Pubdate: Thu, 02 Jul 2015
Source: North Coast Journal (Arcata, CA)
Column: The Week in Weed
Copyright: 2015 North Coast Journal
Contact:  http://www.northcoastjournal.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2833
Author: Grant Scott-Goforth

DRAFT DAY

Pot PAC Unveils Its Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance

In a trio of bombastic speeches on the Humboldt County Courthouse 
steps this week, members of California Cannabis Voice Humboldt 
revealed the final draft of an ordinance that seeks to regulate 
outdoor marijuana growing in the county.

The tone was grandiose. Flanked by 80 or so seeming supporters and a 
handful of local media, CCVH co-founder Luke Bruner talked about 
nations slipping into insolvency, quoted Harvey Milk ("Come out!") 
and called the announcement of the draft ordinance a "great victory 
for this community."

After saying that the proposed land use regulation would address 
domestic violence issues associated with the marijuana industry, 
Bruner compared the plight of cannabis farmers to that of slaves - 
"you have nothing to lose but your chains and your shame," he said, 
to rousing applause.

CCVH board member Patrick Murphy thanked Sheriff Mike Downey and 
District Attorney Maggie Fleming, mentioned salmon-safe cannabis, and 
said the group would now be reaching out to environmentalists, "who 
are our friends and partners in this."

So what is in this panacea for all of society's marijuana-associated ills?

The final draft of CCVH's land use ordinance - which seeks to 
regulate outdoor cultivation on county parcels larger than 5 acres - 
would principally permit existing grow sites with canopies of up to 
6,000 square feet, meaning growers would be free to plant as long as 
they get a business license, applicable state permits if they are 
diverting water or cutting trees, and pass an inspection by the 
county agricultural commissioner's office. Existing grows with 
canopies of up to 10,000 square feet would be treated similarly. New 
grows and those with canopies larger than 10,000 square feet would 
require a conditional use permit, to be issued at the discretion of 
the county planning commission through a public process.

The ordinance also includes a provision that would allow existing 
grow operations two years to correct any code violations and come 
into full compliance, and others that would prohibit cultivation 
sites within 600 feet of a school, bus stop, public park, church or 
Native American cultural site.

It would also designate the Humboldt County Agricultural 
Commissioner's Office as the regulating body for marijuana grows. The 
office would be responsible for yearly site visits, where it would be 
expected to determine whether growers are complying with state 
environmental laws, are using legal pesticides, are within the canopy 
size restrictions, have a security plan and a valid business license, 
among other things.

CCVH is pushing the proposal forward as an ordinance initiative, 
which means if it gets enough valid signatures from registered voters 
- - 7,430 - in support of the ordinance, it can force the board of 
supervisors to either pass it directly as written or call a special 
election to let voters decide its fate. The ordinance is scheduled to 
come before the board of supervisors July 7, after which CCVH will 
offer a 45-day "public comment period," where it will seek feedback 
through its website before finalizing the language and seeking the 
required signatures.

But, despite Murphy's olive branch to the environmentalists during 
his June 30 speech, concerns about the draft ordinance haven't 
changed much from a series of early stakeholder meetings, in which 
environmental groups complained that the size restrictions were too 
lax and that allowing cultivation on timber production zones would 
lead to destruction of timberlands. Those groups say their voices 
still aren't being heard.

CCVH rose to prominence in the last year, seizing on a time of 
renewed interest in local and state marijuana laws and a sense of 
urgency spurred by looming legalization. The organization touted its 
speedy fundraising in the cannabis industry, gathering tens of 
thousands of dollars at rural meetings, and promised that it was the 
face of growers who wanted to come out of the shadows.

Early in 2015, the group announced it would write an ordinance 
governing outdoor cultivation and invited dozens of stakeholders from 
areas of industry, law and conservation. But after the first couple 
of meetings and the ensuing revisions to the draft ordinance, 
stakeholders in the environmental community got frustrated, saying 
their concerns weren't being addressed.

"We stopped engaging when it became clear that this was a process set 
up to protect and legitimize the very operations that are doing 
harm," said Dan Ehresman, the executive director of the Northcoast 
Environmental Center.

Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Environmental Protection 
Information Center, was also bothered that, after a couple of initial 
public stakeholder meetings, the environmental community was never 
invited back into the ordinance's draft process.

In EPIC's eye, the draft's allowance of marijuana cultivation on 
Timber Production Zone (TPZ) parcels is most problematic. That could 
fragment habitats, she said, breaking up large, intact pieces of 
forest lands as properties are subdivided and bought up by cannabis farmers.

"Is this what we want?" she asked. "More big grows out in our forest, 
or growing trees?"

When the Journal reached Friends of the Eel River Executive Director 
Scott Greacen, he hadn't seen a copy of the proposed ordinance. But 
he pointed to the fact that at least one CCVH donor and board member 
was targeted in last week's sweep of the Island Mountain raids, and 
said previous iterations of the ordinance didn't give him faith that 
CCVH was doing much to rein in the "mega-growers."

"It's real clear why they're taking that position now," Greacen said. 
"They are the mega-growers - I suspect the newest draft will reflect that."

California Department of Fish and Wildlife environmental scientist 
Scott Bauer, referring to the Island Mountain raids, said he's found 
it "disconcerting" that CCVH said the targeted growers were in 
compliance or working toward compliance when, to his knowledge, 
virtually no one in that area has applied for a water diversion 
permit from Fish and Wildlife.

Ehresman, of the NEC, had read the draft and said permissions for 
canopy sizes were too lax. "The biggest concern there is these are 
large-scale operations," Ehresman said, and with that comes 
environmental degradation. "Ten thousand square feet is nearly a 
quarter acre, and literally a ton of weed can come out of that."

Bauer, who's studied the impacts of marijuana grow site water 
diversions on local salmon populations, said permitting grows of up 
to 6,000 square feet concerns him. "From the big-picture side of 
things, we would be concerned about the cumulative effects of an 
ordinance like this that principally permits thousands of grow 
sites," he said, adding that in the field he's seeing a disturbing 
trend this year of more - and larger - grow operations.

Bauer only had time to give the final proposed ordinance an initial 
read but said he's concerned it doesn't seem to have any mechanisms 
to generate revenue for enforcement or habitat restoration.

In addition to the state fire, wildlife and water guidelines that the 
draft ordinance says farmers must follow, it calls for three main 
components for grow operations to be in compliance. The first is a 
business license, obtainable through the county tax collector. The 
second is registration with the county agricultural commissioner's 
office. The third, which would only be for new operations and those 
over 10,000 square feet, would be conditional use permits from the 
planning commission.

But the draft makes no mention of how the county would fund a 
potentially huge increase in conditional use permits and agricultural 
commission registration applications, or the accompanying site visits.

While the draft calls for a $25 business application fee, it offers 
no suggested fees for agricultural registration or penalties for 
falling out of compliance. State agencies could levy hefty fines for 
going outside of the most stringent environmental guidelines, but 
there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for the county to collect from 
the new program.

With an estimated 4,000 to 10,000 outdoor grows in the county's 
borders, it stands to reason that the agricultural commission, which 
has six employees and oversaw 300 farms in 2012, would need to expand 
to offer any sort of timely registration and meaningful inspections.

County Agricultural Commissioner Jeff Dolf declined to comment on the 
draft ordinance, saying he was planning to discuss it with other 
county employees. It's unclear how much leeway there may be in the 
ordinance to allow the agricultural commission to set up a fee and 
penalty schedule, as the ordinance includes language giving Dolf's 
office freedom to create rules and regulations necessary to 
"implement and administer" the ordinance. The ordinance also allows 
for the board of supervisors to amend it with a simple majority vote.

But the draft raises other questions.

For example, while it would principally permit grows of up to 6,000 
square feet - and require only a ministerial permit for grows of up 
to 10,000 square feet - for cultivators who were already operating at 
the time the ordinance went into effect, new growers would have to 
seek out a conditional permit at the discretion of the county 
Planning Commission. This seems to be included to allay fears that 
principally permitting grows would cause a new "green rush" of people 
enticed by the county's relatively lax land use regulation.

But it also creates a situation in which the thousands of currently 
operating growers - whether they're utilizing best practices, working 
toward compliance, or not - are given the right to grow, while 
newcomers would essentially have to plead their cases to the county.

It's clear a disconnect remains between CCVH and the environmental 
community. Murphy, speaking at the CCVH courthouse rally, said the 
draft ordinance was specifically vague on revenue sources and 
specific environmental requirements because "those are the two 
hardest things to figure out." He seemed to suggest that the 45-day 
public comment period could yield answers to the ordinance's 
unanswered questions.

But Ehresman expressed frustration at a lack of inclusivity so far. 
"Over seven drafts and eight months they've had that time to 
incorporate the concerns from the overarching community, but instead 
it's pretty clear that this ordinance is made to benefit the 
mega-growers at the expense of everyone else."

Speaking at the rally, Murphy reiterated that growers are seeking 
regulation and want to pay taxes. Bruner said CCVH has more than 
1,000 cannabis farmers in its ranks.

Bauer said his department's California Environmental Quality Act 
staff will likely comb through the proposed ordinance in the coming 
weeks. Despite his concerns, Bauer said he's glad the regulation 
conversation has gained so much traction. "We'll have to really look 
at it hard to see how to respond to what's being proposed, but we 
appreciate the effort they're putting into this," Bauer said. "We 
want to make sure this is as environmentally benign as possible so 
fish and the industry can coexist."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom