Climate activists and retirees have pushed retirement funds in Maine and New York to sell their stocks in fossil fuel companies. The push is called “divestment”, and it’s a move that the University of California has embraced as well.

Now, divestment may be coming to more pensions near you.

The California Legislature is considering a bill that would require the pension funds for state workers and teachers to sell holdings in the 200 largest publicly traded fossil fuel companies by July 2031. The bill would also stop the funds from making new investments in those companies starting in 2024.

These pension funds aren’t simple bank accounts, they’re big-time institutional investors. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System has about $459 billion in assets, making it the largest public pension fund in the nation and one of the largest private equity investors in the world according to the agency’s website. When it changes tack, the world of finance takes note.

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System is the second largest public pension fund in the U.S. Together, the two pension funds cover more than 3 million Californians and their families.

Proponents of the bill say it’s important that California put its money where its mouth is, so to speak, on climate policy. Foes of the move say anything that might hurt investment returns should be off the table.

Marcie Frost, CEO of CalPERS, at the regional office in Sacramento on June 26, 2023. Photo by Rahul Lal for CalMatters.

“We’re not saying the intentions around this are not good,” said Marcie Frost, CEO of CalPERS, in an interview with CalMatters. “But they’re not coming through an investor lens. It feels like they’re coming through a morality lens. And we can’t use our own personal values, or our personal morals, to be able to decide how we invest the assets of this portfolio.”

Both pensions are underfunded; if either had to immediately pay out all the benefits they owe, they wouldn’t have enough money.

If CalPERS and CalSTRS shed their investments in the largest oil and gas companies, what would it mean for the teachers and state workers counting on their retirement checks?

Why climate activists are pushing for divestment

For some, it would be a relief.

“When I was younger, I was told by the adults around me that I should work toward obtaining a career with the state of California,” said Francis Macias, a state parks employee who called into a pension fund board meeting in March. A member of the advocacy group Fossil Free California, she said those same adults had told her such a job would come with perks like stable hours — and a nice pension.

But now, Macias said, “I feel like I’m living in a nightmare. Every day, I experience great anxiety knowing my hard-earned pension is funding climate collapse.”

The state worker pension fund has an estimated $9.4 billion in energy company investments it would have to divest under the proposed bill, about 2% of the fund. On the list are companies you’ve probably heard of, including Exxon Mobil and Shell, and ones you probably haven’t, such as Ovintiv Inc. and Cenovus Energy. The teachers’ pension fund would have to divest an estimated $5.4 billion, or about 1.7% of its assets.

The bill’s backers include many environmental and climate groups, as well as some unions representing workers who receive pensions, such as the California Faculty Association and the California Nurses Association. But there are other unions, like the California Professional Firefighters and the State Building and Construction Trades Council, that oppose the effort, along with California State Retirees, an organization for retired state workers, and the leadership of the pension funds themselves.

The goal of divestment pushes, climate advocates say, isn’t to directly reduce emissions.

“It’s about calling (fossil fuel companies) out on their immoral activities, and the political consequences of that, which is weakening them politically, so that politicians stop taking their money and politicians stop doing their bidding,” said Carlos Davidson, a retired faculty member of San Francisco State University who receives a pension. He worked on a divestment campaign at the university, and has been involved in the push to divest the state workers’ pension for nearly a decade.

“It is true that divestment does not have direct financial impacts on companies,” Davidson said. “It’s the political effects that really matter. And that is a harder, longer-term, more fuzzy process.”

Davidson lives in Pacifica, off of a combination of his pension and social security benefits.

“I could not have retired and I could not pay my bills right now if I didn’t have my [state] pension,” he said.

What are the costs of divestment?

There’s also a camp that thinks divestment would be a bad move financially. That camp includes the leadership of both pension funds.

At the state worker pension fund, the investment and actuarial teams estimated that if the fund sold off its fossil fuel holdings it would get lower returns on its investments, translating to an extra $327.6 million in costs per year for 20 years for employers, like schools, and state and local governments, to meet obligations to retirees.

The state worker pension fund has divested before — from Iran, Sudan, thermal coal, and more. In 2001, the fund divested its tobacco company holdings, worth about $525 million according to news reports at the time. In the more than 20 years since, that move has translated to about $4.3 billion in lost investment profits, according to a 2022 report from Wilshire Advisors. But some divestments, like those from thermal coal, and Iran, have translated to small gains.

When economists from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and the University of St. Andrews in Scotland compared the financial performance of investment portfolios with and without fossil fuel company stocks from 1927-2016, they found that divested portfolios “would not have significantly underperformed” during that period.

“It’s not just the oil and gas industry,” said pension fund CEO Frost. “What’s next? Divestment from the airline industry, who uses a lot of oil and gas?” she said. “Pretty soon you get to the point that (the pension) has nothing to invest in” and there’s no way to hit the high investment returns the pension fund is tasked with hitting, she said.

“It’s the political effects that really matter. And that is a harder, longer-term, more fuzzy process.”
— Carlos Davidson, retired faculty member of San Francisco State University who receives a pension

This isn’t the first legislative push for fossil fuel divestment. Last year a similar bill was passed by the Senate, and then died in the Assembly’s committee on public employment and retirement. It might have a better shot this time, thanks to some political musical chairs. Previously, the Assembly’s public employment committee was led by Jim Cooper, an Elk Grove Democrat who was opposed to the Legislature directing state pension funds on how to invest, Frost said. Now he’s left the Assembly, and the committee has a new chairperson, Tina McKinnor, a Democrat from Inglewood.

A complicating factor is that the pension funds have a “fiduciary duty” under California’s constitution. That means that the people overseeing the funds are legally required to invest prudently, and act exclusively to benefit the fund’s members.

Some of the bill’s opponents say that requiring the funds to divest from fossil fuels would conflict with their fiduciary duty to their members, including the California Professional Firefighters, a union.

“Forcing any California pension system to make investment decisions that may harm the fund in an attempt, in this case, to affect global climate policy, violates their fiduciary mandate and puts the retirements of hard-working Californians at risk,” wrote president Brian Rice in a statement.

Already, the concept of fiduciary responsibility is causing legal headaches for divestment efforts. Three New York City pension funds are being sued for allegedly violating their fiduciary duties after they divested $4 billion in fossil fuel holdings.

Ultimately, it’s up to the pension funds themselves to determine whether divesting would conflict with their mandate.

The state worker pension fund hasn’t done a full analysis yet, but, said Frost, “my impression on this is that it would violate the board’s fiduciary duty to do this.”

The bill has an escape clause of sorts, making it clear that the pension funds don’t have to sell off their investments if doing so would conflict with their fiduciary duties. That means there’s a scenario in which the Legislature passes the bill and then the funds say that divesting goes against their responsibilities to the beneficiaries, and nothing changes in practice.

Davidson, the retiree pushing for divestment, says that’s not the outcome he’s expecting.

But it wouldn’t be all bad, he said. What really matters is the politics, and “the vote of the California Legislature to divest is really powerful, and that’s going to get press coverage around the world,” Davidson said. “That is part of the outcome that we want.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Irene Kay Armand was born November 18, 1949, in Paradise, Calif., to Joel and Patricia Pittman and entered her reward peacefully at home on June 19, 2023. Irene was the eldest of nine children between her parents. Irene moved to Hoopa in 1962, living in Jackson’s Trailer court. Irene attended Hoopa Valley High School and worked at the Hoopa Jolly Cone.

Irene met the love of her life through a mutual friend in 1963, John Armand. Irene and John became inseparable and got married in 1966.

Irene graduated from Napa Valley High School, where she and her husband, John, had relocated for a time. After graduation, Irene went to Napa Beauty School and became a licensed cosmetologist. Irene was a hairdresser in Napa, Vallejo, San Pablo, and eventually back in Hoopa. Irene enjoyed hairdressing and maintained her license up until her death.

Irene was a hard worker and maintained employment throughout her life. Irene and John moved to Wisconsin in 1979, where she worked for the Trek Bicycle company. Eventually, Irene and John moved back to Hoopa in 1984, where they resided until her passing.

Irene was hired at Bigfoot Lumber, where she began to learn bookkeeping skills. Irene was a quick learner and self-taught bookkeeper, which became her career. She worked with the Hoopa Valley Tribe until she retired from the Public Utilities Department. Irene loved her PUD crew and especially enjoyed her walks and talks with Mary Biondini.

Irene had a love of the arts and enjoyed drawing and calligraphy. Irene was also very into computers and technology and always made beautiful certificates for the church.

Irene growing up was introduced to the Christian faith and attended church regularly as a child. At the age of ten, Irene gave her heart to the Lord. Irene was a woman of faith. Irene loved the Lord with all her heart and soul. Eventually, God and Irene won over John to the faith, and in 1986, they went into Youth Ministry at the Hoopa Assembly of God.

Irene was invited in 1987 by a group from the church to Japan; this was a life-changing trip for Irene. She often talked about the barriers and how different the plumbing was there. Irene enjoyed her time in Japan, especially with the people from her church.

In 1994 John began pastoring the Hoopa Assembly of God, and Irene was by his side as a helpmate. Irene and Juan didn’t have children of their own, but those that entered the church became their family. Pastoring over a church for almost 29 years in the Hoopa Community has been one of the most remarkable journeys of Irene’s life. (Previously the Assembly of God Church in Willow Creek.)

Irene is survived by her husband, Juan Armand. Irene is also survived by her sister Doris Pittman, brother Brice Rodgers and wife Sandy, sister Cheryl Appel and husband David, sister Terri Ackley and husband Jim, brother Joel Pittman Jr. and wife Lois, sister Holly Pittman, brother Richard Pittman, and brother in law Chester McIntosh and wife Julie.

Irene is preceded in death by her father, Joel Pittman Sr, mother Patricia Rodgers, stepfather Jay Rodgers, brother Phillip Pittman, and brother Douglas Pittman.

Pallbearers: Brian McIntosh, Byron McIntosh, Rodger Sanderson, Wally Morton Sr., Raymond Baldy, Robert Baldy, Raymond Baldy, Riley Baldy, Chago Moon, Antonio Correa, Aaron McIntosh, Brian McIntosh Jr, Gary Riley, Jon Blake II, Rick Sanderson, Chester McIntosh.

We want to apologize if I missed anyone. It was not intentional. Irene loved so many people who were very near and dear to her.

Services will be held at the Hoopa Assembly of God on Tish Tang Road on July 1, 2023, at 11 a.m., with a reception at Pookey’s Park on Loop Road in Hoopa. The reception is a potluck, so please bring your favorite dish.

Irene enjoyed and loved to support Redwood Adult Teen Challenge. If you would like to send donations, please get in touch with Redwood Adult Teen Challenge at info@redwoodtc.com.

###

Nancy Jean Sylvies-Simmons
June 21, 1940 to June 6, 2023

Nancy Sylvies-Simmons of Orleans passed away on June 6, 2023. She was born on June 21, 1940 in LA to her Father Eugene Sylvies and her grandparents who raised her Kenneth and Cecil Sylvies. She grew up with her two siblings Kenneth and Carolyn. The Sylvies family later relocated to the Salmon River where Nancy spent the majority of her adolescent years.

Nancy went on to start her own family after she married Jim Horn of Orleans. They made their home on Ferris Ranch Rd. where Nancy remained until she passed. In her home she gave life to her three children; James B. Horn, Paul Horn and Penni Horn. It was there that she raised her children and became our Nana. She devoted her life to her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

One of Nancy’s first jobs was working at the fire camps as a cook. She also spent many years working at the Orleans Motel and the Orleans Mining Company where she cooked and waitressed at the same time. Later in life she worked at the Orleans Store where she was well known for her deli work and keeping the shelves stocked with yarn. She also babysat many O-town kids throughout the years and two of her favorite kids were Craig Mullins and Kit McCovey, whom she maintained a friendship with over the years. Up until Nancy passed away she worked for the Karuk Tribe Senior Nutrition Program as the substitute cook and maintained her custodial business at the Forest Service where she worked alongside her longtime friend Charla King.

She was well known for her beautiful yard and flowers and she loved to garden. She took pride in maintaining her yard all on her own. There wasn’t anything that she couldn’t do, from running the green machine to planting her flowers. Nancy was very creative and she loved to crochet, sew and quilt. She made beautiful blankets, quilts, baby blankets, bags and so much more. She passed her creative talents down to her granddaughters Teresa and Jesika. You would often find Nancy and her handmade art at the local craft fairs alongside her granddaughters.

Nancy had many passions and talents, but being a Mom and Nana was definitely her super power. She took great pride in teaching her daughter Penni about motherhood, cooking, baking and how to keep a home. Nancy passed down her many great qualities including her strength and her fiercely independent personality that always included a dash of SASS. She was caring, loving and nurturing but could also cuss like a sailor especially when she was with her great grandson Dukes. Nancy always made every holiday extremely special. She loved to cook and bake, but the real happiness came from watching the ones she loved enjoy the food she made from scratch. She could bake a pie in every flavor and made everyone their favorite treats. Her persimmon cookies melted in your mouth and everyone loved them. Words are hard to describe what she meant to everyone. She was more than a Mom and Nana, she was also a best friend. She cherished her long phone calls with her oldest son James and looked forward to their conversation. Nancy also looked forward to when her boys would come home to visit her and they also always made time to do the things that were on her to do list.

In January of 2000, Nancy not only had one more grandson, Ben, she also became a great grandma for the first time (Laurence). She always wanted to make sure that she could help in any way. It didn’t matter if it was little or big she always showed up. In 2007, after more great grandsons, Nancy finally got her first great granddaughter, Kalia. Starting In 2009, Nancy took great pride in helping raise Kalia. They say it takes a village to raise a child and Nancy went above and beyond to make sure Kalia never went without motherly love. As often as she could, she came to the local school functions, sporting events and did her fair share of school fundraising for the kids. It was one of the many things that gave her purpose and joy.

Nancy had decided on her 70th birthday that she would be her authentic sassy self and at her age, her opinion was going to be heard whether you liked it or not. She gave her love generously to everyone, but could also put you in your place. Anyone who knew Nancy knew that she had favorites, of course she thought she super secretive about it, but if you were one of her favorites, you definitely knew.

She shared a special bond and relationship with her great grandsons Laurence Mitchell, James “Dukes” Mitchell, Kalia Mitchell and Edward and Apryl Mitchell. They are very fortunate to have spent so much time with their Nana. Nancy also took great pride in helping plan family events and most recently helped plan a baby shower for her newest great-grandson Mettah Mitchell.

Nancy shared a deep connection and friendship with Charla, Travis and Serena King. The family would like to thank them for being there for her, not only as a friend, but also in her time of need. Nancy loved Charla and the kids like they were her own and had no problem letting everyone know just how much they meant to her. She would also want us to mention her favorite nieces that meant the world to her; Crystal Lollich, Patty Underwood and her great-niece Ashley Horn-Liebes.

Walking was also one of Nancy’s favorite things to do. Up until last year, for many years Nancy walked the muddy mile in Orleans and did the 2 mile trek with her walking partner Joanne Rosenbach. She also loved to attend the monthly sewing group in Orleans.

Nancy was survived by her three children James Horn (Nacidee), Paul Horn (Linda), Penni Horn (Mackie). Her grandchildren Louis Mitchell, Teresa Mitchell (Jim), Jesika Sheaf (Kris), Edward Mitchell (Rachael), Ben Nix, Kenneth Horn (Jesse), Jacob Horn (Karissa), Katie Horn, Michael Horn (Selene), and Ben Horn (Amanda). Great Grandchildren Laurence and Dukes Mitchell, Eychkwo and Teyk-tah Moon, Mikah, Karoline and Rebeka Sheaf, Apryl, Edward Jr., Janie and Mettah Mitchell, Hailey and Jasiman Horn, Ella, Weston and Harlo Horn, Drake and Brody Horn, Damion, Madilyn, James and Nicholas Horn, Adan, Andrew and Aero Horn, Kalia, Emilia and Louis Mitchell. Her nieces Cecil, Maggie, Sherry, Shelley, Stacy and nephew Melvin.

She was preceded in death by her father Eugene Sylvies, her grandparents that raised her Kenneth and Cecil Sylvies, siblings Kenneth Sylvies, Caroline Sylvies, her youngest brother Eugene “Bub” Sylvies and her sister in law Marion Lollich.

Honorary persons are Edward Mitchell Sr., Edward Mitchell Jr., Laurence Mitchell, James Dukes Mitchell, James Moon Sr., Ben Nix, Joe Nix, Mackie Nix, Teyk-tah Moon, Eychkwo Moon, Mikah Sheaf, Kenneth Horn, Jacob Horn, Michael Horn, Ben Horn, Travis King and Louis Mitchell.

The family would like to thank Charla King, Rod Johnson, the K’ima:w ambulance crew, the emergency flight crew and all of the Mercy Hospital staff in Redding for all of their help in Nancy’s final days.

Services will be held on July 9, 2023 at 11 a.m. at the Karuk DNR Building in Orleans. Please bring your favorite dish and story to share with everyone.

###

Robert “Buz” Stanley Johnson
July 7, 1944 - June 20, 2023

It is with a heavy heart that we announce the passing of Robert ”Buz” Stanley Johnson, who entered this world on July 7,1944 and departed from us on June 20,2023.

Buz was born to George and Annie Lena Johnson of Manila,California. His nickname Buz began shortly after crawling — he would make a buzzing sound and was quick, so a nickname after the Buzz Bomb from WWII fit him perfectly.

Buz has a long family history in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties dating back to the mid 1800s. He was a tribal member of Round Valley Indian Tribes, registered Wailaki.

He enjoyed his career in the logging industry. A majority of those years he spent driving logging trucks for Wayne Bare Trucking — beginning in 1974, retiring in 2011. He enjoyed his time there and the friendships he had made.

As a lifelong resident of Humboldt County, he spent as much time as possible outdoors: fishing, hunting and clamming. He could tell you with ease the type of birds, trees or fish that happen to be nearby. He was happiest with his friends, out on a river, the bay or the ocean, or hunting.

A drive through town could take a bit long, as he would list the names of local families and businesses that had once occupied the area, he’d have to wave at all passersby and ask everyone “How’s it goin’?” before moving on his way.

Buz was preceded in death by his parents: George Cameron Johnson and Annie Lena (Parker) Johnson, as well as his sister Kathleen (Johnson) Koskela, and niece Robin Ann Bain.

He is survived by his nieces and nephew Erika, Leah and Atias (as well as their children). He enjoyed his time as a father figure to Vaness and Michele, and the special times as a grandfather to Shaya, Jacobi, Jaxon and Aaliyah.

The family would like to extend a heartfelt appreciation to his many friends, especially those who were more than a friend, but a brother.

###

It is with great sadness that we have to annouce the passing of Lynda Sue Brooks (66) on June 20, 2023 at Providence St Joseph Hospital with family by her side.

Lynda was born in Eureka on May 25,1957 to Jim & Donna Montelbetti.

Lynda loved spending time with family and friends, camping, going to the beach watching the waves and sunsets. She loved going to her grandkids’ sporting events.

Lynda graduated from Eureka High School in 1975. After high school she went to work at Lazio’s fish plant in Eureka. Lynda always loved kids from a young age and knew she wanted to care and work with them. She started to work at different daycares through Humboldt Child Care Counsel/Changing Tides for a few years. In 2004 she finally got her dream and opened her own day care, “Building Friendships.” After 20-plus year she had to close due to her declining health.

Lynda leaves behind her husband John Brooks of 37 year,s son Christopher Brooks, brother Mark Montelbetti, sister Julie Williamson, grandkids Dyami & Aliyah Brooks, as well as numerous nieces, nephews and cousins. Lynda also leaves behind her lifelong friends Sherry Arango and Gail Ellingwood. 

There will be a celebration of life potluck on July 23, 2023 at the house that Lynda and John shared. 

###

###

In its continued effort to improve Eureka’s streetscapes, local volunteer group Keep Eureka Beautiful is in the process of planting more than 30 trees along Fourth and Fifth Streets, marking the first time the group has been permitted to plant along Highway 101. 

Michel McKeegan, a Keep Eureka Beautiful volunteer, told the Outpost that this project has been nine years in the making, and that planting trees along 101 was more complicated than in other areas the group has worked in. The issue was that because the streets are technically a  part of the highway, there was a lot of debate about whether Caltrans or the City would be in charge of approving the project. After years of back and forth, Caltrans took over and recently approved the tree planting, McKeegan said. 

“I tried to stay up with [the process] and tried to nudge it along,” McKeegan said, when asked why she thought the process was so complicated. “Every once in a while I’d hear ‘We’re almost there.’ Then it would seem like they’d be back at square one.” 

New trees next to the Co-op on Fourth Street

In most areas where Keep Eureka Beautiful plants trees (McKeegan said the group has planted around 1,400 trees in the city over the years), the process is pretty straightforward. A resident or business will contact the group to ask for trees to be planted in front of their property. The group’s volunteers then work with the resident or business owner to identify the best spots for the trees, checking to see which locations will not disrupt any underground lines. The volunteers then draft a design plan and submit it to the City for approval. Once the location has been approved, the City takes care of digging up the sidewalk where the trees will be planted, charging $100 per hole. Keep Eureka Beautiful covers half of this cost, as well as provides the trees for free. 

For the trees along Fourth and Fifth Streets, Caltrans required that root guards be installed, which McKeegan said also added some time to the process, since the holes had to be dug much larger to add the root barriers. Caltrans also had more specific requirements about what species of trees could be planted. For example, they group was not allowed to plant magnolias – often a popular choice because they are pretty and grow very well here. Caltrans did not want magnolias because the “leaves are too big and don’t disintegrate easily, like other leaves,” McKeegan said. 

Keep Eureka Beautiful and the different property owners ended up selecting a mix of Kwanzan Cherry and Yoshino Cherry trees, which have been planted on Fourth Street next to the North Coast Co-op and next to the Best Western Plus Humboldt Bay Inn, and on Fifth Street between L and M Street, in front of several businesses, including Visiting Angels senior care services and the Linden & Company Salon and Spa. On Thursday afternoon the volunteers will also be planting several trees in front of Northcoast Audio on Fifth and C Streets. 

McKeegan is excited to finally be able to plant these  long-awaited trees, which will help make this well-traveled section of Eureka a little bit more attractive. 

“[These are] our two main streets and they represent Eureka to anyone who goes through – visitors and residents alike,” McKeegan said. “It’s really important to make that area as inviting and pleasant as possible.” 

###

Dozens of cannabis farmers and allied community members gathered in the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Chambers on Tuesday morning to speak out against the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative, a controversial ballot measure that would restrict commercial cannabis cultivation across the county. 

Proponents of the initiative believe the added restrictions will promote small-scale farming and environmentally responsible cannabis cultivation practices across the county while simultaneously cracking down on water-guzzling mega-grows. However, many local cannabis farmers fear the ballot initiative would decimate their livelihoods and destroy what is left of Humboldt County’s storied cannabis industry. 

Members of the board and county staff have met with the organizers of the initiative in recent months to try to find an alternative solution to the ballot measure but the sponsors feel they are “morally obligated” to put the matter before voters. 

During Tuesday’s meeting, the board reviewed two separate items relating to the initiative: a report from an ad hoc committee set up to work with the initiative’s sponsors, and an amended analysis of the initiative from staff. 

Ad Hoc Committee Report

Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors agreed to form an ad hoc committee, with Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo and Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell as the board appointees, to work with the sponsors of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative to either modify existing county rules or find an alternative to the ballot measure to address their concerns. 

The ad hoc committee met on three occasions and while the meetings were “fruitful,” according to Planning and Building Director John Ford, the initiative’s sponsors ultimately felt the matter should be determined by the electorate.

Arroyo agreed with Ford’s summary, adding that the meetings helped her understand where the proponents of the initiative were coming from, “but it was pretty clear that the proponents of the initiative really wanted to ensure that that this item went to the voters and that an ordinance update would not satisfy their concerns.”

“They wanted something that was really codified in a different way by the voters of the county,” Arroyo continued. “We talked about, you know, the narrow range of options, given that perspective and I think … we’re sort of at a temporary stopping point. Depending on what happens in the future, we may be able to meet again and … have a starting point for a productive conversation.”

The initiative’s sponsors, Elizabeth “Betsy” Watson and Mark Thurmond, largely agreed that the ad hoc committee’s conversations were productive but maintained that county staff and the Board of Supervisors “didn’t really have a good understanding of the initiative,” according to Watson.

Watson | Screenshot

“We were not interested in withdrawing the initiative because the purpose and the intention of the initiative are valid,” she continued. “The fact that it cannot be changed – except by vote of the people – is positive because it puts limits on cannabis cultivation that our elected officials are not willing to do. … The initiative prevents a future Board of Supervisors from weakening the essential protections while offering flexibility to support the initiative’s purposes and intent, which is clearly stated.”

Thurmond felt the main objective of the ad hoc committee was to get the initiative’s sponsors to roll over and withdraw the ballot measure in exchange for changes to the Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance, also known as “Ordinance 2.0.”

“[T]he committee acknowledged that any change made to an ordinance today could readily be undone next week or next year depending on the makeup and the mood of the board,” he said. “Thus there’s no guarantee that any agreed-upon language actually would survive more than a year, if that.”

Thurmond emphasized that the main reason the sponsors refused to withdraw the initiative was their “moral obligation” to the “7,000-plus registered voters” who signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot. “They were not told that we might consider brokering a deal or negotiating in some way to not represent the initiative that they signed on,” he said. “We have an obligation to honor the agreement made by those 7,000 citizens.”

Before moving ahead to the public comment portion of the discussion, Fifth District Supervisor and Board Chair Steve Madrone reminded the audience that comments should remain focused on the ad hoc committee’s report rather than the merits of the initiative. 

Thomas Mulder, Southern Humboldt cannabis farmer and county planning commissioner, felt as though the ad hoc committee was a “waste of taxpayers’ dollars” and asked the board to refrain from meeting with the initiative’s sponsors in the future. “All these people are trying to do is waste taxpayer dollars,” he said. “Obviously, they don’t want to negotiate. … When this initiative fails, I hope you guys can [sue] them because they’ve wasted so many dollars in this county.”

Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance (HCGA), criticized the initiative’s sponsors for failing to do their due diligence and properly inform the public about the potential impacts associated with the initiative. “The [initiative’s] proponents skipped those steps because they were rushing to get enough signatures on the November 2022 ballot.”

DeLapp | Screenshot

“The proponents of the [initiative] never shared the final policy document with the public before it was submitted to the elections office, at which time it could never be changed,” DeLapp said. “When HCGA reviewed the document, we found that 12 of the 13 policies within the document targeted existing small, legal cannabis farmers. … [The document] creates an entirely new section for the county General Plan, one that can only be changed by a future vote of the people.”

Kneeland resident Cheryl Furman, on the other hand, generally spoke in favor of the initiative, noting that she is one of the “7,000-plus people that signed the petition.”

“I believe that this initiative is pretty important … because it would stop cannabis cultivation expansions and it would require wider neighborhood involvement,” she said. “There are many more cars and trucks that are driven by workers and employees at all hours of the night … Meanwhile, these expansions continue to be approved by the planning commission. … This initiative offers much-needed reform for cannabis cultivation in Humboldt County.”

Another speaker, who chose not to identify himself, said he was alarmed by local media coverage of the initiative and decided to read it himself. After doing so, he felt the initiative proposed the appropriate steps to “protect the county’s residents and natural environment from harm caused by large-scale cannabis cultivation.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn lamented the fact that the ad hoc committee was not able to resolve the sponsors’ concerns. “I’m sorry, we’re at this point,” he said. “I wish we could have a kumbaya moment. I appreciate the ad hoc that worked on it. A lot of time was spent to get nowhere.”

Bohn added that he would have felt “much more comfortable” with the proposed initiative “if I could get one small cannabis farmer to call me and say, ‘This is going to save me.’”

After a bit of additional discussion from the board, Bushnell made a motion to accept the report and pause the ad hoc committee meetings for the time being. 

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson offered a second to the motion, noting that he voted against Ordinance 2.0 “because it didn’t go far enough from an environmental perspective.” “I believe there is intent around environmental issues that we need to address but I do have concerns about the construct of the initiative process,” he said.

The motion passed in a unanimous 5-0 vote.

Amended Analysis of the Initiative

The board also reviewed – and ultimately approved – an amended analysis of the initiative during Tuesday’s meeting. 

The original analysis, presented to the board at its March 7 meeting, identified numerous “unintended consequences” in the initiative. While the initiative is “well intended,” staff’s analysis asserted that the measure, would “have dire consequences to the cannabis industry in Humboldt County.”

Proponents of the initiative disputed the county’s findings and asserted that staff had intentionally mischaracterized the ballot measure with “unfounded assertions and false statements” in an attempt to “influence public opinion on a ballot measure,” potentially violating the Political Reform Act. The sponsors asked the county to “either withdraw the analysis or promptly correct” it. 

The staff report notes that the analysis was “not to be used for campaign purposes but [was] written to help the Board of Supervisors and the public, as appropriate, to understand the implications of the [initiative].” Even so, staff agreed to amend the analysis to address some of the concerns outlined in the sponsors’ letter and provide a better understanding of the impacts identified in the initiative.

“The objective is to provide information for the board [and] provide information to the public to increase understanding,” Ford said during Tuesday’s meeting. “One of the concerns expressed in the letter is that the analysis misconstrued the intent of the [initiative]. The analysis is not looking at the intent of [the initiative] but solely what is written, and expresses concerns about how that may be interpreted.”

Michael Colantuono, outside counsel obtained by the County of Humboldt, noted that each member of the Board of Supervisors, as well as the board as an institution, has the First Amendment Right to express their point of view.

“What you cannot do,” he said, “is use public resources to engage in express advocacy. You can’t say ‘vote yes’ and you can’t say ‘vote no,’ but you absolutely can ask your staff to apply their professional expertise to help you and the public you serve to understand what the choice is.”

Speaking during the public comment portion of the discussion, Kevin Bundy, the sponsor’s attorney, urged the board “to keep the county’s role in this neutral and factual” and “not to commit itself to the unfounded interpretations advanced by the initiative’s opponents.”

The vast majority of speakers disagreed and encouraged the board to take a stand. Paul Hagen, a local attorney specializing in environmental law, warned that a neutral stance would “neuter” the board.

“Are the supervisors and individual elected officials willing to take a stance?” Hagen asked. “Your own attorney has said that you can. The [Fair Political Practices Commission] FPPC says that you can. … The idea that you’ve been urged to remain factual is a good idea. The idea that you’ve been urged to remain neutral, neuters you. Why are you elected officials if you have to remain neutral? … I’m not asking you to say one side or the other about your position, I’m just asking you to take a position if you think you should and to speak for your community as elected representatives.”

Hagen added that while the initiative has good intentions, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Jackee Riccio, executive director and co-founder of Cannabis for Conservation, similarly criticized the initiative’s “façade as an environmental policy,” arguing that the document “fails to cite relevant peer-reviewed research to support its claims.”

“The lack of consultation or collaboration is blatantly evident to anyone involved in cannabis and environmental research,” Riccio said. “[The initiative] entirely undercuts evidence-supported conservation strategies and the collaborative environmental [efforts] already underway in the county that are far more biologically effective than any practice in this initiative could ever be.”

Laura Lasseter, executive director of the Southern Humboldt Business and Visitors Bureau, spoke to the potential economic impacts associated with the initiative. 

“[The initiative] looms as a grave peril to Humboldt’s rural economy, casting a shadow over the potential of cannabis tourism in our region,” she said. “If enacted, this initiative would deliver a devastating blow before our cannabis tourism industry has even had a chance to blossom at all. Humboldt County has long been synonymous with cannabis excellence, attracting visitors from all around the world, the [initiative] jeopardizes this rich heritage by imposing unworkable restrictions on our local cannabis businesses.”

Returning to the matter at hand, Thurmond emphasized that the amended analysis “continued to present false statements and false representations” of the initiative and accused the county of using “a fear-mongering approach” to upset the public.

Thurmond | Screenshot

“I hear the reasons for being upset, and I don’t see those reasons in any of the language in the initiative,” he continued. “I do see it in the language of the analysis [with] false statements about tourism permits and so forth. … That’s an example of how this has just gotten overblown and overwhelmed. And I think the analysis from the county is responsible for most of this problem.”

Another resident, who chose not to identify herself, said she supported the initiative because it “cannot be changed by politicians.” She pointed to Resolution No. 18-43, passed by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2018, which established a cap on the number of permits and acreage for commercial cannabis cultivation. The resolution stipulated that the county must conduct an annual, public review of the permitting and acreage allowances in the county.

“In the past five years, there has been no public hearing and no report detailing the number and status of cannabis cultivation permits,” she said. “The Board of Supervisors agreed to the annual review starting in 2019 and to make the review and cannabis cultivation report public, but this has never happened. We need the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative because it requires environmentally responsible cannabis cultivation, supports watershed health, ensures public involvement and does protect small-scale, environmentally-minded cannabis farmers.”

Following public comment, Bohn asked Ford if he could explain why staff hasn’t followed through with an annual review detailing the status of the county’s commercial cannabis permits. 

“At the time that [the] resolution was adopted, there was a thinking that [the] cap would have to be revisited … because there would be pressure for additional permits and additional acreage to be allocated,” Ford explained. “But that could only be done if the regulations that were in effect were successful [in] reducing the amount of surface water that was being used, protecting water quality, that sort of thing. We haven’t been confronted with that, in all honesty, and we have not seen information coming in from the state where the stream gauges have been put in place.”

In an attempt to emphasize the rigorous environmental review process, Bohn asked Ford how many agencies must approve a given permit before it comes back to the county for approval. Ford explained the permit is subject to review by the county Department of Public Works and the Department of Environmental Health, state and federal agencies that own public land, as well as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and, often, area tribes.

Bohn noted that some of the commenters had “made it sound like we’re just throwing these permits out” and wanted to ensure the county is taking the proper steps to mitigate environmental impacts. 

“I think we’re being very diligent about looking to make sure that the environment is being protected,” Ford said.

Bushnell asked Ford how the county’s inspection processes have evolved over the years. He explained that the staff had “really stepped into the full inspection process” in the last year. 

“We had inspections of 800 sites on the ground,” he said. “We inspected approximately 400 using remote satellite imagery. We’re also in the process of digitizing the permitted cultivation area into the GIS system so that we can look at it immediately and see exactly whether or not there’s been a change based on current imagery. This year we are intending to visit every site in-person [with] boots on the ground inspection of every site.”

Bushnell asked Ford how enforcement would change if the initiative were to pass. 

“Well, I think that’s part of the struggle,” Ford responded. “The General Plan doesn’t fit into the existing cannabis ordinance. The General Plan sits separate from that. … I won’t get into specifics but, basically, what we would have to do is modify the ordinance to conform to the general plan. And then, if there are changes that would be needed [to] be inconsistent with the General Plan … that work would have to then be approved by the voters before the ordinance could be amended.”

Wilson noted that, if the initiative were to pass, the county “would be the one on the hook” for any subsequent legal action. “There is no obligation for the proponents to offer any legal resources with relationship to anything after that [election] process,” he said.

After making a few additional comments, Wilson made a motion to accept and file the report with no additional modifications or recommendations. Arroyo offered a second to the action. Before voting, Bushnell stated her opposition to the initiative.

The motion passed in a unanimous 5-0 vote.

###

PREVIOUSLY: 

• An Initiative to Reshape Humboldt’s Cannabis Industry Qualified for the Ballot, and It Has Growers Worried
• Supes Agree to Put Controversial Weed Initiative on the 2023 Ballot, Though They Hope to Work With Organizers on Alternatives
• Humboldt County Cannabis Farmers Blast ‘Misleading’ Ballot Initiative That Would Impost New Restrictions on Cultivators; Supervisors Form an Ad Hoc Committee to Work on Alternatives
• Proponents of the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative Are Calling Out the Board of Supervisors, County Staff for Allegedly Distorting the Intent of the 2024 Ballot Measure
• Humboldt Supervisors to Revisit Controversial Weed Initiative During This Week’s Regular Meeting