Pubdate: Sun, 12 Jul 2015
Source: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)
Copyright: 2015 Times-Standard


Now that the proverbial smoke has cleared, and we've all had a 
glimpse of California Cannabis Voice Humboldt's large scale marijuana 
ordinance, what's next?

As we reported earlier this week, the ordinance would regulate 
medical marijuana grows on parcels more than five acres in size in 
unincorporated areas and impose a number of requirements on growers: 
obtain certification from the county Agricultural Commissioner; show 
proof of lawful sources of water adequate to cultivate the proposed 
crop size; submit an operation and cultivation plan; agree to annual 
on-site inspection; pay a $25 licensing fee; obtain a county-issued 
business license or provisional license unless growing for personal 
use; and obtain all required state licenses.

Say what you will about CCVH's efforts, at least they're getting the 
ball rolling. And critics of the ordinance have said plenty:

Some, such as Robert Sutherland, longtime member of the 
Humboldt/Mendocino Marijuana Advocacy Project, have questioned both 
the scale and intent of the ordinance ("Outsiders' greed no guide for 
our county's future," Times-Standard, July 1, Page A4). As Sutherland 
argues, "Present consensus appears to be that grows should be no 
larger than 2,500 square feet of canopy area, for all marijuana 
grown, irrespective of destination or purpose. Ten gallons of water 
storage per square foot of cultivation should be required. We 
recognize that some standards rightfully will not fit all situations, 
and we respect that best practices need to prevail in those 
situations. No cultivation should occur on any parcel on which the 
owner is not in full-time residence. Every person should have the 
right to grow at least a small number of plants for any purpose."

As self-described "strange bedfellows" Natalynne DeLapp of the 
Environmental Protection Information Center and Mike Jani of the 
Humboldt Redwood Company point out ("Pot on TPZ land an invitation to 
disaster," Times-Standard, July 7, Page A4), opening Humboldt 
County's Timber Production Zones to legal marijuana cultivation is a 
dubious proposition. Offering tax breaks to the producers of the most 
profitable crop in the state to grow on TPZ land would indeed only 
serve to pump up development, further impact responsible forestry and 
harm wildlife, some of which is already imperiled.

Finally, others have taken issue with what the ordinance doesn't 
include. "No pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and certain chemical 
fertilizers should be allowed if we are going to consider our 
Humboldt brand marijuana any better than tobacco," writes Uri 
Driscoll ("Dope growers or cannabis cultivators?", Times-Standard, 
July 8, Page A4).

Fair points to consider, one and all.


CCVH may have an ordinance that's attracting criticism like flies to 
a feast, but at least they have an ordinance. Critics would do well 
to note that November 2016 draws closer every day. If they can't lock 
themselves in a room with their opponents' proposal and throw 
whatever revised ordinance they can cook up at the Board of 
Supervisors, then the future of Humboldt County's marijuana industry 
is going to be shaped by their worst fears - or worse, crafted 
altogether in Sacramento.

Step up and give Humboldt County voters an alternative - soon.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom