistance to farm operators. These loans can be used to meet various recovery needs including the replacement of essential items such as equipment or livestock, reorganization of a farming operation, or to refinance certain debts. For production losses, a 30% reduction is required to be eligible. Losses to quality may also be eligible for assistance. Producers can borrow up to 100 percent of actual production or physical losses to a maximum amount of $500,000. The deadline for producers in designated primary and contiguous counties to apply for loans is between April 21 -28, 2025 depending on the county. Complete details about ELP can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2019/emergency-loan-program.pdf
Disaster Set-Aside Program (DSA): This program allows FSA borrowers to set aside of one payment due to qualified disaster. Each payment set-aside must be repaid prior to the final maturity of the note. Any principal set-aside will continue to accrue interest until it is repaid. The borrower must be current or not more than 90 days past due on any FSA loan when the application is completed. Borrowers have 8 months from date of the disaster designation to apply. More details about the DSA program can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2019/disaster-set-aside-program-factsheet-19.pdf
Noninsured Disaster Assistance Program (NAP): This program provides financial assistance to producers of non-insurable crops that have lower yields or crop losses due to natural disasters such as drought. Eligible crops must be commercially produced agricultural commodities for which crop insurance is not available. Such crops include (but are not limited to): crops grown for food; crops planted and grown for livestock consumption, such as grain and forage crops; specialty crops, such as honey and maple sap; value loss crops, such as aquaculture, Christmas trees, and ornamental nursery and turf-grass sod. Eligible producers must have purchased NAP coverage for the current crop year. NAP payments are limited to $125,000 per crop year, per individual or entity for crops with basic coverage. Any NAP payments received with additional (buy-up) coverage is to $300,000. More information about NAP can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/noninsured_crop_disaster_assistance_program-nap-fact_sheet.pdf
Tree Assistance Program (TAP): This program provides financial assistance to qualifying orchardists and nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes, and vines damaged by natural disasters such as drought. To be eligible, at least a 15 percent mortality loss, after normal mortality, must be determined due to a natural disaster. Payment is the lessor of either 65% of the actual cost of replanting or the maximum eligible amount established by FSA. Replacement of eligible trees, bushes and vines must be made within 12 months. More information about TAP can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/tree_assistance_program-tap-fact_sheet.pdf
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Haying and Grazing: FSA permits emergency haying and grazing on certain CRP practices in a county designated as D2 or higher on the U.S. Drought Monitor, or in a county where there is at least a 40 percent loss in forage production. It should be noted that before haying and grazing, producers should contact their FSA office to determine if the county remains eligible and to obtain a modified conservation plan. After a county is approved for emergency haying and grazing, conditions are reviewed monthly to determine whether continuing the emergency activities is warranted. To date, 31 counties in Ohio are eligible. These can be found in Table 1
Table 1: Ohio Counties Eligible for Emergency CRP Grazing
|
County |
State Date |
|
County |
Start Date |
|
County |
Start Date |
|
Adams |
8/20/2024 |
|
Greene |
9/03/2024 |
|
Muskingum |
7/16/2024 |
|
Athens |
7/16/2024 |
|
Guernsey |
7/16/2024 |
|
Noble |
7/16/2024 |
|
Belmont |
7/16/2024 |
|
Harrison |
7/30/2024 |
|
Perry |
7/23/2024 |
|
Brown |
8/20/2024 |
|
Highland |
7/30/2024 |
|
Pickaway |
7/16/2024 |
|
Carroll |
8/20/2024 |
|
Hocking |
7/23/2024 |
|
Pike |
7/30/2024 |
|
Champaign |
9/03/2024 |
|
Jackson |
7/30/2024 |
|
Ross |
7/16/2024 |
|
Clark |
9/03/2024 |
|
Jefferson |
7/23/2024 |
|
Scioto |
8/20/2024 |
|
Clinton |
8/20/2024 |
|
Lawrence |
12/19/2023 |
|
Tuscarawas |
7/30/2024 |
|
Coshocton |
9/03/2024 |
|
Licking |
8/27/2024 |
|
Union |
9/03/2024 |
|
Delaware |
9/03/2024 |
|
Madison |
7/16/2024 |
|
Vinton |
7/23/2024 |
|
Fairfield |
7/16/2024 |
|
Meigs |
7/16/2024 |
|
Washington |
7/16/2024 |
|
Fayette |
7/16/2024 |
|
Montgomery |
9/03/2024 |
|
Warren |
9/03/2024 |
|
Franklin |
7/16/2024 |
|
Monroe |
7/16/2024 |
|
|
|
|
Gallia |
7/30/2024 |
|
Morgan |
7/16/2024 |
|
|
|
More information about the emergency grazing of CRP acreage can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/emergency-haying-and-grazing/index
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP): This program provides compensation to eligible livestock producers who have suffered grazing losses due to drought on land that is native or improved pastureland with permanent vegetative cover or that is reported on the FSA-578 with initial intended use of grazing. This program looks at acreage and intended use directly from the producer certified FSA-578 form. This program also provides compensation for eligible livestock. Eligible livestock must be animals that receive the majority of their net energy requirement of nutrition via grazing. Covered livestock include beef cattle, dairy cattle, deer, equine, goats, llamas, and sheep. The 2018 Farm Bill established a maximum annual per person and legal entity payment limitation for LFP of $125,000. More details about the LFP program can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/disaster-assistance-program/livestock-forage/index
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP): This program benefits to livestock owners or contract growers for livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality caused by adverse weather. Note that drought is not an eligible adverse weather event except when death loss is associated with anthrax which occurs because of the drought. In addition, Mycoplasma Bovis is an eligible loss during drought for bison. Payment levels are based on national payment rates that are 75% of the market value of applicable livestock. Cattle, poultry, swine and other livestock are covered. More information about LIP can be obtained at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/livestock_indemnity_program_lip-fact_sheet.pdf
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish (ELAP): This program provides emergency assistance to eligible producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish for losses due to disease, or adverse weather not covered by the Livestock Forage Disaster Program and the Livestock Indemnity Program. Assistance is provided for losses resulting from the cost of transporting water to livestock and hauling livestock to forage or other grazing acres due to a qualifying drought. For commercial bee producers, ELAP provides for additional feed purchased to sustain honeybees during drought conditions when natural feed is not available. ELAP also assists farm-raised fish operations for excess mortality and excessive feed requirements due to eligible weather conditions. Learn more about each facet of the ELAP program at:
- Livestock- https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/elap-livestock-fact-sheet.pdf
- Honeybees- https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2022/fsa_elaphoneybeefact_sheet-22.pdf
- Farm-raised fish- https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2022/elap_farmraisedfish_factsheet-2022-final.pdf
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP): This program provides funding and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to restore farmland damaged by natural disasters and for emergency water conservation measures in severe droughts. Specific assistance can be sought for providing emergency water during periods of severe drought to grazing and confined livestock or through existing irrigation systems for orchards and vineyards. Additional details about ECP program can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/emergency-conservation-program-ecp-fact_sheet.pdf
Disaster Assistance Discovery Tool: FSA has developed an on-line disaster assistance discover tool which allows producers to learn the USDA assistance programs which might fit their operation due to this year’s drought. This easy-to-use tool can be accessed at: https://www.farmers.gov/protection-recovery/disaster-tool
Take Action and Report: Producers are encouraged visit their local Farm Service Agency office to report crop and livestock losses. By providing this data, producers can learn their eligibility for the FSA disaster programs. Additionally, this data can serve as a catalyst for potential ad hoc disaster relief programs for crops and livestock which are not covered by an existing program.
More information: Producers are encouraged to contact their local Farm Service Agency office to explore program which they may be eligible. Producers can locate their local office at: www.fsa.usda.gov/oh
References:
OSU Drought Response Page. Accessible at: https://kx.osu.edu/page/early-drought-response
US Drought Monitor. Accessible at: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Emergency Loan Programs. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/emergency-farm-loans/index
Disaster Set-Aside Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2019/disaster-set-aside-program-factsheet-19.pdf
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2023/fsa_nap_noninsuredcropdisasterassistance_factsheet_2023.pdf
Tree Assistance Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/tree_assistance_program-tap-fact_sheet.pdf
Emergency Haying and Grazing. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/emergency-haying-and-grazing/index
Livestock Forage Disaster Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/fsa_lfp_livestockforageprogramfactsheet_2022.pdf
Livestock Indemnity Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/livestock_indemnity_program_lip-fact_sheet.pdf
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/elap-general-fact-sheet.pdf
Emergency Conservation Program. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/emergency-conservation-program-ecp-fact_sheet.pdf
Disaster Assistance Discovery Tool. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. Source: https://www.farmers.gov/protection-recovery/disaster-tool
USDA Designates Meigs County, Ohio as Primary Natural Disaster Areas for Drought – with Additional Ohio and West Virginia Counties Eligible as Contiguous Counties. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Ohio/news-releases/2024/usda-designates-meigs-county-ohio-as-primary-natural-disaster-areas-for-drought-with-additional-ohio-and-west-virginia-counties-eligible-as-contiguous-counties-
Twenty-Two Ohio Counties Declared a Primary Natural Disaster Area Due to Drought; Additional Ohio and West Virginia Counties are Eligible as Contiguous Counties. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Ohio/news-releases/2024/twenty-two-ohio-counties-declared-a-primary-natural-disaster-area-due-to-drought-additional-ohio-and-west-virginia-counties-are-eligible-as-contiguous-counties-
Twenty West Virginia Counties Declared a Natural Disaster Area Gallia and Meigs Counties in Ohio are Eligible as Contiguous Counties. Source: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/state-offices/Ohio/news-releases/2024/twenty-west-virginia-counties-declared-a-natural-disaster-area-gallia-and-meigs-counties-in-ohio-are-eligible-as-contiguous-counties-
Attorneys, business developers, and accountants will soon gather in Columbus, Ohio, to learn about cooperative law under the theme “Building a Cooperative Economy Together" on September 17 and 18, 2024. National and regional experts — including Terry Lewis, Esq., and Dr. Jessica Gordon Nembhard, both members of the Cooperative Development Foundation’s Cooperative Hall of Fame — will lead sessions about the foundations of cooperative law and advanced topics like bylaws drafting, tax considerations, and capitalization tools. Find a full agenda at go.osu.edu/cooplaw.
The conference is organized by a collaborative group of developers and practitioners from across the region, including OSU's Center for Cooperatives. The group hopes the conference will help professionals new to the cooperative business model learn and build connections, while also helping professionals already working with cooperatives grow their skills.
“As our team works with emerging cooperatives, we’ve found it can be challenging for cooperators to find reliable information and resources about cooperative law. And many professionals have limited opportunities to learn about the cooperative business model’s unique legal, tax, and financial structure. We hope this conference can help start to fill that gap,” shared Hannah Scott, program director of the CFAES Center for Cooperatives.
Legal Aid of Southeast and Central Ohio, on behalf of the Alliance of Ohio Legal Aids, has applied to the Supreme Court of Ohio for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit for Ohio attorneys attending the Co-op Law Conference. More information about CLE is available on the conference website at go.osu.edu/cooplaw.
Learn more about the CFAES Center for Cooperatives at The Ohio State University at go.osu.edu/cooperatives.
We are back with another edition of the Ag Law Harvest, where we bring you rulings, laws, and regulations that affect the agricultural industry. This month's Ag Law Harvest is bringing the heat with H-2A wage rule injunctions, cultivated meat ban challenges, sales and use tax issues, and an emergency order from the EPA.
Federal Judge in Georgia Blocks H-2A Wage Rule for Named Plaintiffs. A Georgia federal judge has limited the U.S. Department of Labor's enforcement of a rule titled "Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States" (the “Final Rule”). This rule, challenged by 17 states led by Kansas and Georgia, as well as by Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (the “Plaintiffs”), is claimed to be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule violates the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by granting H-2A farmworkers greater organizing and collective bargaining rights than those afforded to U.S. citizen agricultural workers, effectively bypassing the Act. The U.S. District Court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Labor's Final Rule improperly creates a right that Congress did not intend and did not create by statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies, including the DOL, cannot create laws or rights that Congress has not established. The court criticized the DOL for overstepping its authority, stating that while the DOL can assist Congress, it cannot assume the role of Congress. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOL from enforcing the Final Rule, but only for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the preliminary injunction will only apply in Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The injunction will also apply to Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. We will keep you updated as the case goes up on appeal and how this ruling affects other H-2A lawsuits across the country.
Florida Cultivated Meat Ban Challenged. A California business has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, challenging a law that bans the sale of cultivated meat. The company argues that Florida's prohibition is unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to engage in interstate commerce by restricting their ability to sell their products across state lines. Upside Foods, Inc., the California based company, alleges that Florida Senate Bill 1084 (“SB 1084”), which bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because SB 1084 “is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.” Furthermore, Upside Foods alleges that SB 1084 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because SB 1084 “was enacted with the express purpose of insulating Florida agricultural businesses from innovative, out-of-state competition like UPSIDE.” Upside Foods has asked the district court in Florida to declare SB 1084 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction preventing SB 1084’s enforcement. Proponents of SB 1084 argue that the law protects Floridians, however, Upside Foods alleges that the Florida ban isn’t meant to protect the public, rather it was passed to “protect in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition.”
Board of Tax Appeals Finds Utility Vehicle Not Exempt Under Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Claugus Family Farm LP (CFF), an Ohio timber farm, purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz utility vehicle and claimed it was exempt from sales tax under Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. After an audit, the Ohio Department of Taxation assessed the sales tax on the vehicle. CFF petitioned for reassessment, but the Ohio Tax Commissioner determined that CFF did not provide enough evidence to prove the vehicle was primarily used for farming as required by law. CFF then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the vehicle was mainly used for farming operations, such as transporting people around the farm, monitoring tree health, applying pesticides, maintaining equipment, and carrying supplies. CFF claimed the vehicle was used 95% of the time on farming activities. Upon review, the Board of Tax Appeals noted that “the use of vehicles for transportation around a farm, as well as general uses such as delivering parts and cutting and hauling of wood and brush, do not constitute direct farming activities.” The Board held that the vehicle was used primarily for these purposes and not directly in farming and thus found the vehicle to be subject to Ohio’s sales and use tax.
EPA Emergency Order Suspends Use of Pesticide DCPA/Dacthal. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an Emergency Order immediately suspending the registration and use of all pesticides containing dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (“DCPA” or “Dacthal”). The EPA cited the danger the substance poses to pregnant women and unborn babies. The agency determined that the continued sale, distribution, or use of DCPA products during the cancellation process would present an imminent hazard, justifying the emergency suspension without a prior hearing. Despite efforts by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole registrant of DCPA products, to address these concerns, the EPA concluded that no practicable mitigations could make the use of DCPA safe.
Tags: ag law harvest, H-2A, pesticides, EPA, Cultivated Meat, U.S. Constitution, Ohio Sales Tax, Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption, Ag Law, Farm Law
Comments: 0
We mourn the passing of Paul L. Wright, an agricultural attorney, mentor, leader, professor, farmer advocate, and the founder of our OSU Agricultural Law Program. Paul passed on August 17, 2024, due to cancer.
I remember receiving my first letter from Paul Wright. I had sent him my resume with the hope he and law partner Tony Logan would hire me for their law firm, Wright & Logan. I was a young attorney and I knew about Paul Wright and his respected reputation as an agricultural attorney. Paul sent me a return letter encouraging my interest in agricultural law and requesting an interview. A few months later, I was working with Paul. That letter gave me the opportunity I so badly wanted, and I’ve held onto it for years.
Paul didn’t set out to become an agricultural law attorney, his passion for agriculture led him there. He grew up on a farm in Coshocton County, Ohio, was active in 4-H and vocational agriculture, and decided to pursue a degree in agricultural education at Ohio State. He then began his career in 1959 as the county 4-H agent for OSU Extension in Madison and Clinton counties. But it didn’t take long for him to recognize his curiosity and natural aptitude for farm management and agricultural economics. While he was completing a Master of Science degree in Agricultural Economics, OSU Extension promoted Paul into a Farm Management Area Extension Agent position in Fremont, Ohio.
Paul once told me how his work as a Farm Management Specialist for OSU kept pulling him into legal issues, and that he felt compelled to try to solve those issues for farmers. I can easily imagine that, as his desire to help farmers seemed always at the front of his mind. That desire took him to the University of Toledo College of Law for a law degree, and he soon transitioned to become the first Agricultural Law Specialist for Ohio State University, a faculty member in what was then the Department of Agricultural Economics. He shared stories with me about his days of driving across Ohio to teach at farm meetings, equipped with boxes of files, articles he had written, and “overhead transparencies.” Paul said he always tried to be prepared for “whatever legal issue they might want to talk about.” He loved teaching about those legal issues and resolving problems and questions from farmers. In addition to teaching farmers, Paul also established the first agricultural law course at Ohio State, a course still offered to undergraduate students in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.
With his knowledge in both law and economics, Paul and Ohio State were well equipped to help farmers during the economic crisis that hit farming in the mid-1980s. He talked with me about the often painful meetings and kitchen table sessions he had with farmers back then and that despite his knowledge, he again felt the need to do more for farmers. He began connecting with other attorneys across the Midwest and eventually, those connections resulted in the formation of the American Agricultural Law Association—the first official recognition of lawyers who work in agriculture as “agricultural attorneys.” Paul shared that he and other founding members of AALA recognized the role they could fill for farmers and the need to constantly expand their knowledge base and broaden the network of agricultural attorneys and other professionals who could help farmers. He taught for educational sessions at AALA annual conferences, served on committees and the Board of Directors, and was elected to a term as the AALA President. In 1994, the AALA awarded Paul its highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award.
For years, Paul maintained connections with AALA colleagues across the country and met regularly with a group of AALA friends who constantly identified and analyzed issues and needs in agricultural law. When he brought me into that community of colleagues, I always walked away learning something I could use in my work as an agricultural attorney. That type of networking was a common practice for Paul that provides us wisdom today. In his 1998 presidential address to the AALA, Paul challenged association members to become better attorneys through networking within the agricultural community. “I wonder how many differences are grounded in a lack of thorough communication, or a lack of taking the time to create a forum to really hear another’s thoughts and knowledge,” Paul stated. “With confidences and resources, there is hardly an agricultural law issue that cannot be refined and improved as a result of networking.”
Paul retired from OSU in 1988, but many in Ohio know that Paul’s career didn’t end at that point. He wanted to be a private attorney who could personally advise the farm community. Paul partnered with Tony Logan to form the law firm of Wright & Logan, which was likely the first “agricultural law firm” in Ohio focused on representing farmers. That's when I met Paul and joined the firm. As a young attorney working with Paul, I lived in both awe and fear—awe for all he had accomplished in agricultural law and fear that I would not live up to his knowledge level and standards. To the contrary, Paul always encouraged and taught me. I often struggled to keep up with his expertise, but he never expressed disappointment in me.
Wright & Logan later transitioned to Wright Law Co., LPA. When Robert and Kelly Moore joined, the law firm became the current Wright & Moore Co., LPA, now led by Ryan Conklin. Like the farmers he admired, Paul never completely retired from Wright & Moore but continued in an “Of Counsel” capacity and served clients up to his death. In his private law practice, I’d estimate that Paul served hundreds of farm families and prepared hundreds of business, estate and transition plans. He was well known in Ohio’s agricultural community and had clients that stretched across the state. I wonder how many times farmers and others have asked me, “do you know Paul Wright?” and how many times my answer of “yes, I used to work for him” opened doors for me and gave me immediate credibility. In Ohio’s agricultural community, Paul was a celebrity.
The Ohio agricultural community honored Paul by inducting him into the Ohio Agricultural Hall of Fame in 2006. I recall receiving an invitation from Paul to sit at his table for the induction ceremony. He was nervous, excited, and humbled. It was something I had witnessed before with Paul, when Ohio State recognized him with its Distinguished Alumni Award in 2003. Those awards meant so much to him, and he said once that he couldn’t believe a farm boy who had spent his time fixing fences in Coshocton County could ever be so fortunate to have the career and recognition he had.
Paul’s career, recognition, and impact on Ohio agriculture certainly won’t end with his passing. Being the meticulous and creative estate planner he was, Paul developed a succession plan for agricultural law in Ohio. In 2006, he established an endowment with OSU’s College of Food, Agricultural & Environmental Sciences to further agricultural law and farm management education in Ohio. Having followed in Paul’s footsteps as the agricultural law specialist at OSU, I have been able to use Paul’s funds in the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program to provide educational programs for attorneys, farmers and Extension educators and scholarships for law students and undergraduate students interested in agricultural law. Paul's goal was to ensure a long-lasting commitment to agricultural law and farm management at Ohio State, and his endowment will carry that goal well into the future.
I’ve thought of trying to locate that old worn letter I received from Paul when I asked him to hire me. That letter, and knowing Paul, changed my life. Because of Paul, I and many of my colleagues can repeat his words about the unbelievable fortune of being an agricultural attorney in Ohio. But I don’t need the letter to remind me of Paul, as his presence has always and will always be embedded in me, in others he has mentored, in Ohio State, and in Ohio’s agricultural community. The loss is immeasurable, but so is the legacy he left us.
Tags: Paul L. Wright, Paul Wright, Agricultural Law
Comments: 0