Hawaii lawmakers made a run this year at reining in residential use of farmland where little or no farming occurs, but couldn’t agree on effective action.

Leaders in the Senate balked at supporting a recommendation made in December by the state Office of Planning, which was asked two years ago by the Legislature to study the issue and offer up a viable solution.

The agency recommended that homes be permitted on farmland only if agricultural activity generates at least $10,000 a year for occupants of such housing.

Existing state law requires only that homes on farmland be “used in connection with a farm,” which leaves counties without a clear means of enforcement, according to the office.

“Currently, there is no definition of what constitutes a bona fide farm dwelling, resulting in the proliferation of dwellings in the agricultural district without any significant farm component,” the office said in its report to the Legislature.

Use of less-costly farmland for residential use with little to no farming — sometimes referred to as gentlemen’s farms — has been a growing problem, especially on the neighbor islands, in recent decades with developers carving up major tracts of farmland after the almost complete disappearance of sugar cane and pineapple plantations statewide.

A bill to require the minimum income requirement and impose fines for violations, House Bill 247, sailed through House committees with strong support from some farmers, farming organizations and government agencies that included the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, state Department of Agriculture, Honolulu’s Department of Planning and Permitting, Ulupono Initiative and the state Real Estate Commission.

The Farm Bureau, which represents 1,800 members, said in written testimony: “Lands capable of supporting viable agricultural activities should be protected and kept in agriculture for agricultural production.”

But after a unanimous approval by the full House in March, a campaign to oppose the bill mounted.

Much of the opposition was led by Maui real estate attorney Jakob Wormser, who submitted a petition against the bill with roughly 900 names mainly associated with Maui addresses along with about 140 mainland cities and several foreign countries.

Wormser suggested the issue the bills aim to address applies to Oahu and not Maui. He also said the income requirement would harm farmers who raise food for themselves.

“You must kill this bill,” he told members of two Senate committees.

Other opponents raised more issues with the income requirement, including how it would apply to bad production years or crops that can take years to produce income.

Paul Areus said in written testimony that he owns 2 acres of ag land and farms half of it but doesn’t earn close to $10,000 a year.

“I am not aware of any type of crop that you could grow on 2 acres of land and earn that type of income,” he said.

Jason Stone said in written testimony that homes on ag land help provide affordable rental housing in Maui’s high-priced housing market.

The Senate Agriculture and Environment committee and Senate Water and Land committee jointly passed the bill with an amendment eliminating the income requirement.

Hawaii island Sen. Lorraine Inouye, chairwoman of the Water and Land committee, noted that her son and daughter have a 7-acre farm mostly full of fruit trees and don’t make $10,000 a year.

After another public hearing, the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection committee and Ways and Means committee said in a joint report that it needed to address claims that the bill would hurt small family-­owned farms and possibly impede the creation of affordable housing particularly on the neighbor islands where most residents live on agricultural land.

Initially, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment but then reversed its position and voted unanimously to support the measure, which tweaks a couple other portions of a law pertaining to permissible uses on farmland.