Georgia CommonsHouse · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 949: Aviation; prohibit launch or intentional landing of unmanned aircraft systems from or on agricultural land
Last action February 19, 2026 · House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute
A Georgia House bill would make it illegal to fly a drone over farmland in ways that disrupt farm work, spray chemicals without permission, or harass livestock, with violations punished as a misdemeanor.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Comm Sub version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Georgia law already limits local governments from regulating drones and bars flying drones near ticketed concerts or sporting events without permission. This bill rewrites that law, O.C.G.A. section 6-1-4, to add new protections for farmland. It defines 'agricultural land' as land used for growing crops, timber, livestock, poultry, dairy, or other farm products, as long as it is not zoned for a different use. It then makes it illegal to operate a drone over that land if doing so disturbs farming activity, applies any substance like a chemical spray to the soil, plants, or water without the landowner's or lessee's consent, or harasses livestock. It also clarifies that only 'local government units' as defined elsewhere in Georgia law can adopt certain drone ordinances. Anyone who knowingly violates the farmland rules or the existing ticketed-event drone rule would be guilty of a misdemeanor, the same penalty structure as before but now covering both situations.
What the bill does
- Creates a new legal definition of 'agricultural land' covering land used for crops, timber, livestock, poultry, dairy, or horticultural products, excluding land zoned for other uses.
- Makes it illegal to fly a drone over farmland if it disturbs farming activity, sprays or applies substances without the landowner's consent, or harasses livestock.
- Combines the penalty for this new farmland rule with the existing ticketed-event drone rule, making a knowing violation of either a misdemeanor.
- Narrows local government drone ordinances to those adopted by a defined 'local government unit,' referencing an existing Georgia code definition.
- Reorganizes and slightly rewords the existing exemptions for who can legally fly drones near ticketed entertainment events, such as property employees and utility workers.
Who it affects
Farmers and landowners whose property qualifies as agricultural land, drone operators and hobbyists, commercial drone pilots, local governments that regulate drone use, and property owners or employees affected by the existing ticketed entertainment event drone rules.
Why it matters
Farmers would gain a specific legal tool against drones that interfere with their crops, livestock, or spraying operations, something current Georgia law does not directly address. Drone operators would face criminal liability for flying over farmland in ways that cause these specific harms, even if they did not intend trespass.
Key provisions
- Adds a definition of 'agricultural land' to O.C.G.A. section 6-1-4, excluding land zoned for nonagricultural, nonconforming uses.
- Adds a definition of 'local government unit' by cross-reference to O.C.G.A. section 36-86-3, replacing prior references to counties, municipalities, or political subdivisions.
- New subsection (e) makes it unlawful to operate a drone over agricultural land if it disturbs farming, applies substances without consent, or harasses livestock.
- New subsection (f) sets the penalty: anyone who knowingly violates the ticketed-event rule in subsection (d) or the new farmland rule in subsection (e) is guilty of a misdemeanor.
- Retains and reworded existing exemptions letting property employees, utility workers, consenting parties, federally authorized operators, and private property owners fly drones under certain conditions.
From the bill
“It shall be unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system over agricultural land where the result of such operation is:”
“Harassment of livestock.”
“A person that knowingly violates subsection (d) or (e) of this Code section shall be guilty of the unauthorized operation of an unmanned aircraft system and shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.”
Discussed in meetings (8)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, February 4, 2026
From 0:18:23 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a substitute restricting drone launches and landings on agricultural land without permission, with misdemeanor penalties. The sponsor cited concerns about farm activities being misrepresented, livestock being frightened and crops being damaged, and reported a drone landing on the sponsor's property. The sponsor explained that the substitute exempts safety-related landings, including those caused by technical malfunction, when the operator complies with federal regulations. Members clarified that the restriction concerns launching and landing, not flights overhead, which speakers said fall under federal authority. One member questioned whether misdemeanor trespass charges require prior notice. Another worried that a separate drone offense could complicate existing trespass protections and noted that the bill would not directly address spraying crops from overhead. The sponsor questioned how landowners could notify remote operators. A different member argued that the restriction could help address drones launched from rural land to deliver prison contraband when delivery itself could not be proved. Another member doubted that a misdemeanor would meaningfully address that problem. With the sponsor's agreement, the chair held the bill until the following Wednesday to seek answers about its interaction with existing law. No vote was taken.
House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, February 11, 2026
From 0:31:46 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the substitute for HB 949 replaced launch-and-landing restrictions with prohibitions on specified drone activities over agricultural land: interfering with farming, applying substances without owner or lessee consent, harassing livestock, and taking photographs or videos without consent. The sponsor said drones could frighten livestock or damage crops and water, and reported Farm Bureau support. The sponsor explained that the substitute retained a misdemeanor penalty while moving existing penalty language. Asked about emergency landings, the sponsor said those fell under FAA authority; the chair added that the bill required a knowing violation. Another member questioned whether a misdemeanor was sufficient for major damage. The sponsor answered that other laws could apply, including felony penalties for sufficiently costly crop destruction. A third member asked whether the wording also covered a landowner’s own property. The sponsor pointed to the specified prohibited purposes and consent provisions, but did not identify a separate owner exemption. The sponsor said the state could prohibit these activities even though flight regulation was federal. The committee approved the substitute by voice vote, with no numerical tally stated, and sent it to Rules.
House Rules Committee, February 17, 2026
From 0:21:56 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would prohibit certain drone activities on agricultural land, including interference with the land, applying substances to soil, plants or water without the owner or lessee's express consent, and harassing livestock. No questions or decision followed.
House Rules Committee, February 18, 2026
From 0:35:31 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The committee approved returning HB 949 to the Technology and Infrastructure Committee without stated opposition. The chair explained that the committee referrals were intended to allow further work in committee rather than changes in the Rules Committee.
House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, February 18, 2026
From 1:05:10 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The member presenting the substitute said the bill restricts drone activity affecting agricultural land. After its earlier committee approval, constituents and film industry representatives raised concerns that a photography and video restriction would affect artists and filmmakers. The presenting member said the sponsor supported removing that restriction, and Rules returned the bill for the committee to make the change. The substitute removes photography and video from the prohibited activities. The presenting member said knowingly harassing livestock with a camera-equipped drone would remain prohibited. With no further discussion, the committee approved the substitute by voice vote and sent the bill back to Rules. No vote count was stated.
House Rules Committee, February 23, 2026
From 0:30:19 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 949 would prevent people from using drones to harass livestock or potentially contaminate crops, water or land. There were no questions.
Status timeline
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Beth Camp (R, HD-135)
- Angie O'Steen (R, HD-169)
- Chas Cannon (R, HD-172)
- Robert Dickey (R, HD-134)
- Jaclyn Ford (R, HD-170)
- Jutt Howard (R, HD-71)
Topics
- drone laws
- agriculture
- farmland protection
- aviation regulation
- property rights