Recent Blog Posts

Featuring the work of Carolyn C. Jolly, Law Fellow, National Agricultural Law Center

OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program is fortunate to be a partner with the National Agricultural Law Center, which includes working with the Center’s Law Fellows—students currently studying law in different law schools across the country.  Carolyn C. Jolly is one of our current Law Fellows, and she has an interest in environmental laws that affect agriculture.  Carolyn is the author of today’s blog.  She has assembled a harvest of environmental updates affecting agriculture that include approval of Ohio EPA’s phosphorus TMDL, a practical ESA guide for producers, EPA’s commitment to adhering to its ESA requirements, and an update on participation by agricultural producers in voluntary carbon markets.

EPA Approves Ohio’s Maumee Watershed Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load

In 2014, phosphorous runoff from farms in the western basin of Lake Erie caused an algal bloom. Harmful algal blooms produce toxins that impair drinking water, affect aquatic life, and hinder recreational use. Coming up with a solution to reduce the phosphorus runoff has been contentious. In 2019, Toledo voters passed a bill that would allow citizens to sue farmers on behalf of the lake. This measure was held to be unconstitutional, but it could have greatly impacted the ability of farmers and producers to continue their operations. To address specific pollutants, the Clean Water Act requires states to develop Total Maximum Dailey Loads (TMDL).  Environmental interests and local governments in Ohio legally challenged both the Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA to establish a TMDL for the western Lake Erie Basin.  In June of 2023, the Ohio EPA did submit a proposed TMDL for to the EPA and it was approved in September. The aim of the TMDL is to reduce phosphorus runoff in the Maumee Watershed.

Here are some of the approaches for agricultural areas the EPA included in the TMDL:

  Nutrient Management

• Soil testing and nutrient management planning efforts (e.g., Voluntary Nutrient Management Plans via H2Ohio funding)
• Variable rate fertilization and subsurface placement of fertilizer (e.g., following the ‘4 R’s’ of nutrient management: using the right nutrient at the right rate and right time in the right place)
• Manure incorporation (mixing manure into soils or placing the manure below the soil surface)

Erosion Management

• Conservation crop rotation and cover crops (e.g., improving soil health, increasing soil organic matter, improving soil moisture storage capacity, etc.)

Agricultural Water Quantity Management

• Drainage water management (e.g., management of discharge from agricultural tile drainage lines to store water in the water table beneath fields and reduce discharge to surface waters) 
• Edge-of-field buffers (e.g., planting in riparian areas to increase water storage and decrease nutrient and sediment inputs, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative)
• Two-stage ditch deployment (e.g., modifying the profile of stream channel bottoms by constructing a bench/floodplain adjacent to the existing stream channel to slow water flow during high flow events and trap nutrients and sediment)
• Wetland restoration and preservation (e.g., the restoration/protection of existing wetlands are beneficial for storing water and nutrients on the landscape, Environmental Quality Incentives Program; Western Lake Erie Basin Project - Ohio)

Read the Final TMDL on the Ohio EPA’s webpage for the Maumee Watershed.

Agricultural Producers Now have a Practical Guide to the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is intended to protect endangered and threatened species and thus has an impact on agriculture and land use across the country. However, being such a wide-ranging piece of legislation, it can be difficult to understand the law and its full  impact on agriculture. Brigit Rollins, an attorney with our partner, the National Agricultural Law Center, set out to answer how and why the ESA affects agriculture and land use by creating the Endangered Species Act Manual: A Practical Guide to the ESA for Agricultural Producers. It is a concise guide that describes the history of the ESA, influential case law, regulatory changes, and specifics of the ESA’s impact on agriculture. Additionally, it is meant to be a living document that will be updated with current changes and issues.

EPA on Balancing ESA Requirements and Responsible Pesticide Use

When registering new uses for pesticides and reviewing already registered uses, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to consult the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to ensure that the use follows ESA standards. This can be a lengthy process and the EPA has complied with the process in less than 5% of its actions. This noncompliance has resulted in substantial litigation. To address these issues, EPA issued its ESA Workplan.  EPA actions in the workplan include developing mitigation measures for particularly vulnerable species, developing and implementing strategies to identity mitigation measures for the different classes of pesticides, completion of ESA work for eight organophosphates and four rodenticides, and hosting a workshop with stakeholders to explore other methods of offsetting pesticide impacts. EPA also released its Draft Herbicide Strategy for comment and the Rodenticide, Insecticide, and Fungicide Strategies are under development. The EPA has also released its ESA guidance for future registrations.

Agricultural Producer Participation in Carbon Markets

To mitigate climate change, Congress passed the Growing Climate Solutions Act (GCSA) to improve access to carbon markets for agricultural producers. In accordance with the law’s requirements, the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) released A General Assessment of the Role of Agriculture and Forestry in the U.S. Carbon Markets on October 23, 2023.  The report addresses participation by agricultural producers in the carbon market, barriers to and concerns or participation, and ways to improve producer participation. The report notes that even though producers are aware of the carbon market, voluntary participation has been low.  According to the report, “Producers cite the concerns about the return on investment, upfront costs, data collection burdens, compensation for pre-existing practices, permanence requirements, issues of scale, and confusion about carbon markets and programs as key factors in their evaluation into whether to participate in a carbon project.” The USDA concludes that to reduce barriers to participation, strategies need to be implemented to “reduce transaction costs, minimize record-keeping burdens, address early-adopter and permanence requirement concerns, and address barriers related to project scale.” The report also details the USDA’s role in improving participation through outreach and education, offering grants and partnerships, supporting carbon market infrastructure, and investing in measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification of carbon credit procedures.

A common question regarding farm transition planning is: “should I have a will or trust for my plan?”  Like most legal questions, the answer is “it depends”.  Sometimes a will is adequate for a plan while other plans should include a trust.  Knowing which you need requires an understanding of wills and trusts and the factors that should be considered when deciding which to implement.

A new publication, Is a Will or Trust Better for Your Farm Transition Plan?, discusses the differences between wills and trusts and provides nine factors to consider when deciding which to use for your plan.  The factors to consider are:

1. Legal fees
2. Complexity of the plan
3. Probate
4. Concerns about heirs
5. Second marriages
6. Transition of farming operation
7. Taxes
8. Privacy
9. Control

The publication analyzes each factor and how it relates to a will and trust.  After reviewing the factors, an informed decision can be made regarding implementing a will or trust into a farm transition plan.  This publication is part of an extensive library of farm transition bulletins and publications available at farmoffice.osu.edu.

One of the primary challenges for a retiring farmer is the large tax burden that retirement may cause.  Throughout their farming careers, farmers do a good job of managing income taxes, in part, by delaying sales and prepaying expenses.  This strategy works well while the farm is operating but can cause significant tax liability upon retirement.  The combination of a large increase in revenue from the sale of assets and little or no expenses to offset the revenue can cause a retiring farmer to be pushed into high tax brackets.  It is not unusual for 40% or more of the sale proceeds from a retirement sale to go to taxes.  One strategy to reduce income tax liability at retirement is a Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT).  A CRT can be an effective way of managing income taxes at retirement, but it is not for everyone. 

A CRT is a charitable trust because at least some of the assets in the CRT must eventually pass to a qualified U.S. charitable organization such as a church or 501(c)(3) corporation.  This charitable nature of the CRT is central to the CRT strategy.  As a charitable trust, the CRT may sell assets without paying tax on the sale.  So, instead of the retiring farmer selling assets in their own name, they donate the assets to the CRT and then the CRT sells the assets.  The retiring farmer then receives an income stream from the CRT.  After a period of time, the income stream stops and the remaining trust assets are contributed to the named charity.  The following are the steps of the CRT strategy:

1. Assemble a team of advisors and develop a CRT strategy.
2. Donor establishes a CRT.  The trust document declares the income beneficiaries and the charitable beneficiaries. 
3. Donor determines the assets to be contributed to the CRT.
4. Donor contributes assets into the CRT, typically grain, machinery and/or livestock.
5. The CRT sells the assets but does not pay tax.
6. The Trustee of the CRT uses the sale proceeds to establish an annuity.  The annuity must be designed to provide at least 10% of the sale proceeds to the charity.
7. The annuity pays out to the Donor over a number of years.  The Donor pays income tax on the annuity distributions.
8. When the trust is terminated, the charity is paid the remaining assets.

Consider the following example to help further explain how a CRT strategy works:

Farmer decides to retire at the end of the 2023 crop year.  After harvesting the 2023 crop, Farmer owns $1 million of grain and $1.5 million of farm equipment.  Farmer’s accountant tells him that if he sells all the grain and machinery in one year, he will pay around $1 million in taxes. Farmer decides to implement the CRT strategy.  He establishes a CRT and names himself and his spouse as the income beneficiaries and the local children’s hospital as the charitable beneficiary.  Farmer transfers his grain and machinery into the CRT.  The CRT sells the grain and machinery and receives $2.5 million in sale proceeds. 

The CRT establishes an annuity that will pay out $125,000 for the next 20 years.  Farmer pays income tax on each $125,000 payment which results in $20,000 of annual income taxes.  After 20 years, the trust is terminated, and the children’s hospital receives the remaining funds in the CRT.  

As the example shows, the strategy avoids a large, up-front tax payment in the year of the asset sale.  Farmer pays taxes on each annual $125,000 payment which allows him to stay in a lower tax bracket.  In the example, instead of paying $1 million in taxes in 2023, Farmer spreads the payments out and ultimately pays $400,000 over 20 years.

The primary disadvantage of a CRT is that it is an irrevocable trust.  Once the CRT is set into motion, it cannot generally be undone.  A CRT may not be the best option for farmers who wish to keep flexibility with managing their assets or who are transitioning the farming operation to family members.  While a CRT provides many tax and business benefits, it is not an adaptable plan that can be changed in the future.

Another disadvantage of a CRT is the cost.  It is usually a rather complicated process to establish the trust, calculate the potential tax savings, file a tax return, and establish an annuity.  Legal and other professional fees will often be tens of thousands of dollars. It is important early in the planning process to weigh the potential tax savings against the cost of establishing the CRT.

For more information on CRTs, see the newly published bulletin Charitable Remainder Trusts as a Retirement Strategy for Farmers available at farmoffice.osu.edu.  This bulleting provides details on how a CRT strategy is implemented and its advantages and disadvantages.  Be sure to consult with an attorney, tax advisor and financial advisor before deciding on a CRT for your retirement strategy.

An agricultural easement is a legal instrument that can protect farmland from non-farm development and preserve the legacy of family land for the future. An earlier blog post explains how an agricultural easement works and answers common questions about agricultural easements.  As we explained, an agricultural easement not only preserves farmland but can also be a valuable financial and tax tool that can enable a transition of the farm to the next generation.  But are there drawbacks to agricultural easements?  Here's a summary of potential negative implications of easements that landowners should also consider.

It's difficult to forecast the future of a farm.  The very nature of the easement requires a best estimate of how the farmland might be used for agriculture into the future--a challenging task.  The Deed of Agricultural Easement the parties agree to must predict agricultural activities that are consistent with the easement and those that would violate the easement.  There could be future problems if the predictions and forecasting aren’t flexible enough to accommodate agriculture in the future. 

The “perpetuity” requirement. While it’s possible to draft an easement that lasts only for a certain term of years, most agricultural easements remain on the land “in perpetuity,” or permanently.  The programs that pay a landowner to grant an agricultural easement and the federal income and estate tax benefits for donating all or part of an easement require that the easement is perpetual.  This differs from the conservation programs we’re accustomed to in agriculture that require shorter term commitments, and it can be a deterrent to a landowner who wants future generations to have a say in what happens to the land.  These concerns might be addressed in the deed of agricultural easement, however, which may provide sufficient flexibility to address those future concerns.

Termination can be difficult and costly.  Hand in hand with the perpetuity issue is the difficulty of terminating an agricultural easement once it’s in place. Typically, both parties must agree on a termination and a court of law must determine that conditions on or surrounding the land make it impossible or impractical to continue to use the land for agricultural purposes. Attempts to terminate without following the stated procedures can result in penalties for the current landowner.  If there was a payment for the agricultural easement, a deed of easement will likely require the landowner to reimburse the paying party for the proportionate share of the fair market value of the land with the easement removed and will also require the party receiving the reimbursement to use the funds only for similar conservation purposes.  

Eminent domain can be an issue.  As one Ohio farm family has learned, an agricultural easement might not protect the farmland from an eminent domain proceeding.  In Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023-Ohio-1245, the Bailey family was forced to litigate an attempt by Columbia Gas to use eminent domain for the construction of a gas pipeline across their farmland.  Their predecessor had placed an agricultural easement on the farmland in 2003, and the family argued the easement prevented the taking of land for the pipeline under the doctrine of “prior public use.”  That doctrine prohibits an eminent domain action that would destroy a prior public use.  The court agreed that the agricultural easement did create a prior public use on the land, and the court shifted the burden to Columbia Gas to prove that the pipeline would not destroy the established prior public use.  Rather than doing so, Columbia Gas withdrew its eminent domain proceeding and moved the location of the pipeline.  The court's decision to recognize an agricultural easement as a prior public use might provide some protection from eminent domain for future owners of agricultural easement land but, like the Baileys, landowners may have to fight a long, expensive battle to prove that an eminent domain action would destroy an established prior public use.

Lenders and other interests must be on board.  A landowner must deal with any existing mortgages, liens, leases, or easements on the farmland before entering into an agricultural easement.  The State of Ohio’s agricultural easement, for example, requires a lender to subordinate a mortgage to the rights of the easement holder.  Renegotiation of the mortgage might be necessary, and the lender might require a paydown of the outstanding mortgage if the property’s value could reduce below that amount.  Without subordination and other approvals, a landowner will not be able to enter into an agricultural easement. 

Local governments must be on board.  Ohio’s program for purchasing agricultural easements requires a landowner to submit a resolution of support from the township and county where the land is located.  This means the local governments must agree that committing the land to agriculture is consistent with local land use plans.  An early conversation with local officials is necessary to ensuring consistency with the community’s future plans.

There will be monitoring.  An easement holder has the responsibility of ensuring there is not a violation of the easement or conversion of the land to non-agricultural uses.  This means there will be a baseline or “present condition” report of the easement property upon easement creation and monitoring of the property “in perpetuity.”  An annual visit to the property and completion of an annual monitoring report by the easement holder is common. 

It's a lengthy process.  Agricultural easements don’t pop up overnight.  Especially when applying for funding from competitive programs like Ohio’s Local Agricultural Easement Purchase Program or the NRCS Agricultural Land Easements Program, it can be a year or more before an agricultural easement is in place. 

Planning and integration with plans is necessary.  An agricultural easement is one piece of what can be a complex plan addressing a landowner’s expansion, retirement, estate, and transition needs.  A landowner would be wise to work with a team of professionals—financial planner, tax professional, attorney—to ensure that an agricultural easement integrates with all other parts of the plan.

Still interested?  Ohio landowners interested in learning more about agricultural easements may want to consider these steps:

• Review the resources on the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Office of Farmland Preservation.
• Talk with other landowners who have entered into easements.  Refer to the Coalition of Ohio Land Trusts landowner resources and landowner stories.
• Visit American Farmland Trust’s Farmland Information Center.
• Talk with a “local sponsor” or land trust in your area.  The Office of Farmland Preservation provides a list of local sponsors for the Clean Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program on its website.
• Talk with your attorney, financial planner, and accountant about the implications of entering into an agricultural easement.