This bill (H-2532.1 / HB 2129) adds a new section to chapter 36.70A RCW, reenacts and amends RCW 36.70A.030, and amends RCW 15.04.402, RCW 36.70A.060, and RCW 36.70A.177. It creates new statutory authorization for agritourism on lands zoned or used for agricultural production and amends multiple growth-management definitions and planning provisions. It also directs the department of commerce to modify rules or guidance inconsistent with the act and includes a severability clause. Substantive legal changes include: expressly authorizing agritourism activities on farms and ranches and defining “agritourism activity” with examples; providing that agritourism on agricultural lands is not a conditional use requiring county permits, fees, or county approval; prohibiting counties from enacting or enforcing controls that would prohibit or unreasonably restrict agritourism while preserving applicability of public health, safety, and building code requirements; and identifying agritourism as consistent with conserving agricultural lands. RCW 36.70A.177 is amended to allow a range of innovative zoning techniques and accessory uses on agricultural lands (including agriculturally related experiences and marketing), subject to limits such as a prohibition on converting more than one acre to nonagricultural uses and allowing counties and cities to limit or exclude accessory uses. The bill also amends and adds numerous land use definitions in RCW 36.70A.030 and RCW 36.70A.060, restates requirements for interim conservation regulations and critical areas protection, requires notice language for development near designated resource lands, and sets procedures and timelines for counties that adopt partial planning resolutions and for department determinations of compliance (including appeal and cost-sharing rules). Important text is missing from the provided extracts—most notably the full content of “section 2” (which is referenced repeatedly) and some cut-off amendment language—so the summary is limited to the provisions explicitly present in the supplied facts.

If enacted, the bill would make it easier for farms and ranches to host public-facing activities — festivals, tours, pick-your-own operations, rides, on-site food sales and similar agritourism — on land zoned and used for agriculture without having to get county conditional‑use permits, pay county fees, or obtain county approval for those uses, while still requiring compliance with public health, safety, and building codes. The Department of Commerce and another state department named in existing law would be required to support agritourism through their rules and to change any agency rules or guidance that conflict with the new permissions. Local governments must also keep and post notices on plats and permits near designated resource lands alerting buyers and permit applicants to nearby agricultural, forest, or mineral activities, and accessory commercial uses tied to agriculture are explicitly allowed with limits on converting more than one acre to nonagricultural uses. The groups most affected are agricultural operators, who will likely face lower permitting costs and gain more business options and income opportunities but remain responsible for meeting health and safety requirements; counties and cities, which will lose some discretion to restrict agritourism and will need to update development regulations, notices, and possibly share legal defense costs in appeals; and the Department of Commerce, which must promptly revise guidance and rules, increasing its administrative workload. Important details are missing from the provided text — notably the full content of the bill’s section 2 and the specific department named in the amendment to RCW 15.04.402 — so how broadly “unreasonable” restrictions are interpreted and exactly what state support or program changes will look like is unclear.