COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Ohio Supreme Court took under advisement Wednesday morning arguments in a 2014 case involving a Weathersfield saltwater injection well.

The case centers around AWMS Water Solutions LLC’s Weathersfield saltwater injection well and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ order to cease its operations.

Wednesday’s hearing marks the third time the parties have appeared before the state’s high court in the case.

The justices told the parties the court will notify them of the court’s decision.

In March 2014, ODNR authorized AWMS to commence injections into two wells at the township site. Four months later, a 1.7-magnitude tremor was recorded near well #2, and a 2.1 magnitude quake was recorded in the same area.

After the second earthquake, ODNR’s oil and gas division ordered AWMS to suspend operations at both injection wells. It eventually lifted the suspension on well #1 but kept the well #2 suspension in place.

The company filed suit and has argued that ODNR’s order to cease well operations amounted to the government taking its property, which requires the state to pay AWMS just compensation.

In September 2024, the Trumbull County-based 11th District Court of Appeals found that AWMS was entitled to relief on its claim of “partial, regulatory taking.” The appeals court also found that the Trumbull County Probate Court “is limited in determining just compensation …”

Attorney Daniel Rudary, representing AWMS, told the justices the appeals court ruled correctly that the company suffered a partial taking because of the ODNR order, but said those judges erred regarding compensation.

“It erred and exceeded the mandate of this court when it went on to impose a preemptive cap on AWMS damages that it is entitled to recover in future yet to be commenced appropriation proceedings,” he said.

Rudary also said one of the judges who made the ruling wasn’t on the court when the case was presented but made decisions regarding expert credibility. On that basis, the ruling is erroneous too, he said.

Attorney Samuel Peterson, representing ODNR, however, argued that the agency’s decision didn’t amount to a “taking” for the company and asked the justices to rule accordingly, “or at a minimum, to reject AWMS’s arguments and affirm” the appeals court decision.

Rudary also pointed to the two 2014 tremors that he said were attributable to AWMS’s legal and permitted operations.

“Neither was felt; neither caused any destruction of property; neither interfered with any private person’s property rights,” he said. “And yet the state is coming before this court and arguing that that evidence shows an impending, serious harm.”

Rudary also said there’s been no argument that AWMS  exceeded the limitations imposed on it by the state’s permitting process.

“AWS operations were at all times legal and compliant with Ohio law,” he said.

Peterson, though, said the appeals court’s suspension order reflected a long-held principle of Ohio law that someone can’t use their property in a way that interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the property rights of others.

He pointed to lower court testimony that at least one person reported the earthquake to the U.S. Geological Survey.

“And that’s important,” Peterson said. “That’s not just the people who felt it – that’s someone who … had felt the earthquake, knew who to call, felt motivated to report it. Other people likely felt it and just didn’t take those steps.”

He said the dispute between AWMS and ODNR isn’t about whether the company should be able to cause earthquakes.

“Everyone acknowledges that AWMS will cause some earthquakes,” Peterson said. “AWMS just wants to cause bigger earthquakes. The Division says you can cause small earthquakes. AWMS says, ‘That’s not good enough. We want to cause bigger ones …’ Imagine you’re someone in Weathersfield Township whose house shakes maybe once a week, maybe once a month. You never know when it’s going to happen.”