Guest Blog by FSELS Legal Intern Christina Pollonais: The Ohio Verified Complaint Process: An Easy, Cost-Effective Way to Seek Results

Have you ever been faced with a situation in which there was an alleged violation of law regarding air pollution, water pollution, solid waste, infectious waste, hazardous waste, construction and demolition debris, public water supply, or cessation of chemical operations? Or has there ever been a circumstance where you suspected that a company has failed to meet a requirement of a license, permit, variance or plan approval relating to any of the previously listed violations?

If so, then most likely you have called your local or state authorities to report. However, waiting on the agency to respond or to take action, if ever, can be a frustrating process that citizens often have little control over. Well, Ohio law provides a way in which you can ease this frustration. You can file a verified complaint directly to the Ohio EPA. This process provides for formal written and appealable agency response to your complaint. If you file proper a verified complaint to the Ohio EPA, they have a duty to respond and act on this complaint within a period of 180 days. By taking advantage of this unique process, you can better assure answers to the numerous questions or problems you may be facing within your local community or home when an environmental violation occurs.

Ohio’s rules for filing verified complaints can be found under Ohio Revised Code §3745.08. Once an individual demonstrates that they have been adversely affected by an environmental issue, they can file a verified complaint. If the director determines a violation is evident from the verified complaint that you have filed, the director may issue an order to the violator to correct the problem or request that the Attorney General's Office begin legal proceedings.

It is important to note that if for any reason the verified complaint is reviewed and dismissed, the dismissal is considered a final decision of the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Any action taken by the Director in relationship to a verified complaint is considered appealable to the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC). Specifically, if the complainant is adversely affected by the decision, he or she can file a Notice of Appeal with ERAC in order to appeal a final action if the Ohio EPA proceeding or decision was arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.

There are four issues that a verified complaint must fully address to ensure that a verified complaint is filed properly. These include:

1)         The person submitting the complaint must demonstrate “standing”

a.         To address standing the complainant must: identify the complainant, and how he/she is personally affected by the violation that has occurred, will occur or is occurring;

b.         Also, the complainant must describe his or her knowledge of the violation.

                                                                                             i.         Standing cannot be based upon something the complainant simply read.

2)        The complainant must provide a detailed background of the situation

a.         The complainant must give as many detailed facts as possible. This is because often times a verified complaint can be dismissed where the Ohio EPA cannot gather sufficient information about the violation. Photographic evidence can be very useful.

3)         The complainant must provide a list of the alleged violations citing the specific laws or regulations that were disregarded.

a.         It may be helpful to have attorney review your complaint prior to submitting it. This way you can identify as many laws and regulations that were believed to be violated, and the Ohio EPA will have a better idea of what the specific problem is.

4)        The complainant must provide verification in the form of a sworn and notarized affidavit by the complainant, or his/her agent or attorney.

a.         To notarize prevents fraud and ensures the appropriate people execute documents freely. Institutions rely upon notaries so they may have full faith in important documents. These materials serve as a means of verifying the transaction so others may rely upon it. When you see a notary’s seal on a document, it means a trusted notary public represents that it is authentic and properly executed.

b.         The verified complaint must be in writing and include the words “Verified Complaint” at     the top.

Be sure to review your verified complaint several times before submitting it! It is imperative to understand that a verified complaint may be of ease and cost efficient, BUT it can be easily dismissed or overlooked if it isn’t executed properly. The Director of the Ohio EPA makes the decision to either dismiss the complaint or take action.   A properly executed verified complaint can be a powerful tool for landowners who suspect environmental violations have occurred on their property or in their community.

Oil and Gas Development: Stories from SE Ohio

Winter clouds gathered outside the cafeteria of River High School in Hannibal, Ohio, promising high winds and black ice…but the folks inside were worried about threats a little closer to home.

On January 14, residents from southeast Ohio met with representatives from local, state and federal government to discuss their environmental concerns. The event, sponsored by the Ohio Environmental Council, gave citizens the chance to describe their experiences with oil, gas and other development. While the issues were universal—protecting land, water, air—the stories were highly individual:

·      The local farmer—having lost access to his leased grazing land because of a newly placed pipeline—decided to cash in his retirement and build a new home far away from development…only to have a natural gas compressor station built nearby. “It sounds like nine train engines running day and night,” he says.

·      The family who lived through a nearby well pad fire in June 2014, raised a host of questions about their subsequent health issues—and claim they’ve received precious few answers.

·      The new resident who came from bruising battles with drilling companies in the western United States, only to find similar issues brewing here. “I don’t want to sound defeatist,” he said. “I guess I’m here to warn you.”

While billed as a “listening session” for elected officials, few government representatives could offer more than sincere expressions of concern. Not surprising, really; environmental issues are often complicated and difficult to solve.

But Fair Shake Supervising Attorney James Yskamp had a simple reminder for those in attendance: “You have rights,” Yskamp said. “You have rights to be involved in the process, and you have rights if you feel you’ve been harmed.”

Yskamp and Resident Attorney Megan Hunter outlined some of the issues that were voiced during the forum, and noted where and how affected residents could seek answers and possibly redress.

Such rights, Yskamp said, are invaluable tools toward meaningful engagement.

”You have options,” he said, “and you need to know that.”

Fair Shake & Community Groups File Protest Letter to Protect Ohio’s Only National Forest from Oil and Gas Development

Oil and gas development on federal land is primarily governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq.). This law established the Secretary of the Interior’s authority to lease public lands for the development of mineral resources, including oil and gas. While the numbers of leases issued and acres of federal land leased by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) for oil and gas development has steadily and significantly decreased over the past eighteen years, the number producing leases on federal lands had gradually risen from under 19,000 in 1988 to almost 24,000 in 2015.[1] The number of producing acres on federal lands has been rising since 1993 and was almost 13 million in 2015.[2]

The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies, including BLM, to consider the environmental impact of their actions.[3] NEPA is triggered at multiple stages of the leasing and development process, and is a powerful tool for ensuring that adequate information is available to make reasoned policy decisions regarding mineral development on public lands and the potential impacts to the environment. Pursuant to NEPA, agencies are required to take a “hard look” at every significant environmental impact of a proposed agency action, as well as the impacts of any alternatives available.[4]

On November 14, 2016, Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services filed a protest letter on behalf of FreshWater Accountability Project and 26 other organizations to oppose the opening of the Wayne National Forest to oil and gas development. The letter protests the federal Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposed December 13, 2016, oil and gas lease sale of 33 parcels of publicly owned lands.

The proposed lease sale would allow unconventional oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as “fracking”) on approximately 1,600 acres of Ohio’s only national forest. Fair Shake argues that the lease sale would violate substantive and procedural federal law designed to protect human health and the environment.  Specifically, the protest argues that BLM is required under the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement.  This would include a more thorough environmental analysis than the Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted by BLM.  The groups also argued the EA itself was inadequate because it relied on outdated information and did not fully assess many of the foreseeable environmental impacts of the lease sale, including the impacts to air quality, water resources, public health, and endangered species.  The protest letter also raises concerns regarding climate change and environmental justice for local communities surrounding the proposed extraction sites. The letter also states BLM must consider other alternatives to the lease sale, such as keeping federal hydrocarbons in the ground or prohibiting hydraulic fracturing on leased parcels.

Fair Shake filed the protest letter—pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 3120.1-3—on behalf of FreshWater Accountability Project, Athens County Fracking Action Network, Buckeye Forest Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, Torch CAN DO, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance, Radioactive Waste Alert, Columbus Community Bill of Rights, Guernsey County Citizens’ Support on Drilling Issues, Frack Free Lake County, Sustainable Medina County, Ohio Allies, Frack Free Geauga, Network for Oil & Gas Accountability & Protection, Concerned Citizens Ohio, Friends for Environmental Justice, FaCT-Faith Communities Together for a Sustainable Future, Northwest Ohio Alliance to Stop Fracking, The Committee for the Youngstown Community Bill of Rights, Ohio Community Rights Network, Concerned Citizens of New Concord, Ohio River Citizens’ Alliance, Ashtabula County Water Watch, and Headwaters Defense.

You can read the full protest letter here.

[1] Bureau of Land Management, Summary Of Onshore Oil & Gas Statistics, available at https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/data_sets.Par.69959.File.dat/summary.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] 42 U.S.C.A. § 4321.

[4] See 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).