The Enviro’s Vs. Cannabis Inc.

Lots of criticism has been thrown at the Enviros in the last few years for not taking a leadership role in protecting Humboldt’s natural resources. Well we would dispute that claim anyway, but here we have a regional environmental coalition stepping up and taking a leadership role. On top of that, they are speaking truth to one of the wealthiest lobby’s in this county…mega growers.


We agree that letting Cannabis Inc. write the rules to regulate themselves is dooming us to years more of ecosystem destruction.


The Examiner has pointed out in the past the Green Ru$h has been exacerbated, in part, by the failure of the Supervisors to take action to regulate or enforce any standards for grows outside of an urban context. It has seemed that the Supervisors were very happy with the status quo. Now, they are being forced to at least speak about regulation, but it’s the mega grower industry that wants to write its own rules and have the Supes sign off on them! That seems to be a pretty topsy-turvy way to approach this major issue, but it isn’t all that surprising for Humboldt County politics.

According to their web site the NEC includes these major voices for the environment:

Humboldt Baykeeper -Sierra Club North Group, Redwood Chapter – Redwood Region Audubon Society – Friends of the Eel River – Safe Alternatives For Our Forest Environment – California Native Plant Society – EPIC

Here’s their action alert:

Take Action Now to End Impacts of the Green Ru$h!

It is long past time to regulate the marijuana industry. Impacts from illegal water diversion, irresponsible grading, and clearing of forests for grow sites have expanded exponentially in recent years. Salmon streams are particularly hard hit from the combined impacts of drought, decades of harmful logging practices, and unchecked marijuana operations.

And while we believe the County – not the industry – should write the rules to govern cannabis cultivation, now is an opportunity to comment on what one industry group has proposed. California Cannabis Voice Humboldt is collecting input through Friday, August 14 on its draft cannabis cultivation ordinance for parcels over 5 acres (

Northcoast Environmental Center and our allies have identified many specific problems with the ordinance. We urge you to submit comments urging the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to:

Enforce existing laws now! The County does not need to – and should not – wait until a marijuana ordinance is in effect to take action against those currently threatening our watersheds and communities with irresponsible grading, illegal water diversion, and the unpermitted conversion of forestlands to marijuana grows.

Enact a truly public process: The County should adopt a cannabis cultivation ordinance only through public process with input from County departments, state agencies and the public as a whole.

Halt illegal water diversions: The County should require water storage and prohibit summer pumping to protect salmon streams and downstream residents.

Stop the conversion of forestland to large-scale marijuana grows: The County should only allow commercial cannabis operations on agricultural land and on land specifically identified as appropriate for cannabis production.

Prohibit pesticide use: The County should explicitly prohibit pesticides: Insecticide, rodenticide, fungicide and herbicide use on and around cannabis cultivation operations.

Establish a responsible upper limit for the maximum cultivation area allowed per parcel: The County should say no to CCVH’s proposal to allow grows 10,000 square feet and more on almost every rural parcel. Corporate mega-grows should not be allowed.

Require compliance with all local and state environmental laws prior to issuance of business license and/or other certification: The County needs to close the loophole in CCVH’s draft ordinance that would allow growers to skirt environmental laws for two years or more.

Enact equal rules for all growers: The County should not grandfather in existing growers – including those breaking local and state environmental regulations – while imposing tougher guidelines for new cultivators.

Halt all new grows – including expansion of existing operations – until all environmental permits are obtained, particularly in watersheds providing critical salmon habitat.

Ensure a sustainable funding source to rein in egregious environmental impacts – such as through fees, fines, and taxes – for program oversight and for enforcement.

Ensure that the ordinance is consistent with state law.

Submit comments by August 14 to:

Kathy Hayes, Clerk of the Board, at,

California Cannabis Voice Humboldt (CCVH) at,

Call or email your Board of Supervisors:

Rex Bohn, District 1: 476-2391 <>

Estelle Fennell, District 2: 476-2392 <>

Mark Lovelace, District 3: 476-2393 <>

Virginia Bass, District 4: 476-2394 <>

Ryan Sundberg, District 5: 476-2395 <


9 thoughts on “The Enviro’s Vs. Cannabis Inc.

  1. Grandfathering in current violators is particularly troubling. Let the Supes know how you feel!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Just go to Google maps and look at the “environmentally conscious” grows from CCVH members on Island Mountain. Good grief. And these are the folks who want to be “mainstream” and accepted. They’re no better than an other business which profits while destroying the environment….not to mention what they are currently doing is illegal.

    Maybe we should let human sex trafficking organizations set up the regulations for legalized prostitution? Would Luke support that?

    Liked by 3 people

  3. There is absolutely no reason to grow weed in the woods (or will be after legalization takes away the motivation to hide).

    Actually, there are dozens of reasons why they shouldn’t grow in the woods, such as you need to change the environment drastically to get the stuff to grow (cutting timber, heavy fertilization, soil replacement, critter killing etc. to name only a few).

    So, we must ask ourselves a very basic question… What does the CCVH want?

    Since growing in the woods will not pay as well as using traditional agricultural practices (and they must know this) forest grown weed will not be competitive once legalization happens.

    Somehow, I have a teeny tiny little suspicion the CCVH’s motivation really has small to nothing to do with growing weed.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Cchhhhaaaaa Ccchhhhiiing!!!! Some of our most beautiful, and remote places are currently priced well above the “true” market value (unless one is making hand over fist profits from a black market commodity). With legalization, I would hope I could afford that middle of nowhere type of property for a reasonable price (reasonable given there is nothing close to services and shopping out there).

      Of course, if I had been making hand over fist in cash, and didn’t want to lose money when I sell my overpriced land, I might just…..

      Let CVVH fill in the rest for ya

      Liked by 1 person

      • JP, If you truly respect the grandeur and of “some of our most beautiful, and remote places” you wouldn’t be coveting them as places for you to change and permanently occupy. Yes, they are not close to services and shopping(that’s just another way of saying ‘remote) and that’s the indicator for you to stay away from colonizing them for habitation.


    • A point I agree with. The way weed is grown now is not agriculture and certainly not something to be grown on some ridge top or former forest. Bring it down the hill to where the water is.
      We can do better

      Liked by 1 person

      • Look Uri, I’m sorry to be a blog stalker, I’m just in shock and I need to express my concern and, frankly, outrage at your candidacy and your new found love of the blogs. I’m not outraged at you, persea, I’m outraged that again, we have a conservative Democrat whose main concern seems to be coming straight out of the Builder’s Exchange. This is the candidate we are first introduced to in 2015 when Estelle and Rex still run unopposed. Ugh. Politics is hard work.

        I just remembered this classic from May 20th 2014.

        “I have been very disappointed in Mr. Kerrigan’s campaign even though I am a Virginia Bass supporter. While everyone wants jobs, Mr. Kerrigan has yet to explain how he can advocate for jobs while being so opposed to development. Developers, like ranchers and timber men and even sometimes fishermen have gotten pigeonholed by some of his most ardent supporters as “evil” for turning resources into homes and jobs for families. The better ones even help enhance wildlife and recreation areas as well. These people pay taxes that eventually turn into grant funds for various pet projects.

        The reality that we cannot expect the grant money gravy train to keep running if we keep pulling up the tracks, is coming clearer every day.”

        – Uri Driscoll, May 20th2014 Times Standard letter to the editor.


        That’s just what we need more focus on, those poor developers. I wish we could find a Democratic Supervisor from the 3rd who would be able to speak for the poor under-represented developer.

        And those darn ardent supporters who keep calling people “evil”.

        Did you ever have an actual example of an important Kerrigan supporter who called anyone evil?

        BTW, I believe it was the same paper, or perhaps it was the next day, here was Sid Berg’s take…

        “In my opinion, they (left-leaning Democrats on the HCDCC) have lost touch with the middle class, workers, and business, all necessary to sustain a viable economy. I will not condone confiscation or erosion of private property rights, and to dictate thought (precursors to 1930s National Socialists in Germany).”

        So that is an example of the sweet talkin’ Supervisor-hopeful and a potential supporter – callin’ out the left as calling them out as “evil” then calling them proto-Nazis.

        I think that’s called having your cake and eating it too which is what the developers and those with private plans for land and real-estate have had recently in HumCo.

        Good luck at your run Uri – I’ll be working against you all the way -and not because developers are evil. I’ll be working against you b/c the Planning Department and the Commission should be made up with people whose first concern is a sustainable and prosperous present and future. Yes, people want to do stuff on and with the land they own – we the people also need to start thinking about what and how we are going to answer the challenges of the future which include affordable housing and green growth.

        Green growth means focusing on centralized living in cities, towns and villages and reversing the trends of suburbanization and worse.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Congratulations jonboy. You got thru a very lengthy post without blaming Rush Linbaugh or Glenn Beck for anything. Bravo!


  4. Definitely one of your best posts LMOB and a keeper. Thank you.

    I had no idea of Uri’s political aspirations. His radical views were once considered “conservative”, until folks began rightfully questioning the unfunded consequences of unbridled growth beyond infrastructure capacity; habitat loss leading to extreme bio-diversity collapse; an affordable housing crisis; greenbelts full of homeless; lifestyle-caused climate change; and now drought. The chickens have come home to roost…nature is batting last…

    Uri and Sid’s myopic and radical “property rights” ideology conveniently ignores the oldest conservative principle, “your rights end where other’s rights begin”. Water and nature, upon which all humans depend, epitomize that fundamental principle.

    Having witnessed decades of supervisor meetings, I understand how $80,000 a year solidifies the most banal world view, especially after surrounding yourself with like-minded political appointees serving key public functions. And for the last hundred years that worked just fine.

    However, the massive paradox and irony posed by this single “agricultural” issue exposes just how far out of their league our emboldened political “bakers and candlestick-makers” are.

    They are terrified of adopting regulations protecting water because it immediately calls into question the undeniable degradation being caused by all those other unregulated water diversions that are “OK” because they serve deep-pocket campaign donors, the “good guys”, right? Our “one-note Nancy” supervisors must avert their gaze from all that “other” well-deepening, haphazard developments, roads, logging, grazing, vineyards, orchards, Olympic pools, trout farms, commercial gardens and the herbicides, fertilizers, phosphates, pesticides and turbidity impacting our headwaters.

    Our problems are hardly unique. The rest of the world is moving toward green economies, (including strict water regulations), and the high paying jobs it generates. Even Utah is saving taxpayer money by placing the homeless into houses that also creates jobs in their construction.

    Meanwhile, Humboldt County remains intent on the discredited economic model of deregulation and transferring public wealth to the wealthy, (the usual players), still claiming it will “trickle down”.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s