Proponents of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative released a letter this morning calling out “numerous inaccuracies” and “inflammatory statements” made by the Board of Supervisors and various county officials in relation to a ballot measure that seeks to reshape the county’s cannabis industry. 

If passed, the measure would restrict the size and number of new cannabis-growing operations across the county and impose a host of stringent rules that would forbid farms larger than 10,000 square feet, ban mixed-light and indoor grows, and limit cultivation permits to one per person/corporation per parcel.

Though county government had hoped to reach an accord with proponents that would forestall the initiative, one of those proponents — Betsy Watson — told the Outpost recently that they fully intend to put it before voters on the March 2024 ballot.

Proponents of the initiative argue that the “flawed conclusions” outlined in a recent analysis of the ballot measure “create a strong impression that the analysis was not intended to provide neutral, balanced factual information to the public, but rather to influence public opinion on a ballot measure” and could potentially violate the Political Reform Act.

“The county’s analysis is packed with factual errors, untruths, and distortions,” Mark Thurmond, one of the initiative’s authors, said in a prepared statement. “We’ve been talking with the Board’s ad hoc committee about the unfounded assertions and false statements in an effort to correct these misunderstandings of the Initiative, but it’s time to let the Board of Supervisors and the public know how wrong the county’s analysis is about the Initiative.”

The analysis, prepared by Planning and Building Department staff and presented to the board at its March 7 meeting, maintained that the county’s existing cannabis regulations “encourage a well-regulated cannabis industry,” whereas the initiative “could have the opposite effect by making compliance so difficult that the legal market is rendered not viable in Humboldt County.” While the initiative is “well intended,” staff’s analysis asserts that the measure, if passed, “will have dire consequences to the cannabis industry in Humboldt County.”

Many local cannabis farmers fear the ballot initiative would decimate their livelihoods and destroy what is left of Humboldt County’s storied cannabis industry. Others feel increased regulation would force cultivators back into the black market and have the opposite effect of the initiative’s stated intent.

“We know our community is hurting economically, but a lot of the headwinds facing the industry are beyond local control,” Watson wrote in a prepared statement. “Our initiative simply restores some environmental balance and removes the burden on watersheds from the county’s plan to triple the current number of permits, while protecting small farms and their vested legal rights.”

The letter touches on each issue identified in staff’s analysis of the initiative, ranging from permit renewal to the definition of “large-scale” cannabis operations to existing enforcement practices outlined in the county’s Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance.

“The initiative is very, very, very clear in four different places that it does not mess with vested rights,” Watson told the Outpost in a recent phone interview. “If you’ve got a 20,000-square-foot grow on a crummy road – you’re fine. … The other thing is multiple permits. … [The initiative] does not affect any permit other than cultivation. … If you want to put in solar, you want to put in more water storage, it just doesn’t affect these things.”

On top of that, Watson pointed to a specific section in the initiative that grants the Board of Supervisors “as much flexibility as possible.” 

According to Section 7. F. of the initiative, “The Board of Supervisors is authorized, after a duly noticed public hearing, to adopt implementing ordinances, guidelines, rules, and/or regulations, as necessary, to further the purposes of this Initiative.”

Proponents of the initiative have requested that the county “either withdraw the analysis or promptly correct the errors therein and refrain from using any public resources to further disseminate its inaccurate conclusions.”

A copy of the letter can be found at this link.

###

Press release:

Proponents of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative today released a letter from their legal counsel to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and County Planning Director John Ford. The letter details numerous inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in the County’s “Analysis and Recommendations” regarding the Initiative, which Planning Department staff presented at the Board’s March 7, 2023 meeting.

“The County’s analysis is packed with factual errors, untruths, and distortions,” said Initiative proponent Mark Thurmond. “We’ve been talking with the Board’s ad hoc committee about the unfounded assertions and false statements in an effort to correct these misunderstandings of the Initiative, but it’s time to let the Board of Supervisors and the public know how wrong the County’s analysis is about the Initiative.”

The letter refutes many of the County’s inaccurate claims that have been echoed by cannabis industry groups and the local press. For example, the letter rejects the County’s extreme interpretation of the Initiative as precluding environmental improvements on existing cultivation sites. The letter also explains that the Initiative will not require existing cultivators to upgrade their roads or prevent growers from obtaining tourism, dispensary, or bed-and-breakfast permits. Indeed, as the letter demonstrates, the Initiative will provide legal support for several uncodified practices the County claims it’s already following, such as phasing out generators, analyzing effects of new irrigation wells on streams and neighbors, and holding public hearings.

“We know our community is hurting economically, but a lot of the headwinds facing the industry are beyond local control,” said Initiative proponent Betsy Watson. “Our Initiative simply restores some environmental balance and removes the burden on watersheds from the County’s plan to triple the current number of permits, while protecting small farms and their vested legal rights.”

The letter also points out that further efforts to disseminate the County’s argumentative and inflammatory statements may run afoul of the California Political Reform Act, which prohibits public agencies like the County from spending public money to influence ballot campaigns.

“The County can’t use our tax dollars to take sides in this fight,” concluded Thurmond. “They have to be thorough, accurate, and fair—and that’s why the Board needs to retract its analysis of our Initiative. The seven thousand people who signed our petition deserve to be represented too.”

###

PREVIOUSLY: