SB496 directs the Hawaii Board of Agriculture to create formal definitions for the terms “bona fide farmer” and “bona fide agricultural activity,” and to place those definitions in section 141-1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The bill identifies several criteria the board should consider in defining “bona fide farmer,” including minimum income, primary occupation, farm size or scale, and commercial focus. It also requires the board to include the related term “bona fide agricultural activity” in the definition.
The measure further requires the Department of Agriculture to solicit stakeholder input while drafting the definitions and to submit a report, including any proposed legislation, to the Legislature no later than 20 days before the 2026 regular session. The bill takes effect upon approval, but it does not itself establish the final definitions; instead, it sets a process for the executive branch to develop them and return to lawmakers with recommendations.
Impact
If enacted, SB496 would amend Hawaii law by requiring the Board of Agriculture to develop statutory definitions for “bona fide farmer” and “bona fide agricultural activity” in HRS section 141-1. This would likely affect how agricultural programs, tax provisions, land use rules, and eligibility determinations are administered, since the bill’s stated purpose is to reduce inconsistency and clarify who qualifies for agricultural benefits and protections. The bill also creates a reporting obligation to the Legislature, potentially leading to follow-up legislation in 2026.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill: the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee passed SB496 with amendments by a 4-0 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader support or opposition. The amended version and unanimous committee vote suggest the measure was viewed as a constructive administrative step rather than a controversial policy shift.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is how narrowly or broadly the new definitions should be drawn, especially because the bill points to criteria such as income, primary occupation, farm scale, and commercial focus. Those standards could affect small farmers, part-time farmers, hobby farms, and entities seeking agricultural tax or land-use treatment, so stakeholders may disagree over who should qualify. Another likely issue is whether the Board of Agriculture should have broad discretion to define the terms or whether the Legislature should set more specific statutory standards itself.