June 3, 2026 · Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee · 5,137 words · 10 speakers · 68 segments
The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will come to order. And will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Shaver.
Here.
Vice Chair Kaler.
Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson. President.
Senator Landis.
Here.
Senator Liston.
Here.
Senator Manchester is excused.
Senator Reynolds.
Senator Wilkin checked in. We do not have a quorum. We do not have a quorum yet, so we will skip the minutes for now. and we will move on to our first oh okay we do have a quorum now so members you will see the minutes from May 19th hearing on your iPads if you've had a chance to look those over look them over please and do you have any questions or objections to the minutes? Hearing none the minutes will stand approved as published. So now we'll move on to our first order of legislative business. I'll call Senate Bill 433 up, Senator Teresa Gavirot,
for sponsor testimony. And welcome. Thank you very much, Chairman Schaefer and members of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Senate Bill 433, legislation to update Ohio's coastal management law. I think we can all agree that Lake Erie is one of Ohio's most precious resources, from endless recreation activities to a key economic corridor. Lake Erie is a resource we must ensure is protected for generations to come. We're doing that today with the legislation that you have before you. This legislation came from property owners, many of whom are my constituents, who live along Lake Erie, who for years have encountered a web of complex and overly burdensome regulations related to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources permitting process. As a result of these regulations, it can often take years to get through the process. The current process to get a permit is long, but also expensive. Think about this. You have to hire an engineer to design the structure, which can cost up to $30,000. dollars. But with the length of time it takes to get the permit, a storm could come through that drastically changes the landscape. At that point, you've already spent thousands of dollars only to have a storm wipe that out due to all the red tape. Senate Bill 433 looks to simplify the complex procedures property owners have faced when it comes to coastal structures along the shores of Lake Erie. Under Senate Bill 433, several changes to the coastal management law were made, including updates and defines the terms such as coastal structure, natural shoreline, coastal restoration, erosion, and avulsion, among others. It establishes a review process for already existing submerged land leases. It streamlines the permit timelines, cutting down on the often lengthy amount of time it can take to receive the permit, and it adds clarifying language that all permits, regardless of tier are valid for the lifetime of the project and will transfer to new owners. Senate Bill 433 also establishes a rebuttable presumption that land loss is due to avulsion and subject to restoration. Under current policy, it's a difficult process to get your land restored. Let me describe it a different way. If a storm comes through that takes large portions of your property, you have a right to restore that property. but that process will be lengthy and likely cost thousands of dollars. Senate Bill 433 establishes a three-tier permit process to simplify the complex process that we have in place today. The three-tiered system breaks down as follows. A, utility and government facilities consistent with existing law and previously proposed changes proposed by ODNR in Senate Bill 313 from the 134th General Assembly. So that was a bill that I introduced back in the 134th. I had worked with ODNR on that bill, and the bill we had before you, we worked on with the landowners. So we're trying to come together with ODNR and the landowners to find a workable solution that everyone can live with. B, construct, maintain, or repair structures on privately deeded property, also including coastal restoration projects. C, construction of structures that exceed Tier B projects, including going beyond privately deeded property, or the project is not found in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Coastal Design Manual. And here's a copy of the Coastal Design Manual. During proponent testimony, you'll hear stories on how the permit process works and the shocking amount of time that it can take. Through these stories, you'll see the massive volume of red tape that property owners must go through. At the end of the day, Senate Bill 433 has two overarching goals. One, protect the rights of property owners, and two, preserve the health of Lake Erie for generations. Chair Schaefer, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on Senate Bill 433, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Senator Gaviron. Questions for the sponsor? Yes, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill. I, too, am familiar with the challenges that property owners have with Lake Erie. But I have a question because in your legislation, and you held up the manual, Do you believe that by having that manual codified into this legislation, you know, as the basis for this legislation, is the best way to go rather than having, you know, the department looking at it? Because the manual is somewhat old. If you understand my question. Well, we'll continue to have conversations on this legislation,
And I certainly will leave that up to the experts who work in this space to determine the best method. So we'll be hearing from the experts and property owners in proponent testimony.
All right. Follow-up, please. And one of, you know, besides the time and the complexity of the permitting, you know, it's the finances. And so is there any thought, even though the bill doesn't necessarily put into place a financial structure, but don't you think that that might be something that we should be looking at at the same time?
Sorry, through the chair to the senator, I'm happy to look at anything that's going to make things easier for our property owners. I mean, right now, you know, when you're told it takes about $30,000 to design it, And from what I'm hearing, the design is really similar. It's always two to four ton rocks. And actually, if you open up this manual, you can kind of see what the design usually ends up being. And to get that stamped design costs about $30,000, and then it can take years to get a permit when you're trying to shore up your property line. and then of course a storm can come in and undo things that you're trying to do having conversations with people I heard someone say years ago it used to take about three weeks to get your permit and now it can take two years so what can we do to help our property owners protect their property protect the parameters of their deed and make sure that we're doing what we can to expedite the process for permitting. And so that's what this bill is designed to do. And I'm certainly open to conversations that are going to streamline the process, save homeowners' and property owners' money.
Thank you. Let's follow up. This is more of a comment rather than a question, because I do agree wholeheartedly with you on what this bill is going to try to accomplish. I just hope that, you know, we understand that with, you know, unfortunately the climate change and the way that the lake gets higher each year and all the different things that affect, you know, the north, as we call it, the north coast, that we look to try to get this bill, you know done as quickly as possible and maybe look at some financial support for those property owners that might need it in order to get the permitting done and to get the protection of their property as well as the shoreline. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing this to the legislation forward.
Thank you. Other questions?
I've just got a question-comment, a question-slash-comment for you. I know this issue has been around for a long, long time. and there have been attempts in the past to remedy this situation on the coast. I applaud you for trying to thread that needle between all concerns, interested parties, the residents, the ODNR, whoever else. It's a difficult issue. So with that, does it appear that people are all coming on board, ODNR is working with you, and the residents? Obviously the residents have a very important special interest in this. It's their land. It's their backyard or the front yard, whichever it may be. How are things going with getting everybody on board to go march in the same direction?
Thank you, Chair, for that question. So I actually introduced that Senate Bill 313 a few General Assemblies ago, and that was drafted by ODNR. And when we had an interested party meeting, the property owners weren't happy with that version, and so we didn't go forward. This bill came to me from the landowners, and there's a lot of overlap from what was proposed by ODNR. We haven't been able to have a communication with ODNR yet, although they've had a copy of this for a while now. But I think we have a meeting coming up later, and I'm hoping that we can really build a consensus that everyone can agree upon. When I had talked to Director Mertz years ago with that original bill, she expressed a desire to find a solution here as well. So I'm hopeful that we'll be able to, once we have everyone talking, that we'll have a workable solution.
Good.
Any idea why it would take two years or a couple years to get a permit? I mean, is there a lot of inspection? Are there a lot of feet on the street at the sites to do inspections? or measuring water from season to season. I mean, why that long for a residential project?
Yeah, it might be kind of complex in that you're moving a lot of material. You're protecting a shoreline against Mother Nature. But any idea why two years? Is that a reasonable amount of time, or is that way too long? That is way too long. So, yeah, I will leave that up to ODNR to answer that question as to why it takes so long. I could tell you what thoughts that people have expressed to me why it takes so long but I'll let that come through in testimony but I had someone tell me it used to take about three weeks and cost about $250 and now it's like $30,000 in two years so I'll let the people who work with this day in day out kind of explain but that's just some of the stories I've been told
So, streamlining this process, making it more affordable, because the design, if the design is costing about $30,000, that doesn't include the cost of the boulders. Two to four ton rocks, and having them placed, I mean, that's a whole additional expense. So, what can we do to help our property owners protect their property?
Okay, very good. Any other questions?
All right, thank you.
Thank you. That will constitute the first hearing on Senate Bill 433. And before we move on to the next order of business, Vice Chairman Kaler, I believe you brought an executive assistant as a guest in today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is bring your child or grandchild to work day in the Senate. And so I brought my granddaughter, Annie Kate, one of my nine grandchildren. And she's here to make sure I do my job and do it well today.
Wonderful. Annie Kate, welcome. And thank you for helping Grandpa. Next up, I'll call Senate Bill 398, Senator Willis Blackshear and Senator Steve Wilson for the first hearing. And gentlemen, you may go in whichever order you like. Welcome.
Thank you. Good morning. Chair Schaefer, Vice Chair Kaler, and Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to present sponsored testimony for Senate Bill 398 to create the Adopt-a-Trail program alongside my colleague, Senator Wilson. We have all heard of the Adopt-a-Highway program. Organizations can sponsor sections of roadways to ensure that litter is cleaned up. And our state highways look nice. So we thought, why not expand this idea to our state parks and trails? ODNR would benefit as the program could attract volunteers and increase awareness about trail beautification, while volunteer groups would get a chance to engage and contribute to our state parks and trails while being recognized for their efforts. After conversations with ODNR, we found out that they have informally began partnering with outside organizations already. And by formalizing this program in state law, we can increase visibility and get more people involved with our state parks and trails. And with that, I'll hand it over to Senator Wilson.
Thank you. Well, Chair Schaefer, Vice Chair Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, who has departed, and grandchild Annie Kate. and members of the Agricultural Committee, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on SB 398 to create the Adopt-a-Trail program alongside my colleague. With this, ODNR retains flexibility. As you read the bill, I think you'll see that. They can come to mutually beneficial agreements with organizations about the terms of the agreement, and the bill would also have little to no additional required cost for ODNR. The bill does not explicitly require signage, but would allow ODNR to implement a signage program to help promote it. By establishing the Adopt a Trail program, we can get more people involved in protecting our amazing natural resources here in Ohio while helping out ODNR in the process. We think 398 is simple. ODNR likes it and likes the fact that we're kind of codifying a program that they have, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Very good, gentlemen. Any questions for the sponsors? Yes.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. Honestly, curious as to whether other states do it or if this has been tried before. It seems like an oversight that we don't have it.
Yeah, through the chair, yes, there are other states that currently do this. The motivation actually came from when I was actually out walking. I do that a lot. I was out walking, and I actually seen a group that was actually cleaning part of our trails. And I just did some research to see how often that happens, and I realized that other states already have programs like this. So I reached out to ODNR. They were excited. They said that this is something that they can greatly benefit from for a number of reasons. So we have their full support. So, yeah, other states have already essentially implemented something like this, and we're just trying to jump on a bandwagon.
Awesome. Thank you.
Yes, Vice Chairman Kaler.
Thank you, gentlemen, for bringing the bill, and thank you, Chairman, for letting me ask you a question. I know in my district we have a lot of bike trails that are former railroad trails or lines. I was under the impression in my district that those were run by our park district, local park district. Does ODNR oversee the bike trails that run from Champaign County down to Clinton County and into Cincinnati When we formed the Trails Caucus 10 years ago ODNR jumped right on that
And they came in and they said, no matter whose jurisdiction it is, is it a state park? Is it a national park? For instance, a lot of the Little Miami Trail is a national park. Is it a park from a city or a township or what is it? And they said, well, we're going to take overall umbrella responsibility for coordinating the 5,000 plus miles of trails in the state of Ohio, the largest mileage of any state. and so they hired a person and that person's job was to put together a staff and to put into an online process where it didn't matter what it was you could go to it as a citizen of Ohio or anybody and say I want to take a walk today or we want to take a weekend walk or whatever and you can see what your options are. And so in essence, ODNR has taken responsibility for promoting, maintaining, although they just sometimes are helping a municipality maintain a trail, and expanding our trail system in the state of Ohio. So the answer is ODNR takes some responsibility for all trails of Ohio, but they come in various jurisdictions.
Thank you for clarifying that, because I know our Kiwanis group did exactly what Senator Blackshear saw, is we went out and cleared part of our bike trails, and we took over a portion, but it wasn't like we were sponsoring it. But again, this is a great bill, and I appreciate you bringing it. Thank you.
Other questions? Senator Landis.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Just two rapid-fire ones, and these are softball guys. So number one, cleaning up the trail can include storm damage, limbs down, and litter. I mean, is it limited to one or the other? Anything along the line that you want to pick up, you can pick up safely?
It depends on the organization. The Little Miami Trail Organization in Warren County, they have two groups of people. One group are the ones that walk along and pick up litter and do that kind of thing. And then they've got a heavy-duty group that has the chainsaws and the trucks and the equipment to actually do heavier work. But it varies. Not every organization. The Kiwanis probably didn't have the heavy group. They probably were more picking up litter and that kind of thing. But it can be either.
Follow-up? Thank you. Up in my district, you know, we have rails to trails and canal trails and things like that. And I know in Tuscarawas County, the park district there, likes to log the hours of people that volunteer. I happened to mention my wife and I were walking along the canal trail, and she was moving limbs, just small branches off the trail. And they said, well, we'd like to know things like that so we can log the hours. Is there any intent to log the hours just to see how productive the program is?
Through the chair, there is no intent to do that. But like I said, it just depends on the organization. Maybe organizations may want to log how many hours they volunteered on the trails just for their record and for them to promote, but there's no intent to have that in a bill.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
In the testimony, it says with this bill, ODNR retains flexibility, and that's the name of the game here. Anybody that wants to help at whatever level they can help, this just allows them to reward that, promote that, put up a sign if that's helpful that that group is taking care of that part of the trail.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Any other questions? Gentlemen, I agree. This sounds like a great idea, and having been a great consumer of our parks in Ohio, our awesome state parks, which are number one in the country, and going to other states and doing opposition research and looking at their state parks, or enjoying their national parks. I know sometimes, I haven't had it happen in Ohio, but other places I have seen, I'll be hiking and enjoying God's great creation. Then you see a bunch of trash on the side of the trail, and it's really discouraging. So I think this is a great idea to help keep our parks even cleaner than they are today. They are awesome parks. ODNR does a phenomenal job, and I applaud Director Mertz and ODNR, the whole department, for embracing this. but thank you for bringing this to us you can really play a major role in making our parks even greater than they have been so thank you that will constitute the first hearing on Senate Bill 398 I would now call Senate Bill 342 for its second hearing and we have Adria Bergeron Muscatine Watershed Conservancy District as a proponent. Welcome.
Hi. And did I pronounce your name correctly? You did. Okay, good.
Great job. Well, Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chairman Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the Senate Agriculture
and Natural Resources Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 342, sponsored by Senator Landis and Senator Chavez. My name is Adria Bergeron, and I serve as the Director of Marketing and Communications for the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. Conservancy districts are a unique form of government in Ohio. As many of you know, flood mitigation is a core mission of all conservancy districts. For MWCD, this is true across the 8,000 square mile watershed under our care. We also provide our region with access to our exceptional water and land-based natural resources through lodging and other forms of recreation. Like any public entity, we depend on contracts with vendors and service providers to carry out that mission, which is exactly why this language is important to us. Just like Ohio counties and municipalities, we routinely contract services ranging from trash collection to recreational amenities to cabin and park improvements. Many of these contracts include boilerplate indemnification clauses requiring MWCD to assume financial responsibility for unknown future losses. These provisions directly conflict with Ohio's constitution and fiscal laws, which require that public funds be appropriated and certified before they are spent. Because indemnification obligations involve costs that cannot be predicted or quantified, no fiscal officer can legally certify them in advance. If a public employee signs a contract containing such an obligation without properly appropriated funds, that employee may be held personally liable, and this places public entities and their staff in an untenable legal position. To manage risk responsibly, MWCD takes several steps. First, we require appropriate insurance coverage from our partners, including commercial general liability, workers' compensation, and other policies tailored to the project. This ensures that risk is evaluated and appropriately priced by the insurance market. Second, we use contract language that complies with Ohio law. Our agreements typically state that each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions, that neither party indemnifies the other, that sovereign immunity is preserved, and that both parties maintain adequate insurance. While this approach works well in many cases, significant challenges remain, especially with large national vendors. These companies often rely on standardized, non-negotiable contracts or online terms that automatically govern transactions and can be changed without notice Even when MWCD successfully negotiates the removal of indemnification language those provisions frequently reappear the next time the vendor updates its online terms As a result, MWCD has had to walk away from otherwise valuable services. For example, we recently declined a widely used reservation platform because it's non-negotiable online terms that required unlimited indemnification. We have also had to forego certain customer contact platforms, credit card processors, and drug testing vendors, not due to performance concerns, but because the indemnification language created legal risks that we could not accept and the vendor was unwilling to accept our suggested changes. Senate Bill 342 addresses this problem directly by prohibiting indemnification clauses in contracts involving conservancy districts and rendering any such provisions void. County governments already received similar statutory protection. MWCD is simply seeking the same clarity and consistency to conduct business responsibly while complying with Ohio law. In closing, MWCD is not attempting to avoid responsibility. We are committed to managing risk appropriately, protecting public funds, and ensuring that our contracts are lawful and transparent. Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chairman Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson, and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 342. I respectfully urge your support for this legislation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
All right. Thank you very much. Questions for the witness? Yes, Senator Landis.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Bergeron, for coming down and testifying. Just if I could do a couple just rapid fire here. Adria, just to talk about the Conservancy District how many counties does Muskingum Watershed encompass?
We are part of all or some are part of all of 32 counties.
Very good. And how many Conservancy Districts are there statewide? Is that information you have?
There are how many Conservancy Districts? 23. You're quizzing me.
Chairman Schaefer to Senator Landis. Thank you for the question. There you go.
Just one more follow-up. In particular with Muskingum Watershed, this is going to greatly affect the rental properties. This is going to give you more visibility. Can you kind of explain that a little bit?
Yeah, so one of the platforms that we have been very interested in creating a contract with is Airbnb. We have a variety of cabins that we'd love to put on that platform, and the indemnification language prevents us from being able to do so. So by getting this changed, we would have the opportunity to get better visibility, which we believe would provide increased reservations and better awareness for the cabins that we provide.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Any other questions? Very good. Well, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else here that would like to testify on Senate Bill 342? Okay, seeing none, that will conclude today's hearing, the second hearing on Senate Bill 342. Next up, we have for second hearing Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, and testifying as a proponent is Craig Butler from the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District.
And welcome. Good morning. Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chairman Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks Hudson, and members of the Senate Agricultural and Natural Resource Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, sponsored by Senator Wilkin. My name is Craig Butler. I serve the Executive Director of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. I also serve as past chair of an organization called the Ohio River Basin Alliance. It's a coalition of organizations, local governments, businesses, utilities, academics, and conservation leaders committed to restoring and protecting the entire Ohio River Basin. The Ohio River is one of the nation's most important waterways. Its watershed spans 15 states, serves approximately 30 million people. The river itself stretches 981 miles and forms Ohio's entire 451 southern border. Forty of Ohio's streams and rivers fed by hundreds of tributaries flow into the Ohio River, and the watershed covers nearly 75% of the state land mass for the state of Ohio, 20% of which includes the Muscringham watershed, which is 8,000 square miles. The Ohio River and its tributaries and central Ohio economy, the environment, and quality of life. Maritime commerce on the river generates billions of dollars in business revenue, personal income, transportation. cargo activity alone generates almost $26.5 billion in total economic value. In addition, natural ecosystems throughout the river basin provide at least $50 billion annually in public benefit. At the same time, the basin faces challenges. Water quality degradation, harmful algal blooms, toxic contamination, aging infrastructure, and flooding events threaten drinking water supplies, public health, wildlife habitat, and economic development opportunities. This is highlighted by the 2023 American Rivers designation as Ohio as America's second most endangered river. The Ohio River Restoration Program Act represents an important opportunity to address these challenges through strategic federal investment. H.R. 5966 and S.3796 would establish the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program Act to improve water quality, increase flood resilience, restore natural systems, protect fish wildlife habitat, remediate toxic substances, combat invasion species, and a whole lot of other things. Managing strategic federal investments or making strategic federal investments for environmental restoration and economic development is not new. There are over 20 federally supported geographic initiatives, and you're likely familiar with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or GLRI, that consistently receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and research shows that these investments are strategic, important, and bring positive economic returns. Ohio has had a front row seat in making these strategic investments and seeing those very positive returns. The Ohio River Basin has no such designation or funding, and ORBA recognized this and began this process today, nearly 15 years ago, to raise awareness and bring needed federal investment to this multi-state region. For Ohio, the benefits would be substantial investment in watershed restoration, green infrastructure, water quality improvement, but also strengthen communities, reduce long-term public health risks and costs, and support economic growth and recreational opportunities across the state. The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy strongly supports this effort. MWCD is actively engaged in ORBA, or the Ohio River Basin Alliance, collaborates with its partners across the basin in water quality improvement, flood mitigation, habitat restoration, and others. Passage of the River Restoration Program Act would create meaningful opportunities for both MWCD and ORBA partners to help leverage local and state resources, strengthen regional collaboration, and deliver measurable environmental and economic benefits to Ohio and communities. Muskingum Watershed is the largest watershed in Ohio and plays an important role in the overall health of the Ohio River. Federal support through this legislation would help communities address long-standing infrastructure and environmental needs while improving resilience for future generations. I would also like to take a moment and extend my thanks to the Ohio Water Partnership, Jim Samuel and Sean Kasich and their leadership for supporting this bill with written testimony. With that, Chairman Schaefer, Vice Chairman Kaler, Ranking Member Hicks-Hudson and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 19. I respectfully urge the committee and the General Assembly to support the Concurrent Resolution 19 and encourage Congress to approve H.R. 5966 and S.3796, creating the Ohio River Restoration Program Act.
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Butler. Any questions for the witness? No? Okay. Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on Senate Concurrent Resolution 19? Case saying none, that will conclude today's hearing, the second hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 19. And with no further business before the committee, we are adjourned.