###

Humboldt County continues to experience severe-to-extreme drought conditions, heightening concerns about the water being used to irrigate our region’s most famous cash crop: cannabis. 

On Tuesday, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors responded to concerns from its own Planning Commission by directing staff to develop a new cannabis permitting policy addressing water storage and forbearance. 

The Planning Commission recently asked the board for guidance on this matter. On August 11 the commission submitted a letter telling the board that “there continues to be substantial public concern expressed over the use of groundwater for cannabis irrigation needs.”

In particular, members of the public have said the county should stop permitting new wells until there’s a better understanding of how they connect to surface water in the county’s various watersheds. In response, the county planning department has been asking applicants to obtain a report from a licensed geologist or hydrologist to certify that their wells aren’t hydrologically connected to adjacent wells or surface water features.

The county is already operating under a settlement agreement from a 2019 lawsuit brought by Friends of the Eel River, in which the environmental group argued that the county hadn’t done enough to mitigate the impacts of commercial cannabis operations on local watersheds. The agreement requires the county to disperse grant funding to local landowners for culvert replacements and road repairs.

But local residents are still worried, with some neighbors of permitted cannabis farmers reporting that their own wells have gone dry despite the certifications from a hydrologist. 

In response, the Planning Commission recently voted to require a condition on new permits that at least 20 percent of an applicant’s anticipated water needs be supplied by rainwater catchment. 

In its letter, signed by Chair Alan Bongio, the Planning Commission asked the board for feedback “to either modify the ordinance or to establish policy to require rainwater catchment, water storage, or reliance on [the] Drought Task Force through [the] existing ordinance, in addition to groundwater wells.”

At today’s meeting, Planning and Building Director John Ford said the Planning Commission has only added that 20 percent rainwater catchment requirement to two permits thus far, both of which were for existing cultivation. 

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell noted that this requirement is not part of the county’s cannabis permitting ordinances, neither version 1.0 nor version 2.0.

During the public comment period, several members of the local cannabis community spoke against the prospect of a new rainwater catchment requirement.

Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, said limiting water usage during dry months is widely considered a better approach.

“Forbearance is the gold standard for water conservation,” she said. DeLapp added that the county is working to collect additional data on groundwater connectivity while also distributing $12 million in state funding to incentivize water storage.

Any new policy should focus on forbearance, efficiency and decreased production scale, not just rainwater catchment, she argued.

SoHum resident Robie Tenorio said that with water storage being the goal, the county should encourage people to develop ponds. But, like DeLapp, she doesn’t necessarily support a new policy requiring rain catchment.

A new policy would just create confusion, she said, adding,  “I think we really need to focus on forbearance.”

Fellow SoHum resident Bonnie Blackberry said the county should wait until after the drought task force finishes its studies on the county’s hydro-geological conditions, saying the drought is causing an environmental crisis. 

“I believe it’s all connected,” she said regarding local water supplies.

When the matter came back to the board, First District Supervisor Rex Bohn said he also believes in the wisdom of forbearance. 

“I’m a pond guy,” Bohn said, adding that he’s happy deferring to staff to work out a recommendation. He also noted that cannabis gets treated differently than other crops. “They can put [in] any other agricultural crop — 50 acres of grapes — and [those farmers] don’t come anywhere near our office.”

Bushnell said she’d like to see more consistency from the Planning Commission, adding that “cannabis gets tore up” in a lot of their meetings. 

Bushnell said someone recently asked about her own cannabis cultivation project. 

“Yes, I have a rain catchment pond,” she said. “I did it. I didn’t have to but I did it because I want to. I’m going to utilize that for my cows and for lots of things — for fire suppression.”

But she doesn’t think it’s right to mandate such a thing for all applicants right now. 

“We have changed the goalposts for these folks so many times,” Bushnell said.

Ford said the Planning Commission really wants an answer to the question in their letter.

“Well, I think the Planning Commission has an answer,” Bushnell said. “They have an ordinance that they should follow.” She again said that she feels cannabis projects are being singled out for harsher treatment from the commission.

Ford said the Planning Commission wants to respond to public concerns, though he added, “I think that’s where sometimes we get into situations where projects have been conditioned to require more storage than at other times. It does start to get a little bit inconsistent.”

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said he thinks any forbearance policy shouldn’t be limited to cannabis.

“We’re seeing 10,000-square-foot homes and whatever the associated landscaping and pools and other things associated with that,” he said regarding development in the hills. He also mentioned vineyards. “I’ve been watching that trend south of here. It’s coming here,” he said.

Wilson also noted that he doesn’t have a problem with the Planning Commission making its own judgment calls. “There is statutory discretion,” he said.

Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone credited ranchers as being “the original innovators of storage and forbearance,” and he reiterated his oft-stated belief in the power of incentives. He suggested “stewardship incentives” such as tax credits as a means of encouraging storage and forbearance.

Bushnell made a motion to direct staff in the Planning and Building Department to come back with recommendations on a forbearance policy, later adding direction to include a proposal for incentive-based reductions of Measure S cultivation taxes for storage and forbearance.

“I want to ensure that we while we’re doing this process, that [the] Planning Commission can be considerate that we’ve heard them and be patient as we get some ordinance or policy changes coming forward,” Bushnell said, “and to not stifle projects as they come to them.”

She amended her motion to include a letter from the board to the Planning Commission expressing that sentiment.

The motion passed unanimously.