House Committees on Agriculture & Food Systems (Chair Kirsten Kahalua) and Tourism (Chair Adrienne Tam) met Feb. 5, 2025 in a joint hearing to consider two related measures — HB 189 and HB 966 — that would establish statewide standards for agricultural tourism and require counties to set permitting procedures.

The committees passed both measures with amendments and deferred the effective date (the committees used a placeholder date of 07/01/3000) to continue drafting clearer, county-compatible rules.

The bills were written to limit nonagricultural uses on agricultural land and to ensure that agritourism is accessory to bona fide farming. Supporters said clear rules are needed; opponents argued some proposed thresholds would harm working farms.

Kualoa (Kualoa) Ranch director Taylor Kellerman, testifying in opposition, said the bill as drafted risked “a loss of over 350 jobs in our business” and could undermine one of his farm’s steady local food outlets. Nicole Galassi of the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council similarly warned the bills could hurt renters and smaller producers who rely on diversified income. By contrast, Hunter Hevelin of the Hawaii Farmers Union supported the bills’ intent but recommended using existing county agricultural-dedication processes as a threshold for eligibility.

The committees removed several contested provisions in response to testimony. Notable changes adopted in committee action include: removal of specific acreage- and annual-income threshold language; replacing a draft income-cap approach with a requirement that the real property of a working farm or farming operation “is taxed as agricultural and is current on its real property tax obligations” (i.e., county agricultural dedication or equivalent); deletion of a one-year continuity limit; and an explicit exemption for roadside stands or retail activity in enclosed structures under 300 square feet from a building-permit requirement (subject to electric/plumbing permits where applicable). The committees also signaled intent to leave much of the permitting and enforcement detail to counties and to add non-substantive technical edits for clarity and style.

Representatives and staff repeatedly described agritourism as primarily a county, zoning-driven issue and urged local flexibility. Multiple witnesses said acreage and income ratios are impractical as universal tests because farm practices and markets differ across islands and properties. Several witnesses suggested conditional-use or county-level conditional permitting where straightforward thresholds fail.

Outcome: Both HB 189 and HB 966 were adopted by the committees with the technical and substantive amendments described above and with an adjusted implementation timeline to allow further stakeholder work and county-level rulemaking.

What’s next: Committee reports will record the amendments and encourage continued stakeholder engagement (counties, agricultural producers, Department of Agriculture) to refine language on enforcement, eligibility, and definitions of bona fide agriculture before the measures proceed through the legislative process.