Bill would change farm definition for wetlands rules, sponsors say it would help beginning farmers

House panel considered H‑5607, a bill to remove a tax‑based definition of “farmer” from Title 2 (Agriculture and Forestry) provisions that affect freshwater-wetlands exemptions and to replace it with an agricultural‑land definition.

Sponsor Representative Carter and witnesses from the Rhode Island Farm Bureau argued the existing statutory definition — tied to a tax-based $10,000 gross‑sales threshold and possession of a state farm tax-exempt certificate over four prior years — prevents new and beginning farmers from using land and the wetland setbacks available to larger, established operations. Heidi Quinn, executive director of the Rhode Island Farm Bureau, testified that lowering the threshold (the bill text discussed $2,500) and removing the tax-based definition would allow smaller or beginning farmers to operate inside existing agricultural wetland setbacks and access the same activities already permitted for larger farms.

Quinn, and other proponents, said the change is intended to let agricultural land be treated according to its use and suitability rather than prior tax filings. She told the committee that municipalities currently apply different local rules and that the proposed definition would focus on land “where the ag operations are conducted” and would not enable clear‑cutting or permit activities not already allowed by wetlands regulations.

Committee members queried whether the bill would allow a large property owner to reclassify residential land as agricultural to obtain tax benefits; witnesses said that taxation and Farm, Forest and Open Space programs are governed separately and that the bill’s intent is limited to wetlands‑related definitions rather than taxation. Members also raised concerns about farmers who drop below thresholds after crop loss or disaster; witnesses said that the current four‑year tax test can cause those established operators to lose access to exemptions following severe weather or crop loss.

Multiple environmental letters opposing the bill were in the record; witnesses and the sponsor said at least some opposition comments reflected a prior drafting error that had conflated forestry with agricultural land in a previous year’s draft. The bill was left open for additional testimony; one prospective witness (Phoenix Wheeler) had to leave and the committee held the record open. No final vote occurred at the hearing.