The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that Ohio Edison is permitted to use herbicides to clear vegetation from under its power lines, despite objections from local landowners. This decision overturns a previous ruling by the Seventh District Court of Appeals, which had restricted the company to trimming or cutting vegetation.
In a 5-2 decision, Justice Michael P. Donnelly wrote for the majority, stating that the easements granted in 1948 allow Ohio Edison to "remove" vegetation using herbicides. He explained that one definition of "remove" includes "eliminate or eradicate," thus justifying the use of herbicides as a modern method to achieve this purpose. The court's opinion emphasized that these easements are intended to prevent any interference with Ohio Edison's infrastructure.
Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Melody Stewart, Jennifer Brunner, and Joseph T. Deters concurred with Justice Donnelly's opinion.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy dissented, arguing that while she agrees with alternative methods for removal beyond cutting and trimming, herbicides do not actually "remove" vegetation as they inhibit regrowth rather than eliminate it completely. Justice Patrick F. Fischer joined her dissent.
The case stems from a dispute involving landowners Craig, Jackie, and Scott Corder who objected to Ohio Edison's plan in 2017 to use herbicides on their property following federal regulations established after a massive blackout in 2003. The Corders filed a lawsuit in Harrison County Common Pleas Court seeking to block the spraying.
Initially dismissed by the trial court due to jurisdictional issues, the case was later taken up by the Seventh District Court of Appeals which sided with the Corders but found ambiguity in the easement language regarding removal methods due to punctuation concerns.
Upon review by the Supreme Court of Ohio, Justice Donnelly clarified that within context, "remove" should be interpreted broadly enough to include eradication methods such as herbicide application. The court concluded there were no textual restrictions against using such modern techniques within these historical easements.
Chief Justice Kennedy’s dissent cited testimony from First Energy employees indicating regrowth occurs without herbicide application and argued against interpreting “removal” as merely inhibiting future growth without actual physical elimination.
This ruling highlights ongoing legal interpretations surrounding utility rights-of-way and modernization practices like herbicide usage under longstanding property agreements.