Okanogan County adopts six-month moratorium on new cannabis grows as county and state compliance dispute continues

At its meeting, the Okanogan County Board of Commissioners approved a six-month moratorium on permitting new cannabis grows in the county and directed staff to pursue a formal meeting with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board and other state officials to resolve enforcement and licensing conflicts.

The board adopted an ordinance establishing the moratorium after discussion of repeated cases in which licensed cannabis operations did not meet county building, septic and zoning rules and, commissioners said, were difficult to bring into compliance. The board voted in favor with one commissioner abstaining; the ordinance will be placed on a future agenda for final ministerial steps.

County staff and commissioners said the moratorium is intended to pause new applications while county staff: (1) convene the state licensing agency to clarify how state licensing will account for local zoning and building code requirements, (2) refine a local enforcement and monitoring approach for existing operations, and (3) draft a work plan to evaluate whether long-term code changes or administrative processes are needed. The ordinance allows a single six‑month extension if the board adopts a written work plan before the first moratorium period expires.

Commissioners and staff described a mix of operational problems at some licensed sites, including unpermitted structures, expired permits and, in a subset of properties, multiple unpermitted buildings on a single parcel. Staff told the board that the county’s inventory includes 59 known cannabis-related operations and that 22 of those were identified as noncompliant in recent reviews. County officials said lack of local engineering or contractor willingness to work with some growers has been a barrier to bringing certain structures to code.

County staff recommended using the moratorium period to (a) request a formal, multi-hour agenda item with the state licensing agency so commissioners and department heads can present local concerns, (b) pursue regulatory clarifications such as what constitutes an “agricultural building” under county code, and (c) explore interim enforcement measures — including administrative variances, annual monitoring fees for nonconforming sites, or prosecution where required by code. The board directed staff to schedule the state agency meeting and return with a timeline for the work plan.

The moratorium applies only to new cannabis grows; existing licensed sites remain subject to county inspections and any corrective actions required by county code. County staff and several commissioners stressed the moratorium is not intended as a permanent ban but as a pause to give the county time to align its permitting, inspection and enforcement processes with state licensing practice.

Ending: The board set a 180‑day moratorium with a procedural path to extend once, if a work plan is in place. Commissioners asked staff to prioritize outreach to growers, local engineers and the state licensing board during the moratorium and to return with a recommended schedule for the required outreach and any proposed code edits.