SB 496 directs the Hawaii Board of Agriculture to create formal definitions for the terms “bona fide farmer” and “bona fide agricultural activity” and place those definitions in section 141-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The bill specifies that the definition of “bona fide farmer” should address several criteria, including a minimum income threshold, whether farming is the person’s primary occupation, the size or scale of the farm, and whether the operation has a commercial focus. It also requires the board to include the related term “bona fide agricultural activity” in the definition framework.
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 is effective upon approval, but it does not itself establish the final definitions; instead, it creates a process for the executive branch to develop them and return recommendations to lawmakers.
Impact
If enacted, SB 496 would amend Hawaii’s agricultural statutory framework by requiring the Board of Agriculture to define key terms that are used in determining who qualifies for agricultural treatment under state law. Those definitions could affect how the state administers agricultural programs, tax preferences, and land use decisions that depend on whether an individual or operation is a bona fide farmer or engaged in bona fide agricultural activity. The bill itself does not change eligibility standards directly, but it sets in motion a rulemaking/definition-development process that could lead to future statutory or administrative changes.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It passed the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee unanimously, 4-0, with amendments, and was subsequently reported and passed second reading before referral to Ways and Means. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials indicates broad support for clarifying agricultural definitions, at least at the committee stage.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is how restrictive or inclusive the eventual definitions should be. The bill’s criteria—income threshold, primary occupation, farm scale, and commercial focus—could draw debate from small-scale farmers, hobby farmers, diversified producers, and landowners who may be affected by a narrower definition of “bona fide farmer.” There may also be concern about how the definitions interact with tax policy, land use regulation, and access to agricultural resources, since the bill is intended to reduce confusion in those areas while also ensuring benefits go to those truly engaged in farming.