For or Against? In 2024, the Controversial Cannabis Reform Initiative Is on the Ballot for Humboldt County Voters

In March of 2024, Humboldt County voters will have the option of voting for or against the Humboldt County Cannabis Reform Initiative (HCRI) that aims to “protect the County’s residents and the environmental harm caused by large-scale cultivation.”

Why the Initiative?

One of the proponents, Mark Thurmond, a retired Professor from UC Davis explained why over 7000 residents signed the petition seeking to have the initiative put on the ballot, “The purpose is to improve the environment and protect the health, safety and welfare of rural residents.”

Thurmond said a primary concern “is all the people in rural Humboldt County who have really been harmed in a number of ways by cannabis cultivation. They’ve lost their water, they’ve lost their neighborhoods, they’ve had the criminal elements move in.”

Thurmond said another worry for residents was they “were afraid to speak up” due to “intimidation and retribution.” 

Jane Doe (for the purposes of this article) is a longtime homesteader who wishes to remain anonymous for that and other reasons. Doe said, “One of the reasons I signed the petition was because the County is not paying attention to the cumulative impacts of grows on the people that live there…I was hoping the HCRI would inspire the county to amend their ordinances.”

The Cannabis Industry Opposes the Initiative

However, cannabis advocates and farmers are aghast about the implications of the HCRI, calling the initiative a “death blow,” “the practical elimination of cannabis countywide,” and they say, the initiative does not accomplish what it claims to do for small farmers or the environment.  

Ross Gordon, the Policy Director at Humboldt County Growers Alliance (HCGA), a cannabis advocacy organization, spoke at the October 25 Board meeting where Supervisors chose the option of allowing the initiative  to go to voters. 

Gordon said, “This initiative’s title and stated purpose…–‘restrict large scale cannabis cultivation in Humboldt’…–is plainly, and simply not accurate. In fact, every provision, rule and restriction in this initiative would be applicable to all farms,” and would lead to “bureaucratic strangulation for cannabis farms in the county.” 

Gordon explained that he believes the initiative is based on a lack of awareness about current cannabis policy and the implications for farmers, in part because, “These rules and restrictions were developed without public process and input.” 

Gordon said he thought seven thousand people signed the petition as a result of being misled, saying, “They felt it would support small scale farmers and [the initiative] does not do this.” 

Some Supervisors agreed with Gordon’s sentiment in the October meeting. District One Supervisor Rex Bohn said he was asked to sign the HCRI petition a couple of times, and felt “it was kind of misrepresented a little bit–like it was going to take out the mega grows.” 

Bohn thought in reality the HCGI would instead harm all farmers who are already “on their knees” by “basically kick[ing] them in a grave.”

Ladybug Herbal Sanctuary–One Farm Against the Initiative

According to Nathan Whittington, if this initiative passes, it would mean the end of decades of efforts to sustain a high quality product and unique genetics for medical consumers, in addition to the end of his dream of owning a canna-tourism business.

Mr. Whittington and his family own and operate Ladybug Herbal Sanctuary, a legacy regenerative, 2,500 sq. ft. cannabis farm, with a small nursery, on the southside of Ferndale, near the Eel River. Historically their property was a sheep farm with an apple orchard. Today, their family still works the orchard, now alongside a company that makes hard apple cider. They also raise goats for meat and chickens for organic eggs. 

Whittington said he could have obtained a much larger cultivation permit, but he opted not to because he wanted to represent his roots as a small-scale legacy cannabis farmer. 

Whittington said he does this work “for love, not money,” adding, “I’m not doing this to get rich, I just want to feed my family from a farm.” 

He says he is currently operating his cannabis farm at a loss.

Whittington explained, “It costs me $316 to produce a pound [of cannabis], and I can sell it for $350 if I’m lucky, not including processing costs, or cultivation tax.”

The transition to a legal cannabis industry has not been easy, and not just for farmers, but for non-pot-friendly communities alike. 

The Initiative’s Proponents

People come to Humboldt for a whole host of reasons, occasionally it’s to settle down, retire and enjoy the abundant natural beauty the county has to offer. While legalization brought cannabis into the light of legitimacy, it also brought farms into view of their neighbors, instead of hidden behind fences, underground, or in grow rooms. When a commercial farm moves in next door, naturally this can be disruptive for folks who are not familiar with the plant or culture, or those who just want to sustain the landscapes as is. 

Last fall, the cannabis reform initiative was born from such tensions, when a group of concerned Kneeland residents gathered with Humboldt County Supervisors Rex Bohn, Mike Wilson, and Planning and Building Dept. Director John Ford. In the meeting, the residents expressed their strong opposition to a new 44,000 sq. ft. cannabis permit application which they felt would drastically change their community, impact their views, and compromise their water resources. The community also cited discontent with not being informed by the county in advance about the project. (That cultivation project has since been reduced to 10,000 sq. ft. according to the owner who called into the October meeting). 

Thurmond, who helped craft the Initiative, argues, “Many farmers don’t understand the impact their industry has had, especially on rural residents.”

So Mark Thurman, Betsy Watson and others formed a group last year. They hired an attorney from San Francisco to draft a proposal that would address what they felt were undesirable conditions in their community that they perceive to be a direct result of the growing cannabis industry. 

Doe, the proponent who prefers to remain anonymous, cited her concern over generator use, and explained, “I don’t care what they have for conditions of approval, the county monitoring is totally failing…It’s not protecting our watersheds… The wells, the way the County kinda pushed [farmers] into doing them, as if there’s an unlimited amount of groundwater…There is not an unlimited amount of water. It’s all connected.”

In the late October Supervisors meeting, one of the initiative’s proponents, Betsy Watson, detailed her primary motivation for organizing around the HCGI was “truck traffic,” “plastic garbage,” and her desire to sustain water resources which she feels are being increasingly jeopardized by cannabis farming. 

Doe concurred saying, “One thing the HCRI would do is stop new grows, and that would be a positive thing.” 

Cannabis Concerns

However, the Director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance Natalynne DeLapp stated in a report to her members, “The rationale for the HCRI is based on the false claim that the Humboldt County Cannabis industry is expanding; in fact, Humboldt’s cannabis industry is contracting.” 

Contracting quite rapidly, too.  In an interview this summer with Sheriff Billy Honsal, he confirmed there were only 2,500-3,500 black market farms remaining (some of which could be medical gardens) out of the original 10,000-20,000 pre-Proposition 64 farms, and, of the 1000 cultivation permits, only about 75% were operating this year. 

That means approximately twenty-five percent of farms exist today, as compared to farms which existed pre-legalization (this is a very rough estimate based on 15,000 farms on average pre-legalization, and an approximately 3,750 in operation today–medical, permitted, and traditional. This figure does not account for new farms either, so it could be that more than 75% of farms that existed pre-legalization are out of business today).  

Consequently, the cannabis community has felt the pinch of reduced farms, leading to notable job loss, and all the social woes that tend to accompany industry collapse, including what concerned community members believe is growth in the number of suicides, overdoses, violence, crime, and the economic decline that has rippled out to businesses and residents, who might not even have a direct affiliation with the industry. 

Jane Doe acknowledges the little farmers have been largely put out of business, but disputes the sense of contraction of the cannabis industry in Alderpoint, Honeydew, and other communities where she says plastic hoop houses are increasingly lining the hills. Doe asks,

If [the market is] contracting, then why on earth is the county recommending approval of a five acre new grow in Petrolia this Thursday? For the people who live around there, they don’t care how big the parcel is…The Petrolia farm…is proposing 34 workers…Where are all these people going to come from?

Galactic Farms

For Indy Riggs and his family’s “Galactic Farm,” they see the implications of the initiative differently than Doe. Riggs said, “The hope to sustain a small family farm would be taken away if this initiative passes.”

The Riggs family live on a breathtaking legacy homestead right on the Eel River, off the Avenue of the Giant’s in the redwood forest. It’s the sort of property you’d find in a Better House and Garden Magazine, or where you’d hope to land if civilization collapsed. All the produce one could crave is right there in their yard, alongside bees for honey, chickens and a vast medicinal herb crop beyond their 3,000 sq. ft. cannabis garden.

Indy Riggs explained after three years, he finally got his cultivation permit, adding, “It was originally my father’s farm. He passed away in the middle of the [permit] process in 2019, so I finished in his honor, and this year will be my first year of operation.”

Sadly, the Rigg’s multi-generational dream comes true, just as the market tanks. Which is one point of contention for farmers who feel the HCRI couldn’t have come at a worse time. Some spent years and their life savings to get permits, that now hold little to no value, and that may even be threatened if the HCRI passes.

Butterfly in the medicinal flower garden at Galactic Farms [Photo by Indy Riggs]Riggs hopes his micro-businesses that include on-site tasting, sales, garden tours, and farm stays, would help their farm stay afloat during trying times. After all, their farm doesn’t just have deep roots, but something unique—location! location! location! Their homestead couldn’t be situated in a better place to realize their dream of cannabis-tourism and other micro businesses for their family farm.  That was until they read the initiative, which they see as not just the end of their own micro-canna businesses, but the end of the industry, and a nail in the coffin of the county’s entire economy. 

Many, like Riggs, are asking why the initiative would aim to reduce farms more than legalization has already.  

The End of “New Applications for Cultivation”

Humboldt County Director of Planning and Building, John Ford, was asked by Supervisor Michelle Bushnell in the October 25 meeting about the initiative’s impact on current permitted cultivators and future cultivators.  

Ford explained that in his opinion, the initiative would essentially “prohibit new applications for cultivation.” He added, “There are only two permits left to be allocated and every other watershed is over that amount, so there would be no additional permits left that could be processed.”  

Ford elaborated that the reason the HCRI would end new applications for cultivation was mainly a result of

1. increased watershed limitation caps in the initiative

and

2. The requirement for extensive road upgrades to Category Four. 

Ford explained those “are two things that would preempt new applications from being submitted.”

However, Mark Thurmond told us that the current lack of cultivation caps is of great concern to their group. Thurmond said the watershed cap only applies if the initiative goes through, adding, ”If this doesn’t go through, they can keep going another 2000 permits, they can put huge mega grows wherever they want. There is no current cap.” 

Humboldt County Code Section 55.4.6.8 and 55.4.5.1 does indicate there is a cap on permits today based on watersheds that review water flow data and applicable data from state and local agencies. 

The HCC states,

The total number of permits issued for commercial cultivation activities…shall be equally distributed among each of the twelve (12) discrete planning watersheds of Humboldt County as directed by the Board of Supervisors by Resolution. Once the permit cap for a given watershed has been reached, no additional permit applications for open air cultivation activities will be processed until the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors …approves an increase in the cap.

During his analysis to the Supervisors, Director Ford said there are not only some caps in certain sensitive watersheds, but also a cap of 10 farms in the County that are over three acres (that can only exist on parcels 320 acres or more).

“We have around seven farms that are over three acres now,” Ford explained in the meeting, so there are only three possible larger sized permits left to obtain, under CCLUO 2.0 as it stands today.

Jane Doe disputes the entire idea of caps as they are used now telling us,

They have no correlation to the environmental impact…The caps are total [bs]. They arbitrarily went through the watershed and found out how many permits and acres, but the water use depends on what kind of permit….on the number of crops…whether it is mixed light, and how many [harvests]  annually.

Category Four Roads for All of Humboldt?

Ford said, “[If the initiative passed it] would now require all roads be Category Four, and not all roads in the county are.” 

Ross Gordon, the Policy Director of HCGA clarified what this means for small scale cultivators “mostly operating under Ordinance 1.0,” saying, “Ordinance 1.0 clearly does not require Category 4, and the initiative would effectively pull them into Category 4 if they ever want to expand.”

DeLapp estimated to HCGA members, the average cost to upgrade roads to Category Four standard is “$100,000 per mile,” illustrating what this added cost could mean to rural farms— extinction.

Owner of DTN Engineering, David Nicoletti, told us he believes the Initiative, if passed, would have a much worse financial impact on cultivators than HCGA’s estimation. He explained, “Based on current prices of labor and supplies, I would say it’s closer to $200,000-$250,000 per mile… particularly in Rancho, Mad River, and Salmon Creek, where it can cost much more.”

Nicoletti not only helped over 200 county residents with their engineering needs, he also assisted Cal Fire when they amended their requirements for stabilizing dirt roads. He has extensive experience developing agricultural roads as a county engineer in North Dakota, and has helped many cannabis farmers.

When asked how many farms Nicoletti has worked with who would meet the Category 4 standard, as laid out in the HCRI, Nicoletti said, “Not a single farm.” He added, “I cringe at this initiative.”

Nicoletti explained on a basic level, Category 4 means 20 feet wide with two travel lanes, with two feet of shoulder width, pull outs at every curve, and pull outs every so many feet on straightaways (More detailed description from the county website here).

However he also cited the “situations” section of the Humboldt County Roadway Design Manual which refers to circumstances when Category 4 is necessary, basically when you are going from rural regions to urban areas.

Nicoletti explained, “This criteria does not apply to rural Humboldt roads because the cannabis farms aren’t urbanizing a rural area.” 

According to Nicoletti, there is currently a list of county roads that are not Category 4 and cannabis farmers are expected to perform a road evaluation and pay for improvements already. For example, Nicoletti is currently working with the Rancho Sequoia Road Association and associated agencies to improve approximately 20 miles of mountainous roads and culverts of the existing roadway. Nicoletti shared some project details to get an idea of what road improvements entail.

Nicoletti said a recent project of upsizing a single culvert from 36 inch culvert to 72 inches cost $60,000, and said, “The Rancho project involves 54 culvert upgrades, 15 new culverts. It will cost $10 million, and that’s just to improve it, not to bring it up to Category 4.”

John Ford, the County Planning Director, stated in the late October Board of Supervisors meeting there was “confusion” on current road requirements by the proponents, and that previously neither the Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance 1.0 or 2.0 required roads to be Category 4. Ford stated, “This initiative would change that.” 

The proponents of the initiative disagree. They claim on their website, “Even without the initiative, the county’s ordinances already require roads providing access to cannabis cultivation parcels or premises to meet Category 4 road standards.”

When Thurmond was asked about the discrepancy, he explained, “This is a misunderstanding,” and he alleged again that “Ordinance 2.0 section 4, 55.4.2.1.8.2 does require roads to be Category 4.”

Though Thurmond acknowledged the CCLUO 2.0 also says, “Category 4…or practical effect,” he stated, “Right now that Category 4 standard or practical effect is assessed by the person owning the permit or parcel, not an engineer. Just like every other commercial enterprise a licensed engineer has to assess the standard of the road.”

Though David Nicoletti refutes Thurmond’s statement, and said there are already barriers in place to prevent these misrepresentations of fact in the permit process. For example, he spoke about a case where a property owner made the Category 4 claim, however, the County kicked his application back and insisted he hire an engineer to assess. He then hired Nicoletti to do a proper road analysis, they pooled funds from the road association and other farmers, to complete 12 miles of road repairs in order to get his permit approved. 

Nicoletti clarified the basic difference between Category 4 and Category 4 equivalent, saying, “ A Category 4 road has specific criteria regarding width and slopes, but an equivalent Category 4 road allows for narrowing of the roadway for things such as trees, culverts etc. basically a road that can accommodate the existing and proposed traffic.”

“There’s a lot more to it than just Category 4,” Nicoletti said. He explained, “Category 4 road standards have no relevance to the type and amount of traffic that’s occurring in the rural areas of Humboldt County.” 

However, Thurmond said, “The standard is already there, it says it has to be Category 4 or practical effect. That’s not something any other commercial operation gets to do, so this is an attempt to make this fair and equitable.” 

Eugene Denson, a criminal defense and cannabis attorney disagrees with Thurmond. He explained, “The initiative is not attuned to practical facts…This is apples and t-shirts arguing. No other use exists for the vast mileage of abandoned logging roads. No other commercial enterprise wants to use them except pot farms and loggers, and loggers are not held to Category 4 road standards.”

In addition, opponents argue that the Initiative could actually stress the environment. Nicoletti, for instance, said, “My primary ethical concern as a civil engineer is public and environmental safety.  The fact that [the proponents] want to impact the environment so greatly, when it is unnecessary, is very disturbing to me ethically.”

Attorney Eugene “ED” Denson agreed with Nicoletti,  and illustrated the environmental impact of improving the roads in the county to these standards, and continued, “It would be wonderful if the many miles of private roads were up to Category 4, and the proper entity to make them so is the County. Of course, the environmental consequences would be enormous. Widening, say, 1000 miles of dirt roads 10 feet to bring them up to the Category 4 standards involves about 1320 acres to be clear cut and bulldozed. And these acres are strung out across many more acres of forest land where the noise and dust would affect wildlife for weeks. These roads would allow greater traffic and higher speeds, increasing road kill, and considerably more noise and pollution…I’m sure the proponents didn’t think this through.”

Small v. Large Farms  

Initiative proponents claim it will cut back on large-scale industrial farms, so there was extensive discussion at the October 25 Supervisors’ meeting about what a “large farm” is defined as, as there is currently no county consensus on this matter. 

During a ten minute presentation to the Supervisors, initiative proponent Betsy Watson explained the initiative categorized anything over 10,000 sq. ft. as a large farm. 

However, this seemed out of touch with Supervisor Bohn’s perspective, who said in the meeting, “I don’t see an acre on one hundred acres as a large commercial grow.” 

Ford told the Board there are counties in California that allow for 100’s of acres on a single grow site, whereas Humboldt County has an eight acre cap and only allows for ten farms total that are over three acres.

Humboldt County Cannabis farms are predominantly small-scale as defined by HCGA, and as compared to other agricultural industries statewide. According to Ross Gordon, over half of farms countywide are 10,000 sq. ft. and less. 

Gordon said, “This initiative is not about mega farms, it is about restricting all [cannabis] farms, 98% of which are under an acre [in Humboldt County].” 

According to opponents, if this initiative increases regulation requirements for all farms, mostly small scale farms could be adversely impacted, or worse, put out of business.  

Thurmond warned that if this initiative doesn’t pass, the county could approve thousands more cultivation permits.

Thurmond said, “We don’t know what’s to come in the future…We don’t know what the market’s going to do in three-four years. We may get a lot of people coming back in, especially large scale operations, corporations… buying up properties, putting multiple cultivation permits on a parcel. This initiative was intended to cap that.”

Are People Applying for Cultivation Permits Today?

But currently at least, the demand for cultivation permits is extremely low. During the late October meeting Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell asked Director Ford if anyone was applying for new permits of any size right now. “No,” Ford responded. “The primary permitting will be finishing applications.”

Which is another issue for farmers. 

Many have spent tens, if not hundreds of thousands, and years of their lives, just to come into compliance, though their permits sometimes remain in limbo for years. So if the HCRI passes, it could be a total loss, leaving them with nothing to show for their efforts and investments. 

In his presentation to the Supervisors, Ford expressed his concern for the implications for permit applicants who are not yet through the process. Ford detailed that “it’s not clear what the intent is, but a conservative reading” of the initiative says HCGI has the potential to prevent farmers from getting a permit who are still waiting in the queue for their final approval. Ford mentioned there were hundreds left waiting on environmental studies and he isn’t sure what their fate would be.

Ford said, “[Those unapproved permit applicants] might not get through the process at all if HCGI passes.” 

“Double Standard” and Water Use 

In October’s meeting, Supervisor Bushnell raised the issue of water and why cannabis was singled out in the HCRI– why didn’t the initiative apply equally to all agricultural crops countywide. 

Supervisor Bushnell said “her heart was racing” as she spoke to the proponents of the initiative, saying, ”You weren’t inclusive of everything, just cannabis. You don’t mind if there are fifty acres of grapes next to your house, but you mind if there is an acre of cannabis. [The initiative] affects people that have spent their [life savings] trying to come into compliance …I am sad that this is going this way. I feel heartbroken for the cannabis community, and I don’t understand why you targeted only cannabis.” 

Thurmond explained why to this reporter. He said “There’s precedent case law that would not allow that, and it’s in violation of state specifications for one topic [per ordinance].” 

DeLapp shared a similar view as Bushnell in her analysis for HCGA members, writing, “The HCGI re-entrenches a double standard only applicable to cannabis cultivation.” 

Given that water resources are a primary motivator for the proponents, DeLapp compared the scope of water use for cannabis v. other agricultural commodities in the County, by extrapolating data from the Water Board, UC Berkeley, and other sources on the Eel River Valley Groundwater Basin, which stretches from Loleta to Scotia, and from the ocean to Carlotta. DeLapp wrote to HCGA members that cannabis cultivation uses “6.5% of the total water usage by non- cannabis agriculture in this basin.” 

And, in what might be a deeply ironic outcome for those voting for the initiative to slow water use, opponents say that if the cannabis industry collapse continues, some farmers are weighing whether to pivot to other ag industries that could potentially use more water, and have a more intense effect on the ecosystem.

That’s what Whittington is considering. He said, “If this initiative goes through as written, I’m probably going to give up my dream of a tourism business and shut down my micro-cannabis farm and start growing acres of hops instead, and pump my well dry to feed my hop farm, that they can’t regulate…We’ll grow hops and alfalfa, maybe dahlias again…With no fees…I’ll pay $30 to the ag dept. vs. the $35,000 [I paid for a cannabis permit].”

Added Hurdles and Moving Goal Posts

An additional concern from farmers and their allies is the added hurdles the HCRI poses for existing permit holders. For example, the initiative text could be interpreted to lump the “expansion” of cannabis farms with the expansion of sustainable infrastructure.  

DeLapp detailed in a policy analysis to HCGA members, writing, “The HCRI defines “expansion” to include any increase in the “number or size of any structures used in connection with cultivation”- a definition which includes water storage, renewable energy systems, and many other structures necessary for compliance and environmental sustainability.” 

Director Ford states that if the HCRI passes, “In terms of existing permit holders… if they are over 10,000 sq. ft., they would be legal non-conforming.” And he seemed to concur with DeLapp’s analysis in the October meeting in regards to water and solar considered as “expansion.” 

Ford stated, “They would continue to be legal permits…but they couldn’t expand and there is some question to how much they could modify their property…Could they add water tanks…solar…[or other improvements] that could be highly beneficial from an environmental standpoint?” 

However, Thurmond disputes this and explained HCGA’s analysis is inaccurate and there was a misunderstanding in the reading of the initiative pertaining to expansion, disputing that expansion will not apply to infrastructure upgrades, only cultivation permits. Thurmond stated in an email, 

The language that precedes the examples is ignored. It is unambiguous, and states ‘”Expanded”, when used to describe commercial cannabis cultivation sites, uses, operations or activities, — shall mean an increase in the size, intensity, or resource usage of commercial cannabis cultivation activities”…unless there is an increase in a resource, the definition of ‘Expanded’ would not apply and an additional storage tank or solar panels would not require a hearing. In fact, the addition of water storage and alternative power systems, without increased usage, would be in line with the stated purpose of the initiative.

However, he said in a letter to the editor to this publication in May, “It’s true that adding new water tanks might be interpreted as an expansion and might require modification of an existing permit. Where an existing farm had previously self-certified that all roads met the Category 4 standard, a new expansion might require an engineer to verify that claim.”

One Permit Per Person or Parcel Allowed? 

Nathan Whittington, one of the small farmers described above, said one of his biggest concerns with the HCRI is the perceived limitation of one cannabis related permit per person or parcel, which he says, “does not meet the needs of our small farmers. The way [HCRI is] written…I have a cultivation permit, I have a nursery permit and I just applied for a micro business license…but I won’t be able to have any of those if this passes. I’d only be able to keep my cultivation permit, which is worthless.” 

Mark Thurmond, one of the initiative’s backers, said he is confused why farmers believe this, adding, “There is a misinterpretation. This [initiative] does not limit any other permits, except cultivation permits…They want to say this initiative stops tourism permits, stops re-sale…The initiative specifically says from the beginning that it deals with commercial cultivation permits, there is no mention of tourism or other permits.” 

The initiative’s Section CC-P5 states,

Multiple Permits. No approval of a permit for commercial cannabis cultivation shall result in either of the following: (a) any one person holding more than one active permit approved after the Effective Date of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform initiative at the same time, or (b) more than one active permit approved after the Effective Date of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative on the same legal parcel at the same time.

Cannabis attorney Eugene Denson interprets the text to mean, “(a) is one permit per person (b) is one permit per parcel – i.e. two people can’t each have a permitted farm on the same parcel.”

As far as ancillary business and infrastructure permits, Denson states, “At best the initiative is ambiguous here. It doesn’t say ”one cultivation permit.” It says “one active permit” without specifying it means one cultivation permit…This is an open door for years of litigation, especially on a crucial point like defining ‘one active permit.'”

Ford said he interprets the initiative to mean that it does not allow for, “multiple permits [to] be held by an individual, or multiple permits held on a property and it’s unclear if that’s just cannabis cultivation permits, or if that includes nursery processing, distribution, canna-tourism, micro-business, …[and] other value added markets to support cannabis cultivation… [Additionally,] it makes it difficult to modify an existing permit.”

While Mr. Thurmond is not a lawyer, he said, “The county has the right to interpret the text and implement the ordinance so more than one permit could be held by one person or parcel, adding, “If the county wants to interpret it that way, that’s not what the language says, that’s not the intent.”

HCGA’s Ross Gordon is skeptical, “I think if they meant “multiple cultivation permits,” they should have written “multiple cultivation permits.” He added, “The initiative specifically defines commercial cannabis cultivation to include nurseries and processing onsite.” 

Gordon concluded, “So even if the proponents are correct that “multiple permits” means “multiple cultivation permits, there is no question these [nursery and processing] permits would be prohibited if the HCRI were to pass.”

Riggs said, “The language was ambiguous, but it directly affects my operation because I would only be able to do this 3,000 sq. ft. cultivation permit.” He added, “I just initiated conversations with the county about a nursery, on-site consumption, tourism, farm stays and more— But for that I’d need a special use permit. With the HCRI I wouldn’t be able to do that.” 

David Nicoletti said, “This initiative makes absolutely no sense. In my opinion economically-speaking, it will categorize and solidify a hierarchy of farmer, distributor and retailer, and typically in agriculture the farmer gets the short end of the stick…This initiative means you will not be able to get vertically integrated. From a business standpoint, vertical integration means you control the entire chain from seed to market, and that’s the only way farmers are going to make it.”

Escapable Conclusions

Proponents and opponents of the Initiative don’t agree on what it says nor on what its effects will be.

Cannabis attorney Eugene Denson shared his over-arching opinion about HCRI with us, writing, “[The initiative ] is an attempt to close down cannabis cultivation using the environment as a cover.  We don’t need more regulation, we need sensible regulation placing the least burden possible on the family farmer hoping to have a livelihood. The initiative is designed to increase the burden in a situation where the local growers are already in such poor financial condition that the Board of Supervisors had to cancel the Measure S tax this year, and people are leaving the area because existing regulations make it impossible for anyone without outside investors to survive.”

Whittington, one of the cannabis farmers quoted above, told us, “Whether you are pro or anti-cannabis, you have good cause to be opposed to this passing” if for no other reason than because the initiative promises to bog down the Planning Commission and Planning Dept. for all projects and add unbearable costs to residents of the county.”

He explained, “This initiative will result in additional costs for all taxpayers, slowing down all projects. Properties will keep going into default and the county is eventually going to take on the property and liability. The way this is written it will cost everyone more money.”

The proponents believe that the purpose of the Initiative “is to amend the Humboldt County General Plan in order to protect residents, landowners, and our beautiful natural environment from harm caused by large-scale industrial cannabis cultivation.” 

Thurmond, one of the backers, noted to the Lost Coast Outpost, “I have empathy for growers who spent a lot of money getting [their operations] going…But I think what we don’t hear about is all the lives that other people put in, the decades of saving to build a place in the country to not only retire but to live the last years of their life — only to have it essentially done asunder, in some cases, destroyed by the county forcing upon them these operations that take water, they pollute the air, cause a lot of noise, create dangerous traffic issues, bring in criminal elements.”

The discrepancies between what the proponents and opponents believe will occur may only be solved by litigation after the Initiative passes—if it does.

Planning Director John Ford warned in the Supervisors meeting that there is no way to rewrite the initiative before it is given to the voters. He said, “The election code requires the petition that was submitted to the people who signed… is what goes to the electorate. You cannot negotiate a compromise after this.”

Thurmond, however, believes the Initiative can be modified in the future,

[T]he Measure’s mandates could also be changed by a measure put forward, through public hearing, by the BoS to be placed on a ballot for a vote of the people. Other changes can be made by the BoS without a hearing to increase the forbearance period or decrease the caps. The definitions can be amended by the BoS without a vote of the people to conform to future definition amendments in state statutes and regulations.

With respect to Ordinance 2.0, other parts of the ordinance can be changed without a vote of the people so long as the changes are consistent with the Measure and the rest of the General Plan. In Section 7 (F), the Measure creates additional flexibility by allowing/encouraging the BoS to adopt “implementing ordinances”, as necessary to further the Measure’s purposes.

Doe, the anonymous proponent quoted above, said she wasn’t sure if she would vote for the initiative yet, and told us,

I love marijuana, I’ve grown and used it most of my life, I’m not against it at all. I’m into protecting our real legacy growers, but every benefit they are given, so are these [growers who damage the environment]…I’m still hoping the County makes changes to address these issues…It depends on what the County does, if I vote for it.

She told us, “I’m lukewarm on the HCRI, but I think something needed to happen to help wake up the supervisors…When signing, I thought the County would see it, be concerned it would pass, then go through and make changes to current cannabis policies.”

Whether the Humboldt County Cannabis Reform Initiative is the end of small scale craft farms that made Humboldt cannabis world famous, or a needed reprieve for communities suffering from the impacts of marijuana farming, the interpretation of the initiative’s text and the resulting implications to the farmers are critical–some cannabis activists think the wrong interpretation could be fatal to their farms.