Requesting The Hawaii Tourism Authority To Establish An Agricultural Tourism Working Group To Examine Existing Laws And Ordinances Relating To Agricultural Tourism And Provide Recommendations To Encourage The Growth Of Agricultural Tourism In Hawaii.
H.R. 178 is a House Resolution requesting the Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) to convene an Agricultural Tourism Working Group. The group would review existing state laws and county ordinances affecting agricultural tourism and develop recommendations to encourage the growth of agritourism in Hawaii. The resolution frames agricultural tourism as an important supplemental revenue stream for farms and ranches, a way to educate visitors about working lands, and a tool for supporting the State’s regenerative tourism goals.
The resolution also identifies a policy problem: agricultural tourism rules vary by county, creating a fragmented regulatory landscape and inconsistent standards for what qualifies as agricultural tourism. It further notes concerns that unclear rules can be exploited by bad-faith actors to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes under the guise of tourism. The working group is expected to include HTA, the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, county representatives, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, and the Hawaii Farmers Union, with additional participation from coffee, cacao, macadamia nut, and floriculture industries.
The working group would be asked to report findings and any proposed legislation to the Legislature before the 2027 session and would be dissolved on June 30, 2027. Because this is a resolution rather than a bill, it does not itself change statutes or county ordinances; instead, it initiates a study and recommendation process that could lead to future legislation or administrative changes. Its practical impact is to direct attention toward harmonizing agritourism policy and clarifying permissible activities on agricultural lands.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is supportive of agricultural tourism and favorable toward creating a more coordinated statewide framework. The measure emphasizes economic support for farms, local product sales, and tourism benefits, while also stressing the need to protect bona fide agricultural use. No committee testimony, votes, or recorded opposition were provided, so there is no documented legislative controversy in the available materials.
The main point of tension in the resolution is the balance between encouraging agritourism growth and preventing misuse of agricultural land. Supporters appear to favor clearer, more consistent rules that help farmers and tourism operators, while the resolution’s findings suggest concern from regulators and land-use stakeholders about loopholes, county-by-county inconsistency, and non-agricultural commercial activity on farmland.
H.R. 178 does not amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes or county codes directly. Instead, it requests the HTA to form a temporary working group to study agricultural tourism regulation, gather stakeholder input, and recommend possible legislative changes. The practical effect is to create a formal policy review process involving state, county, and industry representatives, with the potential to influence future statutes, ordinances, permitting standards, and definitions related to agritourism and agricultural land use.
The resolution reflects a generally positive and collaborative sentiment toward agricultural tourism. It presents agritourism as economically beneficial to farms and ranches, supportive of local products, and aligned with regenerative tourism goals. At the same time, it shows a cautious tone about regulatory clarity and land-use protection, suggesting broad support for growth so long as the activity remains tied to bona fide agriculture. No votes or hearing transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded opposition or formal debate in the available context.
The primary issue of contention is how to define and regulate agricultural tourism across Hawaii’s counties. The resolution notes that county permitting processes and interpretations differ, creating inconsistent standards statewide. Another concern is the possibility that unclear rules could be exploited by actors seeking to use agricultural land for primarily non-agricultural purposes. Stakeholders likely to care most about these issues include county governments, farm organizations, tourism interests, and agricultural producers in sectors such as coffee, cacao, macadamia nuts, and floriculture.