people think i don't love session but this is
actually me happy rage is my happy place does
that make me weird welcome to county connection
the official podcast of the Washington State
Association of Counties, where we dive into the
legislative issues shaping the future of our
communities. From budgets to public safety, infrastructure
to elections, we'll break down what's happening
in Olympia and how it impacts counties from across
the Evergreen State. Stay informed, stay engaged,
and join us as we amplify the voice of Washington's
39 counties. Welcome back, everybody, to the
County Connection podcast, the number one. county
-related podcast in Washington state. I don't
know if that's true, but we're going with it.
This is the official podcast of the Washington
State Association of Counties. I'm your host,
Paul Jewell, and government relations director
for the association. We are right at the end
of the third week of session. Kelsey's back.
Good to see you, Kelsey. It's kind of a dreary
gray day out there, but it's bright and sunny
here in the studio. Of course it is. I'm happy
to be here, Paul. You bet, yeah. It wouldn't
be any other way unless it were you, of course.
So I don't know what that means. I think you
got that backwards, but... Yeah, it doesn't matter.
Let's just plow forward, shall we? And by plow
forward, I mean work. That was a little Easter
egg into what we're going to talk about today.
So what is it? Well, we're here to talk about
agritourism. Agritourism. How do you spell that?
A -G -R -I -T -O -U -R -I -S -M. So agriculture,
it's a portmanteau of agriculture and tourism.
Squish them together. Portmanteau. I haven't
heard that in a long time. You're welcome. Yeah.
I'd like to take a poll of our listeners to see
how many have actually ever heard that term in
their entire life. I think you wildly underestimate
our listeners. Maybe so. Maybe so. Listeners,
you can take that up with Paul. Yeah. Well, we'll
try to get that poll online. Probably not. So
agritourism. Yes, sir. You said it was the combination.
of the two words coming together. So I assume
people are going out to farms and they're doing
stuff. Part of the challenge around this, and
we've seen a lot of conversation and a lot of
legislative ideas and attempts to regulate, constrain,
or enable different types of agritourism. And
part of the challenge in all of that is that
agritourism is a very broad term. So it could
include pretty much... Any use of agricultural
land that isn't farming or growing an agricultural
product. But it's supposed to be in the spirit
of agritourism. It's a use that isn't exactly
farming, but it's supposed to be a use that supports
continued agricultural use of the land. So it's
supportive of the traditional farming and whether
that's livestock farming or crop farming or whatever
it may be. Farming adjacent. So give us some
examples of what an agritourism type facility
might be. So we've heard stories from members
and others around the legislature of everything
from roadhouse -style, quote -unquote, tasting
rooms that are at the end of the county road,
but things like tasting rooms at a winery or
corn mazes or pumpkin patches or farm stands.
Oh, gosh. By farm stand, you mean like a fruit
stand or a vegetable stand? Fruits, vegetables,
sometimes value -added products. Jams, jellies,
maybe honey. Maybe even livestock products. Livestock
products, right? So you've got your beef sticks
and your teriyaki and your... Cheese and your
milk. Exactly. Your soap and all those sorts
of things. Yep, your goat milk soap and all that
kind of good stuff. It also includes things like
petting zoo style, come and hang out with the
animals, goat yoga. Goat yoga, that's not my
favorite. I actually really enjoy yoga and really
enjoy goats, but I do not enjoy goat yoga. So
I'm with you on that. The combination together.
I prefer them separate. Have you actually tried
goat yoga? No, because I know goats. So goats,
you know I'm going to go there, right? So by
you saying, I know goats, what you're saying
is they're not particularly, shall we say, particular
about where they might drop certain things that
come from their bodies. I think you mean their
butts, but that actually wasn't even my concern,
but I appreciate you going there immediately.
My thought was just that goats aren't particularly
focused, meditative, athletic, organized. So
when you put them in the middle of a yoga class,
they cause chaos, right? And especially because
usually... when we're talking about goat yoga,
we're talking about baby goats, right? Like cute
little goats that people want to hang out with
and cuddle, but they're still going to, you know,
they're going to run into you. They're going
to climb on you. They're going to nibble on your
hair or your clothes or whatever. So it's just,
it's not my cup of tea. Okay. I feel like we
could talk about that for a while, but we probably
shouldn't. So let's keep going on agritourism.
But if anybody's interested in a goat yoga class
in Olympia, I'm happy to refer you. So please
feel free to reach out. Yeah. Reach out directly
to Kelsey for goat yoga. Back to agritourism.
It could be a lot of different things. Yes. Because
farms are varied. What happens in kind of rural
areas are varied. You could have a cidery, for
instance, where you've got an orchard and, you
know, they're making cider from the apples themselves,
some kind of either hard cider or just regular
cider, and they might want to open a tasting
room. Same thing could be for a winery that's
got a vineyard. Same thing could be for a hop
farm that maybe wants to make their own beer,
for instance. Or a petting zoo type of operation
with farm animals. You know, a farm stand we've
kind of mentioned. I know there are also like
barn dance kind of facilities out there. There
are farm to table hosted dinners. Wedding venues,
event venues. Yeah, different things like that.
How do we know which of these are actually agritourism
and which ones are really just a repurposing
of the land for another use? Therein lies the
complication. Okay. Creating a set framework
around – from how you define agritourism to what
is necessary to enable that to coexist with agriculture
on the same – potentially the same landscape.
Right. That's really where it becomes complicated.
Everything from issues of noise and dust and,
you know, kind of the normal stuff that comes
along with operating equipment in an agricultural
setting or on a, you know, for an agricultural
purpose to things like, are there appropriate...
sanitation facilities? Yeah, for public health
concerns. Exactly. Is there sufficient parking?
So if you're going to open up your venue for,
you know, say crowd to people, do you have all
these other things taken care of and addressed
like you would in any other commercial operation?
Correct. If you have some, if your agritourism
business is something where large numbers of
people are coming. especially if they're staying
for quite a while, you're going to need a different
level of infrastructure and different types of
things in place to enable that than you might
for, say, the farm stand we talked about before,
where somebody is just swinging through to pick
up some vegetables and a quart of cider or something.
And that's, again, going to be different from
what you might need to enable a pumpkin patch
and corn maze in the fall or something like that.
So it strikes me that when we're talking about
rural lands, we're talking about agricultural
lands, and we're thinking about maybe the scope
and breadth of what an agritourism operation
could or could not be. You know, it could be
something very small, right, and has very little
impact like a farm stand. Or it could be something
that has a lot of impact where you need to consider
everything from, like we were talking about,
kind of public safety and public health to traffic
impacts. You know, rural roads are not built
to house large commercial activities. They're
not built for a lot of average daily traffic.
They are built to move products to market and
equipment from field to field. And how does that
get? You know, how can that be compatible with
some sort of an event center, for instance? It
also strikes me that farms are not necessarily
designed to be accessible to the population,
right? Whether you're able -bodied or not, there
could be some challenges there. And not only
that, but, you know, most of the farms that I've
been to, when you think about kind of how they're
laid out and how the operations work, There's
a lot of risks out there. Farming is not a safe
activity, right? There are injuries on the farm
all the time, either from equipment or from livestock
or from... you know, any other multitude of hazards
that are out there. You know, if you think about
the fencing materials that they use, right? Think
about the irrigation pipes that could be laying
around. Think about the fact that almost every
farm that I've ever been to that's at least a
legacy farm that's been around for a while has
a boneyard of old equipment and parts that they
keep on hand just in case, you know, something
breaks down and they need to salvage, right?
I mean, there's just many, many, many, many things
out there that... people could trip over, fall
into, get cut by, get run over by, etc. And there's
a lot of consideration that needs to be made
if you're thinking about bringing an agritourism
type operation to that sort of environment as
well. Correct. Yeah. So what's the legislature?
You mentioned that there's been some attempts
by the legislature to look into this. What are
they trying to do? Are they trying to regulate
it? Are they trying to allow it? Are they trying
to, I don't know. What are some of the bills,
what are some of the proposals that they've got
in front of us? Well, I'd say the answer to whether
they're trying to regulate or allow it is yes.
Oh, yes to both. Yes. So you've got bills that
are trying to maybe stop certain things? Yes.
And you have bills that are trying to allow certain
things. Correct. For example, one of the threads
that is always part of this conversation is what
is an appropriate way to support farmers in staying
on farms? We know that that is a challenge in
Washington and everywhere else. We want to see
farmers be able to stay on their land. In some
cases, that is going to require them having supplemental
sources of income to perhaps whatever. you know,
typical agricultural use they have had on the
farm. Creating those options and opportunities
for them can be really helpful in terms of keeping
them on their land. So from that perspective,
legislators, especially in more rural communities,
are trying to enable those uses, right, to find
ways to support their farming communities and
staying on their land. On the other side of the
balance sheet are the litany of challenges and
issues that we've kind of talked through, whether
it's parking or infrastructure or neighbor complaints,
noise, dust, all the things that can be a challenge
and may require regulation are kind of what we
see as balancing out the conversation of how
do we create opportunities for those farmers,
but how do we do it in a way that keeps communities
safe and Minimizes conflicts between those two
uses. Do we have any idea? I think two questions
pop into mind right off the bat as you were talking.
Do we have any idea how many agricultural producers,
farmers are interested in pursuing some level
of agritourism to supplement their income or
transition some of their facilities? Do we have
any idea at all? I don't have a number for you,
but my sense is a lot, both just in what I've
seen here in the local community and how farmers
operate here in Thurston County and what we're
hearing in testimony and what we're hearing from
legislators across the board is that farmers
are looking for more options. We are interested
in helping them do that, but again, want to do
it in a way that's going to be safe and reasonable,
can be planned for, and that we can make sure
the infrastructure is in place to support not
just the farmers, but the communities around
them. There's been a trend in the agricultural
industry over the last several decades where,
you know, the smaller farmers kind of getting
squeezed and the really big operations are continuing
to get bigger and bigger and bigger. These are
the big commodity operations. You know, if you
think about the giant fields of corn or the giant
fields of wheat or whatever like that, oftentimes
it's fewer farmers and bigger corporations having
bigger chunks of land, and there's a lot less
of the smaller kind of farmer out there that
used to be the norm, right? I was talking to
a dairy farmer just a couple of years ago, and
he was talking about in the area there used to
be, I think, like 16. dairies and now there's
six they're producing actually more milk uh than
the 16 were before yes as far as total volume
but that must make it really hard for the smaller
farmer is it is it really kind of smaller ones
that are uh the more specialized or boutique
ones that are looking at this option more so
than the bigger corporate outfits That feels
like a bit of a leading question, Paul, but I
think, yes, you're seeing it a lot from the small
ones and the mid -sized farmers, right? So perhaps
not Dairy Gold, for example, although even Dairy
Gold is a consortium, we could get into that.
Sure. But I think farms of all sizes are looking
for additional revenue streams. So my next question
then that I was thinking about when you were
describing all of that was we kind of talked
about, this wide range of what agritourism could
be? Has anybody really tried to define exactly
what it is? So for instance, you know, from say
pumpkin patches to event venues, is there a wide
agreement that all of that, if it's on a farm,
is agritourism or is there a disagreement? Hard
question to answer because I think the understanding
seems to be that there are a wide variety of
uses. Once you get out to the margins. of how
big, how many people, is it something that operates
all year long, or is it seasonal, or those kinds
of questions, I'd say there is debate about what
is appropriate and what is not appropriate under
that definition of agritourism. So that's part
of the conversation that we are very much committed
to remaining a part of as we've seen bills move
through the legislature that are trying to get
at different pieces of this, but without necessarily
setting a framework that could be used statewide
to understand what are the different needs of
these different types of businesses? Do we treat
businesses, agribusinesses of different sizes
differently? And if so, what does that mean?
What does it look like? How do we do that in
a way that is fair to those producers? But it
sounds like it's not well defined anywhere in
the law. Correct. Okay. So that just by itself
kind of creates a lot of gray area that's just
going to be inviting for all kinds of different
proposals. Exactly. Okay. So in 2025, we saw
a couple of different proposals. Some of them
are focused on agritourism. at least labeled
as agritourism. We also see things that poke
at incidental uses on agricultural land. Yeah,
I remember some of those bills. Which gets at
the same idea, but is just sort of a different
way in. So in 2025, Senator Warnick was very
involved in that conversation. She had a bill
that was called Promoting Agritourism. We also
saw Senator Leis bring in a bill about open space
incidental use, which again was... kind of a
different way of poking at some of these same...
Yeah, from a tax classification point of view.
Issues and problems. Yeah. This year in 20...
So that's sort of where this conversation has
been during this biennial cycle. This year in
2026, there's a couple of bills that I just wanted
to highlight for folks. One is not specifically
an agritourism bill, but Senator Mazzal, who
himself is a farmer and is one of very few active...
farmers that are in the legislature. I think
we've got three, if I'm remembering correctly.
I don't know for sure. So it's not many, right?
We don't have a lot of legislators who, when
they leave Olympia, are driving back to the farm
and continuing to try and produce agricultural
products. Senator Mazzal has a lot of credibility
in this space for exactly that reason. He has
put forth a bill, Senate Bill 6104, which is
called Supporting Agriculture. And what it is
doing is trying to require essentially agricultural
impact statements when... agricultural land is
pulled out of agricultural use for one reason
or another, whether land is transferring hands
or somebody is going to develop a parcel of it.
So he's got that's not the only thing the bill
does, but his bill is interesting to me into
this conversation because what he is doing there
is saying, let's keep closer track of where how
agricultural land is being used. where it is
being lost and what we can do to, to beneficially
impact that situation. Does he define what an
agricultural impact statement is and what he's
trying to actually, I mean, besides, you know,
what you said, it sounds like he's trying to
just kind of better understand how things are
changing maybe in the landscape, but does, does
he kind of define exactly what needs to be in
that and who's responsible for putting it together?
He does. He defines the agricultural impact statement
fairly closely, which I'm not going to read to
folks, but they are welcome to check out. And
then the agricultural impact statement would
be done by the jurisdiction. So the county or
the city? Correct. Okay. I think it's fair to
assume most times it would be the county itself.
because there's not going to be a lot of farmland
in cities. Not a ton of city farms. There's a
few out there, but right, not very many. So if
the land is converted to another use, it would
probably be through some sort of platting process.
So I assume a county or city could require that
as part of their application that that analysis
was performed. So that way it wouldn't necessarily
fall on the backs of the taxpayers to actually
do it, but whoever is proposing the development.
Okay. Interesting. That was Senate Bill... 6104.
Okay. And I think there's a few others, right?
There's one other one that I really wanted to
talk about today, which is House Bill 2129, fortifying
agritourism. That is one that... Fortifying.
Fortifying. That's a strong word. It is a strong
word. And that bill was brought by our friend,
Representative Lowe, and... We appreciate his
work on that issue, of course, and appreciate
that he is doing some good work on behalf of
his constituents. Representative Lowe, of course,
is a council member from Snohomish County. Exactly.
So he's near and dear to the county's family,
and we always appreciate his work. We testified
other on that bill and shared. Essentially, the
conversation that we've been having here that
we do think that there is a need to have some
clear definitions and cleaner definitions, some
clear expectations for what businesses of different
sizes are going to be expected to do to mitigate
impacts on the surrounding communities, for example.
But that we need that conversation to move forward.
Representative Lowe's bill, very well intentioned,
but would sort of. open things up even more to
permit more of these or to allow more of these
businesses to exist. And we have some concerns
about what that would look like, especially absent
those guardrails and framework and specific definition
that we discussed. Why did he title it Fortifying
Agritourism? I don't know. I think he titled
it that way because he's trying to make a strong
statement. And that's strong language to say,
we need to do something to support farmers and
producers. We are not doing that right now. And
we need to take action. And I think that's what
he's trying to spawn is that affirmative action
in the direction of how do we keep farmers on
their land and keep them doing what it is they
do best. When you say fortifying, it almost seems
to me like he's trying to really protect that.
And that's what I'm getting from what you're
saying is, from what I'm hearing you say, it
feels like the intention of the bill is really
to put in a lot of protections for agritourism
versus some of the other bills we talked about
that want to maybe regulate agritourism. Correct.
Okay. Okay. All right. Well, where is this going
to go, do you think? I mean, you mentioned that
we didn't necessarily... support strongly Representative
Lowe's bill, and we're hopeful that maybe it
would move forward so that some other conversations
could. Where do you think this goes in the future?
So we've had a great conversation with Senator
Warnick about continuing, about having a dedicated
conversation and actually dedicating some funding
to bringing together stakeholders to talk about
what does a reasonable framework look like? How
do we define these things and what is our way
forward? So we're really excited about engaging
in that conversation. in the interim and hopefully
coming back next year rather than having a variety
of these bills that are all kind of trying to
get at this problem. Just here and there and
everywhere. Right. Rather than a piecemeal approach,
having a focused strategy. To say, you know,
here's what we're going to do to really support
these folks that I think we all want to support.
Okay. Okay. Well, I've seen that proviso, as
you know, and let's hope that that actually makes
it into the budget. WASAC would actually take
the lead on that process to develop that recommendation.
But at the end, we would have a focused. kind
of holistic approach that would do some fundamental
things, right? Like define what agritourism is
and what it's not and figure out, okay, how do
we make sure that these are the things, since
we've decided these are the things that it is,
how do we protect them? How do we make sure that
they can be on the landscape in a way that's
appropriate, right? That considers all kind of
the risks and the roads and the traffic and all
these other impacts, the public safety, the public
health that we were talking about before. We're
really planting a seed here. Very good. You're
welcome. That was excellent. Well, hopefully
it'll grow into something that... Why do you
keep doing this to me? The last podcast, I couldn't...
We're going to reap the benefits in 2027. Oh
my gosh. I feel like that was a softball. That
was a softball. Kelsey, you outshine me once
again in the play on words and the puns. I'm
going to have to get a little sharper. I'm not
bad at it, but I need some time to think about
it. Which this medium does not necessarily lend
itself to. No, it doesn't, because you've got
to be quick witter. Oh, my gosh. This has been
Paul Jewell for The Washington Post. Anyways,
Kelsey, always a pleasure. Thanks for coming
by. We've got to run because I know you've got
some meetings and I've got some meetings. It's
a big day today. We are looking forward to next
week. What is next Wednesday? Next Wednesday
is House of Origin Policy Committee Cutoff. That
is one of the best days of the session. So we're
looking forward to that. Until then, take care.
Thank you so much. Thanks for tuning in to County
Connection. Stay in the loop by subscribing to
us through your preferred podcasting app and
following us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram.
And don't forget to join The Hub, your go -to
source for the latest news and updates from the
Washington State Association of Counties. Until
next time, stay connected and stay informed.