The Emerald Triangle and Humboldt County, California have a storied history of cannabis culture as the site of cannabis cultivation for decades, well before the Golden State ushered in medical or recreational cannabis laws. Though, over the past several years, smaller farms in the area have continually faced strife and sustainability issues in maintaining grow operations, largely due to the falling price of flower in California and high excise taxing.
Now, the county is facing another hurdle as Measure A, the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (HCRI), will officially be decided by voters next year as reported by Lost Coast Outpost. The conclusion came after a Humboldt County Superior Court judge denied a petition looking to remove the ballot measure from the upcoming March 5 primary election ballot.
According to the initiative website, Measure A looks to “improve enforcement of environmentally responsible cultivation practices, protect watershed health for residents, property owners and ecosystems, and support the small-scale, high-quality, and sustainable type of cultivation that made Humboldt famous.”
Though a number of petitioners have claimed that those backing Measure A have misled the public, namely in that they claim the measure will only impact large-scale growers and failed to provide the full text of provisions the initiative would enact.
While the measure claims to protect small growers, opponents have argued that the stringent regulations would in fact be a detriment to small growers too. One group of opponents, No HCRI, claim that a vast majority of Measure A’s provisions would “restrict all legal cannabis cultivation in Humboldt, regardless of size, and regardless of whether operations are existing or new.”
The group said that many of the restrictions would be “impossible” for small cultivators to comply with. They cite one example, that farmers would be required to be located on “category 4 roads.” For those hundreds of farmers who don’t meet the requirement, they say local engineers estimate the costs for these upgrades to range from $200,000-250,000 per mile, which is not attainable for small farms.
The group also cites Measure A’s restriction of “expansion” being too broad, saying it would result in the prevention of small farms to add new and improved structures to their farms, even those that make environmental and structural improvements.
Last week, Judge Timothy Canning rejected the sentiment that the measure was misleading, stating that the courts should not interfere with the rights of citizens to vote on initiatives so long as proposals are constitutional.
“Opinions may (and do) differ as to whether Measure A affects only large scale grows or whether it affects smaller farms as well, and whether Measure A is or is not good policy for Humboldt County,” Canning wrote. “However, there is insufficient evidence that the language of Measure A is deliberately false or misleading.”
Betsy Watson, one of the primary sponsors of the measure, argued that voters who signed petitions for the measure were not misled, stating, “We’re gratified that the court saw through the growers’ attempt to deprive the people of their right to vote on Measure A.”
Humboldt County Growers Alliance Executive Director Natalynne DeLapp spoke against the measure during a November debate, arguing that the backers of Measure A avoided public process, quickly wrote the initiative and submitted it without public review. She added that the state’s initiative process is a “terrible way to handle complex land use and environmental issues,” since the rules it would enforce could not be amended or replaced unless another initiative was approved by voters.
“For Measure A, the technical details are poorly written, the legal ramifications of its language are unclear and its impact on the environment, public safety and our local government are all serious concerns held by policymakers, farmers and regulators alike,” DeLapp said, adding that the bill is impractical and carries consequences that “run counter to their interests.”
“You will not hear from the proponents about the small legal farmers who support this initiative, because there aren’t any, and if I’m wrong, I will eat my notes,” DeLapp said.
When reached for comment after last week’s ruling, DeLapp said, ““While we are disappointed with the ruling, we believe voters will conclusively reject the misleading tactics being used to sell Measure A. We join with local environmental groups, law enforcement agencies, small businesses & farmers, and political leaders in asking the public to vote NO on Measure A in March.”
