Cannabis cultivators tell board revoking unused small irrigation water rights is difficult; staff to follow up
Loading...
Summary
A cannabis compliance consultant told the State Water Board that cultivators who left the industry face barriers canceling small irrigation water rights and are receiving continuing annual bills and enforcement notices. Board and staff said they would follow up with the Division of Water Rights.
A Northern California cannabis compliance consultant told the State Water Resources Control Board on Oct. 21 that former cannabis growers face difficulty revoking small irrigation water rights after they cease cultivation, and that those who have left the industry continue to receive annual fees and enforcement notices.
"Some have left the business completely and yet have had a very difficult time trying to terminate that small irrigation use right once irrigation has ceased," said Marissa Corey, who said she represents multiple cultivators with small irrigation use rights. Corey said she has a client whose revocation request was refused because the diversion infrastructure remains — sometimes because the diversion is also registered as a domestic supply for a residence — and that regulators have asked growers to physically remove ponds or diversion infrastructure before revocation will be allowed.
Corey also said growers who rely on non-jurisdictional sources such as groundwater wells or rainwater catchment have received notices to comply from the Department of Cannabis Control after the Water Board flagged questions about jurisdiction. She said the notices to comply were due within 30 days and were overdue at the time of her remarks; she asked the board to make it easier for cultivators who left the cannabis industry to revoke water rights and to relieve the continuing financial burden of annual bills.
Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel thanked Corey for raising the issue and asked staff to follow up with the Division of Water Rights. A board member noted that pond-closure issues can involve coordination with other agencies when a pond was built without permitting, and staff said they would follow up with the division to determine whether operational guidance or clarification could be provided.
Corey requested assistance for cultivators who have been bankrupted and who are still receiving bills. Board staff acknowledged the complicated nature of pond abandonment and said they would follow up with Division of Water Rights staff and keep the commenter informed.
The board took no formal action on the petition but directed staff to follow up and to coordinate, as needed, with Division of Water Rights staff and other partner agencies on technical and procedural details related to revocation and pond closure.
