An Industry on Edge

Reform initiative headed for ballot would dramatically overhaul cannabis regulation in Humboldt

By Thadeus Greenson thad@northcoastjournal.com

The Humboldt County cannabis industry is on edge, with an initiative slated to come before voters next year that would dramatically reshape cultivation regulations, capping the number and limiting the size of farms, and overhauling how the county’s primary cash crop can be grown moving forward.

More than four dozen cannabis farmers and industry advocates addressed the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on March 7 to warn of what they see as the catastrophic consequences the initiative would have, pleading with the board to publicly oppose the measure, which has qualified to be on the March 5, 2024, ballot. Speaker after speaker decried the initiative, describing it as everything from “anti-cannabis” and “anti-community” to the work of “economic terrorists” and, perhaps most antagonistically, “the Karen Initiative.”

“Do we want Humboldt to be just another part of rural America — bleak, devastated?” one speaker asked. “That’s what you get with the Karen Initiative.”

Initiated by a group of Kneeland area residents concerned about the environmental and neighborhood impacts of cannabis cultivation, the measure is shaping up to be one of the more contentious and divisive in recent memory. Signature gatherers for the initiative said they faced organized harassment while gathering the more than 7,000 signatures collected to qualify it for the ballot, while some who say they signed on to support the measure now say they were misled to think it was designed to protect the county’s small farms.

After hearing speaker after speaker at the March 7 meeting decry the initiative, and receiving an alarming analysis from county staff that warned of “dire consequences” for both the industry and the planning department should it pass into law, the Board of Supervisors voted to form an ad hoc committee to meet with the initiative’s proponents to see if a compromise can be reached to withdraw it. Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo, Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell and Planning Director John Ford are now slated to meet with the proponents in the coming weeks to start that conversation. But, in a letter to the board, one of the initiative’s authors indicated such an accord is unlikely, as the group feels an obligation to the measure’s 7,000 signees to move forward. It should also be noted that if passed, the initiative could only be amended or altered by another vote of the people.

The initiative’s primary author, Mark Thurmond, declined to comment for this story when reached by the Journal, saying its proponents want to wait to speak with the ad hoc committee before responding publicly.

As the industry waits on proverbial pins and needles to hear the outcome of that meeting and contemplates next steps, we take a look at the current state of cannabis regulation in Humboldt and how it would change should the initiative be voted into law.

As it Stands

Once home to an estimated 15,000 cannabis farms, Humboldt County is now home to 1,027 active permitted farms, while the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office estimates another 1,000 are operating illicitly, primarily growing cannabis indoors to be sold illegally out of state. Of those with active permits, 739 are for pre-existing farms — meaning they were actively cultivated prior to obtaining permits — and 210 are new, with another 78 comprising a mix of the two.

The majority of these active permits are for farms cultivating less than 10,000 square feet of cannabis, with 189 ranging in size from a half-acre to an acre and 19 cultivating more than 1 acre of cannabis.

What constitutes a large-scale farm or a mega grow is in the eye of the beholder. While many have affixed the term to anything spanning an acre or more, the county staff report notes the largest farms in Humboldt County — ranging between 7 and 8 acres — are far shy of the 100-plus acre farms permitted in Santa Barbara and San Bernardino counties, or even the 60-plus acre farms closer to home in Lake County.

While there is certainly some disagreement about the adequacy of controls, applicants for cultivation permits have to show their farms’ access roads are serviceable, that most neighborhood impacts will be mitigated and that the farms’ water will be sourced in a way that won’t negatively harm the environment — usually through rainwater catchment and storage systems and ground wells. In the case of ground wells, the county requires a geologic study to determine if they will impact nearby streams and rivers, or neighbors.

Permitted farms also continue to be monitored by the county for permit compliance, as well as state agencies, and the county staff report notes the Planning Department conducted more than 900 site inspections in 2022, as well as more than 400 “remote inspections,” with some overlap between the two.

Combined with the changing market forces brought by full-scale legalization, the county’s regulatory framework — which has evolved from an initial commercial medical cannabis land use ordinance passed in 2016 to one governing both medical and recreational commercial cultivation in 2018, which was further tweaked in 2020 — has unquestionably reduced the collective footprint of the industry in Humboldt. Regulation has also changed the nature and impacts of cannabis cultivation in Humboldt, weeding out most of the most egregious environmental damage and concentrating farms in certain areas, as the county’s land use ordinances aimed, in part, to move cultivation out of the areas where it was deemed likely to cause the most environmental damage and onto land deemed better suited for farming.

The county staff report notes that areas with what’s deemed prime agricultural land — communities like Honeydew, Shively and Holmes Flat in Southern Humboldt — have attracted concentrations of permitted farms, bringing neighborhood impacts that have frustrated some residents. A couple larger cannabis farms

— particularly a 5.73-acre grow on a 7,000acre property known as Rolling Meadows and a proposed 22-acre grow in the Arcata Bottoms that was reduced to 5.7 acres — have also drawn a lot of community concern and attention, the report notes.

Few seem fully happy with the current lay of the land. Farmers have repeatedly complained of the costs of permitting and compliance — especially amid an oversaturated cannabis wholesale market that has sent prices plummeting and what they deem high state and local tax rates — noting that geologic and hydrological studies cost money, as do water storage systems and road improvements. Environmental groups, meanwhile, seem to feel that regulation has curtailed many of the most egregious abuses, though oversight is laxer than they would like and they have ongoing concerns about the permitting of new farms in outlying, off-the-grid areas, generator use and the lack of comprehensive studies on groundwater draws and their cumulative impacts.

The Initiative

Distressed by an application to permit a more than 40,000-square-foot grow on Barry Ridge, a group of Kneeland residents convened a community meeting, worried about the impact the farm and others

They soon met with people from other areas of the county who had similar concerns and personally financed the effort to draft the reform initiative and then volunteered their time over the span of months to gather enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

If passed, the 38-page initiative would modify the county’s General Plan — considering the guiding document for all county land use planning — to dramatically alter the cannabis cultivation permitting landscape in Humboldt. The fact that the initiative would amend the General Plan is noteworthy, as it would also then require the county to modify any codes or regulations deemed in conflict with the initiative so they align.

Perhaps most notably, the initiative would cap the size of cannabis farms at 10,000 square feet, which would immediately render more than 400 permitted farms “non-conforming.” Additionally, the initiative would require farms be located on roads that meet or exceed Category 4 standards (two-lane roads that can accommodate speeds of 25 to 40 mph, according to the county website), that those using artificial light only use low-wattage lighting systems to reduce climate impacts and phase out of the use of generators to the point they will ultimately be allowed for emergency use only. It would also extend