CANNABIS IN THE COUNTY
An interview with Supervisor Ted Williams
According to 5th District Supervisor Ted Williams, because of mitigations in the Phase One Cannabis Cultivation Activity Ordinance that do not require site specific CEQA reviews for cannabis cultivation permits, documentation for a county permit does not fulfill the prerequisite requirements for a grower to become legally licensed by the state of California, a process that requires a site-specific review.
“The county ordinance passed in 2017 does not fit with state law,” he says. “The Planning Commission staff did not have the expertise or oversight for Phase One; they had no idea that our cannabis ordinance did not align with state law from the very beginning; it’s a failed ordinance.
“Our county has taken a lot of heat on why cultivators aren’t getting licensed but it isn’t the county’s fault; we have nothing to do with the state license.
“For those who requested permits, the county spent ample time, working hours and hours with cultivators asking for documents, sending notices and what they get back, in a lot of cases, was incomplete. Some growers submitted plot plans with only a square drawn on a piece of paper while others submitted the sample plot-plan as their own.
“It is, however, a difficult ordinance and an arduous process and the growers cannot be solely blamed.
“Out of the 1,100 applications, most are at a point where they cannot be processed,” Williams said.
“With Phase Three, the grower is required to submit a completed environmental site review covering 100 percent of the cost whether done by a county planner or by a thirdparty planner and the Planning Commission staff decide whether it meets the criteria. “We cannot expect other taxpayers to cover the cost of growing cannabis.
“Phase Three is the most stringent process we’ve ever had and I expect very few to get through the process; it’s site specific, case by case. The goal is to put the farms where appropriate and put safeguards in place.
“Some of the small farmers, are raising NIMBY concerns, that the whole county will be one big cannabis farm, smell everywhere; I don’t see that happening.
“We want to get away from clearing ridge tops, putting grows in residential neighbor
hoods, the carbon foot print of hundreds of trucks shuttling water, running nonstop, taking the water from illegal ponds, well-water and the Eel River.
“On Jan. 1, the state will no longer be renewing the temporary licenses. That will do a lot for weeding out the bad actors from Phase One,” Williams said.
“There are, however, small growers who will not be able to get through the state licensing; it’s not legalizing what is already existing but a whole new level of regulation, different from any other industry but it is state law that, by this summer, whatever is in the books, is what we get. If we wait and have no program, then we have no ave- nue for the 1,100 farms that have tried to enter the market legally; they are all illegal starting Jan 1st.
“Right now, we have about 9,000 cannabis farms in the county and seven of them have annual state licenses. There’s no way this county will ever have enough enforcement to be able to shut them all down. I would rather pull them out.
“What creates more of an impact, to allow it to continue the way it is or move to Phase Three? When we compare the environmental impacts, it’s much worse the way it is now. It’s better to have them grow on appropriate land that requires Planning Commission staff oversight and ample water.
“Just because we pass this program doesn’t mean we approve farms; however, if we don’t pass it, we push it all back into the illegal market. You have to weigh the impact of the illegal market versus that of the legal market,” Williams said.
What about the drought?
“Because of the water shortage, this may not be the time to start new cannabis farms and maybe we won’t be able to scale up but Phase One is going away.
“The drought, lack of rain and water shortages are all major concerns but this summer is the county’s only opportunity to pass this ordinance; if not it will cost the county millions of dollars over the next few years.
“If we don’t have water, there shouldn’t be new cannabis or new grapes; I am for tying them together and making these decisions based on science.
“I want control of it with a scientist reviewing the water situation and if a water scientist says ‘no, this isn’t sustainable, we don’t have the water for this,’ we pull the plug and that project doesn’t get approved. It might be that this year none of the projects get approved. However, if we don’t have a legal pathway for growers, then we just have illegal activity and we have no control.”
What about the concern of corporate marijuana taking over the county cannabis industry?
“I don’t see Flow Kanna or any of the other mediumsized businesses driving this process; they have hundreds of employees at good wages and the way it’s going, they’re going to close up and relocate. With a cap of 10,000 square feet and with prices dropping, it’s not sustainable for them.
“They won’t be here in a year or two; there’s not enough of a market. I think it’s more of an urban legend that the corporations are coming in and taking over. I’d like to see who and where they are because I haven’t met them yet.
“There’re farmers who have lived here for decades who say they have the ability to scale up; they have the land and the employees.
“I don’t see that as selling out to the corporations; I see that as supporting the businesses that are already here.
“Concerns around rangeland expansion are wellfounded; I can think of a lot of rangeland parcels that I would find inappropriate for any cultivation; however, field and row crops are allowed on most of our rangeland. If scientific analysis determines no crops on rangeland, I could support that but I’m not OK saying you can grow one plant but not another. I’m against using moral grounds against the cannabis plant disguised as environmental or water concerns.
“Limiting a farm based on square footage isn’t necessarily best for the environment. It means they cannot rotate their crop; must use every square foot and might put a hoop house over the whole thing with lights to maximize the cycles, generators and water shuttling—or you can grow 3 acres of pot without any of that.
“I want the small farms to succeed; I want them to get their license and have a viable business but, with the state framework not supporting that, I don’t see those pieces coming together.
“I’ve been on the path to grandfather in these farmers but we have to be viable. If we don’t pass a land use ordinance, some sort of scaling up, we are going to put ourselves in a box and we won’t be able to move forward.”
There will be two upcoming Board of Supervisors meetings dealing with the Cannabis Cultivation Activity Ordinance. The first on April 12 will include a presentation by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife specifically on water impact from cannabis and the CDFW’S recommendation on how the ordinance should be structured to meet environmental requirements. The second Board meeting will be on April 19.