ON THE COVER

Continued from previous page

The initiative would also cap the total number of cannabis permits allowable in the county to 1.05 times the number issued as of March 4, 2022 (the day the initiative was certified to begin signature gathering), which would equate to 978 permits, according to the county staff report.

Under the initiative, cultivation permits would also expire annually, requiring farmers to reapply, while the planning department would be required to conduct on-site inspections annually for every permit and broadly increase public noticing efforts for every permit application. While the initiative specifies it would require public hearings for permits for all grows larger than 3,000 square feet, it is ambiguous whether this would apply for renewal applications, as the initiative doesn’t describe a renewal process, but the prospect of holding 1,000 or so public hearings for permit renewals annually seems logistically untenable.

The initiative also includes a provision that states “no approval of a permit for commercial cannabis cultivation” would be allowed that results in “any one person holding more than one active permit.” It’s ambiguous whether that would simply limit the number of cultivation permits a single person can hold or should be interpreted to prevent a cultivation permit holder from also holding a tourism or processing permit, a point of significant concern for the industry. It’s again important to note the initiative cannot be changed or amended from the form that was circulated for signatures and, if passed, could only be changed through another election.

If passed, between its cap on the size and number of farms and the number of permits an individual can hold, road requirements and limitations on the use of artificial light, the initiative would immediately render most of the county’s farms “non-conforming,” meaning that while they met the requirements at the time of permitting they are not in compliance with current regulations. The initiative would allow these farms to stay in operation as long as they don’t “expand” their uses — which is defined to mean “an increase in cultivation area, water usage, energy usage, or the number or size of any structures used in connection with cultivation” — or apply for another permit.

There are unanswered questions about whether simply applying to renew one’s permit, as required by the initiative, would constitute a new permit application that would require a non-conforming farm to come into compliance with the letter of the initiative. If that’s the case, it would require swaths of the county’s farm to reduce their footprints after a year. It’s also unclear whether environmental improvements — like adding water storage capacity or a solar array — would fit the definition of an expanded use and thus force a non-conforming farm to come into compliance.

If the initiative passes, county planners would be put in the position of reconciling these ambiguities, with the potential that their determinations would then be challenged in court, whether by an unhappy cultivator or a disgruntled neighbor. From farmers to environmental groups to county staff, many have said they see implantation of the initiative, if passed, to be rife for legal challenges.

The initiative would also inherently leave some currently in the process of pursuing cultivation permits behind. It allows the county to continue processing all applications that were complete by March 4, 2022, but the processing of all permits received after would halt until the number of permitted farms falls below the cap set by the initiative. This would leave some applications pending indefinitely. Ford, the planning director, also noted this would mean some farmers who voluntarily participated in the county’s “Retirement, Remediation and Relocation Program” — which allowed existing farms in environmentally unsuitable areas to retire their grows and remediate the land in exchange for a promise they would be allowed to relocate them to more suitable agricultural land — would be left out.

The initiative itself makes clear its primary concern is the environment, not the industry, farmers or the county.

“The purpose of this Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative is to protect the county’s residents and natural environment from harm caused by large-scale cannabis cultivation,” it states. “Specifically, the initiative seeks to promote environmentally responsible cultivation practices and support watershed health for residents, property owners and eco-

Continued on page 15 »

HICAP is the Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program, a program of the Area One Agency on Aging. Registered HICAP volunteer counselors help senior and disabled Medicare beneficiaries understand their Medicare and health insurance benefits and choices.

HICAP volunteers advocate for Medicare beneficiaries regarding problems with Medicare or a Medicare provider. Volunteers counsel individual clients on a variety of Medicare and insurance issues and inform lowincome Medicare beneficiaries about programs that can help pay for Medicare costs.

HICAP provides free training to become a registered HICAP Counselor with the California Department of Aging.

It takes just 24 hours of initial training and 10 hours of counseling observation time to become a certified HICAP Counselor. Volunteer counselors must provide a minimum of 40 hours per year of client counseling to maintain certification.

HICAP pays for volunteer mileage and ongoing training. Call HICAP to learn about this opportunity to assist older adults.

Call 444-3000 or 1-800-434-0222 for more systems affected by cannabis cultivation activities. This initiative accomplishes its purpose by limiting the number, type and acreage of permits for commercial cannabis cultivation ….”

Enviros’ View

While most of Humboldt County’s environmental organizations have yet to take an official stance on the initiative, there seems to be consensus that the current regulatory framework needs to be improved and the initiative constitutes a significant overhaul of a complex industry.

“At least on the environmental side, there are things we’ve always wanted to have cleaned up,” said Environmental Protection Information Center Executive Director Tom Wheeler, specifically pointing to a “loophole” that allows permitting of farms on prime agricultural soil even if it’s in remote, off-the-grid areas, the pervasive use of generators and the need for a more thorough analysis of the cumulative hydrological impacts of wells.

Caroline Griffith, the executive director of the Northcoast Environmental Center, agreed current regulations need work, saying she does see a “kind of bias” toward “large, industrial” grows, which she would define as anything larger than an acre. Griffith also pointed to the continued permitting of farms in remote, off-the-grid areas, which require employee commutes and, often, generator use, adding to cumulative impacts.

“We share a lot of the same concerns” as the initiative’s writers, Griffith said, though she noted the NEC has not taken a stance on the initiative despite months of internal discussion. “The reason we have not is because it is really such a complex issue that it’s hard to address it with an initiative.”

Griffith said she personally hopes the initiative might push the county to revamp its cannabis land use ordinance for a third time.

“The thing I would like to stress is there are a lot of people from all different sides who see issues with the state of our current ordinance and where it stands,” she said.

Ultimately, the initiative’s official proponents are the only ones who can pull it from the 2024 ballot, and it remains to be seen if they are willing to do so. If not, there’s talk from the industry and officials of trying to put forward a competing ballot initiative, though what that might look like is anyone’s guess at this point.

Wheeler, whose EPIC has officially come out opposing the initiative, said the petitioners are absolutely right in recognizing there are real environmental inadequacies in the county’s existing framework and seeking to address them. But the issues involved are extraordinarily complex, he said, and a more collaborative process is required to adequately address them.

“I would like to see revisions to the county’s ordinance, or new ordinances, come by the same way as the old ones, which was through that grueling, exhausting process where there are tradeoffs and we work together,” he said. “I just think that’s a better way of making laws.” l

Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the news editor at the Journal. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or thad@ northcoastjournal.com.

From Seed To Flower