News

Measure A, known as the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative, is shaping up to be one of the most controversial things on the March ballot and this afternoon a group of about 75 people got a close-up look at some of those arguing most vociferously for and against it.

Held at the Baywood Country Club in Arcata, the Humboldt Emeritus and Retired Faculty and Staff Association luncheon meeting saw presentations by proponents Mark Thurmond and Betsy Watson, herself a Cal Poly Humboldt professor emerita, both of whom played central parts in conceiving, drafting, funding and circulating the initiative to overhaul Humboldt County’s cannabis regulations. On the other side of the issue, the group also heard from Humboldt County Growers Alliance Executive Director Natalynne DeLapp, who described the initiative as “bad policy,” and Humboldt County Planning Commissioner Noah Levy, who said he worries the initiative, if passed, would prevent some farms from making environmental improvements.

The discussion was contentious but mostly civil, despite an outburst from a man in the crowd that briefly derailed Thurmond’s presentation before the man was escorted out of the room.

The discussion began with DeLapp offering a presentation why she feels Measure A is not just bad governance, but “bad for Humboldt County,” so much so that her association and a handful of local farmers have filed a lawsuit seeking to block it from reaching the ballot. DeLapp said the county crafted its current cannabis land use policy through a painstaking public process that took in expert input and demanded compromise from all stakeholders. In contrast, she said Measure A spawned from a dispute between the proponents and a neighbor in Kneeland, and was drafted in private before signature gatherers “hoodwinked” and misled thousands of voters into supporting it with claims that it would protect small farmers and the environment.

“This is an appealing argument,” she said. “It’s also not what will happen if Measure A passes.”

The reality, DeLapp said, is that while initiative proponents contend large, industrialized farms have inundated Humboldt County, that’s just not the case. She said the county currently has about 775 permitted farms, 70 percent of which are legacy operations and 98 percent of which do not meet the state definition of “large.”

Taking the microphone briefly from DeLapp, Levy said while the initiative charges that coordination between county and state regulators is lacking, this just isn’t true, noting that all cannabis permits field input from a variety of state agencies, from Calfire and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to the water board, and generally all their input is crafted into conditions of approval.

“No water use in the state is as extensively regulated as cannabis in this county,” he said.

As DeLapp explained it, a lot of the industry concern over the initiative centers around the interpretations of county counsel and the county planning department, which have said they believe its simple text language could be read to render a majority of the county’s farms nonconforming — either because they are larger than 10,000 square feet or because they are on roads that don’t meet Category 4 design standards — and that could prevent them from making certain upgrades, including adding water storage or solar arrays. And because the initiative, if passed, could only be changed by a vote of the people, it would be difficult to correct address any issues, foreseen or not.

“There is a consensus among small farms that this measure is harmful to them,” she said. “You won’t hear from proponents about any small farmers who support them because there aren’t any. And if I’m wrong, I’ll eat my notes.”

Watson started off the proponents’ presentation by noting it was the initiative system that legalized cannabis in the first place, and stressing Measure A’s intent is to protect the environment.

“This is not an anti-cannabis initiative — this is an anti-industrialization of our timberlands and ag lands initiative,” she said. The initiative’s “backbone” is the county’s current cannabis land use ordinance but “with teeth,” she said. “The idea behind this is we can have water and weed, too. It’s not anti-cannabis at all.”

Thurmond said the initiative spawned from some problems he and Watson were having in their Kneeland neighborhood with a proposed cultivation site. He said he came to realize the problem wasn’t the grow itself, but the mechanisms the county had in place to address neighborhood concerns.

Through research, Thurmond said he came to feel the county wasn’t following environmental regulations when it comes to cannabis, or following through with its own promises, like one made in 2018 to hold annual public hearings with various state agencies to review cannabis permit caps in watersheds throughout the county. That led him to conduct scores of “off-the-record” interviews with experts on the issues around Humboldt’s land use ordinance, he said.

Thurmond then seemed to veer off course a bit, noting that some have built their dream homes in more rural areas of Humboldt County only to have someone “all of a sudden” move in to start a cannabis farm, taking their water and bringing “people who are undesirable.” He then said something about their livestock disappearing before he was stopped by an outburst from the audience.

“What the fuck are you talking about?” a man yelled, rising to his feet. “You’re full of shit.”

After things quieted down, Thurmond continued, saying he spoke to people who said they didn’t want to sign the initiative for fear their “livestock would be hurt or their tires would be slashed.” He went on to cover what he sees as the main provisions of the ordinance, saying it would cap the number of cultivation permits in the county at about 1,000, limit new permits to farms of 10,000 square feet or fewer, increase enforcement by requiring site inspections annually with less than 24 hours’ notice and require all permits to be renewed annually. Additionally, he noted the initiative would require public hearings for all farms of 3,000 square feet or larger, reduce allowable water diversion and phase out generators. It would also, he said, expand county noticing requirements and require county staff to consider complaints in permit renewal processes.

When the presentations were done, a question and answer period followed. Nathan Wittington, who said he grows cannabis and apples while raising sheep and chickens on his farm near Ferndale, noted that he’s required to track water usage to a degree far beyond what’s required of his cattle ranching neighbors. If water is the issue, he asked, why single out cannabis?

Watson responded that the size of cannabis farms can make them “industrial.” The most pointed exchange came a few minutes later with Steven Luu, who described himself as the “purported Kneeland mega-grower” who initially caused Watson and Thurmond concern when he applied for a 1-acre cultivation permit and later agreed to reduce the scale of the operation to 10,000 square feet. He noted he’s “all about” building his homestead on the property and raising his family there, while farming other crops in addition to cannabis. But he expressed concern about his situation, saying that he could plant 40 acres of grapes on his agricultural property without anyone raising an issue and wondering aloud why his permit application drew neighborhood ire — including from some who accused him of being a member of the Chinese mafia — when a previous application from a “Caucasian person” to expand their operations by an acre did not.

“What I see in this initiative is a focus on regulating your neighbors,” he said, later adding, “Who would be the right people?”

Watson responded by noting that Freshwater Creek went dry a couple of years back, the first time ever despite “white people” having been “up there” since the 1800s because “three wells went in for cannabis cultivation.” She added cannabis isn’t the entire problem but the “Johnny-come-lately of water users.”

Then asked about why there wasn’t a more public process in drafting the initiative, Watson said she’d initially planned to hold public forums but was told people wouldn’t attend. But she defended the public nature of the effort.

“There’s nothing more public than getting 7,000 signatures and putting something to a vote,” she said.

Levy disputed that notion a few minutes later, saying the county’s current regulations were crafted over the course of dozens of meetings with input from hundreds of speakers.

A woman introducing the day’s panel discussion noted that next month’s association meeting will feature the Humboldt Literacy Project and a discussion of the estimated 14,000 adults in Humboldt County who are functionally illiterate, meaning they read at or below a fifth-grade level, and efforts to change that. For more on the association, visit erfsa.humboldt.edu.