Trinity County board advances permanent ban on industrial hemp
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After public debate, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to introduce an ordinance (code section 8.23) that would prohibit industrial hemp cultivation in Trinity County, citing enforcement challenges and cross‑pollination risks for existing cannabis growers.
The Trinity County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 3 voted to introduce and advance an ordinance (to be codified at 8.23) that would ban industrial hemp cultivation within the county. Agricultural Commissioner Angela Blanchard told the board her department’s survey of licensed cannabis growers and the public showed pollen drift and the risk that hemp plants could exceed the federal 0.3% THC threshold, creating enforcement and market problems.
"Pollen remains a primary concern, and there is also the potential for hemp plants to exceed the legal THC limit of 0.3%," Blanchard said, proposing what she described as a permanent ban on hemp. She said the department received 32 survey responses, roughly half of which supported a prohibition.
Members of the public urged different approaches. Dan Trujillo of Weaverville asked the board to continue the matter to a noticed public hearing so more stakeholders and factual findings could be collected. Other speakers, including Adrian Keys and Dana Houser, warned the board that federal definitions of hemp and cannabis are unsettled and urged a future review or sunset clause rather than a permanent prohibition. Several industry speakers warned that allowing hemp could seed nearby licensed cannabis crops and wipe out cultivators’ investments.
Former county staff who helped craft the original moratorium testified that California county hemp programs have struggled with enforcement and financial losses, and that Trinity County lacks the flat ground, irrigation and access to markets many hemp operations require. The board’s discussion focused on enforcement capacity, market context, and the possibility of revisit in the future.
Motion and outcome: A motion to introduce and waive reading of the ordinance was made and seconded and carried by unanimous roll call. The ordinance will proceed through the formal public‑hearing and adoption steps required by county process.
What happens next: The item will return to a noticed hearing where the public may testify before adoption. The ordinance text will be published with findings that staff and supervisors said they will document to support any future legal review.
Speakers quoted and sources: Angela Blanchard, Agricultural Commissioner (presentation); Dan Trujillo (public comment); Adrian Keys and Dana Houser (public comment). A summary of the staff report and survey results was included in the agenda backup.