LAKEPORT, Calif. – While full regulations are still being created for the introduction of industrial hemp in California, the Board of Supervisors this week decided against a temporary moratorium on the crop, deciding instead to explore how hemp growing can be allowed locally.
The board will continue the discussion in an untimed item at its meeting next week.
Hemp has been grown for centuries in the United States, with George Washington including it among his crops at his estate, Mount Vernon, using it for rope, boat sails and thread for clothing.
Today it’s used for food, fiber, lotions and oils, and even types of plastic, and it’s grown in many other countries, including Canada.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made it illegal in the United States because of its relation to marijuana, even though it has a very low level of THC, the main psychoactive constituent of cannabis.
However, last year, industrial hemp was legalized nationwide as part of the farm bill.
Now, while rules are being formulated, there are concerns about how to handle the crop’s introduction.
For the cannabis industry, hemp is a major concern because if hemp and cannabis plants cross-pollinate, the result is that the quality and strength of cannabis plants can be degraded.
Agriculture Commissioner Steve Hajik told the board on Tuesday that he was not pushing for anything, but he raised significant concerns that appeared to favor a temporary moratorium, citing the unfinished regulations, challenges and workload.
He also provided urgency ordinances regarding the crop from neighboring Mendocino and Yolo counties and an industrial hemp white paper from the California Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer Association.
His written report explained that the industrial Hemp Program is a joint federal, state and county program. It’s considered to be an agricultural commodity by the federal and state government, but there are additional regulations associated with it, and the proposed US Department of Agriculture regulations will be out this fall and finalized in 2020.
He said the state regulations are being developed and have to be approved by the USDA, but the federal government will allow the state regulations since the USDA cannot approve them until their own regulations are finalized. “This arrangement will be in effect only until the end of 2019,” Hajik wrote.
With both state and federal regulations still being written, Hajik said some counties have adopted temporary moratoriums until they are finalized, a measure meant to allow the regulations to catch up with the registration process.
As of Tuesday, Hajik said that 20 counties have or are expected to have a moratorium, 23 counties don’t and 15 counties haven’t decided either way.
He noted that, on that very day, Sonoma County also was considering a moratorium.
On Tuesday, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors moved forward with putting a moratorium in place on hemp, as did the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
“What makes this so bad that the state feels the need to get involved at all? I just don’t get it,” said Supervisor Rob Brown.
Hajik said there is pressure to do something from hemp industry.
“Hemp is a commodity that we could benefit from here in Lake County,” said Brown, who has remained a firm opponent of cannabis.
“I agree,” said Hajik.
Hajik explained that, for him, the bottom line is that cannabis is easy for his department to handle. He said they have 17 inspections over a year and a half. With hemp, every site will need to be inspected for its THC content 30 days before harvest, the same time as the summer pear harvest is taking place. He said he'll choose pears over hemp.
Hemp with a THC level of more than 0.3 of 1 percent cannot be sold and must be destroyed. Concerns Hajik noted during the discussion included the fact that growers registering before the program regulations are fully developed could be taking a risk, and he questioned whether the county can legally require a crop to be destroyed.
Hajik said he will be required to run the hemp program and he doesn’t have enough staffing to do it. Without a moratorium, he will be obligated to register hemp growers, and he was concerned there will be a rush of growers. Hajik also questioned if hemp qualifies for right to farm protections; he didn’t think so.
During the meeting the board heard from those who wanted to grow it and had enough land to buffer it and from cannabis growers who didn’t want it because it would harm their crops.
Cobb grower Lance Williams, who has experience with both cannabis and hemp, said he was concerned that someone with hemp seeds and not much knowledge could cause disaster for the cannabis industry, so he suggested a pilot project.
Another grower, Michael Wagner, pointed out that Oregon has been allowing both crops for years, with buffers and seed sourcing, so the county could look north for guidance.
He said the value of imported hemp fibers has been valued at $50, and that in 2018 the USDA estimated total hemp industry to be worth roughly $4 billion.
“Obviously there’s the right way to do it and the wrong way to do it,” he said, adding that it didn’t seem right to keep people from growing it but that it needed to be done correctly.
Supervisor Moke Simon, also tribal chair for Middletown Rancheria, said the county’s seven tribal nations are looking at hemp as an economic opportunity, and he said the county can’t put a moratorium on the tribes. He noted that it’s a clean biofuel.
County Counsel Anita Grant pointed out that there are a number of jurisdictions that regulate hemp through use permits, with zoning being critical.
She said the board might want to consider looking at examples of how zoning could occur and determine what would work best for Lake County. Grant said she could bring back examples at the April 9 board meeting, and the supervisors agreed.
Her report for the April 9 meeting notes, “Some counties have now developed or are in the process of developing land use ordinances that will allow both business concerns to coexist. Inyo County has passed an ordinance that limits industrial hemp activities to take place in certain zones and which requires a conditional use permit for all hemp activities. Another county has determined to allow limited commercial cannabis cultivation in industrially-zoned areas and to allow industrial hemp in those same areas.”
She added, “Whether your Board determines to impose a temporary moratorium on industrial hemp cultivation or to take a wait-and-see approach in anticipation of the impending State regulations, there is nothing to prevent you from exercising your land use authority to initiate the development of an ordinance establishing the parameters within which you wish this type of cultivation to occur so to ensure the viability of both industrial hemp cultivation and cannabis cultivation. This may include determining the zones in which industrial hemp cultivation will be allowed, implementing requirements for buffers, deciding whether and how best to utilize conditional use permits to ensure compatibility with other commercial businesses, and promulgating other requirements not in conflict with State law.”
She reported that both her office and the Community Development Department will provide the board will options to pursue at the April 9 meeting.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Supervisors decide against industrial hemp moratorium; more guidelines to be discussed April 9
- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On