Subcommittee weighs HB 72 to create edible-forest foraging pilot; members press for limits, liability and DNR input

The Natural Resources and Open Spaces Subcommittee on the Environment and Transportation Committee discussed House Bill 72 on the proposal to create an edible-forest and foraging program on state land, but took no votes.

Kristen, a committee staff presenter, told members the bill would establish a permitting program for foraging on state-owned lands, require DNR, subject to available funding, to establish and maintain edible forests on state-owned lands, and create a nonlapsing fund to support the program. She said the sponsor is working with the Department of Natural Resources on amendments that would narrow the proposal to a three-year pilot in two designated areas.

Members said they welcomed a pilot but pressed for more detail. "What size are these designated areas? The half acre, 1 acre, 50 acres, 100 acres — there's no size in designating two areas," Delegate Jacobs said, asking whether the paperwork specifies acreage and how the fiscal note would scale. Chair noted the fiscal estimate included a DNR figure of about "$10,000 per acre" to establish an edible forest.

Lawmakers also asked how the program would be enforced. Delia Grama warned the bill, as originally written, would create broad authority for DNR and could amount to "foraging police" if not narrowed; she urged clarity on whether the amendment sufficiently limits agency power. Kristen said current forest and park regulations "prohibit removing or disturbing plants and natural items on state-owned public lands," meaning, she said, there is currently "no legal means for foraging in the state" on those lands without a statutory change.

Delegates raised additional practical concerns: whether permit holders could sell what they gathered, whether limits on quantities would be set per person, what liability the state would assume if someone became ill from misidentified mushrooms or plants, and whether enforcement would require hiring additional officers. Delegate Baker described family traditions of mushroom-hunting on large tracts of state land in Western counties and questioned whether routine family outings should require fees or permits.

Members repeatedly asked that DNR attend the next discussion to answer enforcement and regulatory questions; the chair agreed to invite agency representatives. The subcommittee did not take a vote and left HB 72 at the discussion stage, with members asking the sponsor and DNR for tighter guardrails — on pilot area size, enforcement quotas, liability, permit limits and the role of permit fees in funding the program.

The subcommittee is expected to seek the sponsor’s final amendment text and DNR input before scheduling further action.