Oil & Gas & Environmental Law Update - OhioClass II Injection Wells, Road Brine, and Waste-Handling Enforcement

December 2025

Ohio is seeing an uptick in attention on how oil and gas waste is transported, stored, and disposed of. Three recent developments are worth watching for operators, landowners, and local governments:

1. A new lawsuit challenging ODNR’s approval of Class II injection wells near Marietta.

2. Proposed legislation (House Bill 439) to prohibit road-spreading of oil and gas brine.

3. A major enforcement action and cost-recovery effort involving the Austin Master Services facility in Martins Ferry.

This update summarizes what is happening and what it may mean for you.

1. Lawsuit Over Class II Injection Wells Near Marietta

In November 2025, Buckeye Environmental Network (BEN), represented by Earthjustice, filed suit in the Tenth District Court of Appeals (Franklin County) against the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). The group is challenging ODNR’s approval of two Class II injection wells, Stephan 1 and American Growers 4, near Marietta.

According to BEN’s filings and public statements:

• The wells would inject millions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater less than two miles from Marietta’s public drinking-water source.

• The lawsuit alleges ODNR reviewed and approved the wells under older, less protective regulations, instead of applying revised rules adopted in 2022 that added new safeguards for groundwater and public health.

What’s at Stake Legally

The case raises several issues that may have broader implications:

• Which rules apply: Whether ODNR can rely on “old” technical rules when reviewing permits after newer, more protective rules have taken effect.

• Public notice and participation: The petition alleges shortcomings in required notice to landowners and local officials within the area of review.

• Protection of drinking-water sources: The court’s reasoning on how close injection activities can be to municipal water supplies will be closely watched by communities and operators statewide.

Potential Implications

• For operators and waste-disposal companies:

  • Expect greater scrutiny of injection-well siting, area-of-review analyses, and technical demonstrations under the most current rules.

  • Future permits are more likely to be challenged if they are perceived as relying on outdated regulatory standards or thin factual records.

• For landowners and local governments:

  • Local entities may see this case as a model for how to challenge permits they view as risky to drinking water or infrastructure.

  • Municipal water providers may be asked to provide more formal input during permit review.

The case is in its early stages; no final decision has been issued. However, the filing itself signals a willingness by advocacy groups to actively litigate ODNR permitting decisions.

2. House Bill 439 – Proposed Ban on Brine Spreading on Roads

In September 2025, Representatives Tristan Rader and Sean Brennan introduced House Bill 439 in the Ohio House of Representatives. The bill would prohibit the surface application of brine from oil and gas wells on roads and highways statewide.

Key points from HB 439 and sponsor testimony:

• HB 439 amends several sections of R.C. Chapter 1509 and repeals existing provisions that allow local governments to approve oil and gas brine for dust control or de-icing.

• The bill defines oil and gas brine and related “liquid waste” broadly, including commercial products like AquaSalina.

• The sponsors emphasize that such materials can contain toxins and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and should not be used as routine road-treatment products.

• HB 439 would create civil and criminal penalties for spreading oil and gas brine on public roads in violation of the law.

As of this update, HB 439 has been assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee. Sponsor testimony was presented on October 15, 2025; the committee has not yet voted on the bill.

What This Could Mean if it Passes

• Townships, counties, and villages:

  • Current local programs that use brine or brine-based products for dust control or de-icing would likely have to stop and transition to alternative materials.

  • Recordkeeping and reporting practices around brine usage may be scrutinized in any enforcement actions.

• Producers, haulers, and service companies:

  • Brine that is currently being applied to roads would need to be diverted to other lawful disposal or treatment options (e.g., injection wells), potentially increasing disposal costs and logistical complexity.

  • Marketing brine-based “de-icer” products for road use in Ohio could become unlawful.

• Landowners and communities:

  • For residents along unpaved or rural roads, HB 439 would change how dust and ice control are managed, possibly requiring new contracts or materials from local governments.

Even if HB 439 does not pass in its current form, it signals growing legislative concern about road-spreading of oil and gas waste and may lead to more targeted regulations or local restrictions.

3. Enforcement Trend: Austin Master Services and Cost Recovery

The third development is not new legislation, but a cautionary enforcement story.

Austin Master Services, a radiological waste management and frack-waste handling facility in Martins Ferry (Belmont County), became the focus of state enforcement when investigators found far more waste on-site than permitted and non-compliant storage practices.

Key Facts:

• The facility was permitted to store a few hundred tons of waste but ended up with many thousands of tons of solid and liquid oil and gas waste, some of it radioactive, onsite.

• In 2024, the Ohio Attorney General sued the company and sought emergency orders to halt operations and force cleanup.

• When the company failed to complete cleanup by a court-ordered deadline, ODNR stepped in to perform the cleanup itself. ODNR announced the cleanup was completed in May 2025.

• The state then pursued cost recovery. Public reporting indicates the court has ordered the company to pay approximately $6.2 million to cover cleanup and related costs.

Why this Matters

• Regulatory expectations: The case underscores that ODNR and the Attorney General’s Office are willing to use emergency powers, injunctions, contempt proceedings, and substantial cost-recovery actions when waste facilities fall out of compliance.

• Financial assurance: Operators handling significant quantities of waste need to ensure that bonding, insurance, and financial planning are sufficient to cover worst-case cleanup obligations.

• Paper trail and operations: Poor documentation, inadequate tracking of volumes, and permit non-compliance can lead to facility shutdowns, personal exposure for owners, and long-term liability.

Practical Takeaways for EQUES Clients

While each situation is fact-specific, a few themes are emerging across these developments:

1. Expect more scrutiny of waste-disposal choices.

   1. Injection-well permits, road-spreading practices, and storage facilities are all under a brighter spotlight.

   2. Regulatory decisions that used to be treated as routine are now more likely to be challenged by advocacy groups and examined by the courts.

2. “Legacy practices” are at risk.

   1. Practices that grew up under older rules (such as land-applied brine road treatment or long-term on-site storage of waste) may no longer be viewed as acceptable even if they were once common.

3. Compliance is not just technical—it’s strategic.

   1. For operators and service companies:

      1. Re-evaluate any reliance on brine road-spreading as part of your disposal strategy, especially if HB 439 or similar proposals advance.

   2. For landowners:

      1. If you are near existing or proposed injection wells or waste facilities, consider reviewing notices and permits carefully and documenting any groundwater or surface-water concerns.

   3. For local governments:

      1. Inventory your use of brine-based road treatments and identify alternatives so you are prepared if HB 439 or related measures pass.

How EQUES Law Group Can Help

Landowners and local governments on injection-well siting, easements, road agreements, and potential challenges to high-risk facilities or practices.

If you:

• Use or supply brine-based products for de-icing or dust control, or

• Own or manage property near disposal wells, waste facilities, or municipal water sources,

we recommend a focused review of your current practices and contracts in light of these developments.

Please contact EQUES Law Group to discuss how these changes may affect your specific operations, property, or community.

Disclaimer: This update is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this update does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult with legal counsel about how these issues apply to your particular circumstances.