Article

Ohio Farm Bureau has a strong track record advocating for members in the courtroom and has developed a reputation for being a trusted and influential voice in the legal system.

When the organization gets involved in a case, people take notice. Even Supreme Court justices have readily said they pay close attention to what Ohio Farm Bureau has to say.

While Ohio Farm Bureau is selective in the cases it gets involved in, it still manages a heavy caseload. In fact, over the past 15 years, OFBF has been involved in over 60 civil cases in state and federal courts, as well as over 100 administrative cases before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Ohio Power Siting Board.

How does Ohio Farm Bureau pick its cases?

Ohio Farm Bureau is strategic in the cases it chooses to engage in, and cannot engage in every case presented.

1. The legal issues in the case must be supported by Ohio Farm Bureau’s member-developed policy.
2. The case must have the potential to establish a legal precedent that benefits Farm Bureau members or prevent a legal precedent that harms them.

Ohio Farm Bureau will generally not get involved in cases at the trial court stage, where the judge or jury is making factual determinations. Farm Bureau usually gets involved on appeal, where the focus is on how the law is applied to those facts. At the appellate stage, the court is charged with interpreting statutes, regulations and case law. How the judge decides these appellate cases often sets a precedent that will be followed in future cases involving the same laws.

If a member has a case that may meet the above criteria, either the member or their legal counsel should contact Ohio Farm Bureau’s legal team, which will analyze the case and determine whether it can get involved. Since all legal cases have strict deadlines, the sooner someone reaches out to Ohio Farm Bureau, the better.

Ohio Farm Bureau’s effectiveness in legal advocacy is due in part to its selective criteria, which limit involvement to cases most likely to create an impact for agriculture. However, even when Farm Bureau cannot get involved in a case, our lawyers are always willing to consult with members’ attorneys to provide support or resources.

How is Ohio Farm Bureau involved in these cases?

Usually, Ohio Farm Bureau files what is called an amicus curiae brief with the court. Amicus curiae is Latin for “friend of the court.” In its briefs, the organization is able to provide context and perspective on how the case will impact not just the parties in the case but also other Farm Bureau members, the broader agricultural community, and the public at large.

In many cases, the organization can also provide a historical perspective, explaining how and why the law or regulation was first enacted, what problems it was intended to address, and how it has evolved over time. Often, this is valuable information that only Farm Bureau can provide, and the courts are extremely grateful for it.

In rare situations, Ohio Farm Bureau will get involved at the trial stage either as a plaintiff or defendant. For example, the organization will occasionally ask the court to allow it to be a co-defendant so that it can help develop the facts of the case and be involved in any settlement negotiations.

Many times, Ohio Farm Bureau files these cases on its own, or together with the county Farm Bureau where the case originated. Other times, it will file alongside other interested parties like the agricultural commodity groups in Ohio, American Farm Bureau Federation, or other state Farm Bureaus around the country.

Here are some of the most impactful cases Ohio Farm Bureau has been involved in:

Case question: When the government takes property but doesn’t follow the law and provide compensation, should landowners be able to take their case to federal court?

Ohio Farm Bureau has been involved in dozens of cases dealing with the government’s ability to use its power of eminent domain to take property for a public use. While the organization has worked hard to ensure landowners receive a fair process and just compensation in these situations, unfortunately, some government actors and developers work just as hard to find ways to circumvent landowner protections.

For example, Ohio Farm Bureau filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case titled Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania. Though this case originated in Pennsylvania, it impacted landowners across the country by requiring all takings claims to go through state courts. Ohio Farm Bureau argued that state court procedures were inadequate, specifically in Ohio, where there is no clear process called “inverse condemnation” to use when the government takes property but doesn’t follow the law and provide compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with OFBF’s position and held that landowners can also use the federal courts for takings claims. The Supreme Court cited the arguments and examples of abuse that Ohio Farm Bureau raised in its amicus brief, and noted Ohio was the only state without a procedure for inverse condemnation.

Case question: Should utilities that want to take land for projects be allowed to take far more than what is necessary?

Ohio Farm Bureau filed a total of nine amicus briefs in a series of connected cases titled Ohio Power Company v. Burns (v. Bohlen, v. May, v. Dexter). Eight of the briefs were filed in the Court of Appeals for the 4th District in Ohio, and the final brief was filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio. Thanks in large part to Ohio Farm Bureau’s persistent advocacy, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that condemning utilities can no longer simply assert that an entire project is necessary, and thereby gloss over the individual terms of the easement and how they apply to each property. Rather, the trial court must do a parcel-by-parcel review of all the terms of the easement.

This is an enormous win for landowners who are trying to prevent the government or utility companies from taking far more rights than they actually need for the project at hand.

Case question: Should farmland that is permanently preserved through an agricultural easement be forced to give way to pipelines that are expressly prohibited under the easement?

When Columbia Gas attempted to take property through eminent domain across preserved farmland in Columbia Gas of Ohio v. Bailey, Ohio Farm Bureau filed an amicus brief urging the Court of Appeals for the 3rd District of Ohio to uphold the terms of the agricultural easement and deny the appropriation. In a victory for the landowner and Ohio Farm Bureau, the court found that the agricultural easement was a prior public use and that it could not be disturbed for another (new) public use. This case confirms that perpetual farmland preservation easements will be upheld to preserve farmland and block the very type of development that the easement was intended to guard against.

Case question: Should county boards of elections be required to put poorly-worded and legally-deficient county charter petitions on the ballot?

Ohio Farm Bureau has also been involved in a number of important cases dealing with Ohio’s election laws. In McGinn v. Walker, groups that were trying to place county charters on the general election ballots in Athens and Medina counties filed a writ of mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court, asking the court to order their respective boards of elections to approve their proposed charters and place them on the ballot. The language in the county charters would have had disastrous impacts on agriculture and Farm Bureau members. Provisions within the charters could have been easily construed to prohibit all agricultural production, or at least make it so regulated that agricultural production would be practically impossible. Furthermore, the “rights” granted within the charters would have opened farmers up to significant legal liability. Ohio Farm Bureau filed an amicus brief in this expedited case, arguing why the charters failed to meet the threshold requirements of the law for a valid charter. The Supreme Court agreed and cited OFBF’s brief to explain why the charters failed to meet the necessary requirements of the law to be valid charters.

Case question: What data should the Ohio Department of Taxation use to establish woodland clearing costs when calculating the deduction in the CAUV formula?

Ohio Farm Bureau has also been involved in a handful of cases involving property taxation, particularly Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) laws. Ohio Farm Bureau filed three separate amicus briefs before the Ohio Supreme Court in an eight-year court case titled Adams v. Harris. While the case was slowed down by lots of unique procedural issues (it is the government after all), Ohio Farm Bureau’s briefs argued that the Ohio Department of Taxation needed to use reliable data provided by industry experts and landowners when setting the woodland clearing cost deduction in the CAUV formula. At the end of the prolonged battle, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision reprimanding the tax department and ordering it to set a new, evidence-based woodland clearing cost. The tax department finally did so, and increased the clearing cost from $1,000 per acre to $4,476 per acre. This hard-fought increase dramatically reduced the CAUV value on most woodlands, resulting in lower taxes for landowners.

Case question: Should Lake Erie be able to sue farmers? (Yes, you read that correctly)

When voters in Toledo approved the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR), Ohio Farm Bureau sprang into action and worked closely with Ohio Farm Bureau member Mark Drewes to challenge the new law. LEBOR purported to give legal rights to Lake Erie and to give Toledoans the right to sue farmers on behalf of the lake. Ohio Farm Bureau provided significant behind-the-scenes support in this effort, which resulted in a federal judge striking down LEBOR in Drewes Farms Partnership v. City of Toledo.

Case question: Is Ohio doing enough to address water quality in the Western Lake Erie Basin, and should agricultural drainage tiles require federal permits?

Ohio Farm Bureau filed a Motion to Intervene in a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that began earlier this year by the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), the Board of Lucas County Commissioners, and the City of Toledo. In the lawsuit, titled Board of Lucas County Commissioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the groups make baseless claims alleging that the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of nutrients such as phosphorus into the Western Lake Erie Basin, set by the EPA, is insufficient to meet both Ohio and federal water quality standards. ELPC is also arguing that subsurface drainage tiles are “point sources” under the Clean Water Act that need to have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. This would have a disastrous impact on all landowners who have subsurface drainage tiles.

With the guidance and direction provided by member-developed policies, Ohio Farm Bureau will continue to fight on behalf of its members, including when those battles need to be fought in the courtroom.

Making the case for members

Ohio Farm Bureau has fought for members in various ways for more than a century. In the last 15 years alone, the organization has helped support what’s best for members and farmers in more than 60 civil cases and over 100 administrative cases that have a direct impact on everyday lives.

Key questions

Government Takings / Eminent Domain – 28 cases

• Do landowners have adequate legal protections and access to courts?
• When are landowners entitled to recover attorney fees in takings cases?
• Can park districts take property for bike trails?
• Must utilities present the actual easement terms (which define the extent of the taking) for approval by a state or federal agency before they can claim an “irrebuttable presumption” of necessity?
• Must courts review each easement term to determine if it is necessary?
• Should a compensation trial move forward while a landowner’s appeal of necessity is pending (forcing the landowner to fight on two fronts in an eminent domain lawsuit)?

Adverse Possession / Rights of Reversion – 2 cases

• Do abandoned railroads revert to the original landowner?

Environmental Regulations – 3 cases

• Where is the line between federal and state regulation of isolated wetlands?
• Should Lake Erie have a “Bill of Rights” that allows the Lake to sue farmers?
• Is Ohio doing enough to address water quality in the Western Lake Erie Basin?
  Should agricultural drainage tiles require federal NPDES permits?

CAUV / Taxation – 6 cases

• Can the Tax Commissioner arbitrarily set the woodland clearing cost deduction, or is he required to use reliable data?
• Does the Board of Tax Appeals have jurisdiction to hear cases regarding CAUV values?
• Are grain bins real property subject to real property tax?
• Is land devoted to conservation practices and programs within the scope of “land devoted exclusively to agricultural use” for CAUV?

Energy / Oil & Gas – 8 cases

• What constitutes a reasonable search for the holder of minerals or their heirs to allow the severed mineral estate to be deemed abandoned under the Dormant Minerals process?
• What is the correct statute of limitations for oil and gas leases?

County Charters / Elections – 13 cases

• Do the petitions meet the threshold requirements to create a valid county charter (which is a different form of county government)?
• Is ballot language misleading to voters when describing a proposed constitutional amendment?

In addition to court cases, Farm Bureau represents members’ interests in administrative cases too. An administrative case is a legal proceeding before a government agency, rather than a court. Some examples are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Ohio Power Siting Board. Administrative cases often deal with solar, wind, pipeline and other energy development issues. Key questions in all administrative cases start with: Is the developer taking the appropriate steps to:

• Preserve topsoil, prevent soil compaction and erosion.
• Protect and repair drainage tiles and drainage systems (including on adjacent properties).
• Protect and repair grass waterways and other conservation resources.
• Repair damaged fences and add fencing to protect livestock from the energy infrastructure.
• Control noxious weeds.
• Work with neighboring landowners, the community, and local governments to address their concerns.

Photo caption: Ohio Farm Bureau’s legal experts are, from left, General Counsel Chad Endsley, Associate General Counsel Leah Curtis and Director of Legal Education and Member Engagement Leah Hetrick.