Betsy Watson and Mark Thurmond, Sponsors of Measure A
Guest Contributors
By the time the state initiative had legalized marijuana use, there was already an abundance of plastic greenhouses, plastic pipes draining streams, chemicals and pesticides contamination, and toxic dumps. The County had to step in to regulate cultivation and tax the growers.
The public complained about intrusions on neighbors and elders, the noise, traffic, workers’ radios blaring, loud fans and generators, inescapable smells, loss of stream and well water, proximity to schools, toxic dumping into streams, night light pollution, and so on. Supervisors paid little heed to non-growing residents, saying ‘there is no appetite for cannabis reform.’ Public hearing complaints fell on deaf ears. The public process was closed for business.
What could citizens of Humboldt do?
In order to answer that question, proponents began by asking why cannabis cultivation was being allowed to degrade the environment and harm residents. Proponents pursued a ‘best scientific practices’ approach of gathering intelligence and documenting ‘cases’: what happened, how, where, and what were the conditions and common factors, what problems were revealed, and possible fixes.
Information was sought from ordinances, staff, officials, hydrologists, biologists, and scientific literature. Public records and hearings, growers, and affected residents were consulted multiple times to understand what was happening and why.
Findings in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) revealed the County lacked scientific justification for allocating cultivation numbers, sizes and sites, and lacked a capability to enforce their ordinances. Residents were told “enforcement is complaint-driven”, leaving it up to neighbors to risk retribution by filing a complaint. The County “was too busy approving permits” to do enforcement. The Wildlife Agency anticipated inadequate enforcement in estimating that “…County may require a minimum of 30 personnel to adequately administer its proposed Ordinance.” (FEIR p.2-38, S1-21)
This problem continues today, as illustrated by a recent Drug Task Force raid on a large Table Bluff grow charged with human trafficking, possession of assault rifles and illegal cannabis plants and other violations. For years, this grow has been the subject of numerous complaints, all ignored by code enforcement and the planning director.
The County arbitrarily determined a total number of cultivation permits, 3500, and established caps in 12 planning watersheds. There have not been any carrying capacity studies of these watersheds. The Final Environmental Impact Report states: “The County lacks the technical experience to collect this extent of data and determine what is the appropriate aquatic carrying capacity.” (FEIR p.2-24) The carrying capacity of our ecosystem is clearly taxed (https://crc.berkeley.edu/publications/), and it will only get worse.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, concerned “about the number and density of cultivation sites…and how these sites relate to the potential carrying capacity of each watershed”, requested analyses of water use, sediment/pollutant discharge, habitat fragmentation, and “what impacts the allowed cultivation would have on each of these elements.” (FEIR p.2-32, S1-8), adding that “Throughout the DEIR, many thresholds of significance are so general and undefined… that it is unclear how the County determined whether there would be a significant impact.” (FEIR p.2-44, S1-38)
To compensate for no cumulative impacts analysis, the County promised an adaptive management approach: “the Board of Supervisors agrees to conduct an annual review of the limits and prescribed distribution of permitting and acreage allowances”; and “the Board may choose to establish new caps on acreage and permits as well as change their distribution within watersheds.” (https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/63738/Resolution-18-43-Countywide-Permit-Cap-PDF p.7). No annual reviews have happened and the County never solicited Agencies’ assistance in a cumulative impact analysis.
Planning Commissioners’ requests for maps of grows needed to assess cumulative water diversions and other impacts, were rebuffed by the planning director for “security reasons” for the growers. Meanwhile, the security risk of these same grows to neighbors has been ignored.
The County ignored prohibition of grows in upper watersheds (FEIR p.2-24) and failed to invite water agencies to monitor stream flows and water quality, as pledged in the FEIR, leading to questionable commissioner claims that “there are no reports of contaminated water.”
And so Measure A was born. In reducing the total numbers of cultivation permits from 3500 to approximately 1000, and capping watershed allotments accordingly, Measure A mitigates forest fragmentation and responds to the already degraded watersheds from accumulating cumulative impacts. Restricting the size of new or expanding grows to 10,000 square feet and limiting permits to one per parcel per person reduces inputs and pressure on water sources, and orients Humboldt’s cannabis future in a sustainable, terroir direction, while protecting growers’ vested rights. Measure A will help stabilize the draw on water resources, including wells with fewer and smaller sites and with less chemical runoff into the soil (Environmental Research Communications, Volume 1, Number 12 Zipper et al). The Measure will make Humboldt a less attractive place for corporations, and more attractive to small craft cannabis cultivation.
The County’s disinformation campaign against Measure A – which we have refuted – includes sweeping unsupported condemnations from the Planning Department, such as, “This initiative will do damage to the legal cannabis industry and the County as a whole.” False and misleading claims have been made about the Measure on everything from road standards to adding water storage, solar arrays, and even applying for non-cultivation permits, like tourism, distribution, and manufacturing. Hyperbole, mischaracterizations, demonization, and repetition characterize the opponents’ strategy to perpetuate what they hope will be a booming industry, irrespective of impacts to the environment and neighbors (https://cannabisinitiative.org/initiative/myths-and-realities/).
The County’s opposition to Measure A is bad science and bad politics.