Farmers and counties split over bill to ‘fortify’ agritourism; debate centers on local control and definitions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
HB 2129 would broaden authorization and protections for agritourism activities on farmland; agricultural associations and some farmers supported expanded options to diversify farm income, while conservation groups, several county officials and production farmers warned the bill’s broad language could convert productive farmland to commercial venues and undercut local land-use protections.
House Committee on Local Government members heard sharply divided testimony on House Bill 2129, which seeks to fortify agritourism by clarifying and expanding activities allowed on agricultural land and directing the Department of Commerce to modify guidance or rules that inhibit agritourism.
Supporters — including the Washington Farm Bureau, some individual farmers and agricultural innovators — said agritourism can diversify revenue, help farms survive a structural economic crisis and keep farmland in production. One farmer testified that agritourism revenue can “help keep the farm viable and resist developer pressure.” Another speaker pointed to low farm take-home pay and higher suicide risk among farmers to argue for policy that enables on-farm income diversification.
Opponents — including county planners, farmland-preservation advocates and many production farmers — warned the bill’s definitions and exemptions are too broad and risk enabling high‑intensity commercial activities (weddings, concerts, overnight stays) that change land-use character, increase traffic, and damage agricultural infrastructure. Several witnesses from Skagit County and nonprofit land-preservation groups said local processes have already been working through nuanced solutions and urged the committee to preserve local authority rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all state standard.
County officials said agritourism enterprises vary widely and that larger event-oriented uses require infrastructure and mitigation; they requested a stakeholder work group and clarified, through committee questioning, that counties need time to calibrate definitions to protect adjacent production agriculture.
The committee received written comments from agricultural associations, county governments and community groups and did not take final action during the hearing. Members suggested a potential work group or targeted amendments to narrow definitions and preserve local permitting authority for higher-intensity uses.