Ohio Ag Net | Ohio's Country Journal Ohio Ag Net | Ohio's Country Journal 
By Ty Higgins, Ohio Ag Net
Ohio Farm Bureau continues to oppose a proposed highway connector that would link U.S. 23 with Interstate 71 in Marion and Morrow counties, arguing the project warrants a more comprehensive examination of its costs, benefits and long-term impact on farmland and rural communities.
The proposed connector’s preferred route, which would directly affect roughly 800 acres of agricultural land within the highway footprint, has generated considerable discussion in north-central Ohio, with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) moving forward with a feasibility study and selecting a preferred alternative for the project.
“Our members’ primary concerns can be boiled down to are we really looking at all of the costs and all of the benefits,” said Leah Curtis, associate general counsel with Ohio Farm Bureau. “And are we giving a full view of, particularly, the costs that will be incurred by the people where this will be built and what benefits will they accrue from all of those costs?”
Curtis said ODOT is appropriately considering the direct costs associated with construction, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and operation of the road. However, she believes the analysis needs to go further.
“What we have encouraged ODOT to do throughout this process is to look beyond just what is the cost to the state,” Curtis said. “Because when you build a new road in an entirely new area, you’re going to have additional costs, particularly to those local communities.”
Those costs could include additional policing and emergency services, she said, as well as broader economic impacts resulting from the loss of farmland.
The organization also questions whether a new connector should take priority when communities across Ohio have existing transportation infrastructure needs.
“Obviously, road projects are funded by tax dollars,” Curtis said. “We have many, many projects out there that need to be addressed; if you talk to anybody in any area, they will point to some road that they feel needs to be updated. It needs to be a traffic pattern change.”
Farmland preservation has long been a concern for Farm Bureau when major infrastructure projects are proposed, and Curtis said the connector represents another significant opportunity to permanently remove agricultural land from production.
“Farmland is certainly a significant part of the economy in that area, and if we’re removing that, it’s going to impact the community and that economy in that area,” Curtis said. “We can’t just look at this road in a vacuum of what it cost the state to build it. We also have to look at what the additional costs are to that community in particular, and what are the long-term costs? What are the indirect costs connected to that construction that will also have to be borne by that area?”
While the direct conversion of farmland for the roadway is a significant concern, Curtis said the potential development that could follow construction of the connector may ultimately have an even greater impact.
“I think that longer-term development potential is just as important as the direct conversion of land for the actual roadway, because that’s how sprawl happens and that’s how farmland gets converted,” Curtis said. “It’s not like we converted a million acres in one day. We’ve converted that million acres over 20 and 30 years, and we chip and chip and chip away.”
Once agricultural land is converted to development, returning it to production can be extremely difficult.
“Land is something that we can’t make more of,” Curtis said. “And taking that land back from development is also incredibly difficult, because a lot of times we’ve removed the topsoil. There’s no good remediation. And so, it’s not as if we can just turn back time and plant corn there another day.”
The direct loss of farmland is easy to see when looking at a proposed highway route. Curtis said some of the less obvious consequences for farmers may be just as important.
ODOT has attempted to limit landlocked parcels and lot splits in its proposed route, she said, but any new roadway will require land and can disrupt existing agricultural operations.
Farm Bureau has specifically highlighted concerns about drainage.
“This is going to be an area that is drained systematically,” Curtis said. “Anybody who has dealt with farm drainage knows that it is very easy when a construction project happens in one place to affect drainage for everybody else.”
Changes to local roads could also create additional challenges for farmers moving equipment.
“If we are putting in a new road, we may have to dead-end some local roads; we may have to change the configurations of some local roads,” Curtis said. “That may create more safety concerns for farm machinery, which is already an issue.”
Those changes could also increase the amount of time farmers spend traveling to grain elevators, farm stores and other businesses that support the agricultural economy.
Supporters of the connector argue that improved transportation between U.S. 23 and Interstate 71 could improve the movement of people and goods and provide opportunities for economic development.
Curtis said Farm Bureau recognizes that there can be differing opinions about the potential benefits. Still, she believes the state should first see what happens with improvements already planned for U.S. 23.
“There are significant infrastructure resources already available,” Curtis said. “There’s also a significant effort to improve U.S. 23 already that has been proposed and is in the works, and we frankly don’t know what is going to happen.”
Farm Bureau believes the state should evaluate those improvements before committing potentially $1 billion to an entirely new roadway.
ODOT is required to complete a feasibility study and submit a report to the Ohio Legislature by October. Curtis said the report is expected to include a compilation of the public comments submitted during the process.
Although the public comment period has closed, Curtis encouraged Ohio residents who remain concerned about the project to contact their state legislators.
“This is a very big funding decision,” she said. “Certainly, people can talk to their individual legislators, as we always encourage here at Farm Bureau. If you are concerned about something that’s going on in our government, talk to your legislator.”
Curtis emphasized that the decision ultimately affects rural residents throughout Ohio, not just those who live in Marion and Morrow counties.
“If it can happen here, it can happen other places,” Curtis said. “There are certainly plenty of areas where someone would love to see additional infrastructure or something faster, another lane.”
For Farm Bureau, the broader question is whether the proposed connector represents the best use of limited public resources and whether its benefits justify the long-term consequences for the communities and farmland in its path.
“We want to be mindful from a good-government standpoint,” Curtis said. “Is this the best way to use our resources? Is this the best type of project that we should be undertaking?”
