Ephemeral streams are the smallest of streams that only flow during rainfall or snowmelt and are typically located near the upper reaches of watersheds. Most people observing an ephemeral stream would likely refer to it as an erosion gully. Ephemeral streams are typically not natural and have developed due to increased stormwater runoff that has resulted from past and historic land use changes. This increased stormwater runoff erodes the land surface to form erosion gullies and, over time, these gullies advanced unabated upstream for significant distances. Thus, ephemeral streams have become the pathways that convey stormwater runoff and pollutants (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) rapidly downstream and increase flooding.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) estimates that there are 36,000 miles of ephemeral streams in Ohio. This value represents how severely the upper reaches of Ohio’s watersheds have eroded over the past 200 years. Currently, in Ohio, impacts to ephemeral streams are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and by the OEPA. Sub. HB 175 will limit OEPA regulation of ephemeral streams to the extent that they are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, the Sub. HB 175 specifies mitigation for ephemeral stream impacts. 

These changes will provide developers with consistency when it comes to mitigation requirements. The mitigation requirements established in Sub. HB 175 strike the right balance between eliminating unnecessary red tape and environmental stewardship. Sub. HB 175 also makes important changes to the Interagency Review Team (IRT), which develop criteria that have been applied in the review and approval of mitigation plans. Sub. HB 175 ensures transparency, by requiring minutes be taken by the state agencies that participate on the IRT. Sub. HB 175 also requires the Ohio EPA to follow the rule-making process before adopting mitigation procedures recommended by the IRT. How could anyone oppose transparency and stakeholder engagement when it comes to establishing compensatory mitigation guidelines?

A key ephemeral stream mitigation option now available in Sub. HB 175 is to increase the size of the temporary stormwater storage volume located within stormwater basins that are required by the OEPA in their Construction Activities General Permit. This temporary storage volume is referred to as the “Water Quality Volume” by the OEPA. By increasing the size of the water quality volume, stormwater runoff will be slowed down, more pollutants will be trapped in these upstream basins, downstream flooding will be decreased and pollutants will not be conveyed rapidly downstream to other water bodies, such as, Lake Erie or the Ohio River. Therefore, Sub. HB 175 directly supports the H2Ohio program.

Additional benefits will also result from Sub. HB 175, such as, decreased down-gradient stream channel erosion and property loss, improved in-stream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife, and a reduction in nutrient runoff and algal blooms, which will advance the protection of drinking water for millions of Ohioans.

Employers in Ohio are likely to receive another cut in their workers’ compensation premiums following the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) Board of Director’s first read on the proposed fiscal year 2023 premiums. During the Actuarial Committee meeting held on Thursday, BWC actuaries announced the proposal that would lower employer premiums 10 percent.  

This move is projected to save employers more than $100 million next year and is the 6^th largest premium cut since 2000. 

Employer premiums have fallen consistently over the last two decades due to modern manufacturing processes, shifts in the types of jobs performed in Ohio and employer investments into making workplaces safer. In fact, over the last 15 years the number of lost time claims has shrunk by nearly fifty percent.  

The Ohio Chamber commends the efforts by the Bureau to make our workers’ compensation program – which is entirely funded by employers – a driver of a better business climate in our state. Since the pandemic, Ohio employers have received more than $8 billion in dividends from BWC including a $5 billion rebate in 2020 that gave employers almost four times their paid premium back. Employers have also seen premium reductions for four consecutive years.

Despite the continued rate cuts and employer dividends, the BWC’s state insurance fund remains in a strong financial position with a net position of approximately $9.1 billion. 

Under the legislation, oil refineries are restricted in their ability to enter into agreements with contractors unless the contractor employs individuals who attended a union backed apprenticeship program. This is problematic because it could limit the number of available workers on projects, increase operating costs, and exacerbate workforce shortages. The Ohio Chamber opposes HB 235 because as Ohio employers continue to struggle to find employees, they need the opportunity to hire contractors regardless of their affiliation with a labor union. 

Legislation dictating who can and cannot work on a project is misguided and is an attempt to dictate workforce policies on Ohio companies. A uniform statewide policy requiring union contractors on oil refineries fails to account for the individual needs of each location and may have unintended consequences such as higher operating costs and fewer new projects. Likewise, HB 235 also infringes upon the contracting rights of employers by restricting which parties are eligible to perform construction services on oil refineries. This approach hinders the free market and can lead to higher construction costs since fewer contractors are bidding for a particular project. 

The arguments put forward by proponents of the bill focus on safety. However, this motive is called into question by a plain reading of the legislation since the hiring quotas in the bill actually shrink the number of experienced workers – those with more than 10,000 working hours – required to work on a project from 55 percent in the first year HB 235 is in effect to only 15 percent by year three. 

At the Ohio Chamber, we will continue educating lawmakers on how HB 235 is an unnecessary infringement by government on Ohio’s employers and why companies are in the best position to determine if they want to use union workers or not. 

While in the Ohio Senate, HB 126 picked up additional protection for real property owners. A proposal to end the involvement of third parties in the process was floated but ultimately not adopted. This amendment would have placed Ohio with about 46 other states that do not allow third party interference in the real property valuation process. This proposal did lead to the adoption of several amendments that limit the scope of involvement by third parties. Complaints on valuation must be initiated by the real property owner/tenant, and if a complaint is filed, a third party can file a counter complaint.

Amended HB 126 also added language that stops the involvement of third parties at the local BOR level. Once the BOR rules on the valuation of the property, only the owner/tenant can seek a further appeal at the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA). Under current law, real property owners were faced with expensive appeals brought by third parties to the BTA. These appeals can lead to subpoena requests, additional evidentiary hearings, and the cost of representation. If enacted, HB 126 will end this practice, saving business owners money and time and providing valuation certainty.  These changes will take place for tax year 2022.

When the Ohio House returns in January, it will need to vote to concur in the changes. If the House rejects the changes, the bill will be sent to a conference committee to develop a report for a vote in both legislative chambers. If HB 126 goes to a conference committee, additional amendments can be added to the bill.

Passage of HB 2 led to the creation of the Ohio Residential Broadband Expansion Program. This program was allocated $250 million for the initial grants. During the enactment of HB 2, the scope of the issue was unclear in terms of dollars needed. Broadly, the deficiency in service was described as 300,000 households. This only provided scope for residential homes and did not describe the deficiency for small businesses, and we did not have a dollar amount to paint the full picture of the issue to be resolved. We now have at least a partial answer to this question. The initial applications for grants totaled $1.5 billion dollars.

After HB 2 was enacted, the BroadbandOhio office set in motion a timeline for the Broadband Expansion Grant Authority. The Ohio Chamber has remained involved with the group and regularly attends the meetings and monitors the webpage for developments. The timeline set a November 8, 2021, deadline for applications to receive a grant for expansion of broadband infrastructure to provide high-speed internet to unserved areas of Ohio. The Authority published the applications on Monday, December 13. That triggered the complaint/review period, which ends on January 12, 2022. This period allows objections to be raised against an application that may be providing duplicative service, may not meet the guidelines required by the application or for other reasons. The Authority will review the objections and award grants, most likely in February. The work ahead will not be easy. The Authority is reviewing 218 applications that cover areas in 87 of the 88 counties and will need to take into consideration the anticipated challenges to some of the applications.

The Ohio Chamber will continue to monitor the process and provide updates on the process. Given the number of applications and the dollars sought, it is clear that the process identified a problem that needed to be addressed, and if the available grant monies cannot fully close the broadband gap, Ohio may be able to look to available federal dollars to augment the monies available for round two of the grant program.

The Ohio Chamber’s brief was joined by the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association, Ohio Bankers League, Ohio Grocers Association, Wholesale Beer and Wine Association of Ohio and Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association. The amicus brief focused on how the OSHA rule could further hinder Ohio’s challenging labor market and how ambiguity in the proposed rule makes compliance difficult for employers across the Buckeye State.

At the Ohio Chamber, we advocate for employers to maintain the right to set the health and safety procedures that fit their company best and this amicus brief is only our latest effort pushing back against government overreach that limits what employers can and cannot do in regards to setting COVID-19 vaccine protocols. Likewise, the Ohio Chamber will continue to oppose efforts that seek to insert government between the employer and employee relationship regardless of whether the threat comes from the federal government of the Statehouse.

Due to legal fights from multiple businesses and attorneys general like Ohio’s Dave Yost, the proposed OSHA rule, which was set to be enforced starting on January 4, 2022, has been paused pending the outcome of litigation. That is why it was important for the Ohio business community to make their concerns known to the court through an amicus brief because ultimately federal judges will decide the fate of this burdensome and one-size-fits-all COVID-19 vaccination policy.