Oregon’s Farm Store Fight: How a Public Backlash Rewrote the Rules for Small Farms
When Oregon regulators tried to dramatically restrict farm stands last year, farmers revolted.
When Oregon regulators tried to dramatically restrict farm stands last year, farmers revolted. Now the Legislature has responded with HB 4153 — a bill supporters say protects farm survival and critics warn could reshape the state’s farmland protections.
In Oregon, land-use policy rarely stays confined to planning documents and zoning maps. It touches something deeper: how farms survive, who gets to shape the rules, and what agriculture actually looks like in the modern economy.
That debate exploded into public view in 2025 when state regulators proposed sweeping changes to how farm stands operate on protected farmland. The backlash that followed would eventually halt the rulemaking — and push lawmakers to craft a legislative rewrite that just passed the Oregon Legislature.
The result is House Bill 4153, a bipartisan proposal that fundamentally reshapes how farm retail and agritourism operate on Oregon’s Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land.
Supporters call it a lifeline for struggling farms.
Critics warn it could blur the line between agriculture and commercial development.
But to understand what HB 4153 actually represents, you have to start with the rulemaking that sparked the revolt.
The Rulemaking That Sparked a Backlash
In 2025, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) began revising administrative rules governing farm stands on EFU land.
The agency’s stated goal was clarification — drawing clearer lines between agricultural activity, retail sales, and agritourism.
But many farmers saw something else.
Producers warned the proposed changes could dramatically restrict how farms operate by tightening limits on retail activity and events tied to farm operations. Small diversified farms — which often rely on agritourism, direct-to-consumer sales, and value-added products — feared the changes could threaten key revenue streams.
As awareness spread, farmers began speaking out online and through farm-focused media outlets.
Within weeks, the Governor’s office was flooded with emails and calls.
On July 25, 2025, Governor Tina Kotek directed DLCD to pause the rulemaking, citing widespread concern among farmers.
The pause didn’t resolve the disagreement.
It simply moved the fight to a different arena: the Oregon Legislature.
From Rulemaking to Legislation
The controversy surrounding the halted rules became the backdrop for a new legislative proposal: HB 4153.
Instead of tightening restrictions, lawmakers chose a different approach — rewriting how farm retail operations are defined under Oregon law.
Under the bill, the traditional concept of a “farm stand” is replaced with a new category: farm stores.
These operations can include permanent retail buildings, agritourism activities, and food service tied directly to a working farm.
The legislation ultimately passed both chambers of the Oregon Legislature with bipartisan support.
Supporters say the bill reflects economic reality.
Many farms today survive not only by selling crops, but by selling experiences — farm tours, seasonal events, prepared foods, and value-added products.
Critics, however, warn that expanding these activities risks undermining Oregon’s decades-old farmland protection system.
The Structural Divide Behind the Debate
One moment during the debate revealed a deeper divide about how land-use decisions are made.
In coverage of the bill, Nellie McAdams, executive director of the Oregon Agricultural Trust, suggested earlier progress on rulemaking had been disrupted by a social-media campaign.
The comment highlights a key tension in Oregon’s land-use system.
For planners and advisory participants working inside the regulatory process, the DLCD rulemaking followed familiar channels of committees and technical input.
For many farmers, however, the process only became visible when draft rules surfaced that threatened core parts of their business model.
From their perspective, public outreach wasn’t an attempt to derail participation.
It was the first opportunity to participate at all.
How that participation is interpreted — as engagement or disruption — shapes who ultimately influences land-use policy.
Why Diversification Matters for Farm Survival
Beneath the legal debate lies a simple economic reality.
For many small and mid-sized farms, selling raw commodities alone rarely covers the cost of operating.
Diversified income streams often make the difference between survival and closure.
That diversification can include:
farm stands
seasonal markets
U-pick operations
workshops and tours
value-added products
limited prepared food
These activities are often described as agritourism, but for many farms they function less as entertainment and more as essential marketing and sales channels.
The land-use question facing Oregon policymakers isn’t whether agriculture should remain the primary use of farmland.
It’s how “primary use” is defined in an agricultural economy that looks very different from the one that existed when many zoning rules were written.
What HB 4153 Actually Does
The legislation attempts to clarify — and expand — what farms can do on EFU land.
Farm stores replace farm stands
Instead of small roadside stands, the bill allows farm stores with permanent enclosed structures.
Under the legislation, these buildings can reach up to 10,000 square feet, depending on eligibility criteria.
Income and eligibility requirements
To qualify, farms must demonstrate a baseline level of agricultural activity — including a minimum farm income threshold over the previous two years.
Supporters say this ensures farm stores remain tied to real agricultural production.
Critics argue the threshold could exclude smaller or newer farms.
Retail limits change
Rather than tracking how much revenue comes from non-farm items, the bill limits other retail items to 25% of the floor area of enclosed farm-store space.
The shift simplifies enforcement but also changes how compliance is measured.
Agritourism becomes explicit
HB 4153 formally allows activities such as:
farm tours
classes
hay rides
corn mazes
farm-to-table meals
Supporters describe the change as overdue recognition of modern farm economics.
Opponents fear it could open the door to commercial activity that gradually overshadows agriculture.
One of the least discussed aspects of HB 4153 is how the bill legally categorizes farm stores. Rather than simply expanding the existing farm-stand framework, the legislation allows counties to approve farm stores as a “nonfarm use”on land zoned for Exclusive Farm Use. In practice, that means the activity is still expected to be tied to agricultural production, but it is not technically classified as farming itself under Oregon land-use law. Supporters argue the change reflects the economic reality of modern farms that rely on direct retail and agritourism. Critics say the distinction could gradually blur the line between protected farmland and commercial activity — a debate likely to continue as counties begin implementing the new rules.
The Quiet Change in County Authority
Counties still retain authority to regulate issues such as:
traffic
parking
noise
hours of operation
sanitation
But a subtle change in the bill’s amendments drew attention from land-use observers.
Earlier language prevented counties from applying regulations in ways that would “unreasonably frustrate” the siting of farm stores.
That phrase was removed in later amendments.
The change does not eliminate county oversight.
But it alters how future disputes over local restrictions might be interpreted.
A Win for Small Farms — or a New Frontier in Land-Use Policy?
Supporters of HB 4153 see the bill as a necessary correction after the failed rulemaking attempt.
For them, the legislation acknowledges the economic reality facing modern farms and provides clearer rules for agritourism and farm retail.
Critics remain concerned that expanding farm-store operations could gradually transform protected farmland into tourist destinations or commercial corridors.
Both sides agree on one thing:
Oregon’s land-use system — widely considered one of the strictest farmland protection frameworks in the United States — is now entering new territory.
The Bigger Question
What’s unfolding in Oregon is not happening in isolation. In Michigan, a small agritourism operation — Driftwood Lavender Farm — is now fighting its township in federal court after local officials ruled that yoga classes and events pushed the farm beyond what zoning laws consider legitimate agriculture. The case raises a similar question to the one Oregon lawmakers just confronted: if diversification — workshops, farm dinners, seasonal events, direct retail — disqualifies a farm from being treated as agriculture, what kinds of farms are land-use laws actually protecting? Large industrial operations rarely rely on agritourism to survive. Small and mid-sized farms often do. From Oregon’s farm-store legislation to Michigan’s lavender lawsuit, the same structural conflict is emerging across rural America: modern farms are evolving faster than the legal definitions meant to regulate them.
At its core, the debate over HB 4153 isn’t really about pumpkins, parking lots, or yoga classes.
It’s about something deeper.
Who gets to define agriculture in the modern era?
Is farming limited to crops and livestock alone?
Or does it include the value-added experiences and direct sales that increasingly sustain small farms?
The answer will shape not only Oregon’s farmland — but the future of small agriculture across the country.
For now, after a year of controversy, public backlash, and legislative debate, one thing is clear:
Farmers forced the conversation.
And Oregon lawmakers listened.