Ohio House Natural Resources Committee - 6-3-2026

House Natural Resources Committee will come to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll?

With a quorum present, we will proceed as a full committee. Our first order of business is to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Members, please take a moment to review the minutes located on your iPads. Are there any objections or corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. Our next order of business is to call up substitute Senate Bill 219 for its fourth hearing. At this time, I would like to recognize Vice Chair Fisher for a motion.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Representative Salvo?

Sorry. Okay. We got her vote. Okay. With eight affirmative votes and one negative vote, substitute Senate Bill 219 is favorably reported. Committee members, please be sure to sign the roll before leaving. I know we have a lot of committees this morning. The roll will be left open until 11 a.m. today. This concludes the fourth hearing on substitute Senate Bill 219. Our next order of business is to call up substitute Senate Bill 181 for its first hearing. Today we will be hearing sponsor, proponent testimony, and accepting a technical amendment. So at this time, I would like to recognize Vice Chair Fisher for our motion.

The amendment is in order, and members may locate the document on your iPads this morning. Vice Chair Fischer, please explain the amendment.

The question is, shall the motion to amend be agreed to? Without objection, the motion is agreed to and the amendment will become part of the bill. I would like to invite Senator Wilkin at this time to provide sponsor testimony. Senator Wilkin, welcome to committee. Good morning to you and the floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator Wilkin. Any questions for the sponsor? Representative Salvo.

But what does it look like today currently? What are we trying to fix?

So the permitting process would be it's every 15 years. We would like to change that to a five-year review instead of the whole permit process going through to make it a much more efficient process. Additionally, the local control remains just like it would, as I mentioned in my testimony. And it could reduce, again, if they had seven parcels, and there may be some proponents that may correct me. But if there's seven parcels, the requirement now is seven separate permits for mining. So that's really the only change And if it's challenged Or if it's not zoned properly They can buy the whole county It doesn't mean they get to mine the whole county Automatically

A proponent might be able to answer that a little better than I could.

Representative Johnson with a question.

So through the chair to Representative Johnson, My understanding is there's never been a denial during the 15-year permit renewal.

Any further questions from the committee? Okay. Thank you, Senator. Have a great day. Thank you all so much. Thank you for being here. Thank you. I would now like to invite Pat Jackamet and Brian Barger, up front row, to provide a proponent testimony.

Thank you. I'm moving a little slow. I had open heart surgery a few weeks ago, and so if you see me grabbing the podium at times, I promise not to pass out here today. But this is very important to the industry that we get this bill through. It is a much-needed regulatory program. but let me start at the beginning and then we'll get into this. So Chair Rob Blaise, Dale Vice Chair Fisher, Ranking Member Rogers and members of the committee, my name is Brian Barger and for the past 30 some years I've been the legal counsel for the Ohio Aggregates and Industrial Minerals Association. So thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to present proponent testimony today on substitute Senate Bill 181. Much of what is in my remarks have already been said, so I'm going to go off script a little bit and go right to the good question that Representative Salvo asked initially in terms of what is the current permitting process? So with respect to, there's really two different types of material that we're working, that are primarily at play here. Sand and gravel and limestone. So this bill focuses on limestone, so that's what I'm going to talk about. The process is essentially the same for sand and gravel. The limestone is just a little more complicated. So the process actually starts with the operator identifying where there are reserves. And more often than not, I mean by like 99% of the times, what they're trying to do is buy reserves, which is additional mineral land that is abutting or very close to their existing operation. Not all limestone in Ohio is created equal. And so one of the things that you have to do is make sure that it's going to pass ODOT's very, very rigid specifications for construction aggregate material that goes into either asphalt or concrete. At that point, once you identify the geology and that's suitable and the operator is satisfied that reserve profile, meaning the width and depth of the reserves, is sufficient to really justify the cost of acquisition, permitting, and then actually going in and doing the mining. And there are several factors that go into that. the depth of the overburden, what the material is throughout that geologic column. But once they get done all the technical part and they've identified that land, then at some point in the process it's usually tied up through an option or a purchase agreement. The next step is local zoning. So that comes next because there's no sense in going to apply for a surface mine permit before you have the zoning because you don't know that you're going to get the zoning and you don't know what the ultimate footprint of the quarry is going to look like once it's done with that local input process. So that process, the local zoning process, typically takes many months, involves hearings, evidence put into the record, opportunity for citizen comment, and certainly if they're opposed, they can oppose it. but ODNR's policy is to not, it makes sense, perfect sense, not do the permitting until the zoning is in place because you really don't know what you have. And as I'm going to explain, ODNR's manpower resources that need to be committed to doing a surface mine permit are pretty extensive. So given the limited availability of the DNR staff, who are great, by the way, and so that, like I said, the local zoning is the next process. Once that gets done, assuming it gets done, then the mine operator will apply for their surface mine permit. So that involves a lengthy application process that describes the land, and I'm talking about an amendment here, not necessarily a brand new permit. But the requirements for an amendment are identical to the requirements for a new permit, absent some of the background material, and actually absent quite a bit of staff work that would be necessary for a new permit. But the key things are the same. So with the limestone operation, the main thing that's going to be that takes a lot of time with the ODNR staff is groundwater modeling. So limestone quarries create what is known as a cone of depression because they are pumping groundwater out of the quarry pit to maintain a dry working environment. And that cone of depression spreads out from the lowest point in the quarry, and it can impact local wells, nearby wells, if they're shallow and they don't intersect the entire surface water column. So the purpose of the modeling is to project where that cone of depression is going to be and who's going to be impacted. And then the next thing that does is it looks to ensure that if you have to go in and replace a well, that there's sufficient groundwater available. Under Ohio law, which the Ohio Aggregates Association pushed for back in 2000, the mine operator by law is legally presumed to have caused any impairment to a local well within that cone of depression. So that serves two purposes. One, it puts the mine operator on alert and notice that you have this universe of wells that you may need to replace. So frankly, don't go crying to anybody if that happens. You're going into it with your eyes wide open. Also, and more importantly, it allows for very quick recourse recourse for a affected property owner because the process is designed to move quickly So within a day or two of being notified that there a groundwater impairment the mine operator, here's what normally happens. There's a complaint. It comes into the mine operator. The mine operator has a relationship with a well driller. if you're in the mining business and you know this is going to happen, you've got your well driller. He will go out and look at that well to ensure that, oh, hey, you know what, the casing isn't caving in or the pump's not burnt out or the well's not all clogged up with gunk. And once you rule all that out, then it's the mine operator's responsibility. So the mine operator then has to supply temporary water and then immediately provide a source of permanent water supply of like kind and like quality. So however the operator has to do that, that's what they have to do. So that modeling process internally at DNR takes months to do. And DNR will do the modeling on its own. They have a very, very good hydrologist, Kelly Barrett, on their staff that is very knowledgeable about this. Also, the mine operator can hire a consulting company to prepare the model. But again, we're talking many months to develop one of these models. And then the DNR staff and the consultant work together until they get a model that's agreeable to ODNR. And once that's done, you've checked the box on, okay, now you have your hydrology done. Meantime, there's a lot of staff work going on out in the field. So the ODNR staff then...

Sorry. The ODNR staff is busy behind the scenes looking at the mapping that is being done, the profiles that are being offered, because they're going to show the profile of the mine, the bottom elevation of the mine, and then there are about 20-some performance standards that the mine operator must meet as part of the mine permitting process. and then those performance standards are ongoing, and they're incorporated into the mine. They're really listed in 1514.02810 of the revised code, and it goes through and lists pretty much everything the mine operator has to account for. And so that application then is reviewed at the field level by the mine inspector that's in charge of that particular county. then it works its way through the central office, and ultimately, if it all is in shape, the chief will issue an order that approves that mine permit, whether it's a new permit or an amendment. The process doesn't necessarily end there. There is a commission inside DNR called the Reclamation Commission, and that commission is impaneled to hear appeals of decisions of the chief. So this is one more way that public input is brought into the process. So anybody that is potentially adversely affected by a decision of the chief, whether it's the mine operator or a nearby resident, has the right to file an administrative appeal. and then that is heard by the Reclamation Commission. I bring that up because in this bill, there are several pages of the bill that are devoted to the Reclamation Commission. And this is kind of a strange creature because it came into being through SMACRA, which is the Federal Surface Mine Reclamation and Control Act, that regulates coal mining. And so that commission and the regulations associated with that commission are really approved by the federal level. So even if the Ohio General Assembly said, we don't like the way that's operating and we don't want to do it, you can pass whatever law you want, but it's not going to be effective until the feds sign off on it. What we propose in this bill is that we're kind of developing a new track for the same commission. So let me be clear, we are not creating another commission. It's the same commission, but when they're hearing appeals from the industrial minerals side of the equation, so that's limestone, sand, and gravel primarily, they're going to apply the set of rules that are updated that are in this bill. And those deal more with making sure there's adequate notice and how the commission then operates internally. So when we were working with DNR on this, we decided that the easiest thing to do was just repeat the process in Chapter 1514, establish those regulations under Chapter 1514, and thereby the General Assembly has complete control over that commission for purposes of industrial minerals activity, which, by the way, is the far majority of the cases that the Commission hears in the present era. So what the Reclamation Commission, part of substitute Senate Bill 181 does, is basically gives the General Assembly control over that Commission, so that this body then can decide its own rules and regulations for how that commission operates. Once that permitting process is done, then there are annual inspections. So each mine is inspected two times a year by a mine inspector that's familiar with the mine, and they will come in and make sure that the mine essentially is not mining off property that isn't permitted and deal with any other issues associated with the reclamation of the mine. The reclamation process then follows the mining process. And typically mine operators like to reclaim concurrent with the mining. So they'll mine an area, then they want to reclaim it. But that process is a three-year process that requires in the first year that the, essentially that the affected area is graded appropriately, and then in years two and three it's planted and making sure that you have a, you know, self-generating vegetative cover for that land. In the event, like a limestone quarry, typically what's left is a water impoundment that is typically used for a private recreational lake. People can come, you know, oftentimes the quarry will let their employees swim there or fish there or whatever, but we typically don't open them up to the public for liability purposes. So that's essentially the process. At the end of it, right now, every 15 years, everything that I described, you essentially have to do all over again. So what we came up with with DNR, given the fact that in the history of the industrial minerals industry, there's never been a denial of a renewal. so we thought why not just do something that makes a little bit more sense from the standpoint of let's every five years look at the permit at primarily the inspector level to make sure that all the paperwork is appropriate that we have all the land accounted for that the property owners are current and all of that and so with our conversations with DNR we all thought that that was a much more common sense approach to this. That said, the chief still has plenty of authority under 1514.07 to issue orders to close down a mine if they're noncompliant and can write orders forcing them to come into compliance. Let me talk about one of the other major activities is the blasting. So as part of the surface mine permitting process, the mine operator for a limestone quarry has to present a blasting plan. Here again, we're blessed that ODNR has some very, very knowledgeable people that oversee that area that are very familiar with the mines. The blasting in a limestone quarry is all contracted out. You have to be a certified blaster, and the regulations are so complex that there's very few people that can do it. And most of it, as with everything today, is all computerized and modeled. So the blasting has come a long way just in the last 15, 20 years particularly. But those are the main activities that take place during the permitting. So this bill seeks to make the amendment process a bit easier. But that's really mostly going to apply to a sand and gravel operation, where in those types of operations you'll have an established plant and a pit, and they typically go through their deposit faster than a limestone quarry, and then they'll look around in the area for another parcel of land that has suitable reserves on it, and then they'll typically go in and excavate that and then bring it back to the mother plant to be processed and stockpiled. And so instead of having to develop brand new permits for every one of these little satellite pits, then it just makes more sense as the sponsor explained to just include them in the one permit. It doesn't mean that they don't get inspected. It just really reduces the paperwork both in the field and in the central office and on the part of the mine operator with respect to the permitting and paperwork part of the equation. I've talked enough. I'll be glad to answer any questions that anybody has.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony this morning, and congratulations on your recovery. I hope it goes well. You seem to be doing great. I wanted to ask for a little bit more information related to what you're calling the cone of depression or the water impact in those areas of underground or quarry mining? What does that look like in our communities?

Follow-up, Chair, thank you. How far out is the radius from the drilling locations for that cone of depression?

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here. Yeah, you look good. Thanks. Thanks for bearing with us here. So the bill seems to deal with mine safety and inspections quite a bit. I just want to get a sense for how this might affect how it changes current safety standards, for mining operations. Also, I see a bit here about roof control. So just, again, I want to get your take on how this incorporates safety measures that are currently in place and what it changes, what it doesn't change.

Any other questions from the committee? Thank you. Thank you for coming in today, and we will keep you in our prayers for good help. Thank you. Thank you. You look terrific. Thank you for being with us here today. Is there anyone else present who would like to provide proponent testimony on substitute Senate Bill 181? Seeing none, this concludes the first hearing on substitute Senate Bill 181. Our next order of business is to call up House Concurrent Resolution 40 for its second hearing. Today we will be hearing proponent testimony. I would now like to invite the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District up. I think Ethan Zucal is with us to provide proponent testimony this morning. Welcome, Ethan. Good to see you this morning. The floor is yours.

Its watershed spans 15 states and serves approximately 30 million people. The river itself stretches 981 miles and forms Ohio's entire 451-mile southern border. Forty of Ohio's streams and rivers, feed by hundreds of tributaries, flow into the Ohio River, and the watershed covers nearly 75% of Ohio's landmass, 20% of which includes the Muskingum River watershed. The Ohio River and its tributaries are central to Ohio's economy, environment, and quality of life. Maritime commerce on the river generates billions of dollars annually in business revenue, personal income, and transportation savings. Cargo activity alone generates approximately $26.5 billion in total economic value. In addition, natural ecosystems throughout the Ohio River Basin provide at least $50 billion annually in public benefits. At the same time, the basin faces significant 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. In 2023, American Rivers designated the Ohio River as America's second most endangered river. The Ohio River Restoration Program Act represents an important opportunity to address these challenges through strategic federal investments. Congressional legislation would establish the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program to improve water quality, increase flood resiliency, restore natural systems, protect fish and wildlife habitat, remediate toxic substances, combat invasive species, improve recreation and public access, and expand education and outreach efforts throughout the basin. Making strategic federal investments for environmental restoration and economic development is not a new concept. There are over 20 federally supported geographic initiatives. You're likely familiar with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative that consistently receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Research shows these investments are strategic, important, and bring in positive economic returns. Ohio has had a front row seat at making these strategic investments and seeing positive returns. The Ohio River Basin has no such designation or funding. The Ohio River Basin Alliance recognizes this and began this process nearly 15 years ago to raise awareness and bring needed investments to this multi-state region. For Ohio, the benefits would be substantial. Investments in watershed restoration, green infrastructure, and water quality improvements would strengthen communities, reduce long-term public health risks and costs, support economic growth, and expand recreational opportunities across the state. The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District strongly supports this effort. MWCD is actively engaged with the Ohio River Basin Alliance and collaborates with partners across the basin on water quality improvement, flood mitigation, habitat restoration, conservation, and recreational enhancement projects. Passage of the Ohio River Restoration Program Act would create meaningful opportunities for both MWCD and ORBA partners to expand and accelerate projects throughout the Muskingum watershed and across Ohio. These investments would help leverage local and state resources, strengthen regional collaboration, and deliver measurable environmental and economic benefits to Ohio's communities. The Muskingum watershed is the largest watershed in Ohio and plays an important role in the overall health of the Ohio River Basin. Federal support through this legislation would help communities address longstanding infrastructure and environmental needs while providing resilience for future generation. Chairwoman Blaisdell, Vice Chairman Fisher, and Ranking Member Rogers and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of House Concurrent Resolution 40. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the proponent? Okay. Great job. Seeing none.

members please note that there is written testimony on your iPads for your review from Jim Samuel from the Ohio Water Partnership is there anyone else present who would like to provide proponent testimony on House Concurrent Resolution 40 seeing none this concludes the second hearing on House Concurrent Resolution 40 is there any further business to be brought before the committee seeing none the House Natural Resources Committee stands adjourned