Sutter County board votes 4‑1 to bar industrial hemp cultivation and processing after heated hearing

The Sutter County Board of Supervisors voted 4‑1 on Jan. 28 to extend an interim urgency ordinance that bars industrial hemp cultivation and processing in the county’s unincorporated areas after a lengthy public hearing that drew growers, parents, educators and county staff.

Staff presented two options: extend the existing moratorium for 10 months and 15 days or adopt a "modify and extend" version that would allow outdoor, in‑ground hemp cultivation while prohibiting greenhouse and container production and adding buffer zones around sensitive receptors. County staff and legal counsel advised the board that any urgency ordinance action would require a four‑fifths vote.

Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Nick Oliver read a letter from Agricultural Commissioner Lisa Herbert asking the board to continue the moratorium. The letter described enforcement and fiscal challenges and cited department budget reductions (listed in the letter as $166,463 for FY 2023–24 and $361,841 for FY 2024–25, totaling $528,304) and an accumulated program shortfall of $415,827 from FY 2018–19 through FY 2023–24, with ongoing deficits since July 2024. The letter also reported that the commissioner had received a death threat tied to hemp enforcement activity.

Dozens of residents spoke during the hearing. Supporters of the moratorium and a ban described strong odors that they said made homes and school events unpleasant, raised concerns about theft and violent "pot rips," and argued the county was subsidizing enforcement costs for a crop they said has been financially nonviable in Sutter County. "For three months, we cannot open our doors or windows," said Jeanie Thibodaux during public comment, describing persistent odor and health impacts.

Growers and industry representatives disputed that account and urged the board to adopt targeted buffers and clearer rules rather than an outright ban. "We are trying to make a living," said Tyler Timani, a grower who said his operation employed about 50 full‑time workers; he asked the board to allow the industry to demonstrate compliance under defined rules.

Board members debated enforcement costs, public safety and community impacts. Supervisor Ziegenmeyer moved for an indefinite ban; that initial motion failed in a preliminary vote. Supervisor Stevens then proposed a modified extension including distance parameters discussed at the hearing (3.5 miles from certain sensitive receptors and 2,000 feet from dwellings as presented during deliberations), but because the item required a four‑fifths urgency vote that motion did not carry.

After a short recess and renewed motions, the board adopted a motion to ban cultivation and processing in unincorporated Sutter County. The final roll call on the prevailing motion recorded Supervisor Boone voting yes, Supervisor Flores voting no, Supervisor Ziegenmeyer yes, Supervisor Baines yes and Supervisor Stevens yes. The clerk read the ordinance title extending interim urgency ordinance number 17‑28 imposing a temporary moratorium on the cultivation and processing of industrial hemp in the unincorporated areas of Sutter County.

What the board adopted is an interim urgency ordinance; staff said the moratorium could be in effect for up to 10 months and 15 days initially, with the possibility of subsequent extensions under state law. Staff told the board they would return with implementing language, buffers maps and further enforcement guidance.

Next steps: staff will publish the ordinance language and maps, and the board can revisit the issue within the moratorium period to consider modifications or a permanent ordinance. For now, the county’s interim urgency ordinance prevents cultivation and processing of industrial hemp within the unincorporated county by any person or entity.