Humboldt County Provides Key Cannabis Data on Cultivation Permits, Regulation, and Watershed Capacities

A drop of water glows on the magenta hairs of a marijuana plant. [Photo by Kym Kemp]

As the March 2025 deadline for Measure S cannabis cultivation tax debts looms, the presentation shed light on current watershed management trends and touched on challenges with data collection and oversight, while it looked at the future of the Humboldt County cannabis industry.

Screenshot of staff report highlighting cultivation acreage, caps and watershed capacity, full report here.

Water

Water diversion [Image from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife]

Planning and Building Department Director John Ford explained this was in part due to a lack of pertinent water data that was expected from other agencies. 

Ford explained at the meeting,

“When that resolution was prepared, it was anticipated that the Regional Water Quality control board, Department of Fish and Wildlife, would be collecting stream flow information, water quality information, and that that would begin to establish data set that could be monitored to demonstrate the effectiveness of the regulatory environment that’s been established in Humboldt County and also elsewhere in the state. That never did really materialize, so we did not submit a report.”

The staff report indicates a request for water flow data has been submitted to these agencies. We inquired to Director Ford about whether that water data was in fact even being collected by these agencies, and he wrote,

“They have not been collecting water data.  Which I think is too bad, because I think it would show that Humboldt has improved the watersheds.”

This is startling news considering the government narrative around cannabis legalization is that is a tool to improve ecosystem and watershed health.  To discover the agencies tasked to oversee those watersheds have not considered collecting the pertinent water data, may inspire some to pause.

The county’s Cannabis ordinance established caps for the number of cultivation permits and acreage within the twelve watersheds, in an attempt to ensure the legalization of cannabis enhances water resources. The county’s ordinance allows for a maximum of 3500 permits and 1205 acres to be cultivated, and only ten permits for farms over one acre are allowed.

Currently, Director Ford said,

“There have been a total of 2125 cultivation permits and 309 total cannabis [related] permits submitted to date… 1068 cultivation permits have been approved, 657 cultivation permits have been denied or withdrawn … and there are still 400 permits that are pending.”

Screenshot of staff report highlighting the cultivation cap allowed per watershed, full report here.

Ford commented that the issue of watershed caps was a hot topic during the last election’s Measure A discussions, which aimed to contract and restrict the already struggling industry. The proponents of the measure alleged watershed caps were not being effectively monitored by the county, and were nearly maxed out. 

However, Director Ford clarified that none of the twelve watersheds in Humboldt have exceeded the established cap. In fact the county has only permitted 51% of the allowed acreage countywide, and he explained new permit applications are rare, so he does not anticipate the county ever reaching that cap.

Ford elaborated, “The highest watershed was lower Trinity River, which was at 44% of the number permits and 58% of the number of acres.”

Another Measure A myth was dispelled by the department’s report— a large majority of permitted cultivation is pre-existing and the current trend is an overall decrease countywide of cultivation, both permitted and not. 

Screenshot of staff report highlighting the current status of cultivation permits, full report here

Ford explained,

“The report uses a very conservative figure of 35% of …new cultivation. The actual percentage of …applications for new cultivation, meaning that parcel didn’t have cultivation on it before, is about 20%. So about 80% of all applications [are] for pre-existing cultivation.”

Enforcement

Screenshot of responsive brief, showing Plaintiff Blu Graham using his abatement letter juxtaposed with his empty greenhouse, as evidence he was not guilty of cannabis cultivation as alleged.

Additionally, the decline in cannabis cultivation countywide is due to the enforcement of unpermitted cannabis cultivation via the abatement program, which seems to have stalled since we last analyzed the data in 2022 with a little over 1200 notices posted in total, the same year the federal class action lawsuit was later filed that challenges the constitutionality of the county’s cannabis abatement program. The number of abatements for unpermitted cultivation sites continues to exceed the number of approved permits, and has since we first analyzed the data in 2020.

Ford explained, “The number of total enforcement actions are 1213. Of those, 99 are still in compliance agreements and 887 have been fully abated.”

Screenshot of staff report highlighting the current status of cultivation permits, full report here.

Measure S Taxes

According to Ford, unpaid Measure S cultivation taxes are also contributing to a decline in actively compliant sites, as non-payment of this tax can lead to a suspension of permits. 

Measure S cultivation taxes are unique to the Humboldt County cannabis industry, charging $1-$3 per square foot of cultivation area depending on the type of cultivation; outdoor, mixed light, or indoor. The tax is owed irrespective of whether the entire crop is lost to fire, mold, insects or other predators.

Amidst an industry collapse and under pressure from struggling farmers and their supporters, the Measure S tax was reduced by 85% in February 2022 by the Board of Supervisors. Then in November 2022 the Supervisors approved a resolution to suspend 100% of the tax for 2023 and 2024, and in October 2023 the Board voted to suspend 90% of the tax again. All other taxes owed, including both payments for 15% in 2021, must be resolved in 2025 either with full payment, or by making a payment plan with the county (more information regarding the county’s cannabis tax here).

Director Ford said his office is currently reviewing a total of 538 permits and applications to suspend those with unresolved taxes and administrative fees associated. According to the staff report, 228 permit holders owe both taxes and permit processing fees (149 of those are approved permits in danger of permit suspension). There are 234 additional permit holders who owe either taxes or permit processing costs. There are an additional 76 permit holders who owe either permit costs or Measure S taxes that are set to be heard by the zoning administrator with a staff recommendation for denial of their permits.

Ford explained at the meeting,

“We are in a process right now …[of] notifying people that have either not entered into an agreement to pay their fair share of …taxes, or they have not paid the money that’s owed to the Planning and Building department for processing their applications. [We] sent letters already this week suspending the permits. So those permits are being suspended. We’re sending out another batch of letters [today].”

Planning Commissioner Noah Levy pointed out that the amended 2.0 ordinance, which now gives the county ability to suspend permits, is helping the county encourage people to pay their tax bills. 

Ford agreed it was an effective tool, but detailed it has also been painful for staff.

Ford said,

“It is the response to those [letters], frankly, [that has] been overwhelming to staff. There’s a lot of people coming in and wanting to have their permit put back into an active status and wanting to pay the costs of processing their permit, and enter into an agreement to pay their taxes. So it’s been a painful process, but it is eliciting a response.”

Abandoned and Discontinued Cultivation Sites

Another matter of concern for the Planning Department is how they will resolve abandoned and discontinued cultivation sites.

Ford explained,

“[O]ne of the things that has been a concern for some time, particularly with what’s going on now with permit holders and applicants who have not been able to pay their permit costs or pay their taxes, whether or not we’re going to end up with a lot of abated sites. We have been looking at various options other than the county doing abatements, and one of the things that we’re working with right now are receivers that will take and manage the property, get the property cleaned up, but then that results in the property being sold. The beauty of that is the county doesn’t become a property owner and it allows the properties to be cleaned up, sold to somebody who wants to maintain them, and the county does, as part of that, recoup the costs of that work.”

The staff report lists three possible options for remediation of abandoned sites as; receiverships, NGO/grant collaboration and abatement, which seems to contrast the previous cannabis abatement technique, where instead the county appears to incur the liability and costs for clean up and remediation. Whereas before the costs and liability landed on the property owner, whether they were guilty of cultivating cannabis or not.

Screenshot of staff report

We reached out to Director Ford for clarification on receiverships, and he said it was critically important for people to understand their unpaid tax and administrative permit-related bills will not result in a receivership. 

Ford elaborated to us, writing,

“The discussion on receiverships has nothing to do with people who may owe taxes or owe permit costs to the Planning and Building Department.  Owing money to the County will not result in a Code Enforcement Action…  I know people are working to address their obligations and that [is] stressful enough.  Taxes and having a balance due to Planning and Building are a separate issue.”

Ford detailed how receiverships could potentially work for properties that have been abated and still need to be cleaned up.

Ford wrote,

“The issue [of receiverships is] related to sites that are in the Code Enforcement process and need to be cleaned up and the property owner is now either absent, unwilling or unable to do the work.  The receivership process works when there is a balance between the cost of cleaning up the site and the equity in the property.  If the cost of clean up exceeds equity the receivership process does not work.  In a receivership process the receiver agrees to take on a property and clean it up.  This involves the receiver going to the court and obtaining an order to clean up the property and then be able to sell the property once the work is completed.  The cost of the clean up then comes out of the sales price.”

(More on receiverships here)

We inquired about how many properties were in a position to be taken over by a receivership?

“There are currently a handful,” Ford responded.

Ordinance 3.0?

Director Ford ended his presentation by telling the Planning Commission that a third alteration to the cannabis ordinance 3.0, was unnecessary at this time, and he suggested the county get a better sense of industry conditions before they make any unnecessary changes. 

Ford said the county should,

“[Wait] to see what’s going to happen with the applicants and the permit holders that owe money or have entered into agreements or not entered into agreements, and to come back next April with a more thorough report and see what the state of the industry is before making a decision on what should be done.”

Lastly, Ford encouraged permit holders to, “Go to the Treasurer Tax Collector, make a payment and enter into an agreement to have the taxes owed paid by March 30, 2025,” and added, “Payment plan for taxes resolves suspension.  If the permit is not suspended, farmers are free to cultivate.  If permit is suspended, farmer cannot operate.”

Tax payments  can be made at the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, 125 in the County Courthouse, located at 825 5th Street in Eureka. The office is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4:30 p.m.  For more information, please call 707-476-2450.