Eastern Oregon lawmakers, county leaders back allowing outdoor weddings and events on farms east of the Cascades; opponents warn of farmland impact

Salem, March 6 — Lawmakers and county officials from Eastern Oregon told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire that Senate Bill 788 would give small, rural counties an additional way to help struggling farms and ranches by allowing certain outdoor weddings and events on farm-zoned land east of the Cascade crest.

The proposal: Staff summarized SB 788 as authorizing weddings or event venues east of the summit of the Cascade Range in counties with a population fewer than 90,000 when conducted outdoors or in farm buildings, as an authorized use on land zoned for farm use.

Support from Eastern counties: Senator Todd Nash (SD 29) and Paul Andrus, Union County commissioner and co-chair of the Eastern Oregon Counties Association, framed the bill as an economic lifeline. Nash said many agricultural commodities in his district "are operating at a loss right now" and that allowing events could "offset and augment the income of some of those farms." Andrus and several ranchers and county farm-bureau representatives from Central and Eastern Oregon testified in favor, saying the measure would let farmers diversify income without the delay and cost of conditional use permits.

Amendment and cautious support from statewide farm groups: Ryan Crabill of the Oregon Farm Bureau told the committee he supported SB 788 "with its -3 amendment," saying the amendment ties events to existing farm operations and is intended to prevent stand-alone commercial-event businesses that could erode EFU zoning. Several Eastern ranchers and local farm-bureau leaders also spoke for the bill.

Opposition and counties' discretion concerns: Opponents including Chris Robach of Thrive Hood River and other west-of-Cascades groups said the bill would remove local discretion and force counties to allow commercial events on farmland that currently prohibit them. Robach warned that making events a permitted use would "remove that ability for counties to make those choices on their own and you will essentially mandate the destruction of farmland." Other opponents cautioned about conflicts with accepted farming practices, increased traffic, water and fire risks, and the potential for speculative land buy-ups.

Mixed testimony: Some witnesses said events are already permitted through conditional-use or agritourism pathways and urged county-by-county decisions. Others said the conditional-use process is slow and costly, and that predictability and clear state authorization would help Eastern Oregon producers.

Committee action: The committee opened public testimony and did not take a final vote. Supporters and opponents both indicated they would submit written comments. The record includes repeated county-level examples and references to past land-use adjustments; senators and county leaders emphasized the bills intent to target lower-population, east-of-Cascades counties.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing on SB 77, SB 78 and SB 788 and adjourned the March 6 session; no votes were recorded at the hearing.