Board revokes one cannabis permit, continues appeal for another with conditions including no new stream diversions

Humboldt County planning staff told the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 25 that two separate cannabis cultivation permits required formal action after regulatory enforcement and unresolved violations: one site’s permit was revoked for failure to pay Measure S taxes and related compliance failures, and a second permitholder appealed a proposed revocation after evidence of unauthorized creek diversion and other violations.

Revocation: Humboldt Emerald Triangle LLC. Planning Director John Ford explained the department recommended revoking the conditional use permit (PLN 11065) because the permittee failed to pay Measure S taxes and the permit remained a legal impediment to new, compliant uses at the site. The board voted 4-0 to approve staff’s recommendation to revoke the permit, clearing the site for a new application from a new owner.

Appeal and continuance: Manna Farms / Rockaway Investments (permit currently held by an absent prior permittee but operated by applicant Kathy Hall) was the subject of an enforcement inspection after a California Department of Fish and Wildlife search warrant documented an unapproved pump and diversion drawing from Little Larabee Creek. County staff said the inspection found an unapproved surface-water diversion, fuel and petroleum containers next to a water source, uncontained cultivation waste and missing ongoing well drawdown monitoring records required by the permit. Planning staff said the site’s permit conditions required use of a well as the approved water source and annual pump testing; the search-warrant inspection found a submersible pump and pipe leading from the creek to storage tanks and evidence of recent use.

The applicant’s consultant, Vanessa Valaire of ETA Management Group, and the operator, Kathy Hall, told the board they had begun cleanup and compliance work after the inspection and had submitted an amendment to seek a lake-and-stream alteration agreement (LSAA) with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Valaire said the applicant “immediately started working on clearing up all the violations,” and Hall said the property’s prior owner had left legacy infrastructure and that much cleanup had been completed since purchase.

Planning staff said an LSAA that would authorize cannabis diversion is not routinely compatible with the county’s environmental document and cannabis ordinance unless preexisting surface diversions were in place; staff noted the board could restrict a permit to prohibit any future surface-water diversion for cannabis. After extended discussion the board voted 4-0 to continue the appeal to the March 25 meeting and directed staff to return with a modified resolution (not revoking the permit) that included conditions: no LSAA/ no cannabis surface-water diversion while the county permit remains in force; payment arrangements or proof of payment of Measure S liabilities; enhanced, possibly unannounced inspections and a schedule for completing outstanding conditions (including expedited solar and well testing where required). The board and staff clarified that revocation remains an available remedy if follow-up inspections show continued violations.

Ending: The board made clear the county expects rapid compliance and preserved its authority to revoke the permit if conditions are not met.