Pubdate: Thu, 10 Sep 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

WEED DISAGREE

When California Cannabis Voice Humboldt, the political action 
committee behind two proposed county marijuana ordinances, recently 
announced agreement with environmental groups, it provoked a mixed 
reaction from the very groups said to be in agreement.

CCVH was responding to a letter sent to the Humboldt County Board of 
Supervisors by four environmental groups that outlined the 
protections the groups believe a marijuana land use ordinance needs to contain.

As the Journal has reported, CCVH and local environmental groups have 
been at odds since the marijuana advocacy group began working on its 
draft ordinance. Environmental groups have complained about the 
allowed canopy sizes, among other details, and have accused CCVH of 
locking them out of the draft process and ignoring their recommendations.

Those recommendations were laid out in the Sept. 2 letter sent to the 
board of supervisors, signed by the heads of the Environmental 
Protection Information Center, Humboldt Baykeeper, the Northcoast 
Environmental Center and Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment.

So it came as a surprise to many when, a day later, CCVH released a 
sunny response to the letter, saying the environmental groups' 
comments represented "divisions bridged" and "the grassroots fully 
united" in an effort to convince local and state officials to pass regulations.

CCVH also said the group was "in full agreement with all that appears 
in the letter," and the logos of the PAC and the four environmental 
groups were prominent at the top of the letterhead emailed to CCVH subscribers.

But when the Lost Coast Outpost published the release and proclaimed 
a "consensus," Humboldt Baykeeper Director Jennifer Kalt took issue. 
CCVH had never reached out to her organization, she told the Journal, 
and she wanted to make clear that divisions were not bridged. She 
said that over the course of eight months, CCVH has ignored 
environmental groups' recommendations and she's not confident that 
the group will accept them now.

But EPIC's Natalynne DeLapp said she did speak with CCVH before the 
group announced they were on the "same team," and said the whole 
thing was blown out of proportion.

Of the environmental groups' recommendations, CCVH only singles one 
out in its letter, saying it will drop all references to timber 
production zones (TPZs). Previous drafts of the ordinance would have 
made marijuana cultivation a principally permitted use on TPZ lands - 
private properties set aside for the preservation of timber. This 
concerned environmentalists, who said it had the potential to further 
fragment properties and harm wildlife habitats.

What's unclear, based on the release, is whether removing "all 
references to TPZ" will actually prohibit marijuana cultivation on 
parcels with that designation, or just leave a nebulous regulation.

Kalt said simply taking out references to TPZ lands isn't enough to 
protect those lands, but it's a start. "We don't want something to 
pass that explicitly states it's allowed because we don't want to see 
an expansion of [growing on TPZ lands]."

The next draft is expected to go before the board of supervisors on Sept. 15.

As of press time, the Journal was waiting to hear the fate of the 
three state medical marijuana bills that are being sliced and diced 
in time for the Friday, Sept. 11 voting deadline in the state 
legislature. As of last week, North Coast representatives were 
confident that the bills would go before the Senate and Assembly for 
approval. Check www.northcoastjournal.com for updates.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom