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.
HCR 188 is a House Concurrent Resolution requesting the Hawaii Tourism Authority to convene an Agricultural Tourism Working Group. The group would review existing state laws and county ordinances affecting agricultural tourism and then recommend ways to encourage its growth in Hawaii. The resolution frames agricultural tourism as a way to provide farms and ranches with supplemental income, offer educational visitor experiences, and support the sale of local products.
The resolution also emphasizes the need to align agricultural tourism with the State’s regenerative tourism goals while protecting agricultural lands from misuse. It notes that county permitting standards and definitions currently vary, creating a fragmented regulatory environment and inconsistent treatment of agricultural tourism across the islands. The working group is expected to include state, county, and agricultural industry representatives, with additional invited participants from coffee, cacao, macadamia nut, and floriculture sectors.
This measure does not directly change any statutes or ordinances. Instead, it creates a policy study process and requests a report to the Legislature, including any proposed legislation, by early 2027. The working group is scheduled to dissolve on June 30, 2027, so any legal changes would have to come later through separate legislation.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is supportive of agricultural tourism and generally favorable toward expanding it as an economic development tool. At the same time, the bill reflects caution about regulatory ambiguity and the possibility that agricultural tourism could be used as a pretext for non-agricultural commercial activity. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote history to indicate stronger opposition or support beyond the resolution’s stated concerns and goals.
The main point of contention is likely to be how to balance growth of agritourism with land-use protections and consistent county-level regulation. Counties, agricultural organizations, and tourism stakeholders may differ on permitting standards, definitions, and enforcement, especially where there is concern about bad-faith actors using agricultural lands for purposes other than bona fide farming.
HCR 188 has no direct legal effect and does not amend Hawaii statutes or county ordinances. Its practical impact is to direct attention to agricultural tourism policy by requesting a multi-stakeholder working group under the Hawaii Tourism Authority to study existing laws and ordinances, identify inconsistencies, and propose recommendations and possible legislation. The resolution could influence future state or county lawmaking by producing a report that may lead to statutory or regulatory changes affecting farm tours, visitor activities on agricultural lands, permitting, and land-use enforcement.
The resolution is broadly supportive and development-oriented, reflecting a positive view of agricultural tourism as both an economic support for farms and ranches and a component of regenerative tourism. The language suggests consensus around the value of the industry, while also acknowledging the need for clearer rules and safeguards. Because no committee testimony or vote record was provided, there is no evidence of formal opposition in the available materials.
The principal tension is between encouraging agritourism growth and preventing misuse of agricultural land. The bill highlights concerns that inconsistent county definitions and permitting processes create uncertainty, while vague standards may allow non-bona fide operators to claim agritourism status. Likely stakeholders on different sides of these issues include county governments, tourism interests, farm organizations, and land-use regulators, with counties potentially differing on how strict or flexible the rules should be.