Menu

It’s pretty easy to see the difference between a pasture and a parking lot. But if stormwater management districts choose to ignore those differences, it could cost farmers a lot of money.

The potential financial risk for farmers comes from a 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act. According to Larry Antosch, OFBF’s director of environmental research, the amendment gave authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate nonpoint pollution including contaminants carried in stormwater runoff. EPA gave local governments the task of devising plans to meet federal abatement requirements. Initially, five heavily populated metropolitan areas of Ohio were required to employ stormwater management plans.

Now, Phase II of the stormwater regulations is being implemented. This phase expands the rules into any area with more than 1,000 people per square mile. In Ohio, that takes in most villages, towns and even many rural townships.

These local governments are beginning to decide how to pay for their stormwater management programs, according to Larry Gearhardt, director of local affairs for Ohio Farm Bureau. Typically they’re opting for a user fee based on the amount of "impervious surface" on a particular piece of property. These impervious surfaces – parking lots, rooftops, driveways and other hard surfaces – don’t allow rain to soak in and thus cause more runoff. The more hard surface on a piece of real estate, the more the owner pays in runoff charges. However, it wouldn’t be practical for regulators to measure impervious surface on every individual piece of property, so formulas are devised that reflect average runoff amounts. In some cases, charges are based solely on the amount of land an individual owns.

The problem for farmers comes when farm ground is assigned the same runoff average as a housing tract or shopping area. What is a nominal cost to a homeowner or businessman with a small lot becomes a significant expense to a farmer with dozens or even hundreds of acres located in a stormwater control area.

In one example Gearhardt shared, a farmer is being charged more than $8,100 annually for the 155 acres he owns in a stormwater control district. A homeowner with a half-acre lot in the same district would be charged $26 per year. Gearhardt said the farmer involved is currently appealing the charges.

The best approach to dealing with runoff charges is to get involved in the process before rules and regulations are written, say both Gearhardt and Antosch.

They say to begin by identifying the officials in the stormwater district. The districts are organized in various ways such as by township, county or watershed. Most are just beginning the process of creating management plans and allocating the costs of those plans. Now is the time to make the case for how farm ground user fees should be determined.

Both Farm Bureau staff members also suggest hiring some professional help. Hydrologists or engineers have the ability to make the case that farmland absorbs water and is the source of less runoff, and so should be charged accordingly.

If you would like to see if your land is affected by the Phase II regulations, visit the U.S. EPA Web site. You can reach it via the featured links section at www.ofbf.org.