Details

Written by: Jim Steele

Published: 14 September 2017

Created: 14 September 2017

Last Updated: 14 September 2017

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Some very important decisions are coming up regarding cannabis cultivation and use that will significantly affect Lake County; citizens should weigh in.

Developing new rules for an industry is a daunting task by any measure. When doing so, I believe it’s important to seek advice and counsel from those with the most experience in the area under discussion.

In order to gain insight, I traveled to cannabis conventions and panels developed for this learning experience put on by the associations for county governments. It’s apparent some important changes have taken place in California.

Medicinal cannabis laws have been in place for 20 years with each county developing their own approach to ensure that cannabis grows are compatible with neighbors. It’s been a bumpy path as the industry grew.

More cannabis was grown for underground export than could be used within the state and environmental damage also reportedly grew from an industry hiding in the shadows. These were not small personal use grows and much of the product was going elsewhere while the damage stayed local.

Some growers have spoiled it for others by taking water illegally, using inappropriate pesticides that killed wildlife and grading hillslopes that caused erosion. All of which is why some think a ban on grows look like an easier approach since no one wants the bad actors.

But with a ban comes a need for effective enforcement and there is no way to pay for the additional workload.

Finally, the Governor’s Office reacted to the complaints of rural counties overrun with growers who were profiting but causing problems. He directed a phalanx of state agencies to develop a set of operating rules specific for cannabis growers who were presumably growing for a medicinal market.

These rules were to be called the Medicinal Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act or MCRSA. They were to be enforced by both state and county agencies to protect the landscape, wildlife, water quality and reduce nuisance odors through a licensing process.

But the public, perhaps not aware of the problems, voted in Proposition 64, the Adult Use Marijuana Act, called AUMA. The AUMA promises to change the landscape again.

So, the agencies pulled their fledgling rules back, added enough language to include the new provisions and the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, called MAUCRSA was born.

Of course new fees were added to pay for the controls that regulation brings. The new rules go into effect on Jan. 2, 2018, after the public comment period.

Even with new state controls, the counties retain the right to ban or regulate cannabis and control local land use. One exemption from a ban is the ability to grow six mature or 12 immature plants for personal use.

There has been a variety of responses from county governments over the years. Some regulated cannabis, others issued a ban and one had regulations, but because of bad actors changed to a ban.

A couple of counties developed a permit process to ensure compliance and reduce the problems. But to many growers used to hiding from the government, permits probably seem like a bad idea.

Humboldt County reports they have about 2,500 permits applications out of perhaps 12,000 growers. So you would think business at the permit counter would be slow. But land use permits are complex, take time and reviews by many agencies are expensive.

A traditional permit process gets swamped pretty easy and backlogs create the impression that the permit isn’t important. In order to sidestep the permit review backlog, a self-certification approach is being discussed in Lake County.

The Board of Supervisors is considering a complex set of rules that dictate where cannabis can be grown, the size and scope of a garden and requirements to comply with both state and county regulations.

Applicants would have to pay their fee up front, have a proper water source, a proper power source, appropriate permits from the Fish and Wildlife agency and an approved pesticide list and so forth.

The way this would work is the applicant obtains a counter permit by certifying they will be in compliance and gets started, but can expect a field compliance review of the operation within the year. The upfront fee helps pay this inspection cost. Non-compliance could mean a fine or loss of crop depending on the violation. So it would be best to get it right, which has been the issue from the start.

Whether a permit should be required or optional is a question being discussed at the board. I have heard some opinions that a permit should not be required until forced to by the new rules in 2018.

Based on what I have learned from the other counties’ experiences, I personally believe anyone growing more than six mature cannabis plants in Lake County should be required to sign a certification that all the rules will be obeyed and receive an inspection.

Not having a permit should result in a fine and shut down. Anything less gives the green light for the black market growers to continue for as long as they can without oversight and that competes with the cultivators who want to do it right.

If you want to put your two cents into the mix; ban or permit, required or optional, give your local district supervisor a shout. District 3 folks can reach me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., I’d love to hear your views. I’m sure so would the supervisor in your district.

Supervisor Jim Steele represents District 3 – which covers the Northshore – on the Lake County Board of Supervisors.