The Urban Agriculture Amendment Act of 2025 updates the District of Columbia’s urban farming laws to broaden what kinds of products can qualify for urban farm tax abatements and land leases, while tightening how those farms must operate. The bill expands the definition of “crops” to include both produce and horticultural items, such as cut flowers, decorative plants, and landscape plants, and adds definitions for horticultural techniques like hydroponics, container farming, vertical farming, greenhouse growing, and raised-bed cultivation. It also clarifies that qualifying urban farms must be managed by an entity, rather than an individual, though sole proprietorships may qualify if the owner is a District resident.
At the same time, the bill removes the option for eligible farms to grow crops directly in site soil. Instead, farms seeking the urban farm real property tax credit or participation in the Urban Farming Land Lease Program must use raised beds, greenhouses, hydroponic towers, or similar methods, and crops may have only minimal contact with site soil. The measure also narrows eligibility rules for leased land by requiring continuous use as an urban farm under an approved annual planting plan and by allowing the sale or distribution of crops grown under these soil-contact restrictions.
The bill’s impact on District law is to amend section 47-868 of the D.C. Official Code and the Food Production and Urban Gardens Program Act of 1986. It changes the legal definitions and eligibility standards for urban farm programs administered by the Department of Energy and Environment, affecting tax abatement applicants, land lessees, and the agency’s certification and oversight process. The fiscal impact statement says funds are sufficient under the current financial plan, that the tax abatement program remains capped at $90,000 annually, and that any savings from reduced soil testing would be minimal.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill materials is favorable. The Mayor’s transmittal describes the legislation as a way to expand access beyond edible crop production, encourage more farming on urban land, and address public health concerns about heavy metals in site soil. The Attorney General found the bill legally sufficient, and the fiscal analysis indicates it can be implemented without additional funding. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence of recorded opposition in the materials supplied.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s stricter soil-use rules and its shift from individual to entity-based farm management requirements. Those changes may exclude some existing or prospective urban growers who rely on in-ground cultivation or who operate outside formal entity structures. At the same time, supporters can point to the expanded eligibility for non-produce horticultural products and the public health rationale for limiting contact with potentially contaminated site soil.
The bill amends D.C. urban agriculture statutes by revising the urban farm real property tax credit and the Urban Farming Land Lease Program to allow a broader range of crops, including horticultural products, while prohibiting direct cultivation in site soil for program eligibility. It also updates definitions of “crops,” “horticultural items,” “horticultural techniques,” and “urban farm,” and changes who may qualify as an urban farm operator. The Department of Energy and Environment would continue administering these programs under the new standards, with no expected need for additional appropriations and only minimal savings from reduced soil testing.
The available materials show a generally positive and pragmatic sentiment toward the bill. The Mayor frames it as an expansion of urban agriculture opportunities and a public health measure, and the fiscal and legal reviews are both supportive. Because no committee transcript or vote history is included, there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the record provided.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s elimination of in-soil growing for program eligibility and its requirement that qualifying urban farms be managed by an entity rather than an individual. Those provisions could be viewed as excluding smaller or more traditional growers, especially those using ground-based cultivation or informal business structures. Supporters, however, would likely emphasize the benefits of expanding eligibility to horticultural crops and reducing exposure to contaminated soil, making the bill a tradeoff between broader program access and stricter operational standards.