Overview
This Hawaii state bill establishes a temporary Agricultural Tourism Working Group to address regulatory ambiguity and inconsistency in the state's agricultural tourism sector. The legislation responds to concerns that existing laws and county ordinances create confusion about what activities constitute agricultural tourism, potentially hindering the growth of this sector while risking the conversion of productive agricultural lands to primarily tourism-focused uses. The bill seeks to align agricultural tourism development with Hawaii's broader regenerative tourism model by convening stakeholders to examine current regulations and develop unified recommendations that would encourage agricultural tourism growth while ensuring agricultural lands remain in productive use. The working group structure brings together state agencies, county representatives, and agricultural industry stakeholders to produce actionable legislative recommendations by early 2027.
Core Provisions
The bill requests the Hawaii Tourism Authority to convene an Agricultural Tourism Working Group with a defined membership structure and specific deliverables. The working group composition includes mandatory members and invited participants representing diverse agricultural and governmental interests. The President and Chief Executive Officer of the Hawaii Tourism Authority, or their designee, serves as Chair. Core membership includes the Chairperson of the Board of Agriculture and Biosecurity or designee, one representative from each of Hawaii's four counties selected by their respective mayors, and representatives from the Hawaii Farm Bureau and Hawaii Farmers Union. The Chair is further requested to invite representatives from the state's coffee, cacao, macadamia nut, and floriculture industries, along with any other representatives deemed necessary by the working group. The working group's mandate is to examine existing laws and ordinances relating to agricultural tourism and provide recommendations to encourage sector growth. A comprehensive report containing findings, recommendations, and proposed legislation must be submitted to the Legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2027. The working group dissolves on June 30, 2027, establishing a clear sunset for this temporary body.
Key Points
- Hawaii Tourism Authority President and CEO (or designee) serves as Chair
- Board of Agriculture and Biosecurity Chairperson (or designee) as member
- Four county representatives selected by respective mayors
- Hawaii Farm Bureau representative
- Hawaii Farmers Union representative
- Invited participants from coffee, cacao, macadamia nut, and floriculture industries
- Report due twenty days before Regular Session of 2027
- Working group dissolution date: June 30, 2027
Implementation
The Hawaii Tourism Authority bears primary responsibility for convening and facilitating the Agricultural Tourism Working Group, with the Authority's chief executive serving as the working group's Chair. This places operational and administrative responsibility within an existing state agency with tourism expertise. The bill does not specify funding sources or appropriations for the working group's operations, leaving resource allocation to existing agency budgets or subsequent appropriations. The working group must produce a comprehensive report containing its findings and recommendations, including any proposed legislation, submitted to the Legislature within the specified timeframe. No ongoing compliance measures or enforcement provisions are established, as the working group functions as a temporary advisory body rather than a regulatory entity. The dissolution date of June 30, 2027 provides a clear endpoint for the working group's existence, ensuring this remains a time-limited study and recommendation process rather than a permanent administrative structure.
Impact
The primary beneficiaries of this legislation include agricultural tourism operators who currently face regulatory uncertainty, farmers and ranchers seeking to diversify income through tourism activities, and county governments struggling with inconsistent standards for agricultural tourism activities. The working group's recommendations could provide clarity that enables agricultural landowners to develop tourism operations with greater confidence while ensuring such activities remain secondary to productive agricultural use. Local communities and tourism destinations may benefit from expanded agricultural tourism offerings that align with regenerative tourism principles. The bill imposes minimal direct costs, as it requests rather than mandates the Hawaii Tourism Authority's action and does not include specific appropriations. Administrative burden falls primarily on the Hawaii Tourism Authority for convening and staffing the working group, with participation requirements for designated members. The sunset provision ensures the working group dissolves on June 30, 2027, limiting ongoing administrative costs. Expected outcomes include legislative recommendations that could harmonize agricultural tourism regulations across counties, clarify permissible activities, and establish standards that protect agricultural land use while enabling tourism development.
Legal Framework
The bill operates within Hawaii's existing statutory framework governing both tourism promotion and agricultural land use, though it does not cite specific constitutional or statutory authorities. The legislation uses precatory language throughout, requesting rather than mandating that the Hawaii Tourism Authority convene the working group, which may reflect constitutional limitations on legislative direction to executive agencies or a preference for collaborative rather than mandatory approaches. The working group's examination of existing laws and ordinances across state and county jurisdictions suggests potential regulatory implications for both state statutes and county ordinances governing agricultural tourism. The bill does not explicitly address preemption of county authority, instead seeking to develop recommendations that could inform future legislation addressing state-county regulatory relationships. No judicial review provisions are included, consistent with the bill's nature as a temporary study mechanism rather than substantive regulatory reform. The working group's recommendations may ultimately inform legislation that more directly engages questions of state preemption, regulatory authority, and the legal definition of agricultural tourism activities.
Critical Issues
The bill's precatory language requesting rather than mandating Hawaii Tourism Authority action creates implementation uncertainty, as the Authority could theoretically decline to convene the working group without legal consequence. The absence of appropriated funding raises questions about whether the Hawaii Tourism Authority possesses adequate resources to staff and support the working group effectively, potentially compromising the quality or timeliness of its work. The composition of the working group, while inclusive of major stakeholders, may face challenges in balancing competing interests between tourism promotion and agricultural land preservation. Representatives from specific agricultural industries may advocate for permissive standards that maximize tourism revenue, while county representatives may seek to preserve local regulatory authority over land use decisions. The tight timeline for producing comprehensive recommendations by early 2027 may prove challenging given the complexity of examining laws and ordinances across multiple counties and reconciling divergent regulatory approaches. The bill does not specify how the working group should address fundamental tensions between agricultural production and tourism activities, potentially leading to recommendations that fail to resolve core policy conflicts. Opposition may arise from county governments concerned about state preemption of local land use authority, agricultural advocates worried about tourism encroachment on productive farmland, or tourism interests seeking minimal regulatory constraints. The lack of specific criteria or policy direction for the working group's recommendations creates uncertainty about whether the final product will effectively address the stated concerns about regulatory ambiguity and inconsistent standards.
Key Points
- Precatory language creates no legal obligation for Hawaii Tourism Authority to act
- No appropriated funding for working group operations
- Potential conflicts between tourism promotion and agricultural land preservation goals
- Compressed timeline for comprehensive regulatory review and recommendations
- Absence of policy guidance on balancing competing stakeholder interests
- Possible county opposition to state-level standardization of agricultural tourism regulations
- Risk that recommendations may not resolve fundamental regulatory ambiguities