Laytonville Council to Supes: 10 percent pot rule bad

As discussed here last week, County officials have now decided to expand pot cultivation effectively removing all caps on pot and open up rangeland to growing weed, despite opposition from the Sheriff, small cannabis farmers, environmentalists, and ranchers.

The proposed expansion also comes on the heels of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), the State Water Board’s main enforcement arm on the North Coast, recently issuing an Investigative Order that found, “The North Coast Region is inundated with cannabis cultivation in headwaters and main river systems, with active, developed sites in steep and rugged terrain. Cultivation and related activities throughout the North Coast Region have resulted in significant waste discharges and losses of instream flows associated with improper development of rural landscapes on privately-owned parcels, and the diversion of springs and streams, to the cumulative detriment of the Regional Water Board’s designated beneficial uses of water.”

In this space I have repeatedly pointed out that you “can’t grow weed without water,” and that the state’s two primary resource agencies in California’s cannabis regulatory framework — the State Water Board and Fish and Wildlife — have very tough, stringent regulations that need to be complied with in order for local growers to become licensed by the state.

When the water issue was raised at a Board of Supervisors meeting a couple of years ago, the Board’s collective response was, “There’s already checks and balances on water.” What exactly did that mean? And by the way, what are these checks and balances on water?

The State Water Board and Fish and Wildlife don’t operate in a “check and balance” water world. They have very specific rules and regulations regarding water rights, diversion, usage, storage, discharge, etc. Cannabis cultivators must comply with them to get licensed regardless of what the county is obligating or not obligating them to do.

So you’re probably wondering why the Supervisors would decide it’s a great idea at this time despite all the local opposition, not to mention the Regional Water Board’s finding that the area is “inundated” with pot and the resulting water quality and watershed degradation, to remove essentially all the controls from cannabis production. It’s a oneword answer:

Greed.

Clearly, the economic model the Supes are pushing is bigger-is-better for pot cultivation and the prospective new tax revenues that will be generated by the large corporate model. And needless to say, the oft-heard commitment from County officials regarding the importance of ensuring small farmers remain a vibrant force in the emerging pot industry are just empty words.

Nonetheless, by a 4-to-1 vote (3rd District Supe Haschak voted no), the Board of Supervisors conditionally OK’D a proposed Ordinance, that includes a provision allowing parcels in ag, range land, and upland residential zoning districts that have a minimum parcel size of 10 acres or larger to cultivate up to 10 percent of the parcel area. For example, a 600-acre parcel could have up to 60 acres of cultivated weed, or 100 acres of pot could be grown on a 1,000 acre parcel.

Last Wednesday, Feb. 10, the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) put the Board of Supervisors on notice that the so-called “10 percent rule” is bad public policy and must be deep-sixed.

The following are excerpts from the letter sent to the County:

Pleased be advised that on February 10, 2021, the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) took action that approved submitting this letter of recommendations and comments to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and Mendocino County Planning Commission regarding the proposed rule that that “Parcels in the AG or RL zoning district that have a minimum parcel size of ten (10) acres or larger may cultivate up to 10 percent of the parcel area.”

The Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council is opposed to the expansion of cannabis cultivation based on the 10 percent rule in Ag, Rangeland, and Upland Residential zoning districts.

The following concerns have been identified by the community:

• Planning staff is already overburdened and unable to keep up with the workload required to manage the permitting process for those who have already applied. Expanding cultivation prior to getting caught up with issuing the permits to current applicants would only add to their burden and seems inappropriate at this time.