SALEM — Farmers recently turned out in force to urge Oregon lawmakers to clamp down on rural lodgings and replacement dwellings they claim are disrupting agriculture.

Testimony during a recent legislative hearing overwhelmingly favored Senate Bill 77, which aims to restrict short-term lodgings in farm zones, and Senate Bill 78, which would limit the size of replacement homes on farmland.

“This is the first time in a long time that we’re actually looking at legislation that would help protect agricultural land, as opposed to make the rules weaker,” said Jim Johnson, working lands policy director for the 1000 Friends of Oregon nonprofit.

However, a representative of the Oregon Home Builders Association and Oregon Association of Realtors, which oppose the bills, said the “lopsided testimony” wasn’t due to any lack of strong feeling among critics of the proposals.

Opponents of SB 77 and SB 78 weren’t mobilized to testify due to negotiations that concluded shortly before the hearing but did not result in a compromise, said Jodi Hack, a representative of the two groups.

“Calls to action were not done out of good faith by the realtors and the home builders,” said Hack, who asked the Senate Natural Resources Committee to hold another hearing on the legislation.

Growers from around the state argued the two bills are necessary because “loopholes” in the land use system are being exploited by developers and wealthy urbanites, driving the price of farmland out of reach for those who’d use it for agriculture.

Proponents of the bills offered examples of old farm dwellings that’d been demolished and replaced with “McMansions” several times larger, raising the overall property values so high that the parcels were no longer economical for agriculture.

For instance, a 1,960-square-foot home in Washington County was replaced by one that’s 7,300 square feet, boosting the value from $1 million to more than $5 million — and bringing the per-acre cost from $20,000 to more than $100,000, said Aaron Nichols, a farmer near North Plains, Ore.

“Our working lands are being transformed into luxury housing for people who have a lot more money than farmers and ranchers,” Nichols said.

Under SB 78, a replacement dwelling’s floor area couldn’t exceed the original home’s by more than 10% or be greater than 2,500 square feet.

Likewise, developers have obtained “home occupation” permits for such oversized replacement dwellings, turning them into high-end hotels and bed and breakfast facilities, according to supporters of SB 77.

Under SB 77, home occupations would be limited to landowners who reside on the property and could not employ more than five people or include event hosting or lodging facilities, among other restrictions.

“Commercial activities belong in our struggling towns, not on our farmland, interfering with our farming practices,” said Shelley Wetherell, a vineyard owner near Umpqua, Ore.

Scottie Jones, a sheep farmer near Alsea, Ore., said she takes a “huge exception” to the claim that on-farm lodgings amount to hotels on farmland.

Due to the small size of her property, Jones said the number of sheep she can raise is limited and thus offering on-farm lodging helps stabilize the farm’s finances.

“I needed additional income to be sustainable,” she said. “By having guests here, it also creates an educated consumer, and that helps us.”

Jones said she supports farmland protections but said lawmakers should also remember to protect the farmers, who will sell their land if their operations aren’t profitable.

“The people you don’t want to buy them will then buy them,” she said.

Mike Riddle, a home builder from McMinnville, Ore., said the proposed constraints on replacement dwellings are a “far overstep” that infringes on property rights.

“You may get rid of a few McMansions here and there but you are going to affect far more people who just want to do the responsible thing,” Riddle said.

Dave Hunnicutt, president of the Oregon Property Owners Association, said the vast majority of land zoned for agriculture and forestry a half-century ago still retains those protections.

“We are not losing farmland,” he said.

The list of allowable non-farm uses on farmland has only expanded because so much of the state is zoned for agriculture and forestry, so there’s no other place to site certain facilities and operations, Hunnicutt said.

“We are not putting a landfill in the middle of town,” he said.