Following pot’s money trail
Following last week’s column dealing with the North Coast Regional Water Board’s Investigative Order finding the “North Coast Region is inundated with cannabis cultivation …”, I was somewhat inundated myself with phone calls and emails from folks who mostly asked, “What are the Supervisors thinking when they want to expand growing marijuana in the county?”
I gave them the same answer that was in my column.
The economic model the Supes are pushing is bigger-isbetter 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.
The Supes (with the exception of 3rd Supe John Haschak) have provisionally 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 marijuana industry, their lobbyists, and far too many local officials (especially here on the Northcoast) forget, don’t know, or don’t care that state legalization efforts were forged in the midst of California’s record fiveyear drought that ushered in statewide mandatory water consumption cuts.
They forget that while a majority of state voters favor legalization, they also want it with lots of strings attached. Such as enforcing regulations protecting natural resources and water and watersheds.
Fortunately, those state agencies with primary responsibilities for carrying out the various regulatory frameworks associated with legalized cannabis, have reminded everyone in the last few weeks that legalization comes with all those necessary strings attached.
Three years ago, the State Water Board adopted a new statewide policy establishing strict environmental standards for cannabis cultivation in order to protect water flows and water quality in California’s rivers and streams. The new regulations and programs address the notso-friendly watershed practices of too many cultivators.
The Water Board understands that it’s all about water: you can’t grow weed without it.
Underpinning Water Board’s regulatory framework is the realization that commercial cannabis cultivation is growing significantly and spreading to new areas of the state following adult use legalization through Proposition 64. In the Regional Water Board’s Order, they specifically cite the inundation of cannabis “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 privatelyowned parcels, and the diversion of springs and streams, to the cumulative detriment of the Regional Water Board’s designated beneficial uses of water.”
One of the cornerstones of the Water Board’s regulatory package is if left unregulated, cannabis cultivation could pose serious threats to water quality and fish and wildlife by diverting water or releasing fertilizers, pesticides, and sediments into waterways.
Clearly the Water Board understands it was the intent of legislators, to the point of specifically referencing North Coast “environmental damage,” that the state would be paying close attention to all natural resource issues. As I said, this is a fact lost on far too many in the emerging marijuana industry, as well as our local officials who continue to endlessly tinker with the Cannabis Ordinance.
In making its new rules, the Water Board relied on numerous reports and studies regarding the impacts of cultivation on watersheds.
So what are the plans of the State Water Board to address the impacts of cannabis cultivation.
It appears the State Water Board is taking a watershed-by-watershed approach to determining how many permits and licenses will be issued to cultivators. It’s all about the cumulative effects of pot farming, basically the same environmental standard theoretically applied in logging, land use planning, capital construction projects, and the like.