-
extracted text
-
CANNABIS
THE CONUNDRUM:
Medical Mystery; Environmental Enigma; Neighborhood Nightmare
A study into the social and environmental impacts of policy governing marijuana
production and processing operations in rural residential areas of Washington State
By
Michelle L. Horkings-Brigham
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2018
© by Michelle Horkings-Brigham. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Michelle L. Horkings-Brigham
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
_______________________________________
Kathleen M. Saul, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
____________________________
Date
________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
CANNABIS THE CONUNDRUM:
Medical Mystery; Environmental Enigma; Neighborhood Nightmare.
A study into the social and environmental impacts of policy governing marijuana
production and processing operations in rural residential areas of Washington State.
Michelle L. Horkings-Brigham
Washington State voters approved I-502 in 2012, an initiative that legalized the
commercial production of recreational marijuana in the state. Since then, in Thurston
County, eleven interim ordinances regulating marijuana production and processing have
been in place, at times leading to a confused situation between marijuana business
owners, neighboring communities, public officials, and enforcement agencies.
This thesis presents material sourced from peer reviewed academic papers, reports
in the mass media including newspaper journals and niche media outlets, government
publications, interviews, personal experience, surveys, and testimony provided at
Thurston County Public Hearings. It highlights not only the benefits of legalizing medical
marijuana, but also addresses environmental issues and social concerns resulting from the
legalization of marijuana cultivation and recreational marijuana sales.
Thurston County Long Range Planning has stated their mission is “to plan for
sustainable land use and development within the unincorporated areas of the county so
communities can thrive in a healthy environment.”1 However, research suggests
environmental degradation and social disruptions to neighborhoods have been occurring
within the vicinity of large-scale marijuana operations located in rural residential areas of
the county. Therefore, more appropriate zoning, greater communication between
government agencies overseeing marijuana licensing and land use, stronger enforcement
of regulations, closure of regulatory loopholes that allow for unlawful activity, more
thorough and regular site and property inspections, neighborhood consultations, and a
detailed environmental impact statement determining water sources and usage for a
marijuana operation, are all warranted before a marijuana production or processing
license is issued. Such requirements would minimize the potential harm to ecosystem
functioning, human health and safety, and potential loss in property values, as a result of
this rapidly developing, and still inadequately regulated industry in Washington State.
________________________________________________________________________
1. Thurston County Long Range Planning (2018). Welcome to the Community Planning Division.
Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncounty.wa.gov
Cannabis is a conundrum.
How so, you might ask?
It took years for a solution,
an arduous task.
A solution to what?
you might reply.
An environmental enigma,
I painfully sigh.
Painful! It’s a medical mystery,
wouldn’t you shout?
Perhaps…
but it’s the neighborhood nightmare
I sadly found out.
______________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... x
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
CH. 1 MARIJUANA POLICY—ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACTS.......... 5
1.1 MARIJUANA’S FOOTPRINT ................................................................................ 5
Legalization’s Impact on My Family .......................................................................... 5
Thurston County’s Interim Marijuana Ordinance ...................................................... 9
Marijuana Licensing and Special Land Use ............................................................. 15
Marijuana Cultivation .............................................................................................. 16
Environmental Impacts of Marijuana Production and Processing .......................... 19
Industrial Hazardous Waste .................................................................................. 19
Water Usage .......................................................................................................... 21
Chemicals and Pollutants in Cultivation ............................................................... 27
Solid Waste Disposal ............................................................................................ 29
Mercury Contamination ........................................................................................ 33
Energy Consumption ............................................................................................ 33
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) ..................................................................... 35
Land Conversion and Storm Runoff ..................................................................... 37
1.2 MARIJUANA POLICY—MEDICAL TO RECREATIONAL ............................ 48
Marijuana’s Medical Mystery................................................................................... 48
The Endocannabinoid System ................................................................................... 49
Marijuana Health-Safety Concerns .......................................................................... 52
Marijuana Legalization – Medical to Recreational.................................................. 56
WSLCB and State Regulations .................................................................................. 59
1.3 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA COMMERCIALIZATION .................... 75
Marijuana Policy Loopholes..................................................................................... 75
Thurston County Ordinance Deliberations .............................................................. 78
iv
Criminal Behavior Following Legalization .............................................................. 80
Community Impacts .................................................................................................. 86
Guard Dogs ........................................................................................................... 87
Noise Pollution...................................................................................................... 88
Light, Odor, and Air Pollution .............................................................................. 90
Security and Neighborhood Character .................................................................. 93
Fire and Chemical Hazards ................................................................................... 95
Traffic ................................................................................................................... 98
Marijuana Grower Concerns .................................................................................... 99
Misrepresentation of Facts ..................................................................................... 100
Vested Interests ....................................................................................................... 105
NIMBY..................................................................................................................... 108
WSLCB Loopholes .................................................................................................. 109
CH. 2 COLLECTING THE DATA ............................................................................. 119
2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES & DESIGN ..................................................................... 119
My Personal Conquest ............................................................................................ 119
Research Overview ................................................................................................. 121
Research Design ..................................................................................................... 122
Phase I – Washington State Survey ........................................................................ 122
Phase II – Interviews .............................................................................................. 124
Phase III – Thurston County Survey ....................................................................... 124
CH. 3 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 126
3.1 STUDY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 127
3.2 PHASE I: WASHINGTON STATE SURVEY ANALYSIS ................................ 128
3.3 PHASE II: INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS ........................................ 137
Marijuana and Water Rights .................................................................................. 138
The Environment and People—Marijuana and Contaminants............................... 143
Air Quality and Odor .............................................................................................. 148
Community Impacts and Enforcement .................................................................... 154
Marijuana Entrepreneurs Impacted by Policy ....................................................... 168
Thurston County Residents: Jack and Cary – Rochester........................................ 176
Thurston County Resident: Ira Holman – Yelm...................................................... 180
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 189
3.4 PHASE III: THURSTON COUNTY SURVEY ANALYSIS .............................. 190
v
CH. 4 CURBING THE CONUNDRUM ..................................................................... 201
4.1 POLICY OPTIONS TO CONSIDER ................................................................... 201
4.2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................ 206
Marijuana Policy—Environmental and Social Improvements ............................... 206
Zoning as a Practical Solution ............................................................................... 213
Additional Recommendations ................................................................................. 215
4.3 AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO ....................................................................... 216
Marijuana versus Old-growth Forest ..................................................................... 217
CH. 5 IN CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 221
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 224
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 238
APPENDIX I—Letter to Survey Participant .............................................................. 238
APPENDIX II—Interview Schedule .......................................................................... 239
APPENDIX III—Survey Questions ........................................................................... 240
APPENDIX IV—House Bill 2630 ............................................................................. 241
vi
_______________________________________________________________________
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Unlicensed marijuana operations. ..................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Regulatory Guidance for Cannabis Operations. ................................................ 20
Figure 3: Marijuana water diversions. .............................................................................. 22
Figure 4: Trash and burning at a marijuana facility. ......................................................... 30
Figure 5: Hantavirus Cases and Deaths 1994 – 2017. ...................................................... 31
Figure 6: Marijuana’s carbon footprint. ............................................................................ 36
Figure 7: Unpermitted land conversion for two marijuana operations. ............................ 38
Figure 8: Medical marijuana product compliance logos................................................... 55
Figure 9: Shipping containers fence a Tier 3. ................................................................... 65
Figure 10: Marijuana facilities in eastern Washington. .................................................... 66
Figure 11: Unlawful transport of marijuana. .................................................................... 82
Figure 12: Multiple dogs to guard marijuana. .................................................................. 87
Figure 13: Discarded generators used in illicit marijuana production. ............................. 89
Figure 14: Marijuana operations in Tonasket. .................................................................. 95
Figure 15: Degraded easement from increased traffic. ..................................................... 98
Figure 16: Misleading information in marijuana site plans. ........................................... 102
Figure 17: Unpermitted Tier 2 and Tier 3 marijuana operations. ................................... 104
Figure 18: Unlicensed marijuana cultivation in 2016. .................................................... 104
Figure 19: Flights over unpermitted marijuana facility. ................................................. 120
Figure 20: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility overall impact. .................................................... 129
Figure 21: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility odor and noise impact. ........................................ 130
Figure 22: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility garbage and pollution impact. ............................ 130
Figure 23: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility traffic and other impacts. .................................... 130
Figure 24: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility safety and crime concerns................................... 131
Figure 25: Tier 3 - Notified about facility / Tried to prevent facility. ............................ 131
Figure 26: Tier 3 - Considered moving / Prefer not in neighborhood. ........................... 132
Figure 27: Marijuana legalization five years later. ......................................................... 176
Figure 28: Thurston County - Overall impact from Tiers 1, 2, or 3. .............................. 191
Figure 29: Thurston County - Impact from odor and noise. ........................................... 191
Figure 30: Thurston County - Impact from garbage and pollution. ................................ 191
Figure 31: Thurston County - Impact from traffic. ......................................................... 192
Figure 32: Thurston County - Safety concerns and crime .............................................. 192
Figure 33: Thurston County - Notified about marijuana facility. ................................... 192
Figure 34: Thurston County - Considered moving / Prefer not in neighborhood. .......... 193
vii
_____________________________________________________
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: WSLCB estimates of marijuana water consumption ………………………… 24
Table 2: Comparison of Washington & Thurston County Section I survey results ….. 198
Table 3: Comparison of Washington & Thurston County Section II survey results …. 198
viii
______________________________________________________
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADAI – Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute
ASUP – Administrative Special Use Permit
BHO – Butane Hash Oil
BoCC – Board of County Commissioners
CBD – Cannabidiol
CHS – Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
DOE – Department of Ecology
DOH – Department of Health
GHG – Greenhouse Gas Emission
HID – High Intensity Discharge
HIDTA – High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
IERC – Integral Ecology Research Center
IPM – Integrated Pest Management
IRAC – Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation
NIMBY – Not-In-My-Backyard
ORCAA – Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
OVMA – Oregon Veterinary Medical Association
PCHB – Pollution Control Hearings Board
PSE – Puget Sound Energy
RCW – Revised Code of Washington
SRCAA – Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency
THC – Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
USBR – United States Bureau of Land Reclamation
VOC – Volatile Organic Compound
WAC – Washington Administrative Code
WAPC – Washington State Poison Center
WASPC – Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
WSDA – Washington State Department of Agriculture
WSLCB – Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
ix
______________________________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to MES faculty for their supportive
instruction throughout this thesis project. In particular my heartfelt appreciation goes to
Kathleen Saul, my fabulous reader and advisor, who not only provided outstanding
feedback and guidance in my writing and research, but gave her warm support through
some challenging times as I pursued and personally experienced much of the subject
matter.
Thank you to the government representatives, business owners, and private
residents who responded to interview requests and provided valuable insight into
marijuana policy in Washington State.
A special thank you to the many quiet individuals who responded to my surveys.
Your willingness to share, in part, your experience has contributed much to this research.
Without the rock, best friend, and joy of my life, my husband James, this project
would never have been possible. Your love, strength, patience, adventures, and wonderful
dinners supported me through the adversity to fulfill an outrageous dream.
My love and appreciation to my mum and dad, Doreen and Ray; 2nd mom Betty;
daughter Julie; courageous example JZ; my closest friends; my colleagues; and my
beloved pets Yoda, Pippin, Zeus, and Zella. Without your encouragement and the delight
of your company, this would have been a much lonelier and more difficult process.
Finally, to Zephyr, I dedicate this to you gentle breeze, and to my greatest teacher,
The Wind, thank you for the wisdom gained through an incredible journey in making
known this unknown.
x
_____________________________________________________
PREFACE
El Portal means doorway. I interpreted that as an omen to a new opportunity as
we were welcomed by a frothing, swollen river turbulent from the heavy winter snow
pack at the entrance to Yosemite near El Portal, California. Rafting had to be exciting this
year. Four large busses were parked beside our campground, ready to take enthusiasts on
a wild river adventure. What impressed me though, as we pulled in, was the name
“Zephyr” boldly written across the front of each bus. “That’s odd synchronicity,” I
thought. During the long drive from the California Redwoods I’d been pondering the
changes to our neighborhood and our property, as impacted by the marijuana operations
next door. “How can I ever tell this story?” I wondered. “Where do I begin?” Cruising
through Southern Oregon and Humboldt County, windows wide open to enjoy the forest
air, I had caught occasional whiffs of a skunk-like odor that had triggered my
contemplations.
After settling into our campground, I perched on a rock nearby to enjoy the
hilltops turning golden then rose. Lost in thought, I hadn’t noticed the inquisitive skunk
sniffing at my feet, curious about the intrusion. “That’s even odder,” I thought, as I
cautiously backed off the rock to avoid its ire. My ninety-one year old mother-in-law,
Betty, chuckled at my encounter. As we drifted into conversation and I brought up the
concerns I had for my thesis, I volunteered “I’ve thought about it for days and I just don’t
know where to begin.” Still sharp as a tack she responded “Start with Zephyr. Tell them
what happened. It sets the stage for what you’ve been dealing with these past three
years.” I was dumbfounded. She hadn’t even seen Zephyr’s name on the busses. But the
xi
more I thought about it, the more I knew she was right. That’s how this body of research,
motivated and validated through personal experience, and prompted by Betty and my
three “omens” at El Portal, came about.
xii
________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Medical marijuana was legalized in Washington State in 1998. Four years later, in
2012, approximately 56% of voters approved I-502, an initiative that legalized the
production and processing of commercial marijuana in the state. Following the
legalization of recreational use, state and county governments introduced policy to
regulate this rapidly developing industry. Within just a few months of I-502 passing,
marijuana production and processing applications were being submitted to the newly
titled Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), the agency assigned to
implement and oversee the state’s marijuana regulations. At the same time, county
officials, like those in Thurston County, worked to create ordinances to adapt to the
potential influx of marijuana growers in their area, often implementing interim
regulations until a final decision could be reached on appropriate zoning and county
policy.1
Since 2013, in Thurston County, the main focus of this research, the Board of
County Commissioners has enacted eleven interim marijuana ordinances.2 A final
ordinance has yet to be determined. Throughout the decision-making process, media
reports, public testimony, and legal proceedings have demonstrated social and
environmental impacts resulting from hastily implemented legislation. Changes in policy
in county ordinances have, at times, led to confusion and confrontation among marijuana
entrepreneurs, neighboring communities, public officials, and law enforcement agencies.
Inappropriate land use zoning and inadequate regulatory oversight have impacted
Washington State property owners neighboring marijuana facilities. Unfortunately,
1
individuals attempting to bring awareness to government officials regarding the injustices
they have experienced have been labeled NIMBYs (“Not-In-My-Back-Yard” opponents
to a marijuana operation) and left to their own resources to tackle the associated social
and environmental problems.
Today, NIMBY appears to be an all too common label applied to citizens who
attempt to stand against a social and/or environmental injustice. Protest against the
allocation of rural land use to large-scale marijuana facilities—those established without
adequate studies to assess the potential environmental or neighborhood impact to
communities—brings to the forefront a new element of Washington’s frontier spirit that
can potentially favor marijuana operations while harming unsuspecting residents. Public
records, surveys, and interviews indicate that some property owners neighboring
industrial marijuana installations were left with few choices. Some have had to sell their
homes and move elsewhere; some have had to reconcile themselves with the loss of
neighborhood character; while others, such as my family, have endeavored to fight the
intrusion by means of the justice system and incurred significant expense in the lengthy
legal battle that ensued.3 This research is prompted by my personal experience fighting
two unpermitted, industrial-scale marijuana operations that began construction, without
notice or land use permit, next door to my ten-acre rural residential property in 2014. I
recount the plight of the NIMBY and the policies that fail to consider impacts to property
owners neighboring marijuana facilities.
Although reports of the problems surrounding marijuana legalization in
Washington State have appeared in periodicals such as The Seattle Times,4 and The News
Tribune,5 there has not been an extensive investigation into the impacts of commercial
2
marijuana operations on the environment or neighboring residents. Therefore, my
research will ask the following: How has policy regulating the production and processing
of large-scale, commercial marijuana operations impacted neighborhoods and the
environment in rural areas of Washington State? Do policy flaws exist in state marijuana
regulations that might overlook illicit behavior? Can more be done, from a policy
perspective, to alleviate potential harm to rural communities and the environment?
We need to assess policies regulating the commercial production and processing
of marijuana in Washington State to help inform regulations and practices for other areas
considering legalization. In this thesis, I disclose weak points that still exist in the state’s
efforts to bring marijuana cultivation to legal status and use that knowledge to propose
new legislation that would address the concerns of rural residents and better safeguard the
environment. Prior research has identified environmental concerns as a result of
unregistered marijuana operations in California, however it is challenging to find similar
studies conducted in Washington. This thesis research has uncovered loopholes in some
of the regulations overseen by the WSLCB. Public records reveal that unlawful behavior
has continued in certain instances and was supported by the agency, while communities
suffered the consequences.6, 7 Therefore, social and environmental injustices emerge—
injustices that have not been adequately addressed.
________________________________________________________________________
1. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2014, January 21). Ordinance No.
14978. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=3232625&page=1&searc
hid=f5891a2e-723c-4ed1-90cd-a9b8df100cfc
2. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1).
Ordinance No. 15613. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=9808796&searchid=1f8a
b1ca-43b7-4996-b625-607e3a20889a&dbid=0
3
3. Cushman, B.D. (2016, December 8). Application for Other Administrative Action - Code
Interpretation pertaining to Project No. 2014101488 (Marijuana Producing/Processing
Application). Cushman Law Offices. Olympia, Washington. Available:
www.cushmanlaw.com
4. Young, B. (2017, July 17). Washington’s pot industry: What it takes to expose hidden owners
and keep cartels and illicit money out of the state’s pot industry. The Seattle Times Local
Politics. Seattle, Washington. Available: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattlenews/politics/washingtons-challenge-hidden-owners-in-its-pot-industry/
5. The News Tribune Staff. (2017, November 28). Suspected illegal pot grows busted in Thurston,
Grays Harbor and King Counties. The News Tribune, Aberdeen, Washington. Available:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article186966538.html
6. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018). Document Library Research Project No.
2014101488. Folder sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Resource
Stewardship Long Range Planning Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
7. Masias A.V. (2017, April 17). Enforcement Report of Complaint. Blue Moose - Complaint
Number C7C7107A and C7C7107B. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
Olympia, Washington.
4
_____________________________________________________
CH. 1 MARIJUANA POLICY—ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL IMPACTS
The proposed use shall not result in substantial or undue effects on
adjacent property, neighborhood character, natural environment,
traffic conditions, parking, public property or facilities, or other
matters affecting the public health, safety, and welfare.
Thurston County Washington, 20181
1.1 MARIJUANA’S FOOTPRINT
Legalization’s Impact on My Family
Zephyr’s black fur glistened in the sun as she sat poised for action. The beauty of
her posture took my breath away. In retrospect, it was as if she already knew her fate and
wanted to spend those few precious hours enjoying her favorite pastime—retrieving
rocks thrown into our pond. That same afternoon, without warning, two gunshots rang
out as I tugged on stubborn weeds in the garden. Zephyr collapsed moments later in my
arms and died from the wound inflicted by our neighbor. He and his family had long been
dealers in marijuana—before it was legalized in Washington State. Law enforcement had
raided their property in 2008. I wondered if he were stoned, to be so cruel in his blind
action to shoot her, especially after he swore to my husband that a distant neighbor had
done the deed. There was no way that had been possible in the short time it took her to
find us and be comforted through our tears as she passed away.
Since legalization in 2012, recreational marijuana production and processing in
Washington State has provided millions in yearly tax revenue, with the noble intent, in
part, of supporting education.2 At the same time, not all residents living on properties
adjacent to production and processing operations are faring so well. My family, having
5
endured and fought against our neighbors’ unlawful marijuana operations for many years,
knows this for a fact.
I voted to legalize recreational marijuana, not because I was a consumer, but
because the campaign literature informed me that prisons were full of people convicted of
marijuana possession, and having personal experience with cancer, I understood that
many people needed this highly valued plant to be safe, accessible, and affordable.
Enjoyed by cultures around the world, whether part of sacred ritual or anti-war protest,
this mysterious plant species has always had a unique impact. People everywhere claim
the benefits of marijuana’s ability to ease suffering from pain, or to relax their heightened
stress.3 Further research on benefits obtained from cannabinoids found only in the
Cannabis species could reveal properties that one day, perhaps, might relieve those now
addicted to painkillers, or opioid medications. As more states legalize marijuana, fewer
people argue that individuals struggling to overcome pain should not have access to its
soothing effect. The issue that arises, then, is how to regulate legalized production of a
plant still considered a Schedule I drug by the Federal Government.*
Those were my thoughts as I considered Initiative 502 (I-502) and marked my
ballot in favor in 2012. Had I known the future racing toward me, I might have paused
and reconsidered. However, I realized that I too might benefit from marijuana’s
medicinal comfort someday. In fact, two years after the bill passed in Washington State, I
experienced a life-threatening tumor.
___________________________________
*A Schedule I drug is defined by the U.S. government as a substance having no currently accepted medical
use and a high potential for abuse.
6
At the time, my doctor warned me that my cancer could reactivate within the year.
“You’re healed,” he said, “but there’s still a window of time when it could all come
back.” With each passing month my life depended on managing the stress and sudden
panic attacks that would overwhelm my body in the middle of the night, especially as our
neighbors began destroying acres of land next to our property with the intent to produce
and process industrial-scale, commercial marijuana. Theirs wasn’t the hippie ideal
seemingly lost with the ’60s. It was the opportunist’s greed, no matter the environmental
or neighborhood cost.
Landlocked beside this activity, we observed three acres of hillside bulldozed and
graded into two level tiers as facilities were installed to cultivate marijuana. Our valley
had always been peaceful, a safe space to be immersed in nature where quail, pheasant,
deer, trillium, butterflies, and so many exquisite creatures had thrived in their niche. We
were shocked as the character of our rural residential neighborhood was so drastically
transformed. How could such alteration to the landscape be acceptable? Why hadn’t we
been asked, or even notified, about our neighbors’ intentions? Weren’t there regulations
to prevent this kind of environmental degradation? A few hundred feet beyond the site lie
acres of wetlands with a central creek that meanders across Yelm Prairie, joining other
creeks that flow to the Nisqually River. Wasn’t it the role of government to mitigate such
impacts to protect species habitat and the environment?
Realizing the implications for our future, we could not and would not remain
silent victims as events unfolded. Despite concerns about retaliation, we prepared our
arguments and did our best to inform Thurston County officials, firmly believing in
authority, regulations, and government oversight—until even that, we began to doubt—
7
and stepped into an environmental enigma, neighborhood nightmare, and unbelievable
battle that occupied our lives for three and a half years.
Until the introduction of marijuana to our neighborhood, my husband and I had
worked hard to live sustainably on our ten acres of land. I had built a simple log cabin
and he added the comforts of solar and wind energy, and because we cared about the
natural environment, the land gave back. Everything was a proud accomplishment—our
orchard, the bees, a carrot, a new round of chicks. Yet everything we loved came under
threat as the nightmare of a large-scale marijuana operation next door to us continued to
develop—disrupting our peace, investment, dreams for retirement, and state of wellbeing. We sought to be environmentally “green” while our neighbors pursued their
“green gold”, as much of it as they could produce.
Our neighbors had been raided by law enforcement for illegal marijuana
production on the property long before Initiative 502 appeared on the ballot.4 Over
several years, smoke from processing unfiltered, unlicensed marijuana had filled our
home and garden during late-summer evenings. We listened to young children playing in
the unfenced marijuana production and processing area. Situated in an obscure valley, our
neighbors could easily continue to produce bulk quantities of marijuana in greenhouses
and processing sheds located on the other side of our garden. When I approached the
local police about our concerns in 2015, I was told marijuana was now legal in
Washington State and that regulations were too confusing for law enforcement to do
anything about the situation. “Yes . . . but . . .” I started. “Potheads. We spend more time
defending their businesses from break-ins than assisting the neighbors,” the Yelm officer
responded.
8
Following the legalization of marijuana production and processing in Washington
State, voters expected government regulations to protect citizens and the environment
from any harmful effects associated with this developing industry. However, evidence in
public testimony describes negative impacts to communities from commercial marijuana
production facilities in Thurston County. Residents have complained about the skunk-like
odor of marijuana, increased traffic, generators, garbage, unsightly fences, safety
concerns, decreased property value, and loss of neighborhood character among other
issues in their neighborhoods.5 Two questions arise as a result: What potential
environmental impacts should be addressed when creating policy that governs large-scale
marijuana production and processing facilities? What social concerns should be
considered when drafting legislature, or an ordinance, to regulate recreational and
medical marijuana operations?
Commercial production and processing of marijuana in Washington State requires
a license from the WSLCB and special land use approval as outlined in county
regulations. Since November, 2013, Thurston County officials have enacted eleven
interim ordinances to regulate the production and processing of marijuana.6 The delay in
passing a final ordinance, after nearly five years’ deliberation, reflects the confusion and
debate that has surrounded this unfolding business model since voters legalized the
industry. Unfortunately, this confusion has led to detrimental outcomes for
neighborhoods, my own included.
Thurston County’s Interim Marijuana Ordinance
In 2013, the Washington State Liquor Control Board, later renamed The
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), held 13 public hearings, and
9
met with over 6,000 state residents, in order to draft new regulations to govern the
commercial production, processing and distribution of marijuana.7 The state’s total
population at the time was approximately 6,900,000.8 Therefore, less than 0.1% of the
population voiced an opinion in affecting marijuana policy that would impact, on some
level, all Washington State residents. (Determining what percentage of the 6,000 citizens
who met with WSLCB representatives were marijuana business enthusiasts, whose
voices might have swayed baseline policy to regulate this emerging industry, would be an
interesting statistic in future studies researching the subsequent impacts of policy
decisions to Washington residents.)
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana as a Schedule I
drug—defined as a substance having a high potential for abuse.9 The Federal Government
also classifies marijuana as horticulture and not an agricultural product. Kristi Weeks,
working as Policy Counsel with the Washington State Department of Health from 20152017, disclosed in an early interview that because marijuana cultivation is not recognized
as agriculture by the Federal Government, it cannot be recognized as such by the states.10
In contrast, an appeal in March, 2018 before the Environmental and Land Use Hearings
Office between marijuana producer Green Freedom LLC and Olympic Region Clean Air
Agency (ORCAA), determined that although the WSLCB regulates marijuana and
considers it a controlled substance, it is a plant and crop, therefore, cultivating marijuana
is a type of “agricultural activity.” The Hearing Examiner ruled in the case: “As a
horticultural crop, growing marijuana is an agricultural activity as described in RCW
70.94.640(5)(a). The Board concludes that because marijuana is grown to be packaged
and sold, it is an agricultural commodity.”11 RCW 70.94.640(5)(a) defines an agricultural
10
activity as: “the growing, raising, or production of horticultural or viticultural crops,
berries, poultry, livestock, shellfish, grain, mint, hay, and dairy products.”12
Leading up to the Green Freedom case, the confusion over whether marijuana
falls under an agricultural or horticultural umbrella led to a gray area in the crafting of an
early interim ordinance and zoning of commercial marijuana operations in Thurston
County. Despite federal definitions of marijuana as a horticultural plant, Thurston’s
Board of County Commissioners, defending the zoning of large-scale marijuana
operations in rural residential areas, stated that marijuana production “resembles a type of
agricultural use.”13 A letter from the Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department
sent to Goldwater Properties in May, 2015 stated:
The Board of Thurston County Commissioners, in Ordinance 14944,
adopted on November 12, 2013, found that marijuana production
“resembles a type of agricultural use.” Therefore, the proposed
marijuana operation has been reviewed as similar to an agricultural use.
That use was found to be appropriate for the location, as the property is
located in a zone that allows agricultural uses. The property is located
in a rural area where farming activities are common and longstanding.14
One could easily argue that “common and long-standing” farming activities are
rarely, if ever, protected by eight foot high chain-link or other significant security
fencing, and equipped with cameras every few feet, as mandated by the WSLCB.
Marijuana cultivation does indeed resemble agriculture in that plants are propagated,
fertilized, tended, processed, and eventually sold. Should marijuana be considered an
agricultural product, rather than a controlled substance and horticultural plant by the
Federal Government, marijuana production and processing could potentially fall under
qualification for farm subsidies.15 An interesting side-note, worthy of contemplation.
11
The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) began holding
meetings in 2014 to receive public input on regulations that would govern local
marijuana production and processing. Opponents to marijuana operations at different
locations in the county expressed their concerns about neighborhood safety, should the
facilities already under construction in their communities be granted land use approval.
Noxious odors, deforestation, earth movement, construction, noise, garbage, and
significant traffic increases, were dramatically altering their neighborhood’s rural
character into what resembled industrial activities.16
Written comments and testimony received by Thurston County officials at public
hearings since 2014 regarding the zoning of large-scale marijuana operations in rural
residential and agricultural areas, have brought attention to the unsightly fencing required
to secure a marijuana facility that often alters neighborhood character.17 Multiple security
cameras mandated to line the perimeter signal to passersby not to approach due to
perhaps the dangerous, or toxic activity conducted behind the chain-link barrier. Citizen
concerns involving commercial marijuana operations located in rural areas, as described
by attendees at Thurston County public hearings and through written correspondence,
include the following:
Loss of neighborhood character
Fear for personal and family safety
Increased criminal activity
Large-scale land conversion such as deforestation and grading
Rodent infestations
Unpermitted construction
Unlicensed marijuana production and processing
Unsightly fencing
Reduced property value
Risks to children and pets
Free roaming guard dogs
12
Water, soil, light, and air pollution
Intolerable skunk-like odor
Possible soil, air, and water contamination from pesticides, rodenticides,
and fertilizers
Potential threat to wetland areas
Detrimental impacts to habitat, species, and ecosystems
Overconsumption of water and depletion of aquifers
Degraded road conditions
Excessive noise from barking dogs, and industrial fans
Industrial, hazardous wastewater runoff
Worker traffic
Inappropriate garbage and toxic waste disposal
Noise and CO2 pollution from generators used in off-grid locations
Misrepresentation of facts in licensing and land use applications
Greenhouse Gas Emissions18
Figure 1: Unlicensed marijuana operations.
Marijuana production at two unpermitted facilities on the outskirts of Yelm,
Washington. (Photograph by author, October 3, 2016).
In my case, following the removal of all native vegetation and the hillside graded
into two level platforms spanning at least three acres (without a required Administrative
Special Use Permit (ASUP) or environmental review approved by Thurston County), my
neighbors began the construction of two unlicensed industrial-scale marijuana facilities
(Figure 1). What used to be a rural setting now resembled a detention-like environment.
13
As one observer noted “It was so strange seeing this place in the middle of the woods. If
Michelle hadn’t invited me there, I would never have known a marijuana farm existed in
this rural residential area. It’s an industrialized farm and it looks completely out of place
in the woods with the construction materials and the giant metal fences and cameras
surrounding the dual complex . . . The marijuana farm’s very presence near her property
is jarring and strange.”
At a Thurston County Public Planning Hearing to discuss renewal of the Interim
Marijuana Ordinance in the fall of 2015, officials still did not appear well-informed
regarding the impacts on citizens and the environment from industrial-sized marijuana
operations attempting to locate in rural residential neighborhoods. At the time, county
planners requested further investigation of the potential problems to communities,
including a review of decisions made in regulating marijuana production and processing
in other counties.19 The Board requested information on the following issues associated
with commercial marijuana operations:
Water quality, usage, and availability
Wetland buffers
County ordinances regarding light pollution
Zoning regulations in other counties
Comparison of county fencing requirements
Code enforcement
As a result, a planning commissioner memorandum dated February 24, 2016 stated
“County staff has recommended that the county’s current interim regulations be made
permanent and consistent with state laws that have been approved during the legislative
sessions.”20 The question remains: Have state laws, approved during legislative sessions
and adopted by Thurston County, adequately protected rural property owners and
residents from the intrusion of large-scale marijuana operations? I would argue they have
14
not, based upon my personal experience. “U.S. Attorney General Sessions criticizes
Washington State’s legal marijuana system” ran the media headlines in 2017.21 I would
have to agree with Mr. Sessions that Washington State’s legal marijuana system contains
some disturbing loopholes, as will be discussed in more detail further into this research.
Marijuana Licensing and Special Land Use
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) has divided marijuana licensing
into three categories: A Tier 1 operation is defined as less than 2,000 sq. ft. of plant
canopy; a Tier 2 as between 2,000 to 10,000 sq. ft.; and a Tier 3 can produce 10,000 to
30,000 sq. ft. of marijuana plant canopy.22 Prior to November 10, 2015, Tier 1, 2, and 3
marijuana operations were able to locate in rural residential and agricultural zones of
unincorporated Thurston County. The early Interim Marijuana Ordinance did not specify
that neighboring residents were to be notified, and therefore did not allow a comment
period regarding a marijuana production and processing application for an Administrative
Special Use Permit (ASUP) in these zones.23 Neighbors were left uninformed. As of
November 10, 2015, due to concerns expressed by negatively impacted residents, and
following further review by the Board of County Commissioners, Tier 1, 2, and 3
marijuana production and processing operations were no longer permitted in rural
residential or agricultural areas of Thurston County.24 However, producer/processor
applicants who had submitted an ASUP for a marijuana Home Occupation business in
these areas prior to this change in land use were granted an exception (regardless of
whether or not construction of a facility had already been initiated without the required
permits), and were therefore considered “vested.”
15
In this instance, vesting refers to an application for special land use as a Home
Occupation to produce and/or process marijuana that had been submitted during the time
period that Thurston County’s interim ordinance allowed for such activity within that
zone. Some operations, such as the one next door to my property, were considered vested
by Thurston County despite development of facilities without land use approval, known
production of unlicensed marijuana, existing property violations, and obvious
misrepresentation of facts.25
Marijuana Cultivation
As information, technology, and know-how have increased, so has the ability to
grow a marketable product in marijuana—whether legal or otherwise. With equipment
and guidelines readily available online, marijuana can now be cultivated in a variety of
climates and locations. Expertise describing production and processing techniques can
easily be distributed via word-of-mouth, underground communication networks, the
internet, grow shops, and specialized magazines.26
Producers cultivate marijuana for the plant’s unique cannabinoids derived from
the leaves and flowers of the female Cannabis sativa plant.27 Clones are taken from
mother plants to establish crops of all-female plants whose flowering can be artificially
encouraged through responses to diurnal dark periods.28 This technique, called
“sinsemilla,” produces a high concentration of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol),
marijuana’s main psychoactive ingredient.29 Manipulating harvest cycles indoors through
the sinsemilla technique can significantly increase production.30 Yet sinsemilla marijuana
production can be energy intensive. Mother plants and daughter clones require 18–24
hours of light per day, reduced to 12 hours at critical times to induce flowering.31
16
Outdoor cultivation produces significantly lower yields due to Washington’s
seasonal climate, when compared to other marijuana production methods. O’Hare, et al.
found in their research that on average, greenhouse cultivation is less energy intensive
than indoor methods (inside a permanent hardscape structure).32 However, I argue that
when maintaining high, year-round production levels using the sinsemilla technique, the
additional heating, light, and air circulation required to cultivate marijuana in soft-sided
greenhouses in Washington State increases energy usage and could result in greater
energy consumption than when cultivating marijuana in an indoor, solid-wall facility.
The Water Resources Program at the Washington State Department of Ecology
has stated that water consumption in outdoor marijuana operations is likely higher than
estimates provided by the WSLCB, due to the fact that outdoor environmental conditions
cannot be controlled.33 Unfortunately, in places where limited regulatory oversight and
mismanagement exist, outdoor marijuana operations have also created severe ecological
problems through degradation of wetlands in accessing water, land conversion, and
runoff of chemical waste.34, 35
In 2013, recommendations to the WSLCB favored marijuana cultivation in
“standard greenhouses” rather than “high-security greenhouses,” and in preference to
indoor growing operations. Although O’Hare’s team stated at the time that compared to
indoor production, marijuana produced in greenhouses entails “lower energy
consumption, GHG [Greenhouse Gas Emission] production, water consumption,
wastewater production, fertilizer application, and toxic risks,” these findings require
further study.36 Water and energy consumption, pollutants from industrial wastewater,
storm water runoff, and greenhouse gas emissions, could all prove to be more efficiently
17
managed in indoor operations as marijuana’s commercial production and processing
industry develops and less energy intensive technologies are introduced. Replacement of
fluorescent bulbs with LED lighting is just one example of a change that increases energy
efficiency. Indoor plant production cycles can be adjusted, through artificial lighting, to
utilize energy requirements during off-peak hours, causing less drain to the power grid at
crucial periods.37 When compared to insulated indoor operations, soft-sided greenhouses
could demand significantly more energy for heating and lighting during winter months,
and increased ventilation and water consumption during hot summers, causing additional
draws on the power grid during peak periods.
O’Hare, et al. did not consider the land conversion necessary for construction of
large commercial greenhouses, nor plastic waste products from used greenhouse
materials (unless constructed in glass or similar permanent material), that can contribute
to GHGs when burned or added to the landfill. The researchers also failed to consider the
disposal of hazardous wastewater from the chemicals known to be used in marijuana
production and processing.38, 39, 40 Outdoor and greenhouse marijuana production sites
located in rural or agricultural areas of Thurston County often rely on independent septic
systems for industrial wastewater management, or simply allow irrigation runoff directly
into the environment. Neither option adequately deals with hazardous chemicals lurking
in marijuana wastewater.
In addition, odor is one of the main complaints related to marijuana production
and processing and is difficult to monitor in outdoor or greenhouse production.41
Therefore, indoor production and processing facilities could be considered less intrusive
18
in appearance, function, and impact, while offering greater security to communities, than
greenhouse or outdoor marijuana cultivation in Washington State.
Environmental Impacts of Marijuana Production and Processing
Short Gianotti, et al. in their research, have said the horticultural practices of
marijuana cultivation have similar impacts to the environment as an agricultural crop,
however, mismanaged and unpermitted marijuana growing operations can contribute to
increased environmental damage.42 Where poor management due to unregulated
marijuana operations occur, degradation can include significant carbon dioxide
emissions, forest removal and topsoil depletion from land conversion, damage to
wetlands, chemical pollution of land and waterways, garbage and uncontrolled burning,
diminished surface water, and the consumption of fossil fuels.43, 44, 45 According to
researchers, “Even legal outdoor cultivation can cause deforestation and soil erosion.”46
Additional problems include poisoning of endangered and other species by use of toxic
pesticides and fertilizers.
Industrial Hazardous Waste
The Regulatory Guidance for Cannabis Operations, created in partnership with
multiple Washington State government agencies, states that regulations prohibit the
discharge of hazardous wastewater into the environment from marijuana production and
processing activities.47 According to the Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation
(IRAC), marijuana production and processing wastewater is considered a hazardous
industrial material and should not be discharged into an individual on-site sceptic
system.48 All marijuana wastewater must be discharged to a sewer system because
19
industrial wastewater released to an on-site sceptic system “can damage them and cause
harm to the environment” (Figure 2: Regulatory Guidance for Cannabis Operations).49
An individual household septic system could develop leakage from corrosive chemicals,
or other malfunction, resulting in hazardous waste used in marijuana cultivation and
processing contaminating surrounding soils and groundwater. I make the point that a
special land use permit, granted to a vested commercial marijuana operation that is
discharging industrial wastewater into an individual on-site sceptic system, could be in
violation of state regulations.
[IRAC] REGULATORY GUIDANCE FOR CANNABIS OPERATIONS
(August 2015) Section 1. SANITARY SEWER DISCHARGES:
Wastewater that results from any growing, cleaning, or rinsing processes is
considered an industrial waste (industrial wastewater) and is subject to local,
state, and federal regulations. This includes water used in extraction, hydroponic
irrigation and the manufacture of edible products…Prior to discharging
industrial waste to the sewer system, all discharges that generate and dispose of
industrial wastewater must contact their local sewer agency to obtain approval.
SEPTIC SYSTEM DISCHARGES:
No business may discharge industrial wastewater into an onsite septic system.
Septic systems, also known as Individual On-site Sewerage Systems, are
designed to treat only domestic wastewater, which means water carrying human
wastes…Industrial wastewater may not be discharged to any septic system
according to state regulations. Industrial wastewater discharges to septic
systems can damage them and cause harm to the environment.
Figure 2: Regulatory Guidance for Cannabis Operations.
WSLCB Guidelines Version 2.0 - Sanitary Sewer Discharges for marijuana industrial waste.
(Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC), 2015).50
20
In 2017, I asked an employee focused on water resources at the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE) why an exception was being made in state regulations to
allow my neighbor to discharge potentially chemical laden water directly onto the ground
when irrigating thousands of marijuana plants, and dump hazardous wastewater from
processing into an on-site sceptic system. She informed me that Thurston County has its
own set of rules in handling marijuana industrial wastewater, and therefore, the DOE
could do nothing to intervene. This answer disappointed and angered me since the
pollutants from the marijuana wastewater discharge could contaminate acres of wetland
below the site and enter Wheeler Creek that flows across Yelm Prairie before entering the
Nisqually River, the southernmost home to wild pink salmon.51
Water Usage
Water is a major component of marijuana cultivation. The plants require nutrient
rich, moist soils with good drainage in order to thrive.52 Therefore, irrigation is a
necessity during dry periods, with demand varying according to plant maturity,
cultivation method, system efficiency, time of year, and location. Water diversion to
irrigate thirsty marijuana plants has been an increasing problem in some areas of
California causing a reduction in stream flows normally required for spawning salmon
and other species survival.53 Severe drought conditions have further intensified the issue
in recent years whereby, according to Bauer, “. . . the streams in the study watersheds
simply cannot supply enough water to meet current demands for marijuana cultivation,
other human needs, and the needs of fish and wildlife.”54
The North Coastal Basin of California provides a clear example of quasi-legal
marijuana cultivation causing reduced availability of water in the area (Figure 3). Bauer,
21
et al. studied three watersheds in Humboldt County—Upper Redwood Creek, Salmon
Creek, and Redwood Creek South—and Outlet Creek in Mendocino County.55 The results
indicated that water demands from marijuana cultivation in these areas exceeded
streamflow during low-flow periods, thereby endangering documented populations of
sensitive aquatic species, such as salmon and steelhead trout.56 Researchers record that on
average, a single marijuana plant demands six gallons of water per day during the
growing season in California.57 In comparison, grape vines grown in similar conditions
are estimated to use half this amount.58 Similar environmental impacts to watersheds from
inadequate zoning and oversight of marijuana operations could become problematic for
aquatic and riparian-dependent species in Washington State, especially when one
considers climate change, potential water shortages during summer months, aquifer
depletion, and the impacts of accelerated population growth in the state.59, 60
Figure 3: Marijuana water diversions.
Marijuana operations divert, pump, and store water out of
a creek near Hayfork, California. (Whittaker, June 16, 2015).61
22
According to the Humboldt County Outdoor Medical Cannabis Ordinance Draft,
water demand is said to be approximately 22.7 liters (six gallons) per day per marijuana
plant from June to October.62 Using this figure, Bauer’s team estimated that 2,549,890
liters (673,910 gallons) per day were being used during production season to water an
estimated 112,330 marijuana plants (counted through aerial surveys in the study zone).63
Another group of researchers calculated approximately three billion liters (800 million
gallons) of water per square kilometer (km2) was being used in greenhouse marijuana
production and 430 million liters (11 million gallons) of water per km2 in outdoor
cultivation per growing season in the northern coastal region of California.64
The estimate of 22.7 liters (six gallons) per plant per day, as indicated by the
Humboldt Growers Association (HGA) in 2010, is not far from the 18.9 liters (five
gallons) per plant per day estimated by the United States Department of Justice 2007
Domestic Cannabis Cultivation Assessment.65 Other reports can vary widely from 3.8
liters (one gallon) to 56.8 liters (15 gallons) of water usage per marijuana plant per day.66
In comparison, an average household uses anywhere between 300 to 380 gallons of water
per day.67
The Water Resources Program at the DOE follow WSLCB guidelines that
indicate an estimated 3,900 gallons of water consumed per day for a Tier 3 marijuana
operation.68, 69 Bauer, et al. estimated each marijuana plant requires 1.115 m2 of space in a
greenhouse environment.70 Therefore, a Tier 1 operation (185.8 m2) could house
approximately 167 plants. Multiplying that by the amount of water needed per plant
yields a total water consumption per day of approximately 3,791 liters (1,001 gallons).
Increase that number by a factor of five for a Tier 2 operation (929 m2 = roughly 830
23
plants): water consumption would be an estimated 18,955 liters (5,007 gallons) per day.
Multiply that by three for a Tier 3 production facility (2,787 m2 of plant canopy = roughly
2,500 plants) and the average consumption could amount to a staggering 56,750 liters
(14,992 gallons) of water needed per day during high production periods. Even at half
this quota at 1,250 plants, a Tier 3 operation would be in non-compliance of the DOE’s
allowance of 5,000 gallons (18,927 liters) of water per day for single domestic or
industrial/commercial usage from a well, without acquiring a water right permit.71 Based
on the above calculations, the WSLCB estimate of 3,900 gallons per day (gpd) for a Tier
3 operation appears to be extremely low.
In Frequently asked
questions: water resource rules and regulations for
marijuana growing in Washington State, the DOE points out that a project including both
a Tier 2 and a Tier 3 operation would likely require a water right permit given the total
use could exceed 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) according to WSLCB estimates.72 This
becomes apparent in the 2016 Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources
Program table below:
Table 1: WSLCB estimates of marijuana water consumption.
(Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program, 2016). 73
Tier
1
2
3
Maximum square footage
2,000 sf
10,000 sf
30,000 sf
Estimated water demand
260 gpd
1,300 gpd
3,900 gpd
The Water Resources Department relies on this data provided by the WSLCB to
determine estimated water usage of a marijuana facility according to Tier level.74 I
suspect WSLCB water use estimates, depending on location, could prove highly
inaccurate. When I asked about the potential water consumption from two marijuana
24
operations on the ten-acre parcel next door to my property, the DOE expressed concern
and wrote a letter requesting more information on intended water use at the facility.75
However, the WSLCB never questioned water consumption, or the need for a water right
permit, when licensing the industrial-sized, dual operation.
The Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resource Program states:
“Growers are responsible for researching and evaluating their own water needs. Current
information regarding marijuana water use is largely anecdotal.”76 However, some
watersheds with limited water availability, such as the Quilcene-Snow Basin in Jefferson
County, or the Dungeness watersheds in Clallam County, are now required to install a
meter on every new well.77 In regards to other areas, such as the Yakima Basin Project
and the Colombia Basin Project in eastern Washington, the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) stated in May, 2014 that despite marijuana production being legal
under state law, any use of USBR water or facilities, such as canals, reservoirs, pumps,
etc., to irrigate marijuana cultivation is strictly prohibited under the Controlled Substance
Act of 1970. The same stipulation does not apply to western Washington where there are
no USBR projects.78
Two interesting exemptions exist in water use related to marijuana cultivation
under DOE regulations. The first is the fact that a land user can “water livestock with no
gpd limit.”79 Could this exemption potentially be misused by a facility combining
marijuana cultivation with stock raising, thereby avoiding the need for a water right
permit? At one point, my neighbor threatened to install pig pens along our shared
property boundary.
25
The second exemption worth pondering is that in Washington State, rainwater
collection systems do not require a water right permit when the water collected and stored
is distributed on the same parcel. Pumping water from exempt groundwater wells to a
holding tank connected to a rainwater collection system for later use is allowed, as long
as the amount does not exceed 5,000 gpd.80 One can only imagine the quantity of water
that could be consumed by a large marijuana facility operating under the above
exemptions in rural communities.
The DOE Water Resources Program guide mentions that the information
available in traditional crop irrigation in Washington does not include marijuana
cultivation data, due to the illegality of commercial marijuana production in Washington
State prior to Initiative 502.81 Water use differences according to climate variations in the
state would also impact marijuana irrigation demands. The DOE suggests that water
consumption would most likely be higher than WSLCB estimates in outdoor growing
operations since environmental conditions cannot be as readily controlled.82 This begs the
question why, five years after legalization, hasn’t the DOE, or the State, conducted
research to determine accurate water usage guidelines specific to Tier size, location, and
methods of marijuana cultivation?
In 2016, the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program
that promotes joint efforts and cooperation among various law enforcement, public
health, and regulatory agencies, reported that 58,604 illegal marijuana plants eradicated
that year in Washington State had consumed approximately 43.2 million gallons of water
during the growing season’s 120-day production cycle. Of this illegal production, 60%
26
were being cultivated on state lands.83 Government agencies would do well to consider
such findings when creating legislation regulating marijuana production in the state.
Chemicals and Pollutants in Cultivation
The Cannabis sativa plant is susceptible to a variety of infestations from pests and
fungal diseases on stems, leaves, and flowers. Insects, spider mites, aphids, thrips, mice,
and rats are pests known to be bothersome to marijuana cultivators.84, 85 In fact, as a result
of the large-scale marijuana production and processing facilities introduced to our
neighborhood, my family has had to deal with a significant increase in rat populations
that has proven difficult to eradicate.
According to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), only “specified soil
amendments, fertilizers, other crop production aids, and pesticides may be used in the
production of marijuana.”86 WAC 314-55-084 refers to the Washington State Department
of Agriculture (WSDA) list of approved pesticides to be used in the cultivation,
processing, and handling of marijuana; however, marijuana producers need greater
expertize in use of those chemicals.87 Inappropriately applied and poorly monitored toxic
herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides can lead to serious environmental concerns from
marijuana cultivation including poisoned wildlife, degraded habitat, and contaminated
waterways.88 Public health risks in “do-it-yourself” pesticide use can cause exposure to
toxic chemicals in their preparation, application, and disposal resulting in illness that can
bring about headaches, nausea, and vomiting.89 Without sufficient knowledge, training,
and oversight, dangerous chemical applications can pose risks to workers, regulators,
neighbors, soils, watersheds, pets, children, and wildlife.
27
Researchers have noted significant ecological degradation resulting in poisoned
fish, other wildlife, and polluted waterways due to excessive chemical application in
marijuana operations in the North Coastal Basin of California and the Sierra National
Forest.90, 91, 92, 93 Because large-scale marijuana production requires a high use of fertilizers,
the resulting runoff can cause harmful algal blooms and eutrophication in nearby
wetlands.94 Pesticides can enter the food chain and cause further harm to species,95
including humans. Rodenticides can cause neurological damage and internal bleeding.
Dozens of fisher, a rare and re-introduced forest carnivore to areas of Washington State,
have been found dead due to pesticide poisoning from illicit marijuana cultivation in
California.96, 97 Fungicides, chemicals from fertilizers, diesel fuel, human waste, plant
hormones, and soil amendments are all wreaking havoc in areas of the California
marijuana cultivation environment.98
Dr. Mourad Gabriel, a wildlife biologist and executive director of the non-profit
Integral Ecology Research Center (IERC), regularly finds discarded Gatorade bottles or
tin cans that test positive for toxic chemicals, such as Carbofuran, at illegal marijuana
cultivation sites in northern California forests.99 Carbofuran is a broad spectrum
carbamate pesticide highly toxic to birds that has been banned in the United States,
Canada, and the European Community.100, 101 Hidden cultivation sites on forested land and
private property in some areas of California have caused such severe contamination that
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Karen Escober, described them as superfund sites requiring
hazardous waste cleanup due to the severity in human and environmental health risks.102
According to the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program,
“Over 400 pounds of fertilizers, chemicals, and pesticides were removed from illegal
28
marijuana growing operations [in Washington State] in 2016.”103 Carbofuran, under the
tradename Furadan, was discovered at one illegal marijuana production facility. Although
it has been used in agriculture for decades, Furadan is an insecticidal and nematicidal
product and neurotoxin said to be highly dangerous to humans.104
Agronomic practices using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technologies in
marijuana cultivation could reduce chemical pollutants present in irrigation waters and
storm runoff, however, oversight that could ensure proper adherence to IPM policies and
practices is not likely to be conducted by the WSLCB, or any other government agency.
Some of the millions of dollars in tax revenue the industry is already generating should
be available to guarantee environmental oversight. Unfortunately, this has not been my
experience. Apart from the Washington State Department of Health, which tests for
contaminants in all medical marijuana products sold through licensed stores, industry
regulators (WSLCB testing labs) only randomly test marijuana sold in the recreational
market for pesticide content.105
Solid Waste Disposal
State regulations do not allow for the unauthorized burning of toxic waste. My
neighbor originally named his marijuana business “Organic Harvest” and in his land use
application stated “We are committed to upholding the local Yelm community and have
taken careful consideration to thoughtfully design our operation in order to maximize our
positive impact on the surrounding area.”106 Yet he has repeatedly left piles of toxic
garbage exposed for months on his property, then burned them in the open, even during a
Burn Ban (Figure 4).107 A Notice of Complaint by the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA) records:
29
I arrived at the facility at ~1015 [AM] and observed a pile of
prohibitive material topped with branches smolder/smoking. I paced the
pile off at ~12’Lx15’Wx4’H…I was made aware that there were two
marijuana operations on this property, Organic Harvest and Blue
Moose, and some of the prohibitive materials looked like it was
associated with those operations. The prohibitive material included but
was not limited to construction/demo debris, plastic wrap, plastic
banding, cardboard boxes, metal cans, plastic bottles, Styrofoam cups,
and a plastic chair.108
Figure 4: Trash and burning at a marijuana facility.
Construction and other toxic debris were burned at this unpermitted marijuana facility
on the outskirts of Yelm, Washington. (Photographs by author, 2016).
Falsely posturing as the business owner of the leased Tier 2 marijuana operation
on his property, my neighbor further claimed “Not only are we committed to the people
and nearby community of Yelm, but another important core principle at Blue Moose is
the preservation of the broader environment.”109 If “preservation of the broader
environment” was this producer’s true intent, why are piles of garbage still left beside the
30
production site area and elsewhere on the property to invite an infestation of rats that
overrun adjacent properties? Increased cases of Hantavirus, a disease attributed to mice
and rats, were recorded in the first half of 2017 in Washington State (Figure 5).110 The
virus can result in death in some cases and, with rats being attracted to garbage,
chemicals, and marijuana, this became yet another stressful concern to my family.
Figure 5: Hantavirus Cases and Deaths 1994 – 2017.
Increased Hantavirus deaths in Washington State are notable in 2017. Whether the
marijuana industry had any impact in this increase cannot be determined.
*2017 represents partial year data as of 7/18/17 that is subject to change.
(Washington State Department of Health 2017.)111
Research into waste attributed to illegal marijuana farms has shown that some
areas in California national forests became so toxic that law enforcement agents were
sent to the hospital with “skin rashes, respiratory problems and other symptoms.”112
Discrepancies in federal and state drug laws have caused incongruity in how states
address pesticide use and policy violations. This leaves workers and others involved in
marijuana cultivation, as well as regulators, vulnerable to health risks.113 Ecologist Dr.
31
Mourad Gabriel, an expert in researching toxic waste from illegal marijuana farms, has
visited over 100 California cultivation sites and calculated “that federal land in California
contains 731,000 pounds of solid fertilizer, 491,000 ounces of concentrated liquid
fertilizer and 200,000 ounces of toxic pesticides” as a result of the industry.114 Toxicants
(manmade poisons), could contaminate water supplies in Washington after leaching into
the soil, and, with the state’s abundant rainfall, be washed into sensitive watersheds
without appropriate monitoring of marijuana chemical uses.
The mood-altering natural cannabinoid, THC, present in ever-increasing strength
in marijuana flowers and other products, could also find its way into Washington
waterways. An article from the Seattle Patch appeared to confirm this with the headline:
“THC In Seattle Water ‘Highest Detected In The World’.”115 University of Washington
researchers tested Seattle’s wastewater for the presence of THC in 2016 in order to
understand the prevalence of marijuana use in the Seattle area. They found the rate to be
approximately 416 milligrams of THC per 1,000 people in Seattle. With a population of
around 704,000 at the time, this meant an estimated 300,000 milligrams of THC was
potentially contained in Seattle’s water.116 One has to wonder how much THC could be
passing through municipal filtration systems and escaping to surrounding waterways.
Some waste pesticides and discarded light bulbs used in marijuana production and
processing are considered hazardous waste. Special recycling programs have been
established by the Washington State Department of Agriculture to handle such
material.117 However, use of this disposal option depends on marijuana producers and
processors ethically managing such materials according to state industrial waste
management guidelines.
32
Mercury Contamination
Another ecological concern associated with the marijuana industry is the improper
disposal of non-recyclable, high-intensity discharge (HID) lighting materials. Unless
handled properly, HIDs can leech mercury and other toxic chemicals into the
environment. A single HID bulb contains approximately 30 mg of neurotoxic mercury,
with contamination estimated to be as high as 30 mg of mercury for every kilogram of
marijuana produced when HID materials are not disposed of in an appropriate manner.118
Conscientious waste management in commercial and medical marijuana cultivation, and
the installation of more efficient and less toxic LED lighting systems, is essential in the
industry to reducing mercury waste from contaminating the environment.
Since January 1, 2013, the WSLCB has required that all mercury-containing light
bulbs be recycled as outlined in RCW 70.275.080.119 Unfortunately, my neighbor, at the
time of this writing, has had an open dump truck full of construction and marijuana
cultivation debris parked next to my driveway for more than a year. I can only imagine
the potential contaminants leaching onto the ground from discarded light bulbs and other
toxic materials.
Energy Consumption
According to Sweet, the energy intensity of marijuana production and processing
in Washington State has not been widely researched.120 Although more efficient
technologies are being developed, the large amount of electricity needed to run lights,
climate controls, and irrigation in indoor and greenhouse operations requires further
study.
33
Research conducted in 2012 estimated that 1% of all electrical energy use that
year nationwide, the equivalent of two million average homes, was consumed in the
cultivation of marijuana. This results from the industry’s heavy dependency on irrigation,
heating, lighting, and air quality control, at an estimated cost of $6 billion.121 A room
measuring 4’x4’x8’ producing just four marijuana plants consumes approximately 13,000
kWh/year in electricity for lighting, dehumidification, ventilation, irrigation, heating,
cooling, and processing in standard operations.122 Working backwards to the source, we
also know that in the United States, generation of electricity from power plants is the
largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.123 Therefore, a 1% consumption of the
nation’s electrical power would be a further cost in marijuana cultivation and processing
contributing to pollution in the environment.
Although outdoor marijuana cultivation is less energy intensive than greenhouse
or indoor marijuana production, consumers believe higher potency marijuana is derived
from indoor cultivation. More potent marijuana commands a higher price in the
marketplace, thereby driving production indoors. Ultimately, whether or not potency is
increased through indoor cultivation, consumer preference for higher THC content could
benefit communities and the environment by focusing production indoors. According to
Mills, by implementing more energy efficient systems design in indoor marijuana
operations, energy consumption could be reduced by at least 75%, potentially making
indoor hardscape marijuana cultivation a more viable alternative in overall energy use
when compared to soft-sided greenhouse cultivation in Washington State.124
34
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs)
One kilogram of processed marijuana is estimated to emit 4,600 kg (10,141
pounds) of CO2—that amount doubles when producers use diesel generators to power
operations.125 In addition, carbon dioxide is often injected into marijuana production
facilities to enhance plant growth and increase yield.126 Propane or natural gas used in
production, heating, and processing also contributes to the industry’s large carbon
footprint.127
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) can be released from marijuana operations in
varying amount, depending on the size of the operation, and on whether an outdoor,
greenhouse, or indoor installation is used. Transportation of production/processing
supplies and distribution of end products adds to GHGs emitted by the industry.
Alterations to land cover type and indirect inputs such as the production of fertilizers
used in cultivation also contribute to GHGs. All told, CO2 emissions from marijuana
production in the United States have been estimated at 15 million metric tons per year, or
the equivalent emissions of three million average-sized cars.128
According to Mills, depending on the type of generator, up to 70 gallons of diesel
fuel, or 140 gallons of gasoline, can be consumed to grow one indoor marijuana plant.129
Based on these data, if a plant needs approximately 1.115 m2 of grow space,130 then an
off-grid Tier 1 operation with 167 plants, could consume as much as 11,690 gallons of
diesel, or up to 23,380 gallons of gasoline, per harvest cycle. Approximately 22.4 pounds
of CO2 are emitted from burning one gallon of diesel fuel. About 19.6 pounds of CO2 are
produced from burning one gallon of gasoline that does not contain fuel ethanol.131 This
equates to approximately 262,000 pounds of CO2 from diesel fuel, and 458,000 pounds of
35
CO2 from gasoline, potentially being emitted per harvest cycle with a Tier 1 marijuana
facility powered by either diesel or gasoline generator.
Public records document the constant use of multiple generators to operate the
unpermitted marijuana facility next door to my property.132 After several years of seasonal
production of thousands of marijuana plants on the property, with irrigation and lights
powered by generators, our neighbors’ contribution of GHGs to the environment has
been considerable.
Figure 6: Marijuana’s carbon footprint.
CO2 emissions from indoor marijuana production. (Mills, 2012).133
Figure 6 shows the energy demands of an indoor marijuana facility.134 Since the
figure was created, energy efficient technologies have been advanced in the industry,
including LED lighting systems that would reduce this earlier estimate of energy
consumption. Research has determined that indoor marijuana operations could reduce
GHG emissions by concentrating lighting and watering requirements during nighttime
hours when the overall demand for electricity is lower.135, 136 Successful marijuana
production during the growing season requires significant light and irrigation when hotter
36
temperatures also increase daily power usage by the population due to the need for airconditioning in homes and offices. With nights being generally cooler in Washington
State, the power load is reduced during those hours, making it an ideal period for an
indoor marijuana facility to schedule irrigation and artificial lighting to coincide with
nightly demand reductions. A well-insulated structure, utilizing solar energy and natural
light during daytime hours, and cycled with off-peak power periods, could certainly
decrease energy usage and GHG output.
Land Conversion and Storm Runoff
Outdoor commercial marijuana cultivation requires flat areas to locate the large
hoop or more permanent greenhouse structures needed for successful year round
operations in cooler climates such as Washington State. Where level ground isn’t
available, grading is necessary. In California, marijuana cultivation has led to degradation
of the environment through unlawful clearing of native vegetation, grading of
mountaintops, and large areas flattened to make way for roads, outdoor growing areas,
and parking lots.137, 138 Deforestation, earth movement, and terracing have been common
practices in several locations converted to marijuana production in Thurston County.139, 140
The estimated earth movement next door to my property was several times higher than
the 500 cubic yards (approximately 1/3 of an acre at one foot deep) allowed by the county
without requiring a grading permit AND environmental review prior to land conversion
(Figure 7). In fact, Thurston County guidelines define the need for a grading permit
according to the following:
More than 7,000 square feet of a clearing activity (clearing and grubbing,
conversion to lawn, conversion to pasture, etc.).
More than 50 cubic yards of grading.
37
If any amount of grading or removal of vegetation is proposed within
a Critical Area.
If grading, filling or excavating more than 500 cubic yards of material. In
this case, you will be required to submit a SEPA checklist before a grading
permit will be issued (SA 027).141
Despite the above requirements, and despite onsite inspections conducted by
county officials, my neighbor applied for a grading permit for the earth displacement only
after my husband, a geotechnical engineer with 40 years professional experience, queried
the lack of such records in county files. Ultimately, it was our neighbor’s tardiness in
acquiring the necessary grading permits, after-the-fact, that enabled my family to legally
challenge, and defeat, his marijuana operations.142
Figure 7: Unpermitted land conversion for two marijuana operations.
Illegal earth movement for an industrial-scale marijuana facility on the outskirts of
Yelm, Washington. (Photographs by author, 2015).
38
As exemplified by the facility next door to my property, land management
involving marijuana operations can be difficult to monitor when located out-of-sight on
private property. According to Short Gianotti, et al., California researchers have been
hindered in collecting detailed assessments of environmental damage from illicit
marijuana cultivation due to concerns about safety and retaliation at such sites.143 The
nature of the industry and political forces involved have limited researchers’ ability to
conduct empirical studies of the environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation in the
Sierra National Forest.144 “Even as California embraces the booming legal marijuana
market . . . it is also seeing an explosion in illegal cultivation . . . Growers have followed,
detained, threatened, pursued, and shot at officers and civilians, including scientists and
field techs.”145
Northwest HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) is a program
comprised of 13 initiatives that involve federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement.
HIDTA initiatives “target major illicit drug trafficking organizations through aggressive
investigations and enforcement that include sources of supply, distribution, drug
interdiction and drug related financial and violent crimes.”146 According to Northwest
HIDTA, Washington has had widespread availability of marijuana for decades. The
program’s most recent report states that Mexican National cartels are primarily
responsible for illegal outdoor marijuana production in eastern Washington, while Asian
criminal organizations are prevalent in the use of homes for indoor operations in western
Washington.147 HIDTA reported approximately 373,778 illegal marijuana plants
eradicated since the state legalized recreational use. Sixty percent of the illegal
production occurred on state lands in 2016.148
39
Obscure locations on state and private lands hinder adequate oversight of illicit
behavior. This can lead to enforcement challenges. Prior to policy changes implemented
on July 1, 2016, the medical marijuana market in Washington State was largely
unenforced.149, 150 A brief overview of policy history, and an investigation into loopholes
before and after the 2016 revised marijuana regulations were introduced, will be
discussed in the next section.
________________________________________________________________________
1. Thurston County Washington. (2018). Chapter 20.54 – Special Use. 20.54.040 – General
Standards 3.(a). Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://library.municode.com/wa/thurston_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TI
T20ZO_CH20.54SPUS
2. Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2016). Marijuana Revenue Appropriations.
Washington State Office of Financial Management. Available:
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/budget/documents/Marijuana_R
evenue_Approps_2016.pdf
3. Roffman, R.A. (1982). Marijuana As Medicine. Madrona Publishers. Seattle, Washington.
4. Russell, R. (2008, November 6). Affidavit of Ryan Russell in Support of probable Cause for
Seizure. No. 08-2-02591-5. Detective Ryan Russell. Superior Court of the State of
Washington in and for the County of Thurston County.
5. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2015, November
10). 1) Opportunity for the Public to Address the Board. Thurston County
Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/BOCCPublic/DocView.aspx?id=5629690&page=2
&searchid=bb4277ce-f4f1-4203-88a0-2c1c7f1645a2
6. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1).
Ordinance No. 15613. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington.
Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=9808796&searchid=
1f8ab1ca-43b7-4996-b625-607e3a20889a&dbid=0
7. Pardo, B. (2014, May 18). Cannabis policy reforms in the Americas: A comparative analysis
of Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay. Science Direct: International Journal of
Drug Policy. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.05.010
8. Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2017, August 16). Total Population and
Percent Change 1990-2017. Washington State Office of Financial Management.
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/statewide-data/washingtontrends/population-changes/total-population-and-percent-change
9. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2017). Drug Schedules. U.S. Department of
Justice. Available: https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml
10. Weeks, K. (2016). Policy Counsel at the Washington State Department of Health.
Washington State Department of Health. Tumwater, Washington. Personal interview.
40
11. Francks, H. C. (2018, March 20). PCHB NO. 17-028c Green Freedom LLC v. Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency. Pg. 17. Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office.
Tumwater, Washington.
12. Francks, H.C. (2018, March 20).
13. Smith, R. (2015, May 19). Letter to Goldwater Properties. Project No. 2015100095. Folder
Sequence No. 15 100286 ZM. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department.
Olympia, Washington.
14. Smith, R. (2015, May 19).
15. Weeks, K. (2016).
16. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2016, June 22). Thurston
County Board Briefing. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/board-briefingmarijuana-regulations-20160623.pdf
17. Holman, I. (2016). Not In Our Neighborhood. Letter of Complaint submitted to Thurston
County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. Yelm, Washington
resident.
18. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2016, June 22).
19. Chalem, K. (2016, February 24). Memorandum: Marijuana Interim Regulations. Staff
responses to questions posed by Planning Commission members Thurston County
Washington Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting
20. Chalem, K. (2016, February 24).
21. Young, B. (2017, August 5). U.S. Attorney General Sessions criticizes Washington State’s
legal marijuana system. The Seattle Times Local News. Seattle, Washington.
Available: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sessions-raises-concerns-overwashingtons-marijuana-legalization/
22. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). What is a marijuana producer license and what
are the requirements and fees related to a marijuana producer license? WAC 314-55075. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-075
23. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2014, January
21). Ordinance No. 14978. Codes & Ordinances. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=3232625&page=1&s
earchid=f5891a2e-723c-4ed1-90cd-a9b8df100cfc
24. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2015, November
10). Ordinance No. 15210. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=5581486&searchid=53a0f74e-4ae3-4061-8df119824224fe03&dbid=0
25. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018). Document Library Research Project No.
2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Resource
Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
26. Decorte, T., Potter G.R. (2015). The globalisation of cannabis cultivation: A growing
challenge. ScienceDirect: International Journal of Drug Policy. Elsevier. Available:
www.elseveir.com/locate/drugpo
41
27. Cervantes, J. (2006). Marijuana Horticulture: The Indoor/Outdoor Medical Grower’s Bible.
Van Patten Publishing.
28. Cervantes, J. (2006).
29. Piljman, F.T.A., Rigter, S.M., Hoek, J., Goldschmidt, H.M.J, Niesink, R.J.M. (2005).
Strong increase in total delta-THC in cannabis preparations sold in Dutch coffee
shops. Addiction Biology, 10(2), 171-180. Available:
http://doi.org/10.1080/13556210500123217
30. Piljman et al. (2005).
31. Cervantes, J. (2006).
32. O’Hare, M., Sanchez, D.L., Alstone, P. (2013, June 28). Environmental risks and
opportunities in cannabis cultivation. BOTEC Analysis Corp. Available:
http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/BOTEC_Whitepaper_Final.pdf
33. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
Frequently asked questions: water resource rules and regulations for marijuana
growing in Washington State. Publication No. 14-11-003. Washington State
Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. Lacey, Washington.
34. Bauer, S., Olson, J., Cockrill, A., Van Hattem, M., Miller, L., Tauzer, M., Leppig, G.
(2015, March 18). Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on
aquatic habitat in four northwestern California watersheds. PLOS ONE 10 (art.
e0120016). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120016
35. Bernstein, S. (2017, August 6). Toxic waste from U.S. pot farms alarms experts. MSN
News.
36. O’Hare, et al. (2013, June 28).
37. Sweet, S.L. (2016, June). The energy intensity of lighting used for the production of
recreational cannabis in Washington State and implications for energy efficiency. The
Evergreen State College. Olympia, Washington. Master of Environmental Studies
Thesis.
38. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
39. O’Hare, et al. (2013, June 28).
40. Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC). (2015, August). Regulatory
Guidance for Cannabis Operations Version 2.0. Section 4. Interagency Resource for
Achieving Cooperation (IRAC).
41. McNair, F.L. (2018, March 16). Executive Director. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA). Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
42. Short Gianotti, A.G., Harrower, J., Baird, G., Sepaniak, S. (2016, November 18). The
Quasi-legal challenge: Assessing and governing the environmental impacts of
cannabis cultivation in the North Coastal Basin of California. Science Direct Land
Use Policy. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.016
43. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
44. Gabriel, M.W., Woods, L.W., Poppenga, R., Sweitzer, R.A, Thompson, C., Matthews,
S.M., Higley, J.M., Keller, S.M., Purcell, K., Barrett, R.H., Wengert, G.M., Sacks,
B.N., Clifford,D.L. (2012, July 13). Anticoagulant rodenticides on our public and
community lands: Spatial distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest
carnivore. PLOS ONE 7 (art. e40163). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040163
45. Short Gianotti, et al. (2016, November 18).
42
46. Seaman, L. (2015, July 10). Marijuana’s Environmental Impacts. Water and Wildlife.
Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Available:
https://woods.stanford.edu/news-events/news/marijuanas-environmental-impacts
47. Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC). (2015, August).
48. Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC). (2015, August).
49. Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC). (2015, August).
50. Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC). (2015, August).
51. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2018). Freshwater fishing: Nisqually River.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/pink/nisqually.html
52. Cervantes, J. (2006).
53. Kovner, G. (2015, June 30). Fisheries panel to hold Sacramento hearing on water use by
pot farms. The Press Democrat. Santa Rosa, California.
54. Bauer, S., Olson, J., Cockrill, A., Van Hattem, M., Miller, L., Tauzer, M., Leppig, G.
(2015, March 18). Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on
aquatic habitat in four northwestern California watersheds. Pg. 20. PLOS ONE 10
(art. e0120016). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120016
55. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
56. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
57. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
58. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
59. Carah, J.K., Howard J.K., Thompson S.E., Short Gianotti A.G., Bauer S.D., Carleson S.M.,
Dralle D.N., Gabriel M.W., Hulette L.L., Johnson B.J., Knight C.A., Kupferberg S.J.,
Martin S.L., Naylor R.L., Power M.E. (2015, August). High time for conservation:
Adding the environment to the debate on marijuana liberalization. BioScience 65:
822-829.
60. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Climate Change indicators in the
United States 2016. Fourth edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430R-16-004. Available: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
61. Whittaker, M. (2015, June 16). High and Dry in California: How pot growers are illegally
diverting water from California’s streams and creeks. The Wall Street Journal. New
York, N.Y. Available: https://graphics.wsj.com/embeddablecarousel/?slug=CAWATER
62. Humboldt Growers Association (HGA). (2010, December 13). Humboldt County Outdoor
Medical Cannabis Ordinance Draft-Water Usage. Humboldt Growers Association
(HGA). Humboldt County, California. Available:
http://library.humboldt.edu/humco/holdings/HGA2.pdf
63. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
64. Carah, et al. (2015, August).
65. United States Department of Justice. (2007, February). Domestic Cannabis Cultivation
Assessment. Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Center. Product No. 2007L0848-001.
66. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
43
67. Cline, V. (2018, February 16). Compliance and Enforcement Officer. Washington State
Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office Water Resources Program. Lacey,
Washington. Personal interview.
68. Cline, V. (2017, February 23). Ground Water Withdrawal and Irrigation Water for
Commercial/Industrial Use – Parcel No. 22603110000. Washington State Department
of Ecology Water Resources Program. Lacey, Washington. Letter.
69. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
70. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
71. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
72. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
73. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
74. Cline, V. (2018, February 16).
75. Cline, V. (2017, February 23).
76. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
Frequently asked questions: water resource rules and regulations for marijuana
growing in Washington State. Publication No. 14-11-003. Pg. 2. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Lacey, Washington.
77. Cline, V. (2018, February 16).
78. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
79. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
Frequently asked questions: water resource rules and regulations for marijuana
growing in Washington State. Publication No. 14-11-003. Pg. 2. Washington State
Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. Lacey, Washington.
80. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
81. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
82. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resources Program. (2016, December).
83. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact
Report Volume 2. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative
Support Center Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
84. McPartland, J.M., Clarke, R.C., Watson, D.P. (2000). Hemp diseases and pests:
management and biological control: an advanced treatise. CABI Publishing. New
York, N.Y.
85. Stone, D. (2014, May 20). Cannabis, pesticides and conflicting laws: The dilemma for
legalized states and implications for public health. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology. Available: www.elseveir.com/locate/yrtph
86. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). Production of marijuana WAC 314-55-084.
Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-084
87. Stone, D. (2014, May 20).
88. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
89. Stone, D. (2014, May 20).
90. Bernstein, S. (2017, August 6).
91. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
44
92. Carah, et al. (2015, August).
93. Thompson, C., Sweitzer, R., Gabriel, M., Purcell, K., Barrett, R., Poppenga, R. (2013, May
14). Impacts of rodenticide and insecticide toxicants from marijuana cultivation sites
on fisher survival rates in the Sierra National Forest, California. Conservation Letters
7: 91–102.
94. Short Gianotti, et al. (2016, November 18).
95. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
96. Gabriel, et al. (2012, July 13).
97. Thompson, et al. (2013, May 14).
98. Smith, J. (2017, March 31). Illegal Pot Farms Are Poisoning California’s Forests. The
Atlantic. Boston, Massachusetts. Available:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/backcountry-drug-war/521352/
99. Smith, J. (2017, March 31).
100. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). (1993, September). Carbofuran: Pesticide
Information Profile. Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan
State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis.
Available: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryldicrotophos/carbofuran-ext.html
101. Smith, J. (2017, March 31).
102. Bernstein, S. (2017, August 6).
103. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana
Impact Report Volume 2. Pg. 12. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
Investigative Support Center Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
104. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June).
105. Weeks, K. (2018). Government Relations Director at the Center for Public Affairs.
Washington State Department of Health. Tumwater, Washington. Personal interview.
106. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, November 22). Administrative Special
Use Permit – Marijuana Production and Processing. Project No. 2014101488. Folder
sequence No 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department.
Olympia, Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting
107. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). (2016, December 5). ORCAA Complaint
Form ID 17412. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). Olympia, Washington.
108. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). (2016, December 5).
109. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, August 23). Completeness Transmittal
Memorandum. Project No. 2014101488. Folder sequence No 14 109460 ZM.
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting
110. Washington State Department of Health. (2017). Hantavirus Cases and Deaths in
Washington State. Washington State Department of Health. Available:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/Hantavirus
111. Washington State Department of Health. (2017).
112. Bernstein, S. (2017, August 6).
113. Stone, D. (2014, May 20).
114. Bernstein, S. (2017, August 6).
45
115. McNamara, N. (2017, August 10). THC in Seattle water ‘Highest Detected in the
World’.” Seattle Patch. Seattle, Washington. Available:
https://patch.com/washington/seattle/thc-seatte-water-highest-detected-world
116. McNamara, N. (2017, August 10).
117. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (2017). Regulatory Guidance for Indoor
Marijuana Producers. Hazardous Waste Management. Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available: http://www.lcb.wa.gov
118. O’Hare, et al. (2013, June 28).
119. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). RCW 70.275.080. Requirement to recycle endof-life mercury-containing lights. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.275.080
120. Sweet, S.L. (2016, June).
121. Mills, E. (2012, April 17). The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Energy
Policy 46: 58–67. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.023
122. Mills, E. (2012).
123. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016).
124. Mills, E. (2012).
125. Mills, E. (2012).
126. O’Hare, et al. (2013, June 28).
127. Mills, E. (2012).
128. Mills, E. (2012).
129. Mills, E. (2012).
130. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
131. United States Energy Information Administration. (2017, May 19). How much carbon
dioxide is produced from burning gasoline and diesel fuel? Independent Statistics &
Analysis U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=307&t=11
132. Kantas, T. (2016, October 21). Administrative Special Use Permit – Marijuana
Production & Processing. Planning (3.) Project No. 2014101488. Folder Sequence
No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia,
Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=MinutesTextSearch
133. Mills, E. (2012).
134. Mills, E. (2012).
135. O’Hare, et al. (2013, June 28).
136. Sweet, S.L. (2016, June).
137. Bauer, et al. (2015, March 18).
138. Short Gianotti, et al. (2016, November 18).
139. Saint, A. (2017, April 12). Memorandum – Stormwater Scoping Report – Response Jim
Hayes Site Plan. Project No. 2014101488. Thurston County Department of Resource
Stewardship Stormwater Utility. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
140. Holman, I. (2018, May 1). Yelm, Washington resident. Personal interview.
46
141. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Depertment. (2018). When do I need a permit?
Thurston County Washington Permitting and Land Use Resource Stewardship
Department. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/faq/faqclearing.html
142. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018).
143. Short Gianotti et al. (2016, November 18).
144. Short Gianotti et al. (2016, November 18).
145. Smith, J. (2017, March 31).
146. Northwest HIDTA. (2018) Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat
Assessment and Strategy for Program Year 2018. Northwest HIDTA. Seattle,
Washington.
147. Northwest HIDTA. (2018).
148. Northwest HIDTA. (2018).
149. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20).
150. Snaza, J. (2018, February 22). Thurston County Sheriff. Thurston County Sheriff’s
Department. Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
47
________________________________________________________________________
CH. 1.2 MARIJUANA POLICY—MEDICAL TO RECREATIONAL
Sooner or later we will learn that plants with effects on the body and
mind, such as marijuana, are what we make of them. Used intelligently
and carefully they can help us. Used irresponsibly they can harm us.
The problem is not to try to eradicate the plants (impossible)
or stop people from using them (also impossible) but to teach
the principles of safe interraction with them.
Andrew Weil, Author of The Marriage of the Sun and Moon, 19801
Marijuana’s Medical Mystery
Rooted in darkness, lit from below, the artist’s image grows upward and outward
to fill the canvas. Leaves reflect light from an unknown source to the viewer, yet nothing
dispels the deep void that suspends this two dimensional portrayal of immortality. Fine,
gold-tinted branches weave laterally, splayed outward from a thin, central trunk—the
shape of the marijuana leaf clearly discernable. The image borrows an ancient symbol
that represented eternal life. But is this concept of immortality expressed truthfully in this
art piece, or is it a reinvention of an esoteric idea suited to a modern interpretation?
The Tree of Life symbol has been a source of inspiration throughout forgotten
eras and up to modern times. As the tree reaches upward to the light, it expresses life and
unity in one noble idea. An archetype in philosophical traditions, the symbol is magical
and mystical. Each element—roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit—hold
meaning, representing the mythological belief of an eternal existence. As the tree’s roots
penetrate deep into the Earth, they represent the sustenance that maintains life; the trunk
spouts branches that reach outward to absorb frequency from the sun; leaves transform
the sun’s rays into life-giving food and healing properties on levels physical, spiritual,
and emotional; the fruit and flowers provide nourishment that regenerate and inspire. The
48
knowledge contained in this ancient symbol connects heaven and Earth with all forms of
creation. It is intended as an image of goodness on our planet. Can one, then, accept artist
Fred Tomaselli’s symbolism of the Cannabis species as a “Tree of Life?”
In Tomaselli’s artistic rendition, called Super Plant, marijuana is idealized as a
symbol of immortality.2 The image bears evidence of a cultural expression that evolved
out of resistance and the desire for freedom during the ’60s era. Although the artist
intended this art piece, created in the ’90s, to highlight the beauty, mystique, and
influence of marijuana, the irony of the work is disturbing. To embrace this piece without
question is perhaps to hold to a belief that marijuana contains answers to liberation and
restoration; although through properties barely understood, and many still to be
discovered. There is truth to that. Curiously, closer inspection of the piece reveals that
stylized pink fruit are actually pills—synthetic marijuana products newly introduced to
the evolving market. The artist has blended the old with the new. Marijuana is an
extraordinary plant, used medicinally and recreationally by cultures around the world for
centuries, and yet it continues to be controversial.
The Endocannabinoid System
The Cannabis plant, from which several marijuana strains are derived, is the only
known plant that produces more than one hundred naturally occurring cannabinoids.
However, only two—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)—have
so far been studied extensively for their psychedelic or medicinal properties.3 Federal law
defines “marijuana” as Cannabis plant strains with a THC content greater than 0.3
percent. Cannabis containing less than 0.3 percent THC is considered industrial hemp.4
49
Both humans and animals have an endocannabinoid system with receptors present
in the brain and body that naturally receive cannabinoids.5 The two types of receptors in
the body that respond to THC and CBD cannabinoids found in marijuana are located in
the following areas:
CB1 — Mainly the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system
CB2 — Predominantly in the immune system, gastrointestinal system, and
nervous system periphery6
When THC binds to CB1 receptors it triggers the psychoactive effect, or “high,” of
marijuana. THC “is a powerful analgesic, anti-spasmodic, and muscle relaxant with
twenty times the anti-inflammatory power of aspirin and twice that of hydrocortisone.
Additionally, THC is a powerful appetite stimulant and possesses anti-emetic properties
which means it helps with nausea and vomiting.”7 As CBD binds to CB2 receptors it “is a
non-euphoriant cannabinoid with neuroprotective and immunomodulatory properties. It is
a potent anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-convulsant.”8 CBD also moderates and
dampens the degree of anxiety, memory loss, paranoia, or euphoria that can be stimulated
through high doses of THC.9
According to the University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute
(ADAI), only two of more than 113 cannabinoids existing in the Cannabis plant have
been well understood so far.10 Caulkins, et al. reported in 2016 that due to prohibition and
the challenges encountered when conducting studies on Cannabis, there have been few
clinical trials testing the medicinal benefits of smoked or vaped marijuana.11 In January,
2017, the Institute of Medicine released a consensus report following a nine-month
comprehensive review of the literature regarding the risks and benefits of marijuana. In
this 400 page report, researchers concluded that there is “conclusive or substantial
50
evidence” that cannabinoids found in the Cannabis plant have a “moderate effect as a
therapeutic agent in the treatment of chronic pain.”12
Medical patients value the cannabinoids produced in marijuana that mimic the
naturally released cannabinoids in the human endocannabinoid system because they can
reduce pain, inflammation, and other stresses. Both THC and CBD are found naturally in
the marijuana plant however, genetic manipulation has dramatically increased THC
levels in recent years.13 THC gives marijuana its mind-altering and therapeutic qualities,
however, products created synthetically that contain a higher percentage of CBD, ease the
symptoms of chronic pain or distress without the intense psychoactive experience that
can result from a high THC content.
Since 1985 synthetic production of cannabinoids has resulted in products
available through legal prescription as well as concoctions illegally created (such as Spice
and K2). Two Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved medications containing
synthetic, or semi-synthetic THC, have the trade names Marinol and Cesamet. Yet
medications based purely on THC, without the buffering effect of CBD included in the
product, have had limited acceptance among medical patients due to the “high” that can
accompany the drug. Instead, many patients prefer using the natural plant for medicinal
purposes to obtain the benefits of both cannabinoids.14
Legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington has introduced an
increasing variety of products to the market in the form of concentrates, edibles, or
flowers, with a noted increase in the strength of THC cannabinoids present. In 2015,
according to University of Washington researchers, flowers or buds were the highest
selling marijuana products in Washington State.15 Two years later, expansion of
51
concentrates and edibles began changing production and processing methods as they
gained an increasing market share. This also increased potential hidden health risks to the
unaware consumer, and to the environment.
Marijuana Health-Safety Concerns
Marijuana flowers and plant material can be smoked in the form of joints
(cigarettes), blunts (altered cigars), or vaped through water pipes commonly called bongs.
Vaporizing the flowers is said to be a safer method of consumption for the respiratory
system than inhaling combustion from smoking a joint.16 Marijuana concentrates,
consumed in vaping, are often produced using butane or other methods involving
chemical additives such as glycerol and purpaline glycol. Pesticides and other
contaminants used in production or processing methods can also contribute to the volume
of chemicals lingering in recreational marijuana products.
According to ADAI, the number of chemicals remaining in marijuana
concentrates is unknown—some can be added following CO2 extraction methods.17
Testing laboratories overseen by the WSLCB only randomly test marijuana plant material
used in processing prior to the manufacturing of extracts, such as hash oils, shatter wax,
CO2 oil, budder, or honey comb, to name a few examples, so levels of contamination in a
recreational product can remain high.18 To guarantee consumer safety, in an industry still
riddled with black market activity despite legalization, chemical testing from seed to final
product should be a policy requirement with every commercial marijuana product sold.
However, only the Washington State Department of Health tests medical marijuana this
rigorously before medicinal product can be purchased through a licensed retailer in
Washington State.19
52
New cultivation practices and selective breeding methods have dramatically
increased the potency of THC found in marijuana. Sinsemilla, meaning “no seeds” in
Spanish, is a technique using only unfertilized female plants that put most of their energy
into cannabinoid production instead of producing seed.20 Today, the female flowers are
prized above the other plant parts that were once included in marijuana products,
rendering marijuana significantly more THC potent. According to researchers, users
habitually exposed to higher doses of THC risk developing a marijuana use disorder
leading to illness or addiction.21 Marijuana use disorder is a new term combining two
prior terms—marijuana abuse and marijuana dependence. The condition is diagnosed
with the presence of two or more symptoms (from a list of 11) that include not being able
to stop consumption, cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and giving up important social
activities.22 Recently, CBS news and other media outlets have reported on a mysterious,
relatively new illness, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS), tied to marijuana
consumption. According to Dr. Kennon Heard, an emergency room physician in Aurora,
Colorado, heavy, long-term marijuana use can result in CHS, triggering severe abdominal
pain, nausea, and vomiting.23
Perhaps the most serious risk to consumers comes from the edibles industry.
Edibles can vary in the amount of THC contained in just a single batch of unregulated
cookies, candies, gummies, chocolates, or other marijuana products. Because digestion
delays the effect of THC on the body, consumers can be caught off guard, first by an
unknown THC content, and second by thinking the product is having no impact, causing
them to consume more. Body size and metabolism also influence whether desired results
appear in thirty minutes, or two hours.24, 25 In 2017, ADAI researchers reported that
53
Washington urgent care facilities and poison control services had seen an increase in
people intoxicated with edibles due to consumers not being educated on portion size, or
the time required through metabolism to experience an effect.26 According to reports by
Northwest HIDTA, The Washington State Poison Center (WAPC) has noted that calls to
the agency regarding marijuana concentrates and extracts increased from 2012 to 2014 by
850% with 46% of marijuana exposure calls recorded in 2015 coming from youth 18 and
under.27
The WSLCB has only 12 certified labs throughout Washington to test marijuana
quality and THC potency.28 Given the volume of marijuana products now flowing
through the state on a daily basis, it would seem these labs can’t keep up with demand in
testing for chemical contamination and THC content. As indicated above, only medical
marijuana is guaranteed quality testing for every product legally sold.
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH), under House Bill 2136, was
charged with defining which marijuana products beneficial for medical use would remain
exempt from sales tax to patients or providers holding a qualifying recognition card.29
The DOH worked hard to balance patient needs beneath the umbrella of the state
regulatory system.30 In their efforts to meet patient demands under changing policy
conditions, the DOH implemented methods to ensure product safety for medical
consumers. Three official DOH logos—“General Use,” “High THC,” and “High CBD”—
indicate whether a product has met producer/processor compliance with all requirements
under state guidelines and WSLCB regulations, including third-party testing by a
certified lab (Figure 8).31 In contrast, the WSLCB relies on spot checks to ensure
recreational products meet health and THC potency standards.32 Approved medical-grade
54
marijuana is also available for purchase at licensed stores by recreational users who
might be concerned about contaminants entering commercial products (and the
environment) due to random testing by the WSLCB.33
Figure 8: Medical marijuana product compliance logos.
(Washington State Department of Health, 2018).34
According to a recent Northwest HIDTA report, THC potency was mislabeled on
seven out of eight recreational products purchased, with a difference ranging from
between 3.5 to 7 percent than the actual potency measured.35 In July 2016, products from
a marijuana retailer in Seattle averaged 71.7% potency in concentrate extract, an increase
of approximately 15% from the average standard of 55.9% set by the University of
Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project in 2014.36 The risks associated with merely spot
checking for chemical and THC content in recreational marijuana creates a potential
health hazard as unaware customers suffer the consequence of illness or overdose from
mislabeled or contaminated products. Current marijuana policy in Washington State lacks
adequate safety oversight. Therefore, consumers and the environment would be better
served if all marijuana end products were tested as rigorously as medical marijuana.
Marijuana has been used throughout the world for social and aesthetic effect, or
medicinal benefit for centuries.37, 38 Even so, despite being the only plant known to
contain cannabinoids that offer such potential relief for certain types of human suffering,
many people still object to its legal availability, whether for medicinal, recreational, or
55
further research purposes. Artificial cannabinoid products made in a lab, which could
potentially solve a raft of issues surrounding marijuana cultivation and processing, have
not yet substituted the attributes experienced in ingesting products made from the natural
plant. Hence the long debate concerning marijuana legalization in this country and
throughout much of the world.
Marijuana Legalization – Medical to Recreational
Washington State is one of nine U.S. states, plus Washington D.C., that in recent
years has legalized medical and recreational marijuana. In 1998, Washington State voters
first approved Initiative 692, allowing the use of medical marijuana for relief to patients
with terminal or debilitating conditions. At that time, qualifying patients and primary
caregivers could legally possess up to a 60-day supply of marijuana.39 Under Washington
State’s legalized marijuana system, the Department of Health qualifies medical marijuana
patients as those suffering from the following conditions:
Cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis,
epilepsy or other seizure disorder, or spasticity disorders;
Intractable pain, limited for the purpose of this chapter to mean pain
unrelieved by standard medical treatments and medications;
Glaucoma, either acute or chronic, limited for the purpose of this chapter
to mean increased intraocular pressure unrelieved by standard treatments
and medications;
Crohn’s disease with debilitating symptoms unrelieved by standard
treatments or medications;
Hepatitis C with debilitating nausea or intractable pain unrelieved by
standard treatments or medications;
Diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, vomiting, wasting,
appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle spasms, or spasticity, when these
symptoms are unrelieved by standard treatments or medications;
Chronic renal failure requiring hemodialysis;
Posttraumatic stress disorder; and/or
Traumatic brain injury.40
56
In 2007, an amendment to Initiative 692 defined the “60-day supply” as allowing
patients to possess “no more than 24 ounces of usable marijuana and no more than 15
plants.”41 Since Federal Government regulations made even that amount of marijuana
illegal, the Obama administration clarified the federal policy, stating that “. . . it wouldn’t
prosecute any patients who abide by the law in their state. However, people who are in
the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly
facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of
state law.”42
By 2011, law enforcement in Washington State began to alter its approach toward
marijuana cultivation with more leniency in arrests, following a declaration by Seattle
Police Chief, John Diaz, in which he stated: “With competing and inconsistent laws, the
SPD is going to exercise discretion when investigating cases involving medical marijuana
patients, recognizing that some medical marijuana patients and designated providers may
have difficulty obtaining marijuana for medical use.”43 That same year, state legislature
passed Senate Bill 5073 providing guidance for healthcare practitioners authorizing
medical marijuana, and protections that allowed patients (or designated providers) to
form collective gardens. Senate Bill 5073 did not permit commercial marijuana
production, processing, or other types of transactions; regulation or any type of
government oversight; the “right” to use medical marijuana; or arrest-protection for
patients.44
Only one year later, in 2012, Washington State voters approved Initiative 502.
Initiative 502 allowed adults age 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana
obtained from a state-licensed marijuana store, and the commercial production and
57
processing of recreational marijuana. Policies designed to regulate and enforce state laws
to ensure public safety included seed-to-sale traceability; product testing and labeling;
serving size limits; product restrictions; and taxation requirements.45
Following legalization in Washington and Colorado in 2012, the Deputy U.S.
Attorney General James Cole issued a memo titled Guidance Regarding Marijuana
Enforcement (the “Cole Memo”). In that memo, Cole makes it clear that the U.S.
Government expects “that states and local governments that have enacted laws
authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems.”46 Eight enforcement priorities were listed in the Cole Memo:
Distribution of marijuana to minors,
Revenue from sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises,
gangs, and cartels,
Diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law to
other states,
State-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or
pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity,
Violence and use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana,
Drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use,
Growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety
and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public
lands, and
Possession or use of marijuana on federal property.47
None of the provisions in the Cole Memo outlined restrictions that would provide
public or environmental protection from marijuana operations locating in rural residential
or agricultural areas. The research described in this thesis revolves around this point. It
attempts to answer the question “What are the potential social and environmental impacts
resulting from this omission in the Cole Memo that only ensures public safety on public
lands, relying on state and county officials to determine how and where to regulate land
58
use for marijuana operations elsewhere in the state?” The ramifications of this omission
in the Cole Memo appear to have not yet been adequately researched, or addressed, by
regulatory agencies or legislators.
WSLCB and State Regulations
Several years after the 2012 legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington,
the Cannabis Patient Protection Act (SB 5052) was passed together with the Marijuana
Tax Reform (HB 2136).48 These changes resulted in, as of July 1, 2016, a single
combined system of medical and recreational marijuana production, processing, and
retailing that is now regulated and enforced by the WSLCB.49
The mission of the WSLCB is to “Promote public safety and trust through fair
administration and enforcement of liquor, cannabis, tobacco, and vapor laws” with a goal
of ensuring “the highest level of public safety by continually improving and enforcing
laws, regulations, and policies that reflect today’s dynamic environment.”50 Under
Chapter 314-55 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) the WSLCB is charged
with overseeing marijuana licensing; guiding the application process; enforcing
production, processing, and retailing regulations; monitoring recreational product testing
and traceability; and administration of sales reporting and other activities.51 According to
John Snaza, Thurston County Sheriff and Executive Chairman of Northwest HIDTA,
that’s a tall order—only 16 WSLCB officers oversee this broad range of marijuana
activity and vast geographic area of enforcement responsibility.52
The Washington State Legislature and WSLCB websites provide detailed
statements of policy regulating the marijuana industry. Of those, I focus attention here on
59
the regulations that might have harmful ramifications to public and environmental safety.
What stands out in WSLCB marijuana regulations is how much of the required reporting
of marijuana production and processing activities—transactions, transport, cultivation
and processing methods, waste management, etc.—relies on the integrity of the marijuana
licensee to fill out the paperwork themselves. Random spot checks by the WSLCB, a
self-regulated traceability system, and response to complaints received from concerned
citizens, appear to be the most predominant methods used by the WSLCB to identify
abusers in the industry. Internal checks for consistency in reporting, in-depth criminal
background checks, and observation of strange behavior patterns by the agency is still
lacking, based upon my experience and research.
Since marijuana still falls under the federal category of a Schedule I drug, its
production, processing, and retailing businesses are mostly cash-based and thus invite a
strong potential for black market activity and money laundering.53, 54 According to a
Northwest HIDTA 2017 report, “Many marijuana retailers are operating as cash-only
businesses as the majority of banks and credit unions are hesitant to work with companies
that sell a still federally-illegal product.”55
An article appearing in The Olympian on April 3rd, 2018, identified the high taxes
imposed on marijuana businesses as one reason for continuing black market activity.56
Washington has imposed a 37% excise tax on marijuana, Oregon a 17% state tax plus 3%
local tax, and in California taxes can go as high as 45%. Marijuana operations unable to
conduct business transactions through a bank often have little option but to carry cash
into tax offices to make payments.57 Although the WSLCB states that the agency will
investigate the criminal and administrative violation history of each applicant per WAC
60
314-55-040 and 314-55-045, a thorough review is not always the case, as was revealed in
investigations into the criminal background and business dealings of the marijuana
facilities locating next door to my property.58, 59
In July 2016, as I sat in the lobby of the WSLCB headquarters in Lacey and spoke
with a department head overseeing marijuana licensing in the Yelm area, I revealed
detailed photographs of the hundreds of unlicensed marijuana plants being cultivated on
my neighbor’s property. Although my neighbor had applied for a marijuana production
and processing license in 2014, none had so far been issued. I was informed by the
WSLCB officer that no one from the agency had visited the property, or seen the
proposed site, because all monitoring prior to the licensing of a marijuana facility is
handled through photographs submitted by the applicant to demonstrate progress and
compliance. There was simply too much demand and too few staff, he told me, to
physically visit site premises until one final inspection.
According to agency regulations “the WSLCB may conduct a final inspection of
the proposed licensed business, in order to determine if the applicant has complied with
all the requirements of the license requested” (emphasis added).60 In essence, if an
applicant begins construction of facilities without first being approved a special land use
permit from the county, the WSLCB will continue to evaluate the unpermitted
development using submitted photographs and operating plans, despite existing land use
violations on the property. Such violations include evidence of unlicensed, large-scale
production of marijuana as revealed to the agency in July, 2016. In fact my neighbor,
while testifying before the Thurston County Commissioners during an Appeal on April 4,
2018, stated that he was encouraged by the WSLCB to build out his operation as quickly
61
as possible, prompting his construction of the dual-facility prior to county land use
approval.61 This also indicates that the WSLCB showed no consideration to impacts from
the development on neighboring residents.
A week after my July 2016 meeting with employees at the WSLCB, the agency
approved the first marijuana license for my neighbors’ property—prior to their receiving
any county permits to operate or construct a marijuana operation on that land. A Tier 2
license was issued on September 14, 2016 to Seattle investors who had leased the lower
level of the facility—without disclosing to the WSLCB, as required by law, their one
hundred thousand dollar investment in the operation.62 The site of the Tier 2 facility was
previously depicted as the storm run-off area in our neighbors’ 2014 vested special land
use application. A month later, on October 12, 2016, the WSLCB issued a second
marijuana license for the property, despite county code prohibiting more than one
marijuana facility on a single tax parcel in that zone; the known cultivation and transport
of hundreds of unregistered marijuana plants; and the continuing land use violations.63
Records show the WSLCB then proceeded to collect more than $43,000 in taxes from the
two still unpermitted facilities in 2016.64, 65
The fundamental problem: the WSLCB can issue a license for a marijuana
production facility to someone siting that facility on land not approved for marijuana
commercial land use by the county. The WSLCB collects taxes on the operations, while
operators then comply, after-the-fact, with state law and county regulations. This leaves
no room for public input by neighboring residents, unless law enforcement intervenes.
The WSLCB issued two licenses for my neighbors’ ten acres zoned rural residential, after
they had been informed about the illicit activity, and despite outstanding Notices of
62
Violation in construction, earth movement, unlawful marijuana production, fire codes,
and waste disposal associated with the property. Such flaws in policy and its application
lie at the heart of why some irate residents are attempting to fight this and other
unwelcome invasions in their communities at locations throughout eastern and western
Washington.
In 2017, during a second meeting at the WSLCB Olympia headquarters with a
WSLCB officer, lieutenant, and commander, we were informed that the agency only
enforces regulations once an applicant has been licensed and only in the site area of the
proposed operation. In other words, despite the fact that the WSLCB was made aware
that my neighbors had been cultivating hundreds of unregistered marijuana plants in 2015
and 2016, within and outside the site area proposed in their 2014 land use application, the
WSLCB would not intervene except to issue a license. When asked what happened to all
the illegal plants after they had been discovered, the WSLCB officer on the case would
not provide an answer. Even a Narcotics Taskforce raid, scheduled for October 12, 2016
on the property, was canceled at the last minute because officers were told had they
damaged any of the marijuana plants, law enforcement could be held liable. Instead, my
husband and I were shocked when our neighbor was approved, that same day, a second
marijuana production license on the property by the WSLCB, still without county land
use approval.
Under General information about marijuana licenses, WAC 314-55-015, is stated
that the privileges of a marijuana license may not be enacted without the WSLCB
approving an application.66 The question then becomes, “Why did the WSLCB approve
my neighbors’ license applications when so many concerns involving unpermitted land
63
use, misrepresentation of fact, and black market activity could be demonstrated?
Photographs of the hundreds of unpermitted marijuana plants on the property had been
shown at meetings with various government agencies and political representatives.
WAC 314-55-075 states that “the WSLCB will conduct random criminal history
checks at the time of renewal…”67 (emphasis added). According to WSLCB policy, three
violations result in cancelation of a marijuana license. In the course of the investigation
into our neighbors’ activities, law enforcement discovered that a Thurston County
Narcotics Taskforce raid on the property in 2008, where more than 70 marijuana plants
had been confiscated, had not been disclosed. Nor had a conviction on another Yelm
property in 2012 where 1,200 unlicensed marijuana plants were found. In addition, it was
discovered during a raid on August 17, 2017 that not only had they again produced
1,500+ marijuana plants without permit on the property next door, but that they were
cultivating another 6,000+ unlicensed marijuana plants in Tonasket, eastern
Washington.68 This would suggest that random criminal history checks by the WSLCB at
the time of licensing or renewal are not adequate in protecting neighboring residents from
the impacts of illicit behavior.
Furthermore, WAC 314-55-083 defines the security requirements for marijuana
operations.69 This regulation results in large areas often surrounded by unsightly fencing
with multiple cameras projected along the perimeter of a marijuana facility. My neighbor
installed 42 surveillance cameras, almost a quarter of them pointing toward our property.
The cameras can record our activities, including coming and going, at the lower portion
of our property, an invasion of our right to privacy. We also began noticing that when
marijuana was present (identifiable by banks of florescent lights and odor), someone
64
would appear outside the processing area and observe us if we worked too close to the
facility. In one instance, I crawled out of my forest on my stomach after my neighbor
quickly appeared and paced the fence-line trying to locate me. The experience was
terrifying.
In a three day tour of eastern Washington I found scenic areas, such as the
Palouse, becoming marred by marijuana production sites, with some facilities even using
shipping containers strung together as security fencing (Figure 9). Other operations were
positioned in the middle of open fields, or what remained of wildlife habitat corridors in
sage brush areas, and beside scenic mountainous wildlife reserves (Figures 10 and 14).
Figure 9: Shipping containers fence a Tier 3.
An industrial-scale marijuana operation next to the Palouse Scenic Byway in eastern Washington.
Shipping containers are strung together for security fencing. (Photograph by author, 2018).
65
Figure 10: Marijuana facilities in eastern Washington.
Industrial-scale marijuana operations are located in rural residential, agricultural,
and wildlife areas in eastern Washington. (Photographs by author, March 2018).
66
Also under WAC 314-55-083, all marijuana, marijuana concentrates, or
marijuana-infused products are to be traceable and must remain in a “quarantine” area for
a minimum of 24 hours before transport between two licensed facilities. “At no time
during the quarantine period can the product be handled or moved under any
circumstances and is subject to auditing by the WSLCB or designees.”70 The agency
requires traceability “to prevent diversion and to promote public safety” under the
following guidelines:
Marijuana licensees must track marijuana from seed to sale. Marijuana seedlings,
clones, plants, lots of usable marijuana or trim, leaves, and other plant matter,
batches of extracts, marijuana-infused products, samples, and marijuana waste
must be traceable from production through processing.
Key notification of “events,” such as when plant enters the system (moved from
the seedling or clone area to the vegetation production area at a young age);
When plants are to be partially or fully harvested or destroyed;
When a lot or batch of marijuana, marijuana extract, marijuana concentrates,
marijuana-infused product, or marijuana waste is to be destroyed;
Any theft of usable marijuana, marijuana seedlings, clones, plants, trim or other
plant material extract, infused product, seed, plant tissue or other item containing
marijuana;
There is a seventy-two hour mandatory waiting period after the notification
described in this subsection is given before any plant, a lot or batch of marijuana,
marijuana extract, marijuana-infused product, or marijuana waste may be
destroyed;
All marijuana plants eight or more inches in height or width must be physically
tagged and tracked individually;
A complete inventory of all marijuana, seeds, plant tissue, seedlings, clones, all
plants, lots of usable marijuana or trim, leaves, and other plant matter, batches of
extract, marijuana concentrates, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana waste;
All marijuana, usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, marijuana
concentrates, seeds, plant tissue, clone lots, and marijuana waste must be
physically tagged with the sixteen digit identification number generated by the
traceability system and tracked.71
Is it feasible for an agency with approximately 135 employees—with 16 officers
dedicated to marijuana enforcement—to ensure the above regulations are implemented to
protect citizens in an area as large as the state of Washington? With the volume of
67
paperwork required, and the tracking sophistication needed, it is doubtful an agency with
so few employees can monitor all marijuana transportation activity.72
A licensee is said to be subject to an inspection request by the WSLCB, or law
enforcement, with business owners required under state law to keep transportation
records for three years. The regulations also state that “All marijuana plants, clones,
seeds, lots, batches, intermediate products, end products, vendor samples, and sample jars
must remain physically tagged during transport.”73 Yet despite the transportation
requirements listed under WAC 314-55-085, for three years in a row my neighbors
moved hundreds of undocumented marijuana plants around with a rented U-Haul truck or
unmarked semi-trailer, even after being licensed by the WSLCB. WSLCB policy did not
prevent illicit transport, nor safeguard the community from such activity.
Although WAC 314-55-045 is intended to protect the public, the wording states
only that it “might prevent an applicant from receiving a marijuana license” (emphasis
added) by stipulating the following causes for rejecting or revoking a marijuana
production or processing license:
Three or more public safety violations
Four or more regulatory violations
One to four, or more license violations74
These criteria permit people with numerous past violations to operate a marijuana
production facility.
WAC 314-55-097 addresses the disposal of marijuana waste liquids and solids.
They “must be stored, managed, and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and
local laws and regulations.” At the same time, “it is the responsibility of each waste
68
generator to properly evaluate their waste to determine if it is designated as dangerous
waste.”75 In other words, the WSLCB relies on producers and processors to monitor their
own waste disposal procedures. Given the number of marijuana facilities licensed across
the state, and the small number of regulators, the WSLCB would be stretched thin to
ensure such waste is handled correctly so as not to impact the safety and well-being of all
neighboring property owners, children, pets, wildlife, and the environment. My
neighbors’ piles of toxic garbage that were periodically burned beside my driveway is
just one example of a lack of oversight in waste management related to marijuana
production and processing in a remote rural environment.76
Based upon my and others experience, as well as reports by the media, it is
difficult to assume that every marijuana plant, or plant material, has not been
contaminated with some chemical solvent when only spot checks are made on
recreational marijuana to ensure public safety. The regulations state that “Remediation
solvents or methods used on the marijuana product must be disclosed to a licensed
processor the producer or producer/processor transfers the products to; a licensed retailer
carrying marijuana products derived from the remediated harvest, lot, or batch; or
consumer upon request”77 (emphasis added). Due to the fact that hazardous waste is a
byproduct of the marijuana industry, with the generator of that waste responsible for its
safe disposal, regular inspections by WSLCB enforcement and/or county officials should
be a policy mandate. Rather than inspection “upon request,” weekly reporting of all
chemicals and methods used in the production or processing of marijuana should be a
requirement. And testing of all marijuana end products should be mandatory to ensure a
modicum of consumer and environmental safety.
69
________________________________________________________________________
1. Weil, A. (1980). The Marriage of the Sun and Moon. Dispatches from the Frontiers of
Consciousness. P.98. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. New York, N.Y.
2. Ayers, R. (2017, December 6). A Conversation with Artist Fred Tomaselli. Huffington Post.
New York, N.Y. Available: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ayers/i-think-itshilarious-rob_b_786621.html
3. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available: http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/
4. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (2018). FAQs on Marijuana. What about
industrial hemp? Does this create a new market for hemp products? Washington State
Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/mj2015/faqs_i-502#PublicSafety-Criminal
5. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
6. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
7. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. Module
1: slide 14 University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available:
http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/module1/story_html5.html
8. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. Module
1: slide 15 University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available:
http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/module1/story_html5.html
9. Caulkins, J.P., Kilmer, B., Kleiman, A.R. (2016). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone
Needs to Know. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. New York, N.Y.
10. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
11. Caulkins, et al. (2016).
12. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. Module
1: slide 28 University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available:
http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/module1/story_html5.html
13. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
14. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
15. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
16. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
17. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
18. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20). Government Relations Director at the Center for Public
Affairs. Washington State Department of Health. Tumwater, Washington. Personal
interview.
19. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20).
20. Caulkins, et al. (2016).
70
21. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
22. Gettman, J. (2016, March 8). Pot Matters: Marijuana Use Disorder. High Times. Available:
https://hightimes.com/health/science/pot-matters-marijuana-use-disorder/
23. Lapook, J. (2016, December 28). Mysterious illness tied to marijuana use on the rise in states
with legal weed. CBS Evening News. Available:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mysterious-illness-tied-to-marijuana-use-on-the-rise-instates-with-legal-weed/
24. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20).
25. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
26. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April).
27. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact
Report Volume 2. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative Support
Center Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
28. Northwest HIDTA. (2018). Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat
Assessment and Strategy for Program Year 2018. Northwest HIDTA. Seattle,
Washington.
29. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
30. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20).
31. Washington State Department of Health. (2018). Medical Marijuana Guideline for Use of
Product Compliant Logos. Washington State Department of Health. Available:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana/ProductCom
plianceLogos
32. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20).
33. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20).
34. Washington State Department of Health. (2018).
35. Northwest HIDTA. (2018).
36. Northwest HIDTA. (2018).
37. Caulkins, et al. (2016).
38. Clarke, R.C. Merlin, M.D., (2013). Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of
California Press. Berkley, Los Angeles, London.
39. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
40. Washington State Department of Health. (2018). Medical marijuana: Qualifying Conditions.
Washington State Department of Health. Available:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana/PatientInfor
mation/QualifyingConditions
41. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2007: 60-day supply defined. University of
Washington. Seattle, Washington.
42. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2009: Ogden Memo changed federal government’s
enforcement policy. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
71
43. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2011: Seattle law enforcement policy changed.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
44. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2011: SB 5073 passes but is partially revoked by
governor. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
45. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2012: Voters approve Initiative 502. University of
Washington. Seattle, Washington.
46. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2013: Cole Memo outlines regulatory expectations.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
47. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2013: Cole Memo outlines regulatory expectations.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
48. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2015: Legislature passes Cannabis Protection Act (SB
5052) and Marijuana Tax Reform (HB 2136). University of Washington. Seattle,
Washington.
49. Washington State Department of Health. (2018, February 26). Medical Marijuana: Rules in
Progress. Washington State Department of Health. Available:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana/LawsandRul
es/RulesinProgress
50. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2018). Vison, Mission, Goals,
Values. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/careers/vision
51. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55. Marijuana Licenses, Application
Process, Requirements and Reporting. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55
52. Snaza, J. (2018, February 26). Thurston County Sheriff. Thurston County Sheriff’s
Department. Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
53. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June).
54. Snaza, J. (2018, February 26).
55. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact
Report Volume 2. Pg.14. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative
Support Center Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
56. Leavenworth, S. (2018, April 3). California’s underground pot market continues to thrive. Is
the tax man to blame? The Olympian. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.theolympian.com/news/nation-world/article207815209.html
57. Leavenworth, S. (2018, April 3).
58. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018). Document Library Research Project No.
2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Olympia, Washington. Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Department. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
59. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-040. What criminal history might
prevent a marijuana license applicant from receiving or keeping a marijuana license?
Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-040
72
60. Washington Administrative Code. (2018, February 26). WAC 314-55-020 (9). Marijuana
license qualifications and application process. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-020
61. Board of County Commissioners for Thurston County. (2018, April 4). Appeal No. 18102103VE. Project No. 2014101488 Thurston County Washington. Olympia,
Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
62. Masias A.V. (2017, April 17). Enforcement Report of Complaint. Blue Moose - Complaint
Number C7C7107A and C7C7107B. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
Olympia, Washington.
63. Kantas, T. (2017, January 13). Administrative Special Use Permit – Marijuana Production &
Processing. Project No. 2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=MinutesTextSearch
64. McIver, M. (2017, August 21). Narcotics Taskforce Officer’s Report. Case Number: 16-035
TNT. Unlawful Manufacturing of a Controlled Substance – Marijuana. Thurston County
Narcotics Taskforce. Olympia, Washington.
65. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, March 15). Thurston
County Board Briefing Request - Thurston County Marijuana Data. Thurston County
Resource Stewardship, Long Range Planning Division. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/bocc/Pages/agendas.aspx
66. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-015. General information about
marijuana licenses. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-015
67. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-075. What is a marijuana producer
license and what are the requirements and fees related to a marijuana producer license?
Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-075
68. McIver, M. (2017, August 21).
69. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-083. What are the security
requirements for a marijuana license? Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55&full=true#314-55-083
70. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-083.
71. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-083.
72. Bush, E. (2018, February 7). With tracking systems hobbling, marijuana industry scrambles to
keep pot on shelves. The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington. Available:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/with-tracking-system-hobblingmarijuana-industry-scrambles-to-keep-pot-on-shelves/
73. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-085. What are the transportation
requirements for a marijuana licensee? Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-085
74. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-045. What marijuana law or rule
violation history might prevent an applicant from receiving a marijuana license?
Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-045
73
75. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-097. Marijuana waste disposal—
liquids and solids Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-097
76. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). (2016, December 5). ORCAA Complaint Form
ID 17412. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). Olympia, Washington.
77. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). Quality assurance testing. WAC 314-55-102.
Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-102
74
________________________________________________________________________
CH. 1.3 SOCIAL IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA COMMERCIALIZATION
Nobody ever questioned where that marijuana plant came from, the
starter plant. They just appeared. Where did they come from? Nobody
knows. Nobody really cared about that… What is society dealing with?
Do you even see it in the news? What do you see? You see people
illegally growing it, maybe human trafficking. But they don’t even
touch on the effects that have been to these young people.
Thurston County Sheriff, John Snaza, 2018 1
Marijuana Policy Loopholes
My meeting with Thurston County Planners in July, 2016 was disturbing. I had
been told in May that my neighbors’ land use application to produce commercial
marijuana on their property was no longer being processed. “There are too many
violations,” insisted two clerks reviewing the file at the county front desk. “There’s no
way they’ll be issued a permit.” Yet to my family’s dismay, unpermitted construction had
resumed on the property a few weeks later. The single-lane easement shared with six
neighboring properties had become a potholed mess as traffic increased dramatically with
heavy equipment and worker vehicles passing constantly to the facility. When I reported
on the renewed activity, as well as piles of construction debris—including Styrofoam,
plastic chairs, household garbage, greenhouse plastics, and other toxic materials—some
burned during a burn ban, I was jeered at by my neighbor.2 Only after informing county
officials of the harassment did the behavior cease. However, I was left terrified at times
by the actions of my neighbors and their workers. Being landlocked behind the facility, I
had no option but to pass close by the site area every time I left my property. On two
occasions, fear for my safety led me to request a police escort to my house.
75
Although my neighbors’ application had been closed by Thurston County
planners in March 2015, the official I informed about the continuing construction and
unpermitted marijuana cultivation briefly scanned my photographs, listened to my
concerns, promised to review the situation, and left the meeting. He never mentioned
attorneys had contacted him on behalf of my neighbor. He handed me his card requesting
whomever I spoke to at the WSLCB give him a call. Less than a week later, following an
inspection of the unlicensed marijuana operations I had reported, the WSLCB approved a
Tier 2 license on my neighbors’ property to an outside investor. Empowered by this
success, my neighbors continued construction of the dual marijuana facility without
county land use approval.3 “I’m sorry,” said an assistant to State Representative Randi
Becker when she called that day to inform me about the first license approval,
“Sometimes these things just fall through the cracks.” A few months later, on October 12,
2016, the WSLCB issued a second marijuana production license on the property, a Tier 3,
after I had revealed aerial photographs of more than one thousand unregistered marijuana
plants being unlawfully cultivated, and despite multiple land use violations still
outstanding on the property.
In reviewing public records, my husband had questioned why a grading permit
had never been required by the county with the tons of earth that had been moved to level
three acres of hillside for the dual-facility. Finally, Thurston County Resource
Stewardship sent a “2nd Notice of Violation” to my neighbor stating the following:
On October 7, 2016 department staff completed a site inspection and
observed the growing of marijuana on the above subject property
without benefit of a land use permit. The grow operation is occurring
within an existing greenhouse structure. Although a Special Use Permit
for Marijuana Production and Processing is under review no approvals
76
have been granted at this time. Therefore, the property is in violation of
the Thurston County zoning code Title 20.
The following are the required corrective actions to bring the property
into compliance: 1) Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the
Notice of Violation, cease all grow activities on-site until such time all
Thurston County permits have been issued and all permit conditions are
met to the County’s satisfaction. 2) Remove all marijuana plants from
the property. 3) Obtain the Special Use Permit and complete all
required permit conditions for the marijuana production on-site. 4)
Obtain all building permits and the construction/grading permit that are
under review. Failure to bring this violation into compliance will result
in the issuance of a civil infraction, civil penalty or referral of this
matter to the County Prosecutors Office for further action.4
Disregarding this notice, my neighbors’ construction continued and the
greenhouse lights and fans were turned on. County Compliance Officer Kraig Chalem
confirmed the next day that another inspection had occurred on November 21, 2016,
when I queried why the production lights had suddenly gone off and mentioned I had
seen a U-Haul truck backed up to the facility.5 My neighbor always had time to prepare
because the county would usually give notice before an inspection. With notification
ahead of time, a U-Haul could be rented to move the unpermitted marijuana. During a
previous county inspection my neighbor would not allow entry to the production and
processing site. No entry was allowed, my neighbor informed the land use inspector,
because the proposed site now fell under WSLCB jurisdiction. At the time I could only
wonder about the policies guiding county marijuana regulations.
Is what has occurred over a four year period in my neighborhood the result of
loopholes in marijuana policy? Finding the answer to this question has prompted this
research. I wanted to understand if others had been as seriously impacted. Or was ours
just a one-off case where my husband and I were considered NIMBYs in our attempt to
77
fight what we considered an injustice in the right to enjoy the safety and rural character of
our own home?
Thurston County Ordinance Deliberations
In light of the not-yet-concluded discussions about finalizing the Thurston County
Interim Marijuana Ordinance, this section will evaluate the impacts of commercial
marijuana production and processing facilities on rural residents of Thurston County, as
revealed through government reports, surveys, and public testimony. Some reports
indicate harm to ecosystem functioning, effects on human health and safety, and the
potential of large-scale marijuana facilities to lessen property values. Whether current
policy safely regulates large-scale commercial marijuana production and processing
operations in Washington State will be investigated. Media reports that continue to
expose black market production and sales of marijuana in the state and other parts of the
country will also be considered.
From 2015 to 2018, public hearings and planning meetings have addressed
shifting Thurston County marijuana regulations. I have testified repeatedly. When invited
to speak by Commissioner Blake at a marijuana planning meeting in February 2017, I
commented that at no time during the discussion had I heard anyone address the
complaints of residents being forced to live next to a commercial marijuana operation.
Only Commissioner Edwards expressed concern regarding the impact to constituents
located near to such a facility. Instead, much of the discussion revolved around the
interests of marijuana producers, the additional tax revenue coming to the county, and
possible lawsuits that might be instigated by vested marijuana producers unhappy with
changing county regulations.6
78
In 2015, and after considering public comment, the then Thurston County Board
of County Commissioners had requested a review by Thurston County Resource
Stewardship into how marijuana policy was being implemented in other Washington
counties. As a result of their findings, the Commissioners changed the Interim Marijuana
Ordinance to no longer allow commercial production and processing in rural residential
or agricultural zones of unincorporated Thurston County.7 They had heard the same story
over and over—large-scale marijuana operations were causing negative social and
environmental impacts, and were better suited to commercial or industrial areas.
However, less than a year later, in September 2016, the Board reversed its position and
proposed a final ordinance that would have returned commercial marijuana production
and processing facilities to unincorporated rural residential and agricultural areas of the
county.8
Public protest immediately followed this announcement. Letters and emails by
more than 80 rattled residents objecting to the policy reversal poured in to Thurston
County Resource Stewardship and the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). Those
county residents did not favor the introduction of large-scale, commercial marijuana
operations in rural residential or agricultural zones of the county. They repeatedly
expressed concerns about pollution, crime, loss of neighborhood character, reduced
property value, unsightly fencing, odor, noise, environmental degradation, increased
traffic, and safety. As a result, the final ordinance proposal was dropped, and the Board
renewed the previous Interim Marijuana Ordinance, No. 15292, for another six months.9
On May 1, 2018, the BoCC renewed its eleventh Interim Marijuana Ordinance, leaving
open the possibility for a final ordinance to be determined in November, 2018.
79
The fight to prevent the zoning of marijuana operations in rural residential and
agricultural areas of unincorporated Thurston County in 2015 and 2016 ended by
safeguarding residents, at least in the interim, from further intrusions. The process
highlighted policy loopholes that legitimize unlawful marijuana production, and the
resistance of the WSLCB to investigate black market activity occurring prior to license
approval.
Criminal Behavior Following Legalization
From 2012 to 2016 nearly 400,000 illegally cultivated marijuana plants were
discovered and destroyed by law enforcement agencies across Washington State.10 At a
2017 planning meeting with the WSLCB and Thurston County Planners, including the
Commissioners, I heard a representative of the WSLCB inform those present that only
50% of marijuana criminal activity had been reduced in Washington since legalization of
recreational marijuana.11 Likewise, Northwest HIDTA noted in their 2017 report that
“Even as marijuana is considered legal recreationally, the drug remains a threat to the
state.” HIDTA also stated that studies showed that medical, recreational, and black
market sales in Washington held equal shares with each representing a third of the
marijuana market (presumed to be legal and illegal) in the state. 12
According to the WSLCB, and based upon WAC 314-55-165, penalties for
unlawful production and processing of marijuana may include the removal of a license.
License removal relies on evidence provided in written objections that must be funneled
through the appropriate city, county, tribal government, or port authority before
consideration by the agency. Such letters must be received at least thirty days before a
license is to expire. The regulation further states that “If the objection is received within
80
thirty days of the expiration date or the licensee has already renewed the license, the
objection will be considered as a complaint and possible [emphasis added] license
revocation may be pursued by the enforcement division.”13 Despite submitting an
extensive list of concerns in a second meeting with WSLCB enforcement staff
Commander Dzubay, Lieutenant Bolender, and Officer Masias on April 17, 2017, the
agency continued to support our neighbor, regardless of the illicit activity. This
experience suggests that the WSLCB favors the interests of ongoing operations over
those of the community.
In November 2016, Thurston County Associate Planner, Tony Kantas, informed
the WSLCB that, according to county regulations, the agency could not license two
marijuana operations on the same property in a rural residential area.14 In spite of this, the
WSLCB renewed the Tier 2 license in July, 2017. Further, WSLCB Officer Masias
identified for a second year in a row at least 1,500 illegally transported marijuana plants
during an August, 2017 Narcotics Taskforce raid on the property, yet the WSLCB did not
revoke the licenses (Figure 11).15
Regulations under WAC 314-55-515 indicates financial or other penalties such as
loss of a license will be incurred if a licensee or employee violates WSLCB regulations.
These are broken into five groups—1) Public safety violations; 2) Regulatory violations;
3) License violations; 4) Non-retail violations involving the manufacture, supply,
processing, and/or distribution of marijuana by nonretail licensees and prohibited
practices between nonretail licensees and retail licensees; 5) Violations involving the
transportation freight of marijuana. 16 The Narcotics Taskforce raid on my neighbors’
property on August 17, 2017 revealed that since 2008, violations had occurred on the
81
property and elsewhere in all five categories, yet, to the best of my knowledge, they were
only issued a minor fine of $2,500 by the WSLCB.17
Figure 11: Unlawful transport of marijuana.
Hundreds of undocumented marijuana plants were delivered on July 28, 2017
to this ten-acre property on the outskirts of Yelm, Washington.
(Photographs by author July 28, 2017).
Hammersvik, et al. and Nguyen, et al. suggested that more restrictive regulatory
models introduced in the commercialization of marijuana could better protect the public
from criminal activity.18, 19 Decorte and Potter conclude that in general, small-scale
cultivators of marijuana do not cause significant problems for people or the environment.
Large-scale marijuana operations, on the other hand, have historically resulted in greater
social harm and disruption, indicating that such operations would be better suited to
industrial or commercial zones than rural residential or agricultural areas.20 Consider
media reports covering an illegal marijuana operation spanning King, Grays Harbor, and
Thurston counties in Washington. According to the reports, Chinese nationals believed to
be a part of organized crime had purchased homes to set up unlicensed production of
marijuana. Illegal marijuana operations were even located in restricted areas, such as near
schools.21 During a raid, the Grays Harbor County Drug Force had seized $400,000 worth
of cash and gold, made 44 arrests, and confiscated 32,449 marijuana plants at an
82
estimated value of $80 million. Four unlicensed production sites in Thurston County also
were identified as part of the operation.22
Lewis County enforcement officers reported similar concerns in 2017 when more
than 8,000 marijuana plants were collected in raids from at least seven indoor, large-scale
operations.23 According to The Chronicle, one of the Lewis County illegal operations
involved was discovered less than a block from Vader City Hall. In the press report,
Sheriff Rob Snaza stated to the Board of Lewis County Commissioners “I think we’re
going to continue to see this activity for a while, especially in rural areas.”24 To find illicit
operations, law enforcement follows up on instances of inflated power bills at certain
addresses. This might be a reason why some rural marijuana producers use generators to
run lighting and pumps for irrigation.
On January 11, 2018, The Chronicle reported that investigators had searched a
location in Winlock, Lewis County, and, after seizing more than 1,500 plants, arrested
three individuals.25 Yet in 2016, after I had submitted evidence to government officials of
over 1,000 unlicensed marijuana plants being cultivated next door to my property, no
arrests occurred. Almost a year later, the county Sheriff expressed surprise that no one
had informed him about the activities, or the size of the illicit operation. Although we had
complained to several prominent individuals, including former Thurston County
Commissioner Sandra Romero, former Thurston County Long Range Planning Director
Brent Butler, the WSLCB, and several state representatives, the Sheriff had never been
made aware of the issue. Instead, and unlike the arrests in Lewis County, my neighbors
were issued two licenses after the WSLCB discovered undocumented marijuana on the
property in 2016; were given a final WSLCB inspection to approve, in addition, a Tier 2
83
processing license on the property in 2017; and despite the discovery of 1,500 illegally
transported marijuana and an additional 6,000+ unlicensed plants found in eastern
Washington that same year, approved yet another marijuana license in Tonasket in
2018.26
Several months after the WSLCB replaced its tracking system with sophisticated
technology that was said to be highly secure and reliable on November 1, 2017, The
Seattle Times reported that widespread technical issues in the system had caused major
concerns.27 The marijuana traceability system is supposed to track plants and product
from seed to sale and be on the watch for any suspicious transport activity.28
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions began critiquing Washington’s legal
marijuana system in 2017.29 On January 3, 2018, he rescinded the 2013 Obama-era memo
that had indicated the Department of Justice would not interfere if certain restrictions—
such as not allowing children to purchase marijuana, or the transportation of marijuana
product across state borders—were adhered to in states that had legalized marijuana.
Sessions’ memo stated:
It is the mission of the Department of Justice to enforce the laws of the
United States, and the previous issuance of guidance undermines the
rule of law and the ability of our local, state, tribal, and federal law
enforcement partners to carry out this mission. Therefore, today’s
memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S.
Attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that
provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations,
tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our
country.30
84
It is hoped Sessions’ 2018 memo will strengthen law enforcement action and prosecution
of those who undermine voters’ trust by abusing a unique business opportunity and
becoming an unwelcome threat to communities.
Natalie Johnson, reporting on developments in crime involving marijuana in the
January, 2018 issue of The Chronicle stated, “While the legal marijuana trade is booming
in Washington, large-scale illegal pot grows with out-of-state ties, many in converted
homes in residential areas, are increasingly cropping up like weeds in rural Lewis County
communities.”31 Andrew Selsky, in an article that appeared in the Associated Press in
August, 2017 mentioned that “officials suspect pot grown legally in Oregon and other
states is also being smuggled out, and the trafficking is putting America’s multibilliondollar marijuana industry at risk.”32 A month later, The New York Times writer Thomas
Fuller reported that “California, which by one estimate produces seven times more
marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter—illegally—to
other states. In part, that is because of the huge incentive to stay in the black market:
marijuana on the East Coast sells for several times more than in California.”33 According
to Fuller, only about 3,500 of approximately 32,000 marijuana farmers in the Emerald
Triangle—Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino counties—had applied for permits since
California’s Proposition 64 legalized commercial marijuana in 2016. The same article
noted examples of violent crimes associated with the illegal market, including the
“robbery and slashing death of a grower; the murder of a man at a marijuana farm by a
co-worker wielding a baseball bat; an armed heist in a remote area by men who posed as
law enforcement officers; and a robbery by two men and a juvenile who were invited to a
barbecue and then drew guns on their hosts and fled with nine pounds of marijuana.”34
85
While conducting research for this project I have traveled throughout Thurston
County and eastern Washington to observe and photograph locations where marijuana
licenses have been approved by the WSLCB. I have been astounded, at times, by the
density of homes surrounding Tier 3 operations in urban and rural areas. Operations must
be situated away from schools, as required in the regulations, yet those same regulations
do not prevent marijuana facilities from locating amidst residential neighborhoods where
families with young children play in the street, and teenagers walk to and from school.
The easement entrance to the industrial-scale marijuana operation next door to my
property is a school bus stop. Children live less than 1,000 feet from the facility. The
family has a view of much of the outdoor activity at the site from their home on the
hillside, despite the semi-opaque, cloth screening draped around the chain-link perimeter.
The WSLCB continued to license facilities in rural residential areas, while ignoring the
genuine concerns of neighboring residents, and even ignoring, in my case, county code
regulations. Public trust has been violated.
Community Impacts
The social impacts of industrial-scale commercial marijuana production and
processing operations can go beyond a concern for safety associated with black market
behavior. Residents in close proximity can be affected by diminishing property values; an
increase in criminal activity; pollution that can disturb neighborhood character and
resident’ health; increased rodent populations that can bring concerns about disease;
worker traffic that can damage easements and endanger pets, children, and wildlife; fires
resulting from dangerous extraction methods; hazardous chemical use; and noise from
generators, dogs, and industrial fans. Each of these concerns will be considered below.
86
Guard Dogs
Roaming dogs can be a neighborhood irritant associated with marijuana
production. Besides loud, incessant barking, dogs brought in to deter trespassing—or
protect marijuana cultivation—can pose a threat to pets, wildlife, and livestock, causing
significant disturbance to neighboring residents.
Figure 12: Multiple dogs to guard marijuana.
Guard dogs caged on our property line. The photo on the right shows one of five dogs that would
regularly invade our property. (Photographs by author, 2017-2018).
Our neighbors’ dogs were often left free-roaming, terrorizing our livestock (Figure 12).
Enjoyment of our property continues to be diminished as five dogs, now caged with little
human attention on our property boundary, bark loudly at any disturbance.
Property Values
In testimony provided at a Thurston County Public Hearing in 2016, a realtor
described trying to sell a home located close to a marijuana production facility. As soon
as he explained to potential buyers what was going on behind the fenced area, they
quickly withdrew interest in the purchase, despite an initial attraction to the property.35
87
On February 18, 2016, Ira Holman, contesting the commercial marijuana operation
locating at Mountain Vista, near Yelm, wrote Thurston County:
I have given testimony as has multiple realtors and an appraiser that
this grow operation has created an ADVERSE affect on our property
values. We have also provided evidence to the commissioners stating
such. The characteristics of the neighborhood are also ADVERSELY
affected by this grow.36
My husband and I had invested in development of our ten acres since 1990. Our
neighbors had purchased their parcel in 2006. Because of the marijuana operations
developing next door, we faced losing nearly three decades of effort in creating our small
farm because we would never feel safe living beside such a massive drug operation. We
also felt that no one would want to purchase our property at market value due to the
lights, noise, traffic, road conditions, pollution, dogs, ongoing generator use, unsightly
fencing, surveillance cameras, and strangers streaming in and out of this industrial-sized,
commercial facility. One option would be to sell at a reduced price to either those who
had invaded our sanctuary, or perhaps others wanting to destroy the beauty of the land for
their own profit in the industry. The other option was to stay put and fight.
Noise Pollution
Commercial marijuana operations located in remote, rural areas can have limited
or no access to electricity, prompting producers to install one or more generators to
power off-grid facilities.37, 38 Due to the high energy demand of marijuana production, the
constant drone of generators used in some rural operations to power lights, irrigation
systems, and industrial-sized fans that circulate air for heating and cooling, can be an
annoyance that diminishes quality of life to neighboring residents.
88
As I write this, my neighbors continue to run loud generators. They have done so
for more than a decade. Representatives from the Department of Health noted the noise
when visiting our property, as did Thurston County Resource Stewardship. Multiple
generators would often run simultaneously. Initially, my neighbors had no connection to
the power grid. This was their only means of operating florescent lights and the pumps
for watering illicit marijuana. When they applied for electrical power to run the two
marijuana operations, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) determined that the facility was so
large, and would be so energy demanding, they would not allow additional electricity to
power the two unpermitted homes also on the property.39, 40 That meant my neighbors’
continued use of noisy generators, with no power available in the line to run electricity to
our property (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Discarded generators used in illicit marijuana production.
Photographed during a Thurston County site inspection at the unpermitted marijuana production site
on the outskirts of Yelm, Washington. (Thurston County Permitting and Land Use, 2016).41
Landlocked behind the expanding marijuana operations, and dependent on a
failing solar system as well as our own backup generator, my husband had made an
agreement with this neighbor to connect to the electrical grid in 2015. However, my
89
husband was informed by PSE in 2016, after installation began at the marijuana facility
without notice, that there wouldn’t be enough power left in the line to also allow
connection to our property.42 Furious, we demanded a solution. PSE finally agreed to a
work-around in 2016, however, our neighbor blocked access to the transformer. Only
after his property was raided by law enforcement a year later, did PSE agree to bypass
our neighbors’ illicit operations to connect our property to the power grid. The outside
investor and business owner of the Tier 2 operation leasing the run-off area of our
neighbors’ facility wrote my husband during this conflict:
We had requested the power capacity that you are now receiving . . .
We've done a lot to get where we are. We aren’t hoodlums and
criminals dealing some illegal drug here . . . Because so, we are taking
a stand and saying we do not want your wires coming onto our property
. . . it is our right to maintain our property lines . . . I understand you
may be upset by this move, I understand it may cause bad blood
between us . . .43
The challenge to bring power to our property was exhausting. The continuing noise from
multiple generators was grating and intolerable. In addition, the constant whirring of
industrial fans in the greenhouses—similar to living beside an airfield—together with the
noise of multiple barking dogs, created a cacophony of sound that was almost unbearable.
Light, Odor, and Air Pollution
Large-acreage, multiple greenhouse operations, facilitating thousands of square
feet of marijuana plant canopy, can significantly alter neighborhood character due to the
constant night-lights required to facilitate diurnal cultivation methods. Ira Holmen, whose
home was located on the other side of the street to a marijuana facility, told me during
our interview “Then there’s the light pollution. They have to have the prison yard lights.
90
My bedroom was on the back side of the house right kitty corner from his proposed pot
farm so I would have light all day and night.” Other survey respondents complained
about troublesome night lights from large marijuana operations close to their rural
residence. However, of all the disturbances, odor appears to be the major complaint
associated with marijuana production and processing facilities.
According to the Washington Clean Air Act, RCW 70.94.011, established in 1967
and fully activated on January 1, 1969:
Air is an essential resource that must be protected from harmful levels
of pollution. Improving air quality is a matter of statewide concern and
is in the public interest. It is the intent of this chapter to secure and
maintain levels of air quality that protect human health and safety,
including the most sensitive members of the population, to comply with
the requirements of the federal clean air act, to prevent injury to plant,
animal life, and property, to foster the comfort and convenience of
Washington’s inhabitants, to promote the economic and social
development of the state, and to facilitate the enjoyment of the natural
attractions of the state.44
Marijuana emits a strong, skunk-like odor that can permeate neighboring
properties when air isn’t adequately ventilated or “scrubbed.” By nature, outdoor
marijuana growing operations have little chance of scrubbing air and preventing odor
from affecting neighboring residents. During production, and in particular as the
marijuana plants matured, a nauseating odor would permeate our property, easily
identified as marijuana by visiting law enforcement. Production and processing of the
plants also creates air contaminants. Scientists from the Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency (SRCAA) and Washington State University studied the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) released from marijuana in 2016 – 2017. The team analyzed
91
samples during harvest and drying and identified 40 organic compounds, many of which
can be detected by humans even at low concentrations.45
In 2018, SRCAA introduced new policy to deal with marijuana odor. From July 1,
2014 to August 31, 2017 the agency had received 322 marijuana odor complaints from
neighboring residents. This prompted the agency’s Board of Directors to adopt new
regulations effective March 1, 2018, to deal with the problem. Spokane leads other
counties in odor regulation due to the high number of marijuana facilities in the county—
approximately 18 producers, 22 processors, and 120 producer/processors according to the
WSLCB as of October, 2017.46 SRCAA’s new standards distinguish three categories of
operations: Indoor Producer, Outdoor Producer, and Existing “Other Producer.” All three
are required to register annually with the agency, pay an annual registration fee, provide
an annual report, minimize odor, and receive periodic inspections. Indoor producers are
required to install air pollution control equipment and/or facility design to reduce VOCs
and must keep windows and doors closed. Outdoor producers may only operate during
the county’s growing season, with no control of environmental conditions other than frost
coverings used for a portion of the day. Existing “Other” producers must keep odor at
levels below “2”—defined as an “odor is distinct and definite, any unpleasant
characteristics are recognizable.”47
Throughout the state, operators of indoor marijuana production and processing
facilities are required to install systems such as carbon absorption filtration to reduce
VOCs and odor; however, filtration devices are much less effective for greenhouse
operations when opening sides and windows during hot weather. The odors naturally
escape into the environment, causing distress to neighboring residents. A recent case in
92
Grays Harbor between Green Freedom LLC, a Tier 3 producer and processor, and
ORCAA was the result of a neighboring resident complaining about watery eyes, nausea,
headaches, and a runny nose due to emissions from the facility. They could not be outside
enjoying their property because of the “very strong pungent marijuana odor.”48 Green
Freedom LLC lost the case and was required to pay two penalties, at $1,000 each, for not
taking sufficient remedial action to reduce odor by installing carbon scrubbers and filters
at their facility.49
Although marijuana producers and processors are subject to air quality regulations
in order to reduce odor and air pollution, this can be challenging to regulate in more
remote locations. Fumes from generators used to run marijuana operations also raise
environmental concerns due to the impossibility of scrubbing CO2 exhaust released into
the atmosphere.
Security and Neighborhood Character
Before a marijuana operation receives a license from the WSLCB, eight foot high
fencing and an extensive array of security cameras along the perimeter of the facility
must be erected. My neighbors installed chain-link fencing despite every Thurston
County Interim Marijuana Ordinance clearly stating: “Chain-link, chain-link with slats, or
open wire fencing (except as temporary construction fencing) shall be prohibitied.”50 My
neighbors then situated 42 cameras along the site periphery. Such requirements by the
WSLCB make large-scale marijuana operations stand out from agricultural, rural,
residential, open landscape, or forested natural settings. However, marijuana producers
argue that production sites in the countryside offer lower costs in land acquisition and
development, hence their desirability.51
93
As I traveled through eastern Washington in March, 2018, I was disheartened to
see the introduction of chain-link and other unsightly fencing, topped with ominous
looking security cameras, dotting the scenic landscape. Okanogan County, as one
example, takes pride in the beauty of the landscape, yet these “fortresses” located in
pristine rural residential and agricultural areas, complete with stunning mountain vistas,
seemed at odds with the scenery. On a plateau above the Okanogan valley near Tonasket,
I counted at least four large-scale marijuana operations situated within a mile. A stunning
panorama conducive to all sorts of recreational possibilities that had previously drawn
homes and orchards to the rural area, was being invaded by an industry that was not
reflective of neighborhood character. Some of the unkempt grounds with dilapidated
fences were littered with industry paraphernalia, including unsightly shipping containers.
The location of a massive indoor facility with rows of sheds surrounded by heavily
fortified wire fencing seemed completely at odds with the natural environment of
mountainous hillsides and open plateau dotted every few acres with country houses. The
area was being transformed by an industry that seemed much better suited to commercial
zones lower in the valley. One operation was located beside a mountain stream cascading
toward the nearby river. Deer ranged over the wildlife area adjacent to the facility. A bald
eagle perched motionless on a branch above the stream (Figures 9, 10, and 14).
94
Figure 14: Marijuana operations in Tonasket.
Large-scale marijuana operations in Okanogan County. The three sites shown above
are visible in the upper right photo. (Photographs by author, March 2018).
Fire and Chemical Hazards
Subritzky reported the danger of hazardous fires and explosions occurring from
marijuana processing. “Blasting”, a method of extracting Butane Hash Oil (BHO) from
the Cannabis plant, can pose a risk of fire whenever processing for the oil is conducted
unsafely on a commercial or small-scale level.52 The flammability of butane used in
extraction methods has caused a number of home explosions. According to Northwest
HIDTA “THC extraction lab explosions are an increasing concern for the state.”53 Fires
from the increased use of blasting could be an added threat in longer, drier summers
95
related to changing climate conditions across Washington. Forested landscapes, like those
in Thurston County, could face an increased threat with marijuana processing operations
permitted in those settings.
Also of concern is the inadequate training about and lack of certification in the
application of pesticides in the marijuana industry. Pesticides pose health risks to
workers, neighbors, pets, and wildlife.54 The Oregon Veterinary Medical Association
(OVMA) warns pet owners about the risk of animals ingesting improperly stored
pesticides, inhaling marijuana smoke, eating the plants, or consuming marijuana infused
products such as cookies and chocolates.55 Although pets rarely die from the effects of
marijuana exposure, they can be poisoned if they eat or inhale the plant. The OVMA
website warns about the treatment required after marijuana ingestion involving
“decontamination of the GI tract, IV fluids, and anti-vomiting medication. In severe
cases, it may include oxygen support, monitoring blood pressure, regulating the pet’s
temperature, and ventilator/respiratory support.”56 Also according to OVMA’s website,
symptoms are usually seen within 30-60 minutes of inhalation or ingestion of marijuana
and may include:
Glassy eyes
Stumbling, lack of coordination
Disorientation
Dilated pupils
Drowsiness or agitation, excitement (dogs)
Urinary incontinence, dribbling (dogs)
Vomiting
Tremors and seizures
Coma57
96
Pets, livestock, and wildlife which have freedom to roam, may encounter marijuana
grown in obscure rural areas, increasing the likelihood of ingested marijuana and
subsequent suffering.
A letter of protest submitted on October 2, 2016 to the Thurston County Board of
Commissioners referred to the illegal use of prohibited pesticides by two of the state’s
largest marijuana operations: New Leaf Enterprises, makers of the popular Dama line of
products, and BMF Washington LLC. Both facilities became the target of a WSLCB
investigation.58 Samples taken on November 12, 2015, “tested positive for significant
levels of myclobutanil, the active ingredient in Eagle 20; spiromesifen, the active
ingredient in Forbid 4F; and dinotefuran, the active ingredient in another banned
pesticide, called Safari 20.”59 The letter states that “Gorodnitsky and Dax Colwell, New
Leaf’s owners, insisted that they hadn’t sprayed their legal grow, and the contamination
must be due to what Gorodnitsky called a ‘loophole,’ wherein the growers were allowed
to bring in plants from their medical grows that were already tainted.”60 According to The
Seattle Times on February 13, 2016, executives at New Leaf said they had used
myclobutanil on “mother plants” when the company was in the medical marijuana
business. Myclobutanil, the article pointed out, turns to cyanide gas when heated to a
certain temperature. The company president said at the time that when cuttings from
those plants were introduced as clones to the recreational market “the mothers transferred
myclobutanil into regulated plants . . . This is possible with so-called systemic pesticides
that don’t just stay on plant surfaces but move into the whole plant.”61
97
Traffic
Despite being relatively easy to cultivate, marijuana plants require regular
attention to sustain a healthy and productive crop.62 Therefore, according to the WSLCB,
up to 150 workers can be employed at a Tier 3 facility depending on the size of the
operation and plant production cycle.63 Increasing the number of workers increases traffic
to and from a site, posing additional challenges for neighbors previously used to quiet
rural byways. Maintaining road conditions can be difficult, depending on location.
Private roads do not fall under county jurisdiction, leaving neighbors with the additional
expense of maintaining a degraded easement due to increased traffic serving an
industrial-size marijuana operation. Unfortunately, despite three earth moving vehicles
associated with the marijuana operations sitting idle on the property, and following years
of worker traffic damaging the dirt road, my neighbors would not provide upkeep for the
easement (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Degraded easement from increased traffic.
Truck, heavy equipment, and marijuana worker traffic significantly degraded road conditions
on this single-lane easement outside Yelm, Washington. (Photographs by author, 2017).
98
Marijuana Grower Concerns
Statements made by marijuana producers attending Thurston County
Commissioner Public Hearings have alluded to growers favoring rural residential or
agricultural areas because of the lower cost in leasing or purchasing acreage and
installing facilities. Other advantages for growers could be the challenges facing agencies
that attempt to enforce building codes and regulations in secluded locations. One
producer who attended the Public Hearing on renewing Thurston County’s interim
ordinance in May 2018, stressed that marijuana is a plant, and should be given the same
consideration as any other agricultural product. He, as have others, requested that
marijuana production again be allowed in agricultural areas.64
In Thurston County, some marijuana producers have complained about the
expense incurred after purchasing property in rural residential or agriculture zones and
the loss of their investment after pre-emptively developing facilities, then losing their
investment because a revised ordinance later prohibited their enterprise. Other producers
have said that less energy is consumed in outdoor operations under greenhouses than in
indoor warehouses (usually located in industrial/commercial areas), implying that success
in the marijuana business only comes to facilities located in a rural location. Producers
have argued that rent is too high, sites are limited, and regulations too stringent to
succeed in less rural locations.
My neighbor told me in 2015 that his enterprise would be worth five million
dollars. “Why wouldn’t I do this?” he asked me. At what cost to the environment and
neighboring properties? I wondered. Surely, if he could earn such an amount in a rural
residential area, shouldn’t he also earn a profit in a better suited commercial or
99
industrially zoned location with ready access to a sewer system, electricity, and water
supply? In April 2017, my neighbor testified before the Board of County Commissioners
that he had a flower farm on his property, ambiguously referring, I presume, to his
unregistered marijuana. His words were printed in The Olympian the following day
where he was portrayed as an upstanding and somewhat victimized representative of
marijuana industry regulations.65
Misrepresentation of Facts
Since legalization of commercial marijuana, the WSLCB has consistently stated
that marijuana license applicants must abide by all county land use regulations in the area
selected for a marijuana production or processing operation.66 Similar to other land use
developments, a marijuana facility should not begin construction without following
county guidelines. The Thurston County Interim Marijuana Ordinance states that
applicants who begin construction of marijuana facilities in advance of receiving a
special land use permit, do so “at their own risk.”67
Public records show my neighbors’ misrepresentation of facts in various land use
and license applications.68, 69 The original 2014 vested application for Administrative
Special Use Permit (ASUP) describes the business as: “Organic Harvest will grow
marijuana outdoors in a secured area. The production will take place in a 30 x 96 foot
poly-film greenhouse. Plants will be in the ground and covered late season with plastic to
prevent mold.”70 In addition, the individual named as the Applicant for the Home
Occupation resided in Olympia, had never lived on the property, and had a significant
criminal history that included robbery, hit and run, assault, and jail time.71
100
The WSLCB monitors marijuana applicants through a criminal credit-point
system. Anyone with a score above eight is denied a marijuana license.72 Yet this
Applicant, included as a partner in my neighbors’ marijuana production and processing
license application, had a criminal credit history score of 44, way beyond the acceptable
limit for approval of a license.73 When the WSLCB discovered the criminal record had
not been disclosed in the Tier 3 application, they would not grant the license, so my
neighbor changed the name of the business, and informed the WSLCB that this Applicant
would instead become an employee.74 However, in contradiction, the ASUP submitted to
Thurston County stated the business would have no employees. Also, this individual’s
name, listed as the sole Applicant on the 2014 county land use application, was not
changed until 2017. He and his wife (who also has a criminal record and was included as
a Tier 3 Organic Harvest license applicant), never resided on the property.75
Without waiting for special land use approval by Thurston County to operate a
commercial marijuana business on the property, my neighbors proceeded to deforest,
grade, level, and tier the hillside and build facility infrastructure from 2014 to 2017 with
the support of the WSLCB.76 Site plans submitted to Puget Sound Energy in 2016 reveal
that the facility was going to be a 2,000 square foot processing building and six
industrial-sized greenhouses, NOT the 200 square foot processing shed and one 30’x96’
industrial-sized greenhouse as applied for in the original 2014 ASUP vested by Thurston
County.77, 78 As of December 2016, four of the six intended greenhouses never indicated
in site plans to the county, had already been constructed (Figure 16).
101
April 8, 2014 and July 10, 2015
Thurston County Planning – 1 greenhouse
August 1, 2016
Puget Sound Energy – 6 greenhouses
August 23, 2016
Thurston County Planning – 3 greenhouses
March 31, 2017
Thurston County Planning – 3 greenhouses
Figure 16: Misleading information in marijuana site plans.
A total of four out of an intended six greenhouses had been constructed as of December 2016.
(Thurston County Permitting and Land Use, 2018).79
Misinformation is a significant point of contention impacting residents
neighboring such facilities. When zoning regulations changed in Thurston County’s
Interim Marijuana Ordinance in 2015, all marijuana land use applications already
submitted were considered vested, my neighbor’s included. As a result, neighboring
residents troubled by the intrusion, especially where expansion was occurring, were told
by county officials that there was nothing they could do. Yet my neighbors deviated from
the vested land use application by developing two marijuana operations without permits,
when only one had been previously allowed in that zone; and ten times larger than the
building scope of the original ASUP. The expansion from one greenhouse to six, and the
increase from a 200 square foot to a 2,000 square foot processing building intended to be
102
shared by multiple marijuana businesses is significant, resulting in a two year legal battle
to contest the county’s vesting of the operation.80
Over the years my neighbors received multiple notices regarding building and
land conversion code violations. Eventually public records revealed that at least six
different marijuana production and processing licenses had been applied for on the tenacre property.81 In 2015, applications for three additional marijuana production licenses
were submitted to the WSLCB on an adjacent ten-acre property.82 The marijuana
producers/processors located on the adjoining property were planning to share the
expanded processing shed on my neighbors’ property, I was informed at the time by a
troubled neighbor.
Had these multiple marijuana operations been licensed and granted final land use
approval, my family, landlocked behind all of this activity, would have had to pass
through the center of at least four industrial-scale marijuana operations—with a capacity
to produce 80,000+ square feet of marijuana plant canopy (under multiple WSLCB
licenses)—in order to access our property (Figures 17 and 18). All because zoning in the
county’s earlier Interim Marijuana Ordinance had allowed such operations to locate in
rural residential communities. A Planning Commission Briefing presented before the
Board of Thurston County Commissioners in 2016 stated “Is it appropriate based on what
we know to allow marijuana producers in rural residential zones?”83 The difficulty I wish
to point out is that misinformation can become so confusing, officials can take the route
of licensing a facility rather than addressing the concerns of neighboring residents.
103
Figure 17: Unpermitted Tier 2 and Tier 3 marijuana operations.
Two unpermitted industrial-scale marijuana facilities cultivating unlicensed marijuana on a ten-acre, rural
residential property outside Yelm, Washington. (Photograph by author, October 3, 2016).
Figure 18: Unlicensed marijuana cultivation in 2016.
Over a thousand unregistered marijuana plants were located in several areas on the same property outside
Yelm, Washington in 2016 and again in 2017. (Photograph by author, October 3, 2016).
Public records can reveal misleading information provided by marijuana
applicants when positioning themselves for a license, or licenses, in a favored location. A
review of our neighbors’ records from 2014 to 2017 revealed contradictory statements in
104
the number of employees, type of operation, size of facilities, investment funds,
ownership, previous infractions, undocumented marijuana production and transport, and
building violations.84, 85 How, I often asked, can a marijuana license be sanctioned, and a
special land use permit application be deemed vested, when such unethical behavior is so
apparent?
Vested Interests
The vesting of marijuana operations remains a point of contention between the
public and the Board of County Commissioners as they deliberate a final marijuana
ordinance. In a meeting at our home on August 18, 2016, former Thurston County
Commissioner, Sandra Romero, apologized to my family. She informed us that the
language in the early marijuana ordinance was not legally “strong enough” for us to
oppose the permitting of our neighbors’ operations, despite the pre-existing and
continuing land use violations and the unlawful cultivation of marijuana.
Thurston County Commissioners have held multiple hearings to receive public
comment regarding the eleven Interim Marijuana Ordinances, to date, in the county. Five
years after legalization, the indecision on a final ordinance has been due, in part, to the
debate in marijuana zoning, and how to deal with vested applications resulting from the
earlier interim ordinance.
Public protest submitted after zoning regulations were changed in 2015 indicates
the continuing discontent of Thurston County citizens having to deal with vested
marijuana operations.86 Referring to a developing marijuana operation where she lived in
Mountain Vista, a Yelm neighborhood, Pat Kelly wrote:
105
We really don’t want to breathe that stuff in the air, or we would be
smoking it ourselves. It makes the air toxic. It should be located in an
industrial park.87
Ira Holman, contesting the same Mountain Vista project stated:
People no longer feel safe and it is an eyesore as stated above . . . We
don’t have the law enforcement to continually check this operation for
compliance and this will lead to many unreported spills and other
contamination problems that could indeed affect our groundwater.88
Elizabeth Wynia, also concerned about the Mountain Vista project, commented:
We do not want commercial growing of marijuana in the Mountain
Vista residential district. People offered a plethora of deleterious
effects caused by this business. The reasons include property
devaluation, bad smell, unsightly fence and hoop greenhouses not in
keeping with our natural setting, fear of letting children walk around
freely given the kind of individuals drug trade attracts, stress on our
water reserves, pollution, and so on . . . It behooves the Commissioners
to protect and maintain our individual rights by removing the
marijuana business from our neighborhood.89
Lori and John Cupp, from Yelm, had this to say about a facility near them:
This County has had its share of phony medical marijuana dealers who
have taken advantage of weak laws and have been allowed to get way
out of control, much to the detriment of the rural communities they
pollute. 90
and further:
There are different people coming and going to this facility daily.
Besides retaliation we have experienced we are also concerned about
the crime risks it brings into our neighborhood.91
Kelly Noltensmeier, from Rochester, stated:
This is a residential neighborhood . . . All of the hundreds of
residences that surround the property depend on wells for our water.
If there is a discharge of any of the chemicals used in the [marijuana]
growing we will all be poisoned with no hope of an alternative water
source . . . My family has lived here for over 40 years…If we are forced
to go on city water because of something that is not our fault. Is that
right or fair?92
106
Janice Hortung, living on a six-acre rural residential parcel in northeastern Thurston
County, reported:
There were six large outdoor hoop houses with 45 plants, and the
skunk odor wafted strongly over most of our entire parcel itself, and the
parcel on the opposite side of the grow operation to encompass about a
12 acre area. The operation was and still is an unsightly mess, and we
suffered with constant traffic going to and from the grow operation at
all hours. All three neighbors who adjoined this parcel were negatively
affected by it, as well as the neighbors across the road who
experienced a lot of noise from the high traffic.93
These are a sampling of the concerns arising out of the early zoning of marijuana
production and processing operations in unincorporated Thurston County. Unfortunately,
once a commercial marijuana operation was deemed vested, it became difficult to contest
that decision and oppose a facility, regardless of harmful impacts occurring to the natural
environment and surrounding residents.
I presented photographic evidence of the hundreds of unregistered marijuana
plants produced at the facility next door to my property from 2015 to 2017 to various
government entities including the Governor’s office. During that time, construction
continued and outside investment poured in. After receiving approval for the two
licenses, a combined 40,000 square feet of marijuana plant canopy was going to be
allowed production by the WLSCB on my neighbors’ ten-acre property. However,
Thurston County could not issue a special use permit for two marijuana operations on the
same parcel in that zone, regardless of whether or not the original ASUP was vested. Yet
the WSLCB renewed the Tier 2 and conducted a final site visit to approve an additional
license to process marijuana on the property in January 2017.94, 95 This example indicates
a significant flaw in bureaucratic policy.
107
County officials did not curtail my neighbor’s vested ASUP until several months
after an August 17, 2017 raid on the property by law enforcement.96 Vesting marijuana
production and processing facilities in Thurston County has caused my family frustration,
stress, and at times despair. When our protests seemed to be going nowhere, we
considered accepting our losses and moving to Idaho. This personal case study, woven
throughout this thesis, exemplifies the difficulties other residents are also experiencing
due to issues in marijuana policy in Washington State. Instead of concerns related to
unethical marijuana businesses being addressed, we, and others, have been thrust into the
category of NIMBYs. The term was used by a WSLCB representative describing
residents upset about a marijuana facility during a briefing to the Thurston County Board
of Commissioners I attended in March, 2017.97
NIMBY
Through working to expose the shadow operations occurring next door to my
property, I came to understand the unjustness of the title “NIMBY”—a term often used to
negatively characterize those opposed to certain government land use decisions. Without
intending to, I had joined the ranks of other social groups and individuals fighting for
basic respect for property, community safety, and the environment. As stated by Dr.
Kathleen Saul, professor with The Evergreen State College, “Laws have been set forth to
determine what can and cannot be done on/with property and we expect people to uphold
their part of the property rights bargain since what they do on/with their property affects
us and our ability to use our property. That’s what lies behind our laws governing
pollution, for example.”98
108
NIMBY first appeared in mid-1970 according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.99
The term NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) can refer to citizens who object to the potential
hazards of situating jails, landfills, drug rehabilitation centers, or other undesired projects
that will severely alter the character of their community. Few, I would argue, welcome
such potentially dangerous intrusions to a neighborhood. Does that make everyone a
potential NIMBY? Without hesitation, and based upon my experience, I would add largescale marijuana facilities to this list of undesirable operations being located within rural
residential neighborhoods. Government regulations and county zoning statutes contain
clauses that are meant to consider all stakeholders. Labeling one side with the catch-all
term “NIMBY” shows insensitivity, and lacks acknowledgement of the impact such
projects have on others. According to Saul “It also puts all opposition into one category,
failing to recognize there might be diversity in the groups or individuals exposed.”100 In
certain situations, such as my own, NIMBY comes across as belittling and often reveals
an inability or unwillingness to listen to all sides of an argument in order to find an
equitable solution. Even Washington State Representative Denny Heck referred to
NIMBYs when I asked him, at a presentation at the Evergreen State College in 2017, for
his perspective on landowners upset about marijuana production in rural residential areas.
WSLCB Loopholes
During a private meeting in 2017, WSLCB Commander Dzubay stated “I spend
all day talking to people in a situation just like yours.” Later she confided: “Even I don’t
sleep at night because I’m worried one of these marijuana operations will locate next to
me.” The Commander and two other WSLCB officials told my husband and I the
WSLCB could do nothing to help us. Yet we were to keep the agency informed about any
109
continuing illicit activity. Why? Because despite knowing about the unlawful quantity of
marijuana cultivated on our neighbors’ property, the WSLCB will only intervene AFTER
a marijuana operation is licensed. Therefore, if issued a license despite unlawful activity,
the activity is no longer deemed unlawful. Illegal cultivation could be occurring
elsewhere on the property and the agency told us they will not investigate and so, in our
case, they continued to process the license applications.
In essence, current WSLCB policy, as described to my husband and I on several
occasions by the WSLCB, allows the agency to whitewash and ignore an applicant’s
illicit activity during the process of applying for a marijuana license. Where it is stated in
the regulations that the WSLCB only intervenes in unlawful activity once a license is
issued, I have not been able to locate. The policy was verbally communicated by several
high-ranking WSLCB officials. Whether this policy is according to state regulations, or a
WSLCB enforcement policy, my experience demonstrates that an applicant can receive a
production or processing license regardless of undesirable activity and potentially
dangerous disruption to neighboring residents.
Following my complaints to Thurston County Planners, a letter was sent from the
WSLCB Licensing and Regulation Division to Thurston County Planning that stated:
This letter is to inform you of our decision on the above application.
We received your response to our July 1, 2014 notice of application.
Your response, dated July 16, 2014, indicated disapproval of the
location for this application. Based on WAC 314-55-050, your
objection is not grounds for seeking denial of an application because it
fails to meet any of the elements contained in that regulation. The
Liquor and Cannabis Board cannot support denial of the application
based upon a local ordinance regarding a land use permit. Local
Ordinances are the business of the given city or county and are not
within the Board’s jurisdiction. This notification is for courtesy
110
purposes only and we will not be offering nor granting you a hearing on
this decision.101
The above statement by the WSLCB is a catch-22. Thurston County disapproved of the
location of my neighbor’s 2014 marijuana production and processing application, yet the
WSLCB would not recognize the determination, stating “The Liquor and Cannabis Board
cannot support denial of the application based upon a local ordinance regarding a land
use permit. Local Ordinances are the business of the given city or county [emphasis
added] and are not within the Board’s jurisdiction.” 102
My experience in endeavoring to work with government agencies responsible for
a community’s wellbeing has taught me that walking alone on the edge of personal and
family safety, because regulations do not adequately protect citizens, changes one’s
perspective. Knowing our arguments were being ignored, I reached a point that I no
longer felt inferior to those in power. Because I was about to lose everything I had
worked to achieve for nearly three decades, I overcame my fear and was ready to fight
the injustice. My neighbors jeered at my comings and goings because they knew I was
opposing their operations, but I realized if I didn’t try to stop this abuse, we would have
to leave our home.
Rather than lose everything, or be forced to live with the increasing noise, odor,
traffic and fear, I chose to present my family’s case to as many government agencies as
possible. I visited the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Washington State
Department of Health, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, Thurston
County Resource Stewardship, the Thurston County Commissioner’s office, two State
Representative offices, a State Senator’s office, the Governor’s office, the Olympic
111
Region Clean Air Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, US Fish and Wildlife,
Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department, Yelm City Council,
local law enforcement, and the Thurston County Sheriff’s Department. I also spoke with
a variety of other government appointees, including an assistant to the Washington State
Attorney General. In August 2016, then County Commissioner Sandra Romero
demonstrated a willingness to listen when she agreed to visit our home. She climbed a
ladder at the back of my garden to view the unlicensed marijuana being cultivated and
later told me “We just didn’t realize the difference between marijuana production and
agriculture when the first ordinance was created.”
Although Governor Inslee, according to The Nisqually Valley News, stated that
“the marijuana industry is succeeding in its goal to provide a safe, well-regulated option
for marijuana consumers which has decimated the black market.” this has not been the
case for all Washington State residents.103 Vesting laws that allow a still federally listed
Schedule I drug to remain in neighborhoods where they are causing significant disruption
to citizens’ enjoyment of their own properties, experiencing nausea and headaches when
they go outside, or living in fear of retaliation if they oppose a marijuana operation, is
completely unfair. Especially as the majority (according to Washington State and
Thurston County surveys conducted and discussed later in this thesis) were never notified
about the intrusion. WSLCB enforcement policy that refuses to take into account
unlawful activity occurring during the application process is unjust and irresponsible. The
power of the WSLCB to override land use decisions made by county planning
departments should be a concern to everyone.
112
______________________________________________________________________________________
1. Snaza, J. (2018, February 26). Thurston County Sheriff. Thurston County Sheriff’s Department.
Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
2. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). (2016, December 5). ORCAA Complaint Form
ID 17412. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). Olympia, Washington.
3. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018). Document Library Research. Project No.
2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Resource
Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
4. Manns, R. (2016, October 20). 2 nd Notice of Violation. Case #CZ 16-105016 Project No.
2014101488. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia,
Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
5. Kantas, T. (2017, January 13). Administrative Special Use Permit – Marijuana Production &
Processing. Project No. 2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
6. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (2017, February 24). Work Session
Summary. Commissioners Planning Session – Cannabis. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/bocc/Pages/agendas.aspx
7. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2015, November 10). Ordinance
No. 15210. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=5581486&searchid=53a0f74e-4ae3-4061-8df119824224fe03&dbid=0
8. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, September 20). An Ordinance
permanently adopting regulations for marijuana producers, processors, and retailers.
Attachment B. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia,
Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/marijuanaregulations-proposed-ordiance-to-permanently-establish.pdf
9. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners. (2016, November 8). Ordinance No. 15371.
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
10. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact
Report Volume 2. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative Support
Center Treatment and Prevention. Seattle, Washington.
11. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, March 15). Thurston
County Board Briefing Request - Thurston County Marijuana Data. Thurston County
Resource Stewardship, Long Range Planning Division. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/bocc/Pages/agendas.aspx
12. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact
Report Volume 2. Pg. 20. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative
Support Center Treatment and Prevention. Seattle, Washington.
13. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-165. Objections to marijuana license
renewals. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-165
14. Kantas, T. (2016, November 4). Land Use Violation and Question. Email correspondence to
Masias at lcb.wa.gov Thurston County Resource Stewardship. Olympia, Washington.
113
15. McIver, M. (2017, August 21). Narcotics Taskforce Officer’s Report. Case Number: 16-035
TNT. Unlawful Manufacturing of a Controlled Substance – Marijuana. Thurston County
Narcotics Taskforce. Olympia, Washington.
16. Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-515. What are the penalties if a
marijuana license holder violates a marijuana law of rule? Washington State Legislature.
Available: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-515
17. McIver, M. (2017, August 21).
18. Hammersvik, E., Sandberg, S., Pedersen, W. (2012, August 13). Why small-scale cannabis
growers stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent small-scale growers from going large
scale. ScienceDirect: International Journal of Drug Policy. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.08.001
19. Nguyen, H., Malm, A., Bouchard, M. (2014, August 21). Production, perceptions, and
punishment: Restrictive deterrence in the context of cannabis cultivation. International
Journal of Drug Policy. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.08.012
20. Decorte, T., Potter G. (2015). The globalisation of cannabis cultivation: A growing challenge.
ScienceDirect: International Journal of Drug Policy. Available:
www.elseveir.com/locate/drugpo
21. The News Tribune Staff. (2017, November 28). Suspected illegal pot grows busted in
Thurston, Grays Harbor and King counties. The News Tribune, Aberdeen, Washington.
Available: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article186966538.html
22. The Olympian Staff. (2017, November 29). 4 Thurston County sites among those hit in raid
netting $80 million in pot plants. The Olympian. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article187231078.html
23. Johnson, N. (2018, January 11). Lewis County Sheriff: Trend of Large, Illegal Pot Grows
Likely to Continue. Investigations: Power Bills a Giveaway for Clandestine Pot Growers.
The Chronicle. Centralia, Washington. Available:
http://www.chronline.com/search/?l=25&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&t=article%2Cv
ideo%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&q=Lewis+County+Sheriff%3A+Trend+
of+Large%2C+Illegal+Pot+Grows+Likely+to+Continue
24. Johnson, N. (2018, January 11).
25. Johnson, N. (2018, January 11).
26. McIver, M. (2017, August 21).
27. Bush, E. (2018, February 7). With tracking systems hobbling, marijuana industry scrambles to
keep pot on shelves. The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington. Available:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/with-tracking-system-hobblingmarijuana-industry-scrambles-to-keep-pot-on-shelves/
28. Bush, E. (2018, February 7).
29. Young, B. (2017, August 5). U.S. Attorney General Sessions criticizes Washington state’s
legal marijuana system. The Seattle Times Local News. Seattle, Washington. Available:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sessions-raises-concerns-over-washingtonsmarijuana-legalization/
30. Irby, K. (2018, January 4). Sessions ends policy that allowed legal pot, disrupting state
markets. McClatchy Washington Bureau. Available:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article192953934.html
31. Johnson, N. (2018, January 11).
114
32. Selsky, A. (2017, August 14) Marijuana states try to curb smuggling, avert US crackdown.
Associated Press. New York, N.Y. Available:
https://www.apnews.com/f1c7244ac5384f9e9c08201967526791
33. Fuller, T. (2017, September 9). Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here. If Only Pot Farmers Were on
Board. The New York Times. New York, N.Y. Available:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/us/california-marijuana-growers.html
34. Fuller, T. (2017, September 9).
35. Holman, I. (2015). Not In Our Neighborhood. Letter of Complaint submitted to Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Long Range Planning. Yelm, WA resident.
36. Chalem, K. (2016, February 24). Memorandum: Marijuana Interim Regulations - Staff
responses to questions posed by Planning Commission members. A.1 Information for
planning commission to review. Email from Ira Holman, February 18, 2016. Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
37. O’Hare, M., Sanchez, D.L., Alstone, P. (2013, June 28). Environmental risks and opportunities
in cannabis cultivation. BOTEC Analysis Corp. Available:
http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/BOTEC_Whitepaper_Final.pdf
38. Mills, E. (2012, April 17). The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Energy Policy
46: 58–67. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.023
39. Puget Sound Energy (PSE). (2016, June 10). Organic Harvest, LLC (Grow Op). Puget Sound
Energy, Inc. Tacoma, Washington.
40. Brigham, J. (2016). Private email correspondence with Puget Sound Energy (PSE). Yelm,
Washington resident.
41. Kantas, T. (2016, October 21). Administrative Special Use Permit – Marijuana Production &
Processing. Planning (3.) Project No. 2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM.
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=MinutesTextSearch
42. Brigham, J. (2016).
43. Shimada, T. (2016, November 17). Re: Please_DocuSign_these_documents_Electric_Com
Private email correspondence. Seattle, Washington resident.
44. Washington State Legislature. (2018). RCW 70.94.011 Declaration of public policies and
purpose. Washington State Legislature Available:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.94.011
45. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2017, December 4). Q&A Spokane Regional
Clean Air Agency’s Proposed Rules for marijuana Production & Processing. Spokane
Regional Clean Air Agency. Spokane, Washington.
46. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2017, December 7). Article IV. Exhibit R –
Stationary Source and Stationary Source Categories Subject to Registration. Spokane
Regional Clean Air Agency. Spokane, Washington
47. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2018, February 28). Compliance Assistance
Program – Marijuana Production & Processing in Spokane County. Pg. 2. Spokane
Regional Clean Air Agency. Spokane, Washington.
48. Francks, H. C. (2018, March 20). PCHB NO. 17-028c Green Freedom LLC v. Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency. P. 10. Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office.
Tumwater, Washington.
49. Francks, H. C. (2018, March 20).
115
50. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners. (2017, May 8). Ordinance No. 15465.
20.63.050 Development Standards Specific. Thurston County Resource Stewardship
Department. Olympia, Washington. Available: http://mrsc.org/getmedia/ec2b449d-0ebe4c71-8012-f00296977f43/t46o15465.pdf.aspx
51. McNair, F.L. (2018, March 16). Executive Director. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA). Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
52. Subritzky, T., Pettigrew, S., Lenton, S. (2015, December 1). Issues in the Implementation and
evolution of the Commercial Recreational Cannabis Market in Colorado. International
Journal of Drug Policy. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.001
53. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact
Report Volume 2. Pg. 8. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative
Support Center Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
54. Stone, D. (2014, May 20). Cannabis, pesticides and conflicting laws: The dilemma for
legalized states and implications for public health. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology. Available: www.elseveir.com/locate/yrtph
55. Oregon Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA). (2017, December 11). Marijuana and Pets.
Oregon Veterinary Medical Association. Available: https://oregonvma.org/carehealth/safety/marijuana-pets
56. Oregon Veterinary Medical Association. (2017, December 11).
57. Oregon Veterinary Medical Association. (2017, December 11).
58. Baker A. (2016, October 2). Proposed Thurston County Zoning Changes for Marijuana
Growing. Submitted to Thurston County Resource Stewardship. Yelm, Washington
resident. Email correspondence.
59. Baker A. (2016, October 2).
60. Baker A. (2016, October 2).
61. Young, B. (2016, February 13). With much unknown, one expert says it’s ‘buyer beware’ –
Pesticides in Pot. The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington.
62. McPartland, J.M., Clarke, R.C., Watson, D.P. (2000) Hemp diseases and pests: management
and biological control: an advanced treatise. CABI Publishing. New York, N.Y.
63. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, March 15).
64. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1). Public Hearing on
Interim Marijuana Renewal Ordinance. Thurston County Washington. Olympia,
Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/tchome/Pages/publicmeetings.aspx
65. Pemberton, L. (2017, April 27). Residents want pot businesses kept out of rural areas. The
Olympian. Olympia, Washington.
66. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2017). Regulatory/Permitting
Guidance for Greenhouse Marijuana Producers. Local Government Permits and
Regulations. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
67. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1).
Ordinance No. 15613. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=9808796&searchid=1f8a
b1ca-43b7-4996-b625-607e3a20889a&dbid=0
68. Kantas T. (2017, January 13).
116
69. Masias A.V. (2017, April 17). Enforcement Report of Complaint. Blue Moose - Complaint
Number C7C7107A and C7C7107B. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
70. Kantas, T. (2017, January 13).
71. Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB). (2014, January 21). Request for Required
Documents. Organic Harvest. License #413102. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board. Olympia, Washington.
72. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2017). Marijuana Licensing FAQ.
What criminal history might prevent me from getting licensed? Washington State Liquor
and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
73. Stanford, D.A. (2014, May 2) Re: Organic Harvest, License 413102, and James Arthur Weller.
Letter to WLSB. Slinde Nelson Stanford Attorneys. Portland, Oregon. Available:
www.slindenelsonstanfordcom.
74. Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB). (2014, April 10). Notification of Criminal
History Points. Organic Harvest. License #: 413102. Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
75. Thurston County Permit Assistance Center. (2014, April 8). Master Application. Project No.
2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington.
76. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018).
77. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018).
78. Puget Sound Energy (PSE). (2016, June 10).
79. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018).
80. Cushman, B.D. (2016, December 8). Application for Other Administrative Action - Code
Interpretation pertaining to Project No. 2014101488 (Marijuana Producing/Processing
Application). Cushman Law Offices. Olympia, Washington. Available:
www.cushmanlaw.com
81. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018).
82. Thurston County Permit Assistance Center. (2015, February 13). Master Application. Project
2015101304. 15 104057 VI Presubmission Conference. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington.
83. Chalem K. (2016, February 3). Resource Stewardship Planning Commission Briefing:
Proposed Chapter 20.63 – Marijuana Regulations. Thurston County Long Range
Planning Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/presentation-to-planningcommission-marijuana-interim-regulations.pdf
84. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018).
85. Cushman, B.D. (2016, December 8).
86. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
87. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
88. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
89. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
90. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
117
91. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
92. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
93. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22).
94. Kantas, T. (2016, November 4).
95. Masias, A.V. (2017, April 17).
96. McIver, M. (2017, August 21).
97. Thurston County Board of Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, March 15).
98. Saul, K.M. (2018). Private correspondence. The Evergreen State College. Olympia,
Washington.
99. Kinder, P.D. (2016, June 14). Not in My Backyard Phenomenon. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Available: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Not-in-My-Backyard-Phenomenon
100. Saul, K.M. (2018).
101. Smith, R. (2016, August 18). Re: New Application for Marijuana Producer/Processor.
Magnum Buds. License #: 413102. Michael Kain, Planning Manager Thurston County
Commissioners. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
102. Smith, R. (2016, August 18).
103. Kollar, A. (2018, January 12). Washington Responds to Fed’s Marijuana Crackdown. The
Nisqually Valley News. Yelm, Washington.
118
_____________________________________________________
CH. 2 COLLECTING THE DATA
We have been studying marijuana and marijuana policy for a combined
total of nearly seventy years, but what we know is only a fraction of
what is known, let alone the vast amount that remains unknown.
A thorough understanding would draw on ideas from agronomy,
anthropology, botany, chemistry, cognitive science, economics, history,
international relations, law, management, medicine, neurobiology,
operations analysis, pharmacology, philosophy, policy analysis,
political science, psychology, public administration,
sociology, and statistics.
Caulkins, et al., Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, 20161
2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES & DESIGN
My Personal Conquest
On October 3, 2016, aware that marijuana was being cultivated on my neighbors’
property, I decided to take the matter into my own hands and rent a plane. I had waited
for narcotics agents to act, but was informed they were understaffed and the only plane
available was fighting wildfires in eastern Washington. I later realized how important that
decision would be in obtaining the proof I needed to challenge the illicit activities
occurring.
During the brief flight I witnessed and photographed the wound in the landscape
and hundreds of unpermitted marijuana plants being cultivated in the forest behind my
garden. “How can we allow this beauty to be destroyed by an industry that doesn’t seem
to care a whit for the environment?” I wondered. I was heartbroken as I saw my precious
land next to the ugly tear in the landscape. That day I captured over 500 marijuana plants
being unlawfully produced on my neighbors’ property.
119
In July 2017, aware that marijuana was still being unlawfully cultivated behind
my garden, I rented a small plane for the second time. That same morning, while walking
my dog, I noted the arrival of a semitrailer and observed my neighbor unloading
hundreds of marijuana plants without county or WSLCB permission. The coincidence of
having a flight booked that very morning was astounding. Due to delays I finally lifted
off at 10:20 a.m. (Figure 19). This time I never saw the landscape. I had one agenda. I
captured a second truck delivery and what was later found to be more than 1,500
marijuana plants, more than half of them untagged, inside the greenhouses on the
property (Figure 11). Those photographs were immediately sent to our attorney, the
Sheriff, and a few days later The Seattle Times. It was a turning point in my personal
conquest to confront black market operations and deception in applying for marijuana
licensing and special land use. Several of the aerial photographs taken in 2016 and 2017
have been included in this research (Figures 1, 11, 17, and 18).
Figure 19: Flights over unpermitted marijuana facility.
Two flights were taken with JAS, Olympia in 2016 and 2017 to document unlawful cultivation of
marijuana near Yelm, contributing to this research. (Photographs by author, 2017).
120
Research Overview
A review of the literature encompassing other states identifies potential
environmental and social issues that could arise as a result of improper marijuana
production methods, and where enforcement is lacking in regulating the industry. These
discoveries initiated my research in collecting data through case studies, surveys, public
testimony, government documents, the media, and interviews with a variety of marijuana
stakeholders.
Peer-reviewed literature concerned with marijuana production issues have focused
on environmental damage where illegal activity has occurred and regulations have been
insufficient in deterring land use violations. As discussed, multiple abuses to the
environment in terms of water diversion, garbage accumulation, deforestation, and
chemical waste poisoning have been documented in other states such as California.
Despite legalization of recreational marijuana intended to reduce black market activity,
my research reveals the continuing existence of unlawful behavior associated with
marijuana production in Washington State. Therefore, where ongoing illicit behavior and
degraded environmental conditions are occurring, social issues arise. Because the
available literature does not adequately address the social impacts to residents living in
close proximity to commercial facilities in Washington, the main objective of this
research is to better understand policy weak points that regulate large-scale marijuana
production and processing operations that could threaten pristine areas of Thurston
County and communities throughout the state.
121
Research Design
Two separate surveys were mailed to Washington State citizens residing close to a
commercial marijuana production operation. Questions allowed further comment from
both those in favor of the marijuana facility, and those opposed. I also constructed
interview questions to garner and analyze a variety of stakeholder perspectives that
included the viewpoints of government agencies involved in policy structure and
enforcement. The research was collected in three phases from mid-February to mid-June,
2018.
Phase I – Washington State Survey
Phase I of my data collection consisted of a mailed survey to Washington State
residents located close to a large marijuana production facility. Initially, a list of all
commercial marijuana producer and processor licenses was obtained from the WSLCB
website.2 I chose an August, 2017 list for the purpose of my research. At that time,
approximately five years had passed since legalization, allowing time for development of
facilities and neighborhood response. Some businesses may not have succeeded, or been
delayed due to community protests. That proved correct. As with my neighbors, not all
marijuana production or processing operations have county land use permission to
operate under a WSLCB license. Thus, this initial list might not have included all
operations actually impacting social and natural environments.
I narrowed the large subject field of over 1,200 facilities to a list comprising only
Tier 3 marijuana producers in the state. Using Google Earth, I assessed neighborhoods
122
surrounding each facility, and reduced my study to those operations located within rural
residential areas.
A total of 162 Tier 3 marijuana facilities spanning 27 Washington counties
appeared using Google Maps satellite imagery. Out of these I further narrowed my
selection to 32 marijuana operations as the basis of my survey. Using online county data
resources, I identified neighboring property owners located within several hundred feet to
an approximate one half-mile of a facility, and mailed a survey to those residents. Names
and addresses remain confidential.
Between two to thirteen households were surveyed near each facility, depending
on available property information and the residential density of the location. A letter of
introduction accompanied a list of ten close- and open-ended survey questions divided
into two sections (Appendix I). Close-ended questions enabled a quantitative evaluation
of participant’ response, while open-ended questioning allowed for participant comment.
Opinions were coded by content. Survey questions mirrored the environmental, social,
and policy research objectives outlined in this thesis, and had been approved by the
Human Subjects Review Board at The Evergreen State College.
In total, I mailed 200 surveys to residents in ten counties throughout Washington
State between January 22, to 26, 2018. I gave no response deadline for the survey;
however, I allocated a period of six weeks for data collection. Counties involved in my
research included: King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, Clark, Benton, Spokane,
Whatcom, Yakima, and Chelan. Excel software was used in graphing the data.
123
Phase II – Interviews
Phase II of my research consisted of a series of interviews intended to explore
outcomes related to marijuana policy from the perspective of government agencies,
citizens, and industry stakeholders. All interviews were semi-formal, and guided by a tenpoint sequence of conversational questioning that encouraged dialogue with the
participant. Interview questions were approved by the Human Subjects Review Board at
The Evergreen State College. Where agreed upon in advance, an interview was recorded
and transcribed.
Interview participants were identified as representatives of state agencies
responsible for implementing or enforcing marijuana regulations, individuals involved in
the industry, marijuana consumers, and neighboring residents (Appendix II). I contacted
potential interview participants either by phone or email and used phone or email for
follow-up questions to clarify points or changes in policy. Government agencies
contacted for this research included the Washington State Department of Health, Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Thurston
County Sheriff’s Department, and Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency.
Phase III – Thurston County Survey
Phase III of this research focused on Thurston County residents and marijuana
production operations of all sizes located in rural residential communities. This phase
covered marijuana operations ranging from a Tier 1 (up to 2,000 square feet of plant
canopy), to a Tier 3 operation (up to 30,000 square feet of plant canopy), either licensed
or in the licensing application process. I chose Thurston County for this additional survey
124
due to the proximity to The Evergreen State College, travel time, and the county’s
lengthy delay in finalizing a marijuana ordinance. Questions included in this second
survey were modeled after the previous Phase I statewide survey with only minor
adjustments (Appendix III).
From an August, 2017 WSLCB list of marijuana applications in Thurston County,
I selected 31 production/processing facilities located in a rural residential or agricultural
area as viewed through Google satellite imagery.3 A total of 200 surveys were mailed or
hand delivered to Thurston County households located within an approximate one-half
mile of a marijuana facility from April 26 to May 1, 2018. I gave no response deadline
for the survey; however, I again allocated a period of six weeks for data collection. Excel
software was used to graph the results that follow.
________________________________________________________________________
1. Caulkins, J.P., Kilmer, B., Kleiman, A.R. (2016). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone
Needs to Know. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. New York, N.Y..
2. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2018). Frequently Requested Lists.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/records/frequently-requested-lists
3. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2018).
125
_____________________________________________________
CH. 3 RESULTS
Many of the people within this development have spent their entire life
savings to go and get a piece of the American dream, a piece of land to
live on and die on, at peace with themselves and their neighbors.
Allowing this industry in our development jeopardizes everything that
we all have worked for. Do not take the dreams of the many
to further the greed of the few.
Ira Holman, Yelm resident, 20161
In 2014, on my return from a month’s vacation in Switzerland intended to restore
my body, mind, and spirit from the ravages of chemotherapy, I was dumbfounded to see
the changes to our neighborhood landscape. In that moment I had no inkling such
dramatic land conversion would occupy my life for the next four years and lead to my
thesis topic. Nor that I would interact with so many interesting and good people along the
way. At times, when the going got really tough, there were those kind souls in
government and private institutions, dedicated to public welfare, who did their best to
guide me through the regulations and become educated in how to deal with the situation.
Some of those professionals I met again in the process of this research. I was also
introduced to business owners actively engaged in the industry and gained valuable
insights into marijuana policy from their perspectives. As I was struggling to learn, these
individuals were also challenged by the newly unfolding Washington State marijuana
industry, so they too were evolving. From differing viewpoints they gave me insight into
legal procedure, property rights, water rights, land use, enforcement, air quality, waste
disposal, marijuana policy, and many of the other topics addressed in this thesis.
126
I was also fortunate to connect with individuals impacted by marijuana operations
located in their neighborhoods and, because I shared their heartache, found value in
learning from their experiences when confronting government officials about marijuana
policy and inappropriate land use zoning. Knowing “I wasn’t the only one” gave me the
courage to write about my experience, using it as a case study throughout this thesis, and
the fortitude to contact hundreds of residents I considered the most vulnerable to loss of
neighborhood character through the establishment of large-scale marijuana facilities
within their communities.
3.1 STUDY OVERVIEW
My data collection was organized into three phases in order to garner as broad an
overview as possible in the four months allotted for my research. Phase I involved a
survey of impacts to neighbors located within an approximate half-mile of a Tier 3
marijuana facility throughout Washington State. Phase II involved a series of interviews
conducted with individuals knowledgeable in marijuana policy in their field of expertise
that included meetings with representatives from government agencies, the Cannabis
Farmers Council, and private citizens. A second survey was conducted in Phase III by
contacting residents living within an approximate half-mile of a Tier 1, 2, or 3 marijuana
facility in rural residential or agricultural areas of unincorporated Thurston County.
In order to familiarize myself with marijuana production facilities located in other
areas of the state, I took a three day excursion to eastern Washington where I conducted
interviews and toured the countryside to observe Tier 3 operations established in a variety
of rural settings. In Thurston County, I visited every marijuana operation I had
determined was located in a rural area and photographed the facility from the street.
127
Those photographs have been documented. Below I report in detail the results of each
phase of my research.
3.2 PHASE I: WASHINGTON STATE SURVEY ANALYSIS
Phase I of this research involved a mailed survey to residents living within close
proximity of a proposed, or already licensed, Tier 3 marijuana operation located in a rural
residential area of Washington State. As depicted in the graphs below, the results indicate
an obvious divide between those severely impacted environmentally and/or socially, and
those not impacted at all.
This analysis focuses on survey responses from a sampling of ten counties
spanning both sides of the Cascade Mountains. Of the 200 surveys mailed throughout the
state, 22 were returned as undeliverable. In addition, 11 were not aware of a facility close
by which could indicate the marijuana application for land use had fallen through in that
location; the marijuana business had done a good job of integrating into the community;
they were not located on the same street or easement; or the neighbor was too far from
the facility to notice any marijuana production/processing activity. From the final pool of
178 surveys I received a total of 43 survey responses, from which a handful provided
only partial response to the ten questions. Although not representative of all rural
residential areas, the survey data offers a statewide sampling of responses from
individuals residing close to a Tier 3 marijuana operation in Washington State.
Marijuana regulations vary by county across Washington, resulting in greater
impacts to some residents than others. For this reason, survey responses could be limited
to only those who felt strongly enough to provide feedback, positive or negative. Some
128
people may have decided not to respond out of fear of retaliation (despite the
confidentiality of the survey); others may simply have been disinterested in the topic. In
some instances, as the data comment section further demonstrates, neighborhood
residents have worked together to prevent development of a marijuana facility, or at least
delay operations for the interim depending on legal proceedings still pending.
Figures 20 through 26 provide a visual representation of the data collected. Due to
meager response, survey questions #7a and #7b, concerning whether or not a decrease or
increase has been observed in property values, has been omitted from this report. Without
having listed their property on the market, most were undecided about the issue.
The Phase I survey is divided into two sections. Section One required a response
indicated on a scale of 1 – 5:
1 = Not At All 2 = Not Really 3 = Undecided 4 = Somewhat 5 = Very Much
#1. To what degree has a marijuana facility impacted your neighborhood?
Participant Response
Overall Neighborhood Impact
14
12
5
1
2
6
3
5
4
5
Level of Impact
n = 42
Figure 20: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility overall impact.
129
Participant Response
Odor
18
8
2
1
3
5
2
3
4
Level of Impact
5
Participant Response
#2. Due to this marijuana facility have you been impacted by any of the following:
Noise
22
1
5
3
5
1
2
3
4
5
Level of Impact
n = 36
n = 36
Garbage
22
1
6
6
1
1
2
3
4
5
Participant Response
Participant Response
Figure 21: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility odor and noise impact.
Pollution
21
6
1
2
Level of Impact
1
2
6
3
4
5
Level of Impact
n = 36
n = 36
Traffic
17
1
5
3
6
5
2
3
4
5
Participant Response
Participant Response
Figure 22: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility garbage and pollution impact.
13
7
1
1
2
3
4
5
Level of Impact
Level of Impact
n = 36
Other
n = 21
Figure 23: Tier 3 – Marijuana facility traffic and other impacts.
130
#3. What is your level of safety concern due to the commercial marijuana facility?
Increase in Crime
Safety Concerns
16
12
1
3
5
6
2
3
4
Participant Response
Participant Response
#4. Have you noticed an increase in crime following the arrival of this marijuana facility?
10
7
1
5
2
3
1
5
4
5
Level of Concern
Level of Concern
n = 42
19
n = 42
Figure 24: Tier 3 - Marijuana facility safety and crime concerns.
Section Two of the Phase I Washington State survey required a Yes/No response.
Section Two
#5. Were you notified about this marijuana facility?
#6. Have you tried to prevent this marijuana facility?
Notified about Facility
Tried to Prevent
Yes
23%
Yes
19%
No
77%
No
81%
n = 42
n = 43
Figure 25: Tier 3 – Notified about facility / Tried to prevent facility.
131
#8. Have you considered moving elsewhere because of this marijuana facility?
#9. Would you prefer not to have this marijuana facility in your neighborhood?
Considered Moving
Not in Neighborhood
Yes
19%
No
44%
No
81%
n = 43
Yes
56%
n = 39
Figure 26: Tier 3 - Considered moving / Prefer not in neighborhood.
The above results represent a fragment of Washington State’s total population.
The number of responses also represents a small portion of those neighboring marijuana
operations throughout the state. Reasons for those choosing not to participate in the
survey can only be speculated. However, despite this small sampling, negative impacts
are indicated. In the overall neighborhood impact the highest percentages in the 1-5 scale
appear at either end of the spectrum—residents have not been impacted at all, or have
been very much impacted. Section One also reveals that odor, pollution, traffic, safety,
and other concerns have very much impacted some residents. Despite more residents
indicating that they have not been impacted at all by a marijuana facility than very much
impacted, the fact remains that more than half of the participants responded as undecided,
somewhat, or very much impacted. Therefore, this data suggests that not all residents
neighboring an industrial-scale marijuana facility have had a positive experience. Section
two is revealing in that a high majority were never notified about the marijuana operation
132
locating in their neighborhood, and almost a quarter of respondents indicated that they
had tried to prevent the facility. One fifth of participants had considered moving
elsewhere, and significantly, more than half would prefer not to have the marijuana
facility in their neighborhood.
One consideration in the data collected is that, while touring eastern Washington
in March 2018, I noted two or more properties for sale in close proximity to several
large-scale, Tier 3 marijuana operations, suggesting that some disturbed homeowners
may have already moved prior to this research. This point was verified in my Phase II
research (see Rochester and Yelm resident interviews), which raises a question as to why
people close to a marijuana facility are wanting to sell their property. Those purchasing
such properties likely would have no objection to a marijuana facility, if informed about
the operation in advance.
Due to time and financial constraints, it was impossible to study every area of the
state impacted by marijuana production operations since legalization, however, the
sampling of counties included in the data provides some insight. Question #10 asked for
further comment. Those responses have been included. The opinions express a variety of
viewpoints. Despite high numbers of survey participants indicating they had experienced
no impact, the bulk of comments responding to question #10 expressed some form of
negative experience associated with a marijuana facility. I begin with those unopposed to
a marijuana operation in close proximity.
“The guy has been growing/selling from his home for 25 years—he now
pays tax on the income! All good, in my opinion!”
“This grower is only on 2.5 acres. Nice people.”
133
“The pot farm is no bother to me.”
“Marijuana facility is more than a mile away. No adverse condition exists.
Wouldn’t even know it was there if I hadn’t read about it in the paper.”
“I have not been impacted at all. However, my neighbors who are adjacent
to such a facility complain about the smell and light pollution.”
“Didn’t know there is one. A legal grower is better than a non-legal
grower.”
“We moved to the current address after the marijuana facility was opened
and haven’t noticed any impact from it.”
“Neighborhood is two and a half acres. Several have horses, cows,
chickens, etc. Grow operator is three lots away with two large
greenhouses—has good security.”
“At this point the facility has not yet been built.”
Concerned:
“Marijuana facilities take an enormous amount of water. It is difficult to
tell how this affects an aquifer without talking to the county.”
“This facility is new. I am very concerned about what its effects will be on
our neighborhood as it gets established. I am also concerned about how
much H2O they are using (we are all using the same aquifer) and run-off
with the Deschutes River so close to the growing site. As neighbors we
received no notice of this development.”
“We are concerned about the significant water use and discharge from
grow facilities. The discharge of water to the ground runs to neighboring
properties especially in the winter due to saturated and frozen ground.”
“As a neighborhood we sued due to the traffic, noise, pollution, etc. We
have multiple ponds and woods and are worried about the environmental
impact.”
“The owner of the marijuana facility next door has a volatile reputation
which makes approaching this property risky. In this respect, his
reputation reduces the risk of crime. Also, the numerous ‘Do Not
Trespass’ signs reduce traffic from ‘looky lou’ tourists looking for
property to buy since we are on the Icicle River.”
134
“Though we do not have a marijuana facility in our neighborhood, we
have friends who do. They do not attract people of good character as
customers. We have enough DUIs. We don’t need people high on
marijuana driving on our roads!”
“Industrial facilities do not belong in a neighborhood. There were multiple
back room deals between county officials and the builder prior to this
being done without talking or informing anyone who lives in the
neighborhood. There are now about 50 families who will be impacted
significantly along with significant effects to the ecosystem in our area.
We are extremely worried about the wetlands we have and this causing
potential flooding.”
“Significant smell of burning cannabis from a backyard bonfire, however
burning cannabis by-product or waste is not an approved method of
disposal.”
“Neighbors right next to us broke every county outdoor burning rule while
clearing their land. They burned piles that were too big and there were too
many, burned at night and in high wind. Our vehicles were covered with
ash and it was hard to breathe at the time. I have no reason to think they
will follow any of the rules related to their operation. I am also concerned
about water use, discharge from the grow operation and illegal burning of
waste.”
“Our street frequently smells like skunk due to two grow operations in a
small area. We have smelled burning marijuana coming from the
operation right next door to us.”
“Chemical use, fear of what chemicals in land, land fill and water are
being used by growers affecting nearby water sources and being sprayed
in the air and wind.”
“Can’t get near pot smoke—severely allergic.”
“We found out through our neighbors doing some investigating but were
never notified by the builder or the County.”
“I totally disagree with all stores selling marijuana. It shouldn’t be
allowed.”
“There should be much greater restrictions on where a grow operation is
allowed to operate. There should be increased growing/growth report
regulations for growers/distributors and the means for monitoring the
operations are practicing legally. Grow operations should not be allowed
to operate near homes or schools.”
135
“Night light.”
“Responses have been basically thank you for your comments but there’s
nothing we can do.”
“I presented my letter to the Commissioners at a Commissioners meeting
about my concerns about the chemicals that are being used by the
marijuana growers.”
“Marijuana use other than medical is illegal by Federal law!”
“State/County zoned property commercial instead of residential, the site is
15' from our property: on the other side of a one lane unimproved road.”
“It cost each of the neighbors in the area about $10,000 to fight a large
processing facility.”
“We did not know the facility was being built so did not oppose. We did
not receive ANY notification.”
“Impossible to tell [property value] until we sell. Do not plan to disclose
this [facility] when we do.”
“We were involved in a lawsuit against one locating in our neighborhood.
It impacted us financially due to the lawsuit. We sued against it to come.
We had to hire an attorney. There was no other resource in the city. It was
not good. It is a nuisance to the neighborhood to have to fight the effects
of having a marijuana facility. It works against small neighborhoods and is
a financial burden to fight. It is not welcome and creates ill feelings with
the business owner.”
“Facility is not yet open/built—can’t answer properly—but I believe it
will very much (5) impact my surroundings.”
“Fear of meeting persons under the influence of marijuana—danger in the
road. I was never notified.”
“We were broken in and had several items stolen.”
“Constantly discuss with police.”
“This is a grow house! Most not identified.”
“The negative behavior, speeding, increased crime, etc.”
136
These comments, both for and against a neighboring marijuana Tier 3 operation,
deserve consideration. Had time allowed, more voices could have been brought to the
discussion including a broader survey across Washington State to investigate the impacts
of all three Tier levels to residents living close to a marijuana operation.
In Phase II of my research I endeavored to broach some of the issues noted above
during interviews with diverse stakeholders. The priority, in every interaction, has been
to understand the effectiveness of marijuana policy, whether from the perspective of a
government agency, law enforcement, marijuana entrepreneur, or private resident. Key
observations obtained from these interviews are related in the next segment.
3.3 PHASE II: INTERVIEWS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
In challenging the unpermitted industrial-scale marijuana operations locating next
to my property, I was exposed to various players involved in regulating the industry. I
began to realize that agencies responsible for maintaining air and water quality were
dealing with regulations insufficient to deal with this new type of industry. Thurston
County planners were continually renewing and often revising an Interim Marijuana
Ordinance while at the same time examining zoning and vesting matters. Law
enforcement sought to take down black market activity. Marijuana producers and
processors competed for a share of the market. Homeowners were battling the
neighborhood intrusion. Throughout the discussion, marijuana tax revenues poured in to
the state. Meanwhile, the WSLCB continued to issue marijuana Tier 1, 2, and 3 licenses
until they had reached a quota and announced a pause in 2017. A cooperative license,
where up to 60 plants can be cultivated at one facility by a group of no more than four
licensed individuals, can still be obtained from the agency.
137
I referred to literature detailing the environmental degradation connected to
marijuana cultivation outside of Washington State as a basis for my interviews conducted
with individuals from the Washington State Department of Health (DOH), the
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA), the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA), and the Thurston County
Sheriff’s department. I wanted to understand if similar threats to the environment could
proliferate throughout Washington State without careful planning and stronger marijuana
production and processing policies in place. I chose to begin this series of interviews with
a DOE representative familiar with the state’s water rights and resources, because I
wanted to know if a potential threat existed for unbridled water consumption from the
marijuana industry in Washington State.
Marijuana and Water Rights
A longtime advocate for water quality and preservation, Vicki Cline agreed to
participate in my first interview.2 Cline serves as the Compliance and Enforcement
Officer with the Washington State Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office
Water Resources Program. Cline impressed me with her passion for her work. In her job,
she tackles some of the toughest abusers of water rights within her jurisdiction. As Cline
listened intently to my purpose, I could only admire this stalwart defender of our state’s
water resources. She understood the issues. Cline had worked hard to protect water in her
jurisdiction for many years and was hoping new policies would be introduced regarding
marijuana water consumption, however, she was looking forward to retirement in a few
months to lavish attention on a future grandchild.
138
We began the interview with questions concerning marijuana water use
regulations. I asked Cline: “From your agency’s perspective, has policy been effective in
regulating the production and processing of marijuana?” She responded:
We don’t really at the DOE have a policy that deals directly with
marijuana grows. We have to hang our hat on the RCW essentially for
the 1945 water code and now we have a little bit more limits in some
watersheds under the Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6091. It used to
be the Horst decision. So some watersheds are going to be even more
limited as to what they can utilize for a marijuana grow. But as far as I
know, we don’t have a policy that directly relates to marijuana grows.
Surprised, I alluded to the potential water consumption of marijuana cultivation
by comparing reports from scientists in California and the WSLCB’s low estimates.3, 4 I
was seeking her comment to help conceptualize a potential water rights issue related to
large-scale marijuana operations in the state. Was the DOE looking at how numbers
added up based upon the estimated consumption of six gallons of water per marijuana
plant per day? Cline had heard a marijuana plant cultivated outdoors could require six
gallons of water a day, but wasn’t certain that figure was accurate. “That’s a good
question,” she responded. “I don’t know.”
Cline’s jurisdiction covers 12 counties and 20 watersheds within DOE’s western
regional office boundaries. Despite the potential for high water consumption in marijuana
production, very few operations are required to install a meter. As a result, the DOE relies
on an honor system based upon the 1945 ground water code, RCW 90.44.050 that allows
up to 5,000 gpd for commercial uses.5 “When it comes to marijuana grows, and anything
else in the water resources,” said Cline, “it’s all case by case. It really just depends on
where you’re located and what watershed, and what drainage in that watershed, as to how
139
much water can be utilized for a certain project. But the background is the groundwater
code and case law.”
Some watersheds, Cline told me, have limited water availability—the QuilceneSnow Basin in Jefferson County, and the Dungeness watersheds in Clallam, for
example—and require new developments, such as a marijuana operation, to install a
meter on every new well installed. Because some residents in those watersheds are now
measuring their water use, the DOE can obtain actual water usage data. Throughout the
state, the DOE Water Resources Program ensures that anyone proposing to use an onsite
well for a marijuana project, whether recreational or medical, understands the limits for
commercial water use as part of the groundwater permit exemption regulations. “Folks
can use up to 5,000 gals a day for a commercial operation. Whether they’re irrigating
peas or marijuana. That’s it. We don’t have any policies that have been created or revised
as a result of I-502,” Cline told me. I found this troubling, based upon my own
calculations that a Tier 3 operation could potentially consume as much as, or more than,
14,000 gallons of water per day during the growing season. Without meters to monitor
consumption, actual water usage would remain unknown.
In her role as compliance officer, Cline expressed concern regarding the impacts
of the marijuana industry on stream flows and aquifers. If the agency isn’t notified about
excessive water use, and never receives a complaint, the DOE remains unaware of water
being removed that would reduce the amount normally flowing to a stream, or a creek, or
a river. That causes concern, Cline told me, since stream flows impact fish spawning and
species habitat.
140
Following a recent article in The Seattle Times that mentioned the existence of
THC residues in Seattle waste water, I wanted to know if THC had been identified in
streams or waterways around the Puget Sound.6 The question is interesting, Cline said,
because monitoring is conducted for other parameters, such as toxic chemicals and
prescription drugs, but she wasn’t aware if Thurston, or other counties, were monitoring
for THC contaminants in waterways. “You’d think with all the folks that live out in the
country that are on septic and drain fields that some of that would reach the river,” Cline
stated. “Whatever you take in comes out of you. Whatever your body doesn’t use,
where’s it going to go? On a sceptic and drain field. It’s going to go down and out so if
prescription drugs affect fish and habitat, you can be darned sure that THC would.”
Cline recalled six complaints connected to marijuana operations and water use in
her jurisdiction, mostly in the Puget Sound area. Different programs at the DOE are
tasked to respond to air, water quality, and other concerns, so additional complaints could
have been received by the agency that weren’t brought to her attention. She had not seen
more complaints coming from one county over another.
Cline could not foresee what might happen to Washington’s watersheds in the
future. Policy in relation to marijuana water usage in Washington State is yet to be
determined because the industry is relatively new and water consumption varies
depending on whether a site relies on greenhouse, outdoor, or indoor operations. “We
don’t really know yet how it’s impacting aquifers and water use because actually, while
the business is still developing infrastructure, we really can’t determine that yet” Cline
told me. Down the road she believes the DOE will have better figures on water duty for
indoor or outdoor marijuana cultivation. Due to the variation in climate it will be
141
different for eastern and western Washington she said. I found her closing remarks worth
noting:
At my age in DOE this is all so new and as a person that works in
compliance I hope we do get more guidance on what our water duty is
for the different Tiers at the state level. Whether it be the LCB, or
whether it be the locals, or whether it be the State Department of
Ecology. I just think we need more information. So in the meantime, all
I can do is hang my hat on that 5,000 gallons a day groundwater
exemption. And without people having to measure then we don’t know.
We just don’t know, and it’s frustrating at times when I get phone calls.
I don’t know how to answer them. And in some of these there’s so
many things going on at the property, water’s just one of them.
An industry with as intense a need for irrigation as marijuana cultivation should
be required to monitor their water consumption was my conclusion from this interview.
More than five years after legalization it is surprising to learn that policy has not yet been
included in state regulations to measure water use at industrial-scale marijuana facilities.
That marijuana water consumption is regulated according to a 1945 groundwater code
when the industry appeared 70 years after those regulations were implemented is a
concern, especially where property owners are having to share a water source with a
marijuana operation. Also concerning is the fact that chemical pollutants, and
cannabinoids such as THC, could be entering our ground water from marijuana
production, processing, and consumption. To learn more about policy regulating the
introduction of chemicals from marijuana production and processing into the
environment, I decided to interview a representative from the Washington State
Department of Health for their perspective.
142
The Environment and People—Marijuana and Contaminants
My next interview was held at the Washington State Department of Health (DOH)
offices in Tumwater. Kristi Weeks, Government Relations Director at the Center for
Public Affairs, spoke to me in her office.7 Weeks had long been involved in medical
marijuana policy. She indicated she loves her work, in part because she is able to help
people who want an alternative to prescription medicines, such as Opioids.
Weeks responded to my first question about the effectiveness of marijuana policy
by stating that regulations in pesticide use in recreational marijuana have not been strict
enough to deter potential product contamination. Weeks lamented that regulations lack
mandated testing for pesticide impurities in all recreational marijuana product sold on the
market. The WSLCB, she informed me, conducts random testing for possible pesticide
contamination. The DOH, on the other hand, is responsible for overseeing the safety of
every medical marijuana item labeled as such to consumers. The DOH conducts testing
on all medical marijuana product and validates quality assurance by applying one of three
labels approving safety standards (Figure 8). Weeks considers this a step in the right
direction, not just for consumers, but for the environment. On the other hand, according
to Weeks, policy makers have not done enough to tighten regulations governing chemical
use in recreational marijuana production and processing in Washington State.
The DOH introduced stricter regulations in monitoring contaminants in medical
marijuana products as policy changes combining medical and recreational marijuana
were introduced in 2016. Weeks believes combining medical with recreational marijuana
under one umbrella was a major step forward in eliminating a grey area in regulating the
medical marijuana market. Weeks told me that before the policy revisions the medical
143
marijuana market, since 1998, had been a kind of free for all with collectives—and
unlicensed stores brandishing the signature medical marijuana “green cross” symbol—
popping up all over the state. One individual requesting anonymity informed me:
Prior to legalization the whole process of cloning and growing was
encouraged by the medical marijuana stores. We would clone our
healthiest, best producing plants and then I would go on Weed Maps
and call the dispensary to let them know my clones were ready. I would
be able to sell them for $6.00 per plant. I did business this way with
several local dispensaries until they were all closed down. So
legalization in my situation cost us our second small income. Then,
when the recreational shops opened, most everything cost twice as
much as it had before.
The revised regulations provided more clarity on how to tackle unregulated
marijuana. Medical patients were allowed to cultivate no more than 15 plants, as
authorized by a medical professional. Any quantity higher than that had to pass through
WSLCB licensing. Someone wanting to produce more than 15 marijuana plants could not
do so, after July 1, 2016, without first obtaining a cooperative, or Tier 1, 2, or 3 license.
There are currently less than 20 licensed cooperatives across the state, Weeks told me.
As of July 1, 2016, medical marijuana sales also included a state sales tax (unless
purchased by a tax exempt patient) and were now considered a part of the commercial
marijuana industry. Medical patients used to purchasing previously affordable medicinal
product were at first challenged by the regulatory changes affecting price and availability.
The new policy also altered the landscape of collective operations where some groups
had been able to cultivate hundreds of marijuana plants without oversight, as described
by Thurston County Sheriff John Snaza in a later interview. Without these changes in
policy, the medical marijuana industry had posed a significant risk to consumers and the
144
environment. Weeks, who had been involved in outlining the revised medical marijuana
regulations, countered arguments of patients who complained about higher cost for
medicinal product by saying the biggest inconvenience since the law’s revision was a
reduced number of stores where patients could acquire medical marijuana. “The Health
Department listened to patients,” Weeks told me, “because we wanted to understand their
needs and concerns when developing medical marijuana policy.” As a result, patients and
the environment now benefit from DOH guaranteed contaminant free medicinal
marijuana products. The DOH had wanted to “get it right” for medical patients, Weeks
told me, so they labored over the policy changes to better serve the needs of patients. A
medical marijuana patient who consented to an anonymous interview stated “I really
appreciate the improved labeling. It makes it so much easier to use it in doses when
detailed labeling exists! You can get it easily and now I don’t have to pay the $100 per
year to have a green card to qualify for purchasing.” From this assessment I would
assume that new policies combining medical with recreational marijuana are serving
patients and the industry.
According to Weeks, many patients expressed concern regarding chemicals
present in medical marijuana products prompting the DOH, unlike the WSLCB, to go far
beyond the contaminant testing regulations required by the state. The result is a higher
standard of pesticide and chemical testing with all DOH labeled marijuana products.
(Recall that the WSLCB requires random spot tests for contaminants in recreational
products.)
While medical patients may pay more today for quality tested marijuana, the
overall cost, Weeks informed me, has dropped significantly from what a patient was
145
spending just a few years ago due to higher rates of production. However, she pointed
out, if a patient wants to purchase medical marijuana for an equal level of THC content
today in edible products, such as chocolates or cookies, the ratio of THC to grams of
product is much less than it used to be. Therefore, a patient has to purchase more product
to achieve the earlier potency of THC that they were used to, leading to higher cost.
Medical marijuana patients registered into a confidential DOH database receive
tax relief when purchasing approved products. However, those wishing privacy remain
hesitant to sign up and therefore must pay taxes on product previously tax free. One
individual had this to say about the pricing challenges:
To speak to the cost of marijuana, before and after the legislation
passed, [it] was $5-10 per gram and then after it has been $15-20 per
gram for consumers. The price of marijuana is going down as the
industry increases and because there are more recreation shops popping
up, the stores compete with each other by running sales that drop the
prices down to sometimes as low as $10 per gram like they were
before. It was that initial hit that was so challenging for people and has
been difficult for medical users to adjust to.
It appears that new policy combining the two very different production lines in
the industry, is adjusting the market. After almost two years since new regulations were
implemented, medical marijuana patients are being served quality product at a reasonable
price, the environment is benefitting from “cleaner” production practices, and additional
tax revenue is flowing to the state from a once minimally regulated side of the industry.
Weeks stressed the need for all commercial marijuana products to be tested for
contamination from seed to sale. Specific labeling following testing on recreational
product would indicate to consumers that care has been taken in production and
processing methods that would not only benefits themselves, but also better protect water,
146
soil, and air quality in the broader environment. Washington State defines marijuana
wastewater as industrial waste and hazardous. Because chemicals are known to be used
extensively in the marijuana industry, Weeks point of view makes perfect sense. All
untested marijuana product, whether medical or recreational, has the potential to harm
consumers, neighboring residents, workers, pets, wildlife, and the environment.
Comments received in this research indicate pollution from chemicals used in marijuana
production and processing is a concern to residents neighboring large-scale marijuana
operations.
After reviewing my interview notes, I emailed Weeks with a follow-up question. I
wanted to know how a neighbor, bothered by someone cultivating 15 marijuana plants for
medicinal purposes, could know if that cultivation was medically authorized. “There is no
such thing as a medical license,” Weeks informed me, rather, “a qualified patient is
authorized to use marijuana medically.” She explained further:
Qualified patients hold an authorization from their healthcare
practitioner. An authorization is simply a piece of paper signed by the
practitioner . . . Once a patient (or a patient’s designated provider) has
this form, he or she can choose whether or not to be entered into the
state’s medical marijuana authorization database . . .
A person with an authorization would not be required to show it to you
if you asked. However, they are required by RCW 69.51A.043 to
provide the authorization to a law enforcement officer if asked.
Because entry into the database is voluntary, we have no idea who or
how many people hold authorizations. We only have records of people
who have elected to enter the database. That information is protected
by law and cannot be released to anyone except in the very narrow
circumstances listed in RCW 69.51A.230 (1).
In summary, I learned from Weeks that few authorized medical patients have
actually formed WSLCB licensed cooperatives since introduction of the new policy
147
requirements. I also learned that verifying a neighbor holds medical authorization to
produce up to 15 plants is challenging. Weeks strongly indicated more should be done to
regulate pesticide and fertilizer contaminants within the commercial recreational
marijuana industry. She also informed me that odor is an equally important issue needing
further attention in marijuana policy. Throughout Week’s experience, odor has been the
number one complaint received by the agency. “Especially around harvest time,” she said
in closing.
Air Quality and Odor
I conducted two interviews to learn more about efforts to regulate air quality and
odor associated with marijuana production and processing—one agency on either side of
the Cascades—the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) in western Washington,
and the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) to the east. Fran McNair,
Executive Director with ORCCA, is passionate about her role in protecting citizens and
the environment from odor disturbance and air pollution.8
I began the interview with the same question regarding the effectiveness of policy
related to marijuana production and processing operations in the state, this time in
reference to odor and air quality. “We’re working on it,” McNair responded. She told me
policy was changing. Previously, all sources of air contamination were registered with the
agency, including odors being emitted into the environment. Because the odor from
marijuana contains Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), marijuana operations must
register with ORCAA. However, a Notice of Construction, required with other odor
emitting facilities (fish processing plants for example) is still not required prior to
building a marijuana operation. That could soon change, McNair told me, following a
148
proposal soon to be submitted to the ORCAA Board of Directors. At the time of the
interview, McNair was waiting on a ruling before the Pollution Control Hearings Board
(PCHB). The case was between ORCAA and a marijuana producer/processor located
next to a rural residential area in Elma. ORCAA supported the requirement that the
operator do more to prevent odor from disturbing a close neighbor’s ability to enjoy their
property. The Appellant argued that the operation fell under an agricultural exemption
which would remove ORCAA from regulating his marijuana activities. Note that
ORCAA can only regulate odor related to agricultural use on areas up to five acres.
According to McNair, “We have all along said that this is not agriculture. That it’s
a controlled substance. Under the Liquor and Cannabis Board they indicate that if there
are odor problems, we’re supposed to deal with it.” Still, marijuana producers and
processors are pushing to be recognized as agricultural enterprises where odor isn’t as
regulated, land is cheaper, and tax cuts and other benefits can be offered for agricultural
activity, thereby increasing their bottom line, she told me. According to McNair, should
marijuana become recognized as agriculture it will be “a real uphill battle” to be able to
say that a producer is not following good agricultural practices. Even if marijuana
production has been designated as horticulture by the Federal Government, it can still be
defined as agriculture by the states, she informed me.
Three Washington clean air agencies are focusing specifically on marijuana odor
and air quality issues and are considering new policy to regulate the industry. SRCAA is
currently at the forefront due to the large number of marijuana operations located in their
jurisdiction. The agency implemented a three-tiered registration system as of March 1,
2018, based on whether marijuana operators are producers, processors, or both.9 The
149
registration system mandates compliance and a Notice of Construction prior to building a
marijuana facility. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency also requires registration and a
Notice of Construction. ORCAA is in the process of considering a similar structure to
Spokane’s three-tiered system, and deliberating whether marijuana facilities will require
a Notice of Construction prior to build out of an operation. “But it’s all up in the air at
this point” said McNair, then confided:
It’s an evolving system. We’ve been doing our best to try to manage
the system. We have been doing research to try to figure out what are
the best control mechanisms for odor. And so the difficulty is it’s a new
industry, there’s a lot of work being done on odor control. When 502
was passed—if they had passed this so they all had to be indoor
facilities, life would have been a lot better. But we have to deal with the
law as it is.
State legislators recently considered allowing everyone to have a few marijuana
plants without any rules or regulations. McNair described her concerns by asking me to
imagine everyone in an apartment building cultivating five plants. “I mean it could be
huge” said McNair. “The WSLCB couldn’t make a decision. I knew they wouldn’t. And
they just threw it all back on the legislators so nothing was decided. So we are at this
point in a sort of vacuum.”
McNair firmly believes a marijuana facility should not be located any closer than
a thousand feet from a residential area. She is currently working on a project on
Marrowstone Island where a marijuana producer wants to locate next to a mobile home
park. According to McNair, land use zoning is critical and should be considered step one
in locating a marijuana business. She is considering working with the association of
counties and cities to pass another piece of legislation to address the zoning issue in local
jurisdictions. Legislation that unfortunately did not move through the House in 2017, she
150
told me, stated that the Liquor and Cannabis Board could perform their background work
on licensing a facility and provide a conditional “yes,” but that they would not be able to
grant a license until the local jurisdiction agreed that the proposal met all land use and
zoning regulations.
Grays Harbor County culls out marijuana production in their zoning and
regulations, yet even when zoned industrial, residential homes can still be impacted.
McNair gave an example of a cultivation site where she had disagreed with a location.
“Land use and zoning is critical when you’re making a decision on this” she told a
Commissioner. Yet the decision was made to allow the facility at an old saw mill
surrounded by residential housing. Unfortunately, in this instance, the Commissioner
began to realize that this particular location was not appropriate and he later apologized
that he had made a mistake. He then held a public meeting to try to introduce a
moratorium to make things right. “It’s a three member Commission to say ‘OK, no
changes.’” Other facilities were also trying to expand or make changes and his premise
was, “While we have this moratorium you can’t do anything. Let us try to make a
decision before anything more changes.” However the other two Commissioners decided
“No, anybody that’s already grandfathered in, they can make changes.” This
Commissioner, after realizing the location was unsuitable to neighboring property
owners, made a 180 degree turn, according to McNair, and has been trying to fix what
occurred. “He’s great to work with. He understands” she said. “It’s sad that he had to go
through that process but he did and now he’s very vocal about ‘Yes. Land use and zoning
are absolutely critical when it comes to siting marijuana facilities.’” I found this story a
great example of the situation certain residents have had to confront when faced with
151
uninformed decisions from elected officials. McNair hadn’t wanted to make the
Commissioner angry, and realized she wasn’t going to win her argument, so just allowed
the situation to play out. She understands Grays Harbor needs new businesses and is not
opposed to marijuana facilities when introduced properly.
However, McNair realizes the only way to achieve economic development is by
taking care of people. People are experiencing health issues due to marijuana odor and
that troubles her. ORCAA, she said, doesn’t regulate medical marijuana because they are
not commercial businesses. Yet she believes the change in policy to bring medical and
recreational marijuana under one set of regulations is a good thing and better for
everyone where both industries have a common set of rules and restraints.
McNair would like Washington State legislators to work in concert with local
agencies to find a solution to odor control utilizing best management practices. It’s hard
to control odor on soft-sided greenhouses, unless very rural with no one close by, because
sides need to be opened to release humidity and prevent mold, but, she said, there are
mechanisms that can be used. Hard-sided buildings are much better suited to mechanized
moisture control, she added.
ORCAA’s difficulty, McNair informed me, is that in order to issue a violation
notice after a formal complaint her staff has to go out and say “Yes, this is a level two or
above.” Air quality agencies use a scale between zero and four. If they register two or
above then that’s a violation. However, wind and temperature can change in a short
period of time and impact odor levels. McNair’s region spans 8,000 square miles,
therefore, odor can dissipate by the time her staff arrives at a site.
152
When I asked McNair what improvements she feels should be made in marijuana
policy she recommended all producers be required to cultivate the plants indoors and
odor mitigation ought to be mandated. She also believes marijuana operations should not
be located in rural residential areas unless a minimal parcel size of twenty acres. “I think
it’s got to be in either industrial, and surrounded by industrial, or way out,” she told me.
Since legalization, marijuana has created a huge workload for the agency that is
both a time sink and very expensive, McNair confided. Attorney fees in just the one case
in Elma cost the agency (and taxpayers) $16,000. “Some marijuana facilities pay their
registration fee and are doing things right by the community,” said McNair. They are
good players and “The agency learns from them.”
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Compliance Officer Jennifer Lopez
reiterated the fact that residents in Spokane complain mostly about marijuana odor.10
Spokane’s climate is more conducive to outdoor operations, however, night time
conversions often intensify odor at a time when agency staff are not working. At least
300 complaints have been reported to the agency since 2012. One facility received over
100 complaints alone. As of March 1, 2018, SRCAA introduced new odor regulations to
deal with the problem. Those currently licensed and in operation were given a year to
come into compliance with the new policy requirements.
Lopez finds it interesting to be involved in a project from the ground up where
time reveals what policy works and what doesn’t. As with ORCAA, she has seen a
significant increase in her agency’s workload since marijuana legalization, yet SRCCA
receives no additional funding from marijuana tax revenue to assist in regulating odor
and VOCs associated with the industry.
153
After conducting the interviews with ORCAA and SRCAA, I understood that
odor was a major disturbance to neighboring residents. Before witnessing the hundreds of
marijuana plants being cultivated next door to me, I noted a pungent, skunk-like odor
throughout our property. When processing the plants in makeshift sheds situated not far
from my garden, the nauseous fumes would permeate our home. We couldn’t open doors
and windows as marijuana smoke wafted across the property. Other state residents have
complained of headaches and nausea in response to the intense marijuana odor emanating
from a commercial marijuana operation. How were they dealing with this injustice? I
wondered. I decided to interview the County Sheriff for his perspective on the marijuana
licensing situation in Thurston County.
Community Impacts and Enforcement
In considering the impacts to communities since legalization, I decided few would
have as broad a perspective as Thurston County’s Sheriff, John Snaza.11 Although the
WSLCB is the enforcement agency regulating marijuana production and processing
operations, it has become apparent in my and others’ experience that government
representatives are often more interested in supporting the industry than showing concern
for impacted residents. Therefore, I was delighted when Sheriff Snaza did not hesitate to
be interviewed. I had only met the Sheriff a few times, yet as soon as I entered his office
he spread his arms wide and said “Give me a hug,” then made me a cup of coffee. “This
is going to be a great interview” I thought, as I stirred the brew. Almost two hours went
by before I realized so much time had passed. I only include a portion of what I learned
from that interview.
154
I began with the same opening question, again adjusted slightly to suit the
situation: “From law enforcement’s perspective do you consider policy to have been
effective in regulating commercial marijuana production and processing in the county or
state?” I queried. Snaza’s immediate response intrigued me:
It’s unfortunate how, as the County Commission changed through
election, the thought process changed of how marijuana should be
distributed in Thurston County, or should not. And the confusion as to
who’s in charge. Is it planning? Is it the people who are making the
rules? Is it the assessor’s office? Is it the drug? Who is making the
decisions to whether you can or cannot have a marijuana grow
operation, a production operation, or a selling operation?
According to Snaza, marijuana is not just a big issue in Thurston County, but a
policy concern throughout the entire country and into Canada. “No,” he said “the policies
are not effective.” From Sheriff Snaza’s point of view, we are entering a new era where a
regulatory agency like the WSLCB has just 16 officers, each responsible for regulating
three to four hundred marijuana production, manufacturing, processing, or selling
operations. “How do you expect those individuals to keep track of all that?” he asked.
And then, “Where does the money go?”
The WSLCB collects almost all the money from marijuana sales, Snaza told me,
but he doesn’t know where it goes. There is no investment in recruiting more officers, he
said, yet the agency is trying to expand their power to enforce laws. “My issue is that
they don’t do anything related to law enforcement. They’re a regulatory agency, yet
every legislative session they’re trying to seek other avenues of enforcement.” When I
asked why, he told me it’s difficult to recruit young, eager individuals wanting to commit
to law enforcement in a regulatory agency. The WSLCB is left understaffed and hence
not enforcing laws as, he said, we are witnessing.
155
Snaza informed me that not just Thurston County, but the entire state, has seen a
significant increase in marijuana related unlawful activity. Washington marijuana is now
showing up in 40 other states. The Sheriff sits on the Northwest HIDTA Board. As
Chairman of the Executive Board, he is provided information about marijuana use and
where it is found in other parts of the country. The Governor, he said, came out against
HIDTA’s yearly report on where marijuanas are found and used, in particular among
juvenile youths. This document, compiled by Federal, State, County, local entities, and
the officer’s school of public instruction, encompasses the entire state of Washington, and
concludes that more kids are being suspended or are missing school because of drug
abuse, in particular use of marijuana.12 Yet the Governor, Sheriff Snaza told me, is
looking for whatever reasons he can to justify the industry.
Unfortunately, he said, people are comparing marijuana to what it was in the ’70s,
and are not seeing the potency contained in products today, or that it can be very
addictive. “You can’t tell me that marijuana is the same as it was when the Indians
smoked it a long time ago” said Snaza. He is concerned that with over 400 known
carcinogens in marijuana, no one is looking at the pesticides and herbicides used to
produce the plant, or what it does to the human body, and especially the effect on today’s
youth. Marijuana is a compounding agent yet people want candies, etc. because they
don’t like smoking weed, but how, he asked, without proper studies, do we know the
long-term effects? “We haven’t done enough studies on it and our society today has
become so wanting to be more informed, but wanting to be able to experiment . . .
whatever answers a young person was given many years ago, they’re not ok with the
156
answers any more, and they want to find out on their own. I get that. I totally get it” he
said.
I asked Snaza where, in his opinion, marijuana production and processing
facilities should be located. He responded by telling me the Sheriff was never asked this
question when county planners and officials were looking at marijuana policy.
Personally, he didn’t approve of near schools, daycares, or drug free zones, such as parks;
but even out in the country, where it invites neighbor disputes, theft, traffic, and impacts
how people enjoy acreage in the country. He would like to see marijuana operations
located in areas away from homes but thinks that probably won’t happen. “That is the
frustrating part. I know that right now we have them in industrial areas where the
growing of marijuana is more controlled. Marijuana growing is way different than what
most anybody could ever even imagine. The sophistication of growing marijuana.” he
told me.
Sheriff Snaza brought up a point that had long been on my mind when he
mentioned nobody questions where all the clippings came from that created the starter
plants in Washington State. They suddenly just appeared. More than likely they came
from illegal production because you couldn’t cultivate marijuana legally, except for a
small quantity to support a medical condition, “but nobody ever questioned THAT aspect
of it” he told me. I was reminded of a conversation with WSLCB Officer Masias outside
the Thurston County courthouse in 2017. When I asked what had happened to the
hundreds of marijuana plants discovered on my neighbor’s property, and why the agency
was able to collect over $43,000 in taxes from the unpermitted operations that year, he
would not give me an answer.
157
The Sheriff has issue with politicians and elected officials who consider
themselves smarter than those who have been to school to study drug use, or who have
actually grown, sold, and purchased marijuana. According to Snaza that was never taken
into account. “Officials took what they believed they knew, and never questioned the
process.” He said that following I-502, large marijuana work groups were formed.
Activists in these groups had obviously grown marijuana, were pro marijuana, and it was
hard to see anybody who was acting in a position of “Us” versus “Them.” There weren’t
representatives on either side saying “Yeah I can see where you can do that, or I can see
this, or I can understand that,” he told me. According to Snaza, creating the regulations
wasn’t an understanding process. “They had these group studies where they invited the
public to attend to listen. But, they didn’t listen,” he said. “I don’t think they really cared
to listen to anybody that had anything to do with what might make things a little bit more
difficult to understand.”
Snaza believes we’re going to see marijuana legalized throughout the country, just
as we saw alcohol legalized in the early ’30s. He then mentioned a recent drug operation
involving over 40 Chinese people who had been human trafficked just to grow marijuana
illegally. The reason marijuana is grown illegally in Washington State is because it’s
worth so much on the east coast, he informed me.
The Sheriff’s department has a drug court for juveniles addicted to marijuana and
other drugs. “Where do kids get marijuana when you’re not supposed to buy it until
you’re 21?” he questioned. “What a hypocrisy to say that marijuana is funding our
education when we’re seeing our kids affected adversely by use of marijuana.” I soon
realized the Sheriff was holding nothing back. He told me he had seen what so many
158
friends and other family members go through in their households and communities
because of marijuana. When I suggested marijuana operations were more suited to
industrial areas, Snaza made the argument that now someone who owns property or
buildings in an industrial area can charge however much they want due to demand. He
pointed out that industrial areas are usually situated between city and country where it is
assumed everything can be better controlled. He reminded me of the number of WSLCB
officers overseeing marijuana policy enforcement—only 16.
The Sheriff’s department receives minimal funding from what has quickly
evolved into a $300,000,000 per year revenue source to the state based mostly, he said,
on cash transactions.
We’re not dealing with if you have lines of credit, or whether you were
able to put monies in banks, because I can guarantee you most of those
people are not in favor of it because you get to hide your monies away.
The easiest way to not keep track of anybody’s monies, or to launder
money, is through these types of businesses. And I don’t want anybody
to ever think they don’t launder money. Nobody should ever think that
they don’t.
Snaza doesn’t believe the state really cares about improper behavior. He doesn’t
think the Governor, who is in favor of marijuana, cares. “You know, I know that
probably anybody who would be reading this, or thinking about this, would be saying
‘Well, because you’re law enforcement you have to say that.’ I don’t have to say
anything.” Snaza told me all but two sheriffs running for office in King County came out
against marijuana. Law enforcement has seen what it does. Snaza realizes adults should
be able to do what they want, it’s the problems associated with youth that most troubles
him. Snaza’s deep humanity touched me from his bear hug greeting, to his concern for
impacted youth, families, and communities. His words were both timely and troubling,
159
given the serious problems with drug addiction and the Opioid crisis currently facing the
nation. Therefore, I include this next segment of the interview in the Sheriff’s own words:
When those young people, those children, see their parents, their aunts,
their uncles, their parents’ friends all smoking weed, why would you
tell a kid not to smoke it? If they’re smoking it? How? What kind of
message are you sending? The problem is you’ve probably never been
involved in domestic violence where you’ve seen lots of drug abuse
and what happens to those kids. I can tell you what happens to those
kids. Why do you think we have the problem with homelessness now
and drug abuse now? Because their parents, who got involved in drugs,
weren’t able to raise their own children because of their addiction and
now I have these young people trying to raise kids because of their
addiction and they can’t. But people don’t like to acknowledge that.
And where I’m at is why are we not dealing with that? Why are we not
spending money on people? If you’re homeless let’s find out why. Is it
mental health? Is it because of your drug addiction? Is it because when
you were 14 years old you smoked weed for the first time and you liked
it so much that you became a pothead and as time went by you were
introduced to something else and went down that road? And I know
we’re not supposed to talk about other drugs but I can tell you that
marijuana has been proven to be a gateway. Whatever a joke can be
made about it. I get it. Nobody wants to acknowledge that ‘Yeah that
was my gateway drug.’ Well, most people don’t like to admit addiction
either. Or mental health. You always hope that wherever we end up in
our lives, we understand that we all make mistakes, and to never say
never, and I hope people just don’t quit on life or on themselves.
That’s all.
Most people would rather smoke marijuana than heroine, he said, but then they
take OxyContin, just a 50 mg pill. “Who’d ever think that something like that is addictive
but it turns people into wanting to use heroine. So why does it make anybody think that
using marijuana doesn’t make you want to use another drug? Or is addictive? What
makes people think that?” According to Snaza, all drugs have good and bad effects.
There are positives and negatives in everything you use, in how it affects your body and
what it does to you as a person, he told me.
160
When I asked Snaza how many complaints law enforcement had received from
communities impacted by neighboring marijuana facilities, he was personally aware of
around fifty. Mostly people had complained about traffic, odor, and operators perceived
to not be following the law. He had also received complaints from marijuana retailers
upset that new regulations were infringing on their right to sell medical marijuana, while
waiting for their license to be processed. Additional complaints may have passed through
the department that he was not aware of, he told me.
The Sheriff had seen plenty of what he called “drug rips” in the county not from
businesses, but from people manufacturing marijuana illegally. When I asked if
combining medical with recreational marijuana policy had improved the situation, he told
me that outdoor medicinal crops were cultivated in long rows with a list of names
sectioned off to where each allotment was around 45 plants. Eventually maybe five, or
six hundred plants were cultivated at a site. “That’s how it works. That’s how the
medicinal system worked. And that’s what is frustrating about it—now you can combine
medicinal and you can combine recreational—but the issue that I have is: What’s the
difference?”
In combining medicinal with recreational marijuana policy, medical marijuana
was finally brought into legitimate stores. One reason for the change, according to Snaza,
was that the state government realized the popularity of marijuana, and had previously
underestimated the amount of use and therefore revenues it could produce. “Those are
just monies that we are seeing legally. Those are not the monies that we are seeing that
are comprised of all marijuana sales in the State of Washington” he confided.
161
When I asked what should be done to improve marijuana policy he recommended
an increase in the number of educated investigators, and more control over the “ins and
outs” of marijuana. He also suggested allowing marijuana businesses to run their finances
through banks, thereby holding people accountable for marijuana transactions because,
“You can’t trust somebody justifying every sales transaction of a marijuana plant, or
marijuanas, however many ounces. That’s the truth. Even if there’s cameras. The only
people monitoring those cameras are the store owners, or the staff.” When I suggested
every plant is supposed to be tagged and traced from seed to sale I was informed that’s
not happening, that it’s not being done the right way.
Snaza is the elected Vice President of WASPC, the Washington Association of
Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which means he is the Vice President of all the sheriffs in the
State of Washington, which also means he’ll become President of WASPC in a few
years. He is well-informed about opinions throughout the state and told me not all Chiefs
of Police come out against marijuana. The reason, he said, is because they work for a city
manager, or a mayor, or a city council who may want marijuana in their jurisdiction, and
so those Chiefs never say they are against it because they want to keep their jobs. There is
no legislator out there, he said, except those in law enforcement, who understand the
ramifications of what marijuana, and other drugs, are doing to this state, or to our
children. Snaza commented:
Those who got in on the bottom floor of legalization are making
millions in the industry. They’re just not legally showing it. Some
people might oppose and say ‘Well, the Sheriff doesn’t know what he’s
talkin’ about because I report everything.’ That would be one person in
probably about zero. People who grow, who are selling marijuana
trying to make it legal or whatever, I’m sorry, they are selling
marijuanas. People who are doing that and are saying that they report
162
everything, I think they should have a halo on their head but they’re not
doing that. And it’s nothing against them, it’s just that’s the lifestyle.
That’s how business is done.
According to Snaza, excuses are made, or reasons given, why certain things aren’t
filed, counted, or values reported correctly. Statistically, a pound of marijuana is worth
up to $2,000, or more. He has seen marijuana plants that produce over a hundred pounds
of bud on just one plant. I had seen such giant plants when touring an indoor medical
marijuana facility in Tumwater. The Sheriff argued that if you’re able to grow a
marijuana plant and then say “It’s for my own use” the question remains how much
marijuana can one individual consume from one plant? He gave the example of
calculating five pounds of marijuana per person and asked “Do you know how long it
would take you to smoke five pounds of marijuana? I mean an average person? You
would have to smoke a two gram cigarette every, I think it’s something like a two gram
cigarette every two to four hours, two to four hours every day, 365 days to smoke five
pounds. So my question to you is: How does a person function?” My own thought was
then why would a medical patient need fifteen plants?
Sixty-three percent of Thurston County voted in favor of marijuana legalization—
the majority came from the City of Olympia that controlled the vote. Many voters never
saw opposition ads that described the potential impacts regarding smell, traffic, disputes,
or the kind of community they were now going to be living in. “Would it be a thriving
community?” Snaza asked. “Or a community always worried about traffic? What would
that traffic look like? Or the fear that somebody’s going to come over and rob your
home.” Those are the things that are most concerning that people were never warned
about, he told me.
163
Snaza believes the legislature and the Governor are interested in the money and
the popularity because right now marijuana legalization is popular, but he questions what
is society dealing with? What is shown on the news? “It’s not news worthy how
marijuana is affecting a person to go out and commit heinous crimes even though we are
seeing reports of illegal production and maybe human trafficking.” He said the media
isn’t touching what the effects have been to young people. “I can’t tell you how many
times meeting bad people . . . they smoked weed before they did bad things. I can’t tell
you how many people that I’ve met who smoked weed before doing bad things. But, does
it go into a report and say ‘Yeah they admitted to using marijuana.’ Nobody thinks twice
about it” he told me.
The WSLCB is not seizing untagged plants because they don’t know what to do
with them, despite saying they have a storage place, Snaza told me. And although
understaffed, they’re not asking local law enforcement to help them, he added. When I
asked why, Snaza said because it’s a leadership issue in that how do you show that you’re
a successful organization if you need help from other law enforcement? Although the
Sheriff has extended an offer to educate and assist WSLCB marijuana enforcement many
times, interest has not been forthcoming from the WSLCB. “Does Chief Nordhorn look
for assistance from local law enforcement to combat illegal marijuana grows? No,
because he thinks he can do it all by himself with his staff,” Snaza informed me.
Although Snaza finds the WSLCB Chief and his Assistant nice enough people, he
is concerned about the positions they are putting their staff into. He confided:
If you were to interview their staff, and they knew that they were not
going to be recorded, or documented in the things they said by their
name, they would all tell you this is the biggest mess they’ve ever been
164
asked to do. They would tell you that because they are not equipped to
do it. When I say equipped, they’re not educated for it . . . They’re just
going out and they’re just monitoring a business and they don’t know
how to look at books and decipher whether or not they’re laundering
money or not, and figure out why, and why are they not, because
they’re not there all the time.
The Sheriff knows that people, like myself and others who have been impacted by
flaws in marijuana policy, are recognizing what is really going on. Snaza cares about his
community and what is happening and so told me:
When I see other people not enforce the laws, and when I see our state
legislator, or our Governor, come out and provide an opinion about
something that is very controversial and then says ‘Well we’re going to
get all this money and we’re going to pay off all the school bills that we
owe. We’re going to give teachers raises because of those monies.
We’re going to give state patrolmen pay raises because of marijuana
monies.’ Where I’m at is that we have a lot more smarter people than
just to say ‘Let’s legalize marijuana to straighten out our budget.’
According to Snaza, the Governor is thinking like a business man and saying:
‘I can use this money to resolve a lot of issues that we’re incurring right
now.’ And what is the problem with it? The Governor is 70 years old. I
don’t even know if he smokes weed or not. I don’t know if he ever did.
What I’m saying is, whatever his perception is, or whatever his wife’s
perception is, he’s basing his perception off his own experiences. And
maybe some information that he’s been provided but, he’s been in
Congress for how long? What is his real battle? His battles have never
been drugs. His battles have never been involved in drugs. The only
reason why his battle is marijuana is because he likes the money that it
brings to the state.
Realizing I had occupied the Sheriff’s time for almost two hours I asked him for
any final comments. His concern was that right now he was finding it difficult to hire
new officers. One reason for that is they can’t have smoked marijuana in the last 18
months, and then what decision is to be made if a wife or husband smokes marijuana?
165
What do people think? What is their perception? His other issue was regarding the health
crisis we are putting ourselves into. Smoking marijuana can damage lungs, he told me.
What it does to your body is no different than a regular cigarette. He is concerned about
community and individual health, including minds. And he is concerned about jobs.
“What are we doing when an employee takes off to smoke marijuana just so they say they
can get through the day? People say well it’s just like having a drink. No it’s not. You can
smell the odor of intoxicants. Marijuana’s a lot harder.”
Snaza added that no one even thinks about motorcycle gangs controlling the drug
trade by getting drugs to and from a location, especially domestically. A lot of
Washington State’s marijuana was coming from Mexico, he said, but is now observed
coming from within our own people. Movement is not only through Mexican drug cartel
trafficking organizations, but motorcycle gangs, and Chinese gangs up in Seattle. The
Chinese have been around for a long time and are an especially a big influence in Seattle,
Snaza told me.
They’re bringing in undocumented people from China and paying cash
for homes and turning them into marijuana grows. Maybe one out of
ten speak English, and they stay on the property. Someone goes and
buys their groceries, or feeds them. I mean they just stay there and then
their information, their passports, or their ID cards are kept by another
part of the organization. So they can’t leave. They’re promised they get
to come here but then they have to work for it. The Governor is aware
of these things.
In the closing moments of our discussion Snaza asked me what do people really
care about? He said over 285,000 people living in Thurston County are mostly unaware
that marijuana isn’t just a recreational drug, but that it brings along crime, death, sadness,
ill-health, and loss. He cares because as a Sheriff he sees what it does to families, friends,
166
neighbors—whether a marijuana operation, whether you’re an abuser, or whether it
creates other physical issues. “What are we doing with that?” he questioned. “The only
thing in the end is ‘What is the flavor of the day?’ What is the flavor of the day?”
Snaza believes we are creating a health and social crisis with marijuana that will
probably not affect us for another ten years, but that we’re going to see a crisis. Everyone
is expecting law enforcement to resolve problems such as homelessness. Despite the fact
that marijuana provides an extra $300,000,000 that the state didn’t have five years ago,
he said “All these crises go to law enforcement but we’re not funded for it. Where does
that money go? I’m not funded to take down all these places. I’m the lowest staffed
Sheriff’s office in the entire state. I have been that way, we have been that way, since the
late ’90s. We have been that way since ’95. I have 89 positions. We had 89 positions in
1995.”
Referring to the number of homeless now seen in downtown Olympia the Sheriff
stated:
Why are there so many homeless? You want to know why? I’ll tell you
why. One of my reasons is that Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater no
longer enforce drug laws. They enforce minor drug trafficking but
because a prosecutor doesn’t deal with it, the people that they arrest go
into my jail and they sit in my jail for five or six days and they get out
because the prosecutor doesn’t charge them. When we talk about drug
use and abuse, the downward spiral is what we’re willing to accept and
what we’re not. If we’re ok with homelessness, and kids not having
three square meals a day, or having a place to live, then I guess we’re
ok. That’s what I tell people about law enforcement that most people
don’t think about—that law enforcement people do care, and we are the
community. We’re not just people that can’t wait to take somebody into
jail because we want to screw with their lives. We’re the only people
out there that are holding people accountable for their actions. And we
get scrutinized every day about it.
167
In closing he told me that you don’t just become a marijuana producer overnight.
To cultivate the plant, you have to know what you’re doing. Marijuana’s been a very
profitable business for many, many years and it will be for a long time because it’s a
product that people want to consume. “It’s a business and people with business don’t
always care about anything but the business because that’s what’s going to support
them,” he said. “That’s what’s going to get them their dreams, their goals, their
objectives. That’s what’s going to support them through however they want to live and
choose to live.” I responded by asking can’t you have that in an area where it won’t
disrupt an entire community. “Not when you’re talking about profit margin,” Snaza
responded. “That’s so crazy, right?”
My interview with the Sheriff gave me plenty to ponder. I could see a clear
connection from his statements to the problems some neighborhoods, such as my own,
were experiencing. Having had such a negative experience, and following what I had
learned from the Sheriff’s interview, I wanted to know if ethical behavior did exist in the
marijuana industry. One such producer had been recommended to me during my
interview with Kristi Weeks. I decided to contact the individual and below record key
points garnered from that interview.
Marijuana Entrepreneurs Impacted by Policy
Crystal Oliver, President and Co-Founder of Washington’s Finest Cannabis, had
been recommended as an ethical marijuana producer who was proactive in policy input. I
was hoping she could provide a business insider’s perspective.13 My exchanges with
Oliver have led me to believe that conscientious entrepreneurs do exist in the marijuana
industry. Our scheduled meeting in Spokane fell through, however, it was the impetus for
168
a three-day tour throughout eastern Washington in a distorted loop that I subsequently
nicknamed “The Ring of Pot.”
Leaving western Washington in late March, I headed over I-90, then drove north
to Tonasket, east to Spokane, south to Richland, west to Yakima, and back home via
White Pass. Along this more or less circular route, I was on the lookout for Tier 3
marijuana facilities scattered around the countryside. I had identified most on a map. In
total I visited between twenty to thirty marijuana sites of all configurations along the
way. One of the largest, situated on a beautiful plateau overlooking the Okanogan Valley
and mountains beyond, happened to be newly licensed to my neighbor.14
As I neared Spokane, I drove by Oliver’s outdoor operation positioned in full
view of surrounding rural properties. What struck me was the child’s playground in front
of a quaint, red farmhouse and a long, makeshift fence screened by loose fabric to
conceal the seasonal marijuana cultivated in the field at the back of the home. The site
wasn’t as impressive as portrayed on the Finest Cannabis website, but I knew Oliver put
her heart and soul into her business, loved where she lived, and was struggling to succeed
in her passion. I wondered how her business managed odor, or avoided complaints
regarding neighborhood character, with such a large, fully conspicuous operation. As
with a number of sites I had visited during my excursion, I noted at least one nice-looking
residence up for sale nearby.
Prior to Initiative 502, Oliver had actively campaigned to legalize marijuana. She
lists an impressive resume of speaking engagements, advisory boards, and legislation she
is or has been a part of, including her positions as Executive Board Member of the
Cannabis Farmers Council, and Executive Assistant Washington State Affiliate for
169
NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). She clearly had
knowledge of the industry. I was delighted when Weeks introduced us. A live interview
not being possible, I sent Oliver a list of questions I had planned to ask, to which she
responded by email.
“Has your business been successful as a result of marijuana policy in Washington
State?” was my first question. She responded by stating her business would not exist
without legalization and regulations that, following I-502, were initially very small and
business friendly. Licensing and application fees were low. There were “limits on
ownership, no vertical integration, a state wide cap on canopy that enticed small
businesses like mine to enter the regulated marketplace,” she wrote me. However, in
recent years, policy has moved away from supporting small, family entrepreneurs such as
herself, to favoring large businesses. She gave examples of changes in legislative and
regulatory policy that included:
. . . allowing out of state financing, attempts to allow out of state
ownership, increasing the number of stores an individual or entity can
own from 3 to 5, only allowing folks to own up to 3 production licenses
via assumption of existing businesses (we applied for 3 licenses
initially, but the WSLCB had us place our other 2 on hold, then later
closed those applications, this policy paved the way for only the very
well capitalized to own up to 3).
Although Oliver has land and the ability to increase the size of her Tier 3 operation from
one to three on her open prairie site, she said she doesn’t have the financial backing to
purchase an available license from an existing business.
When I asked her about complaints from neighbors she replied that none had been
received “directly about our facility.” Oliver’s family had worked to develop good
170
relations with neighbors by taking steps to mitigate complaints. She and her children
would pick up trash once a week along the road in front of her property, occasionally
cleaning up in front of a neighboring parcel. During the clean-up, neighbors would
approach and the communication provided an opportunity to build good relations. Her
facility has followed Spokane regulations with a required setback of three hundred feet
between the cultivation area and any neighboring primary residence. To combat odor
problems, she selects Cannabis strains that have a floral, or limonene terpene profile.
“Our primary strain is high in the terpene geraniol, which is also found in geraniums and
roses,” she wrote me.
Oliver has no desire to establish her business elsewhere, despite new regulations
challenging the success of her operation, because she loves the area. Through her
research into air quality, Oliver believes outdoor marijuana cultivation, including
greenhouses and hoop houses, should be limited to rural and agricultural areas. Her
research revealed that 75% of Spokane county farms are associated with zero complaints,
while 74% of all complaints received were associated with just three farms. She also
found that most of the complaints were related to indoor or warehouse cultivation. In
regards to zoning, Oliver believes that the future of marijuana production should be
similar to other types of agriculture. Operators should be encouraged to produce using
outdoor or greenhouse facilities on parcels no smaller than ten acres. “I also believe
setbacks from property lines and neighboring residence are advisable,” she added.
Spokane, as Rodriguez from SRCAA had mentioned, often experiences nighttime
inversions that prevent odors from escaping into the atmosphere. Oliver made an
interesting observation. She found, while reviewing outdoor marijuana facilities
171
associated with odor complaints, “that farms in heavily treed areas as well as farms
located near creeks were more likely to have complaints.” Her operation, in the midst of a
wide open area, would have less impact. From Oliver’s perspective she wrote:
“Indoor/Warehouse models are quickly proving to be unsustainable given the high cost of
inputs and energy consumption and over time I expect the vast majority of cannabis
farms to move outdoors.”
I wanted to know what Oliver had found to be the best method of production in
terms of energy efficiency (water, lighting, heating, etc.), environmental safety,
neighborhood compatibility, and success in the industry. Having seen her operation from
the outside, her response was interesting and valuable in light of earlier discussions
regarding the environmental footprint of marijuana production and processing:
Well, we are personally working towards building a full self-sustaining
permaculture style operation. This is because I think it is our
responsibility to be good stewards of the land. My dream is to have a
completely carbon neutral operation. I prefer outdoor cultivation in the
native soil because it is less resource intensive. Over the last few years
we’ve been planting cover-crops to increase the organic content and
health of our soils. We use compost teas for fertilization. We have
added organic compost and worm castings to help build our soils and
this year we’re going to begin experimenting with bio-char. I know of
indoor growers using LED lighting who call their cultivation method
“sustainable” I simply don’t agree with the use of that word to describe
what they do. They still buy electricity, buy fertilizers and throw away
the packaging, they replace their bulbs and throw the old ones away.
They buy soil and discard the spent soil as well. It’s not sustainable.
Oliver emailed me a list of improvements she would like to see in policy
regulating commercial marijuana operations. Those suggestions include:
Regulations that encourage outdoor cultivation, perhaps awarding more
canopy to outdoor cultivation as an incentive. Maybe a carbon tax on indoor
cultivation.
172
Scaling back of excessive regulations, tracking of waste, for example, created
inefficiencies in our operation and yields no public safety gains. Maintaining
security camera coverage over every square foot of the operation is
cumbersome and expensive for a small business.
Appropriate zoning of producers allowing them to engage in direct sales
similar to wineries.
More enforcement of existing rules and regulations. “It is disheartening to see
large operators receive ‘cancelation of license’ violations yet be able to
continue operating for years as their attorneys appeal the decision and/or force
a settlement with a less severe punishment.”
Creation of a consolidated list serve related to cannabis that covers all
agencies engaging in cannabis related rule making.
The ability to bring my children onto the part of the farm where we grow
cannabis. They love working with me in our vegetable garden and I know
they’d like working with me in the cannabis field as well. (I see this policy
change as highly unlikely, but most other types of farmers including grape &
hop farmers get to have their children with them, it’s one of the perks of
running a farm that we cannabis farmers don’t get to enjoy.)
Oliver’s business has been impacted by what she calls “problem farms,” when I
asked her about unethical marijuana production and processing activities. Spokane’s
revised and recently introduced Clean Air Regulations can be directly associated with just
three marijuana farms in the county she informed me. Although her business is “barely”
profitable, she and her husband work long hours to keep ahead of increasing expense due
to regulatory agencies. She wrote “We expected that more businesses would have failed
by now, but we didn’t realize that failing businesses would simply be acquired by
investors and never retired,” and continued, “We knew this would be hard, it’s been a
little harder than we anticipated.”
According to Oliver, the WSLCB funded the agency’s transition to a new
traceability system via a 48% increase in licensing fees. The problems that occurred
173
during that transition were especially damaging to small businesses like hers because
retailers had to resort to a manual process and so preferred buying from larger operators
who were able to deliver more product at a time. Oliver was forced to find income
elsewhere during that period due to zero income for two months from marijuana sales.
March was the first month since November 1st where, she said, “traceability issues aren’t
interfering with the industry, nor our business, and business is picking up and I expect
that I may be able to leave my off farm job again.”
Climate, even in Spokane where many cultivators are drawn due to easier
growing conditions, is still an issue for outdoor marijuana operations. Over a four-year
period Oliver wrote she has had to deal with “late frost, early frost, rainiest October on
record, record breaking wind storms with gusts 45+, hail, smoke from forest fires
impacting air quality, and drought conditions.” But her biggest concern is that new
legislation and policy changes will favor large operations that will eventually put all of
the small operators out of business. Oliver said she only wants to earn a living. She’s not
interested in becoming a millionaire. “It’s been the experience of a lifetime,” she wrote,
“I’ve learned more over the last few years than I ever expected to.”
As stated in the Introduction to this thesis, my research has been conducted
through the lens of my experience as a rural residential property owner impacted by state
and county marijuana regulations. Before moving on to interviews with similarly
impacted residents in Thurston County, I include a counter-perspective from a smallbusiness, yet large-scale marijuana producer and processor. Oliver wrote this summary
on the 5th anniversary of marijuana legalization.
174
5 years post legalization;
Over-regulation threatens the viability of small cannabis farmers.
5 years ago when my husband and I attended the New Approach Washington Initiative 502 election night
celebration we had no idea that we would be spending the next few years engaging with so many different
regulatory agencies, we were still undecided about whether or not we would enter the market.
I remember the hearing the WSLCB held in Spokane, there were several hundred in attendance. My
husband, Kevin Oliver's testimony recommended the board adopt regulations that allowed small
businesses to thrive and also encouraged the board to allow those with past drug convictions opportunity
to participate in the newly legal market.
When the WSLCB released their first set of draft regulations I pored over the hundreds of pages. The board
had indeed put together regulations that included provisions to protect small business including caps on
the number of retail stores and farms a person could own as well as caps on the size of individual and state
canopy. We ran some projections and decided that we were in a position to start our business and take our
advocacy to the next level. We were confident that we could support implementation and demonstrate
that legalization was preferable to prohibition.
Just two months after our initial screening interview with the WSLCB, after we had submitted hundreds of
pages of documents including our banking records & fingerprints (which we had taken at the public safety
building by an active law enforcement officer), our local county commissioners adopted an emergency
zoning ordinance that rendered 97% of our parcel unusable for growing or processing marijuana. This
would be our first introduction to the world of land use policy and the Washington State Rule Making
process.
We were eventually successful in organizing and mobilizing the local would-be legal marijuana farmers to
oppose the ordinance and a new less restrictive ordinance was adopted and we along with our fellow
farmers were able to move forward.
Next came a proposal from the Washington Association of Building Officials (WABO) to modify the state
building code to add marijuana growing and processing to the list of “moderate factory industrial uses”
which would have triggered F1 building code requirements for all structures where cannabis was grown.
Fire flow requirements alone would have devastated rural cannabis farmers throughout the state. Again,
we organized and mobilized the farmers and saw the proposed rule modified and marijuana growing was
stricken from the rule proposal. I would later serve on the Cannabis TAG for the SBCC as they clarified and
modified the fire code for marijuana extraction.
Meanwhile, the WSLCB continued to adopt emergency rule after emergency rule. There were months
where multiple rule changes were adopted impacting our businesses processes, too many to list here. A
couple over-reaching proposals that come to mind were the WSLCB proposed rule to add destruction of
inventory as a mandatory penalty for farmers violating minor regulations and the proposed requirement of
commercial grade fencing. In both these instances we had to organize and mobilize and push back and we
won.
There have also been battles with the legislature including preventing cannabis farmers from taking
agricultural tax exemptions, allowing out of state financing and increasing our license fees which the
farmers have lost.
Recently the WSLCB awarded the traceability contract to Franwell, aka METRC, an RFID company, and we
mobilized farmers to oppose the requirement of these expensive, single use hard plastic tags for tracking or
security. The WSLCB agreed that the vendor could not require this and then METRC pulled out of the
contract.
175
Now our farm is facing increased fees from the county and the local clean air agency. The Clean Air Agency
hearing is actually the day after the 5 year anniversary of when legal pot went into effect in Washington.
It’s too bad the farmers can’t celebrate; instead they’re fighting government overreach. It’s no wonder
there is so much income inequality in the US when various government agencies are always trying to take a
piece of the revenue from small business owners while offering tax breaks and other incentives to large
businesses.
I am proud of the work that we’ve done as a group but I fear for the future viability of small, family run
cannabis farms in this state. Over-regulation and over-taxation is strangling them.
Figure 27: Marijuana legalization five years later.
Crystal Oliver’s experience on the 5th anniversary following marijuana legalization. (Oliver, 2017).15
Thurston County Residents: Jack and Cary – Rochester16
Jack purchased 40 acres on Michigan Hill before he retired in 1999 with the idea
he’d create a horse facility complete with a building and riding arena and “that kind of
thing.” Upon retirement he realized it was too much work so he sold 30 acres. Jack and
Cary met in 2011 and in 2013 learned that a neighbor had applied for a Tier 3 marijuana
license and special land use permit. They came home from California in 2014 to find
large greenhouses erected and chain-link fencing surrounding the installation. Everything
conformed to Thurston County requirements. “It had to be at least 25 feet from our
property line and he was about 45 feet from our property line,” Cary told me. They
submitted a public records request with Thurston County in June, 2014 and saw the
stipulations for each component of the operation, and that’s when they “got angry.”
Their immediate concern was well water “because Michigan Hill has a history of
hard to get water.” Their property had two wells, one hand dug, and they became
concerned after learning from the state that the neighboring marijuana business could
legally draw up to 5,000 gallons of water per day. So in the fall of 2014, they filed a
176
complaint with Thurston County after noticing the business was not operating according
to county regulations. Cary told me:
They had a permit but we looked at the permit and for example it said
no employees. Well there were a lot of employees that lived on the
property. There were not supposed to be cars going in and out. No
transportation for people who didn’t reside on the property. They had
extra structures. They had parked an RV back there and it wasn’t fully
connected but it was more than what the county allowed and so they
cited them for that. They had moved in one of those storage containers
and made it into some kind of a processing thing. Well the permit
clearly stated that there was to be no processing on the property. So
there was just a clear violation and what surprised us is that nobody had
ever even checked up after the permit was granted. Nobody even came
and looked at it. That we could find. County officials did not issue a
Notice of Violation until November, 2015.
Cary and Jack were mostly bothered by the security lighting, and the incessant
noise from greenhouse fans. “There was no vegetation to screen the operation. It was
right in your face. We had a fence between our property and the William’s property, but
nothing to obscure it other than this chain-link fence that kind of looked like a
penitentiary type chain-link fence. And so it didn’t feel residential anymore” said Cary.
Several neighbors adjacent to the marijuana operation joined forces to complain
about the disruption to their neighborhood character. They observed a makeshift trench
being dug to supply electrical power to the business that “just started collapsing.” The
facility was surrounded by security cameras with the fence covered by an opaque plastic
material. Cary and Jack couldn’t see any marijuana plants but they assumed it was being
cultivated because they could see raised beds and people busy in the greenhouses. They
were bothered by the fans and lights at night. “At one point they tried draping some black
material. Not solid plastic but like black netting to try and diffuse the light because
Christy made the comment to us one time that she got up in the middle of the night and it
177
was foggy and she said ‘Oh my god the sun’s coming up in the wrong direction’ and it
was just the light emanating from the greenhouses.” The facility had three greenhouse
structures covered in plastic and a couple of smaller hoop house frames inside the
production area that Cary said Thurston County cited as another violation. He continued:
“When they originally got this metal storage-box thing, they put it outside the grow, and
the permit said everything was to be contained within the grow itself. They started to
comply. But how can you not have employees when you need employees? They couldn’t
do things like that so they were trying to get a new permit.”
At that point Jack joined the conversation by saying how unfortunate it was that a
neighbor he had been cordial with for twenty-five years had acted with so little
consideration. When they first heard about the intended operation they requested a
neighborhood meeting. “All the neighbors came and Mr. Williams didn’t come. And I
called him and he said ‘Oh I decided not to come because I think you’re just gonna’ beat
up on me.’ So Cary and I never spoke to him. You know there were no words. He never
said ‘Sorry.’ He never said ‘Do you mind if I do this?’ He never asked or told us it was
going to happen. It just happened.”
Jack and Cary objected to the fact that the state could issue a marijuana license,
and the county a land use permit, without requiring that adjacent neighbors be notified.
“After we filed the complaint they did things like put up a sign calling it the Williams
Cannabis Farm . . . It was just uncomfortable living next to someone that was angry with
us and wouldn’t talk to us and he happens to be a black man and accused us of being
racist to the neighbors. You know it just got ugly and we said ‘We don’t need this.’”
After the county issued a Notice of Violation and the situation didn’t change, they
178
decided “to hell with it” and began the search for a new home. Cary and Jack were
fortunate because although they never received full value for the sale of their property, at
least another neighbor, further removed from the marijuana facility, was interested in
buying. They doubt they could have done that well otherwise on the market, due to the
obvious presence of the marijuana facility. Before moving to a new property in a
different county, they observed between five to ten employees and seven to eight cars
coming in and out of the property at different times. The work appeared to be seasonal,
but it was obviously the same group of vehicles.
Similar to my own story, Jack and Cary voted yes to I-502, and have friends who
rely on medical marijuana. “We have a friend with a bad back. He couldn’t sleep without
it, so I’m really for marijuana consumption, especially medical. We don’t smoke
recreationally or medically, but I think they need to be somewhere in a light industry, or
Kent Valley, or something like that is where they belong. Or maybe it’s Centralia’s light
industry. But not next to people in rural communities.” Cary believes that if the state still
classifies marijuana as a drug, it is not agriculture. It’s a drug. He said “People think of
agricultural ‘Oh it would be nice to have this big lettuce field out there and all these
pretty plants growing.’ Well it’s not. It’s a big fan and its lights and ugly greenhouses.”
Cary grew up in a tiny mountain town in Colorado and loved that life so when he met
Jack he thought “Oh this is just perfect. But having it 45 feet from your property line was
just . . . We moved because of the grow.”
Cary and Jack didn’t have to move but their home was no longer what they
pictured in their mind—people had country houses for raising chickens and things like
that—so once the marijuana operation moved in with the big fence and cameras their
179
home lost its appeal. They felt the nature of their lives had changed so much they had to
sell their property. Both are firm believers that such a business is incompatible with rural
residential zoning in Thurston County.
Thurston County Resident: Ira Holman – Yelm17
While attending almost every Thurston County public hearing addressing the
renewal of the Interim Marijuana Ordinance, I listened to testimonies from residents as
upset as I was about marijuana zoning and county regulations. Other neighborhoods were
obviously also dealing with a large marijuana operation moving into their community
without notification. As I reviewed emails submitted to Thurston County’s Planning
Department, one in particular caught my attention due to the number of residents
involved. The leader of this group, Ira Holman, agreed to an interview at his home on the
outskirts of Yelm, approximately ten miles from my property.
Holman and his wife, I learned during the discussion, are realtors, which provided
a unique opportunity to discuss property values in relation to adjacent marijuana
facilities. Few participants had responded to my question regarding an increase or
decrease in property values in the Phase I mailed survey because, I reasoned, they just
didn’t know. The marijuana operation Holman battled is a stone’s throw from his
property in a rural residential area. The large commercial facility is in full view from their
home and the street. Holman attempted to move away from the facility several times.
Because of his profession, he is well informed about parcel and home values. His story is
fascinating, and in many respects similar to my own.
180
Holman has spent most of his life in Yelm. As a boy he would ride his motocross
bike through the area where he built his mountain-view home. After serving in the
military, he returned to Yelm’s lush countryside because he loves nature. His neighbor,
after purchasing the opposite lot, said he was building a house and began constructing a
large workshop. All was fine until one day, while Holman was working in his home
office, the power went out. It was the middle of summer and the transformer had blown.
The power company was called in and Holman asked how, with just three houses and his
neighbor’s shop, could they have lost power? He was told by a Puget Sound Energy
(PSE) specialist, who went over to look at what his neighbor was doing, that a worker in
the shop had tried to run a seven amp service off of a 200 amp panel and it blew the
transformer. The PSE worker asked Holman if he knew about his neighbor’s marijuana
operation. “I had no clue because it was all indoors at the time” Holman told me. PSE
replaced the transformer and made his neighbor bring everything up to code.
When he was over there actively, halogen lights or whatever they do,
our lights would dim. And I have a 400 amp service, and my lights
would dim and I’m like ‘That’s ridiculous!’ I mean, I’m not in my shop
welding. I got nothin’ going on out there and our lights would dim, our
computers would flicker and go off and come back on, and we were
like ‘What’s going on?’
Holman immediately confronted his neighbor regarding the home owners
association he was a part of with four other property owners, and told him he couldn’t do
this. It was wrong. “He ignored us and then went full scale and put up his prison yard
fence with the black slats and the barb wire and then he started building these
greenhouses that are 60 feet long by 30 feet wide and he was gonna’ have five of them.”
At that point Holman decided he needed to sell his house before he lost everything. Then
181
his wife said “You know that’s crap.” So he put out a flyer. “I made three hundred flyers
and went around and stuffed mailboxes and taped them to everyone’s door in the entire
2,000 acre area here and put a meeting date at my house.”
He invited everyone to his large home and was surprised when the meeting ended
up being standing room only. Holman had researched how many plants the facility would
hold: 1,111 mature marijuana plants based on a three foot by three foot plant canopy
according to his calculations. With just an initial 45+ medical marijuana plants being
cultivated in his neighbor’s shop, Holman, who suffers from asthma, explained to the
crowd, he couldn’t tolerate the odor when the shop doors were left open. He and his wife
would run into the house.
We couldn’t even be on our back patio. Couldn’t open our windows
because the smell would just make us nauseous. And to be forward I
was an MBC officer with the military—nuclear, biological, chemical—
so I studied wind patterns and how it all affects and how it comes down
through the valley and it would literally just blow right through here
and everybody within the development that way is going to smell it,
you know, for 60 acres, 70 acres.
Holman did his best to explain the implications to the crowd in his living room.
“During the meeting my wife got a text from the grower saying ‘We wish we would have
been invited to the meeting’ and my wife just responded ‘You’re lucky you’re not here,’
because people were so angry they may have actually killed him. They were very upset.”
Educating himself and his neighborhood on the issue took months while at the
same time he tried to sell his property. To begin with he met the neighbor producing
marijuana and told him:
‘Look, if you’re gunna’ build that I think it’s wrong, but I’m gunna’
sell my house because I can’t live next to it.’ I’ve got grandkids. My
182
kids. We have a lot of youth activities come over here. Girl scouts and
FFA and tons of kids come to my house. And I mean I’ve got FFA
animals out back now. And we tried to come to an agreement on a price
and I was like ‘Fine, as long as I get my money out of it and I can move
somewhere where I don’t have to deal with you I’m fine. I was in the
military. I don’t mind moving. I’m fine with it whatever.’ And we came
to an agreement on a price that was fairish. Not what I wanted, not
what I thought it was worth, but it was fair.
Two months later, the neighbor told Holman he couldn’t get a loan. The banks
would not give financial backing to a marijuana operation. Annoyed at precious time lost,
Holman put his property on the market. “Twenty to twenty-five people came to look at it
in the first month. It’s a big property, nice house, got a big mountain view and we had
one offer that was 25% below market value because we disclosed what he was doing next
door.” That’s when Holman understood that “either people weren’t interested in living
next to a marijuana farm, or they wanted a substantial discount on market price for living
next to one.”
Holman started hammering the Thurston County Board of Commissioners
wanting to know how they could let this happen. He was told he didn’t have enough
evidence because it was just his house that was impacted. He responded “We’re in real
estate. It’s what we do.” He had statements written by people who would have purchased
the house, or considered purchasing the house, if the marijuana facility had not been next
door. Interested buyers said it was a beautiful home and valued appropriately. They told
him “We just don’t want to live next to that at all.” If they had made an offer it would
have been $100,000 low, and Holman would have had to install screening and everything
else necessary to block the marijuana operation’s intrusion, so he pulled his property off
the market. “We’ve put it on the market since then. Same deal, nobody will touch it next
to a marijuana farm” he said. Holman has listed his property three times in the last five
183
years at fair market value. He has had other realtors assess the home’s value compared to
similar properties. “Not even a nibble since that one guy offered $100,000 low because of
the marijuana farm,” he told me.
Holman contacted lawyers to know if there was anything he could do. He knew of
other people who had spent a fortune fighting and that his neighbors didn’t have the
finances to support a legal battle. He would be on his own. So he held multiple
neighborhood meetings to try to bring everyone together under one homeowner’s
association to have one strong voice and more income to work with, but there was no
support. “So they basically left me out here to fight it on my own, but I’m still ok with
everybody.” He talked to ORCAA, who sent a specialist to check out the facility. They
discussed the odor and the technician told him “There is no scrubbing system that he can
put in that is going to make it so you are not affected by the smell of his marijuana. It’s
not possible.” Holman responded “Then why are you guys allowing it?” “That’s above
my pay grade,” responded the ORCAA specialist.
At one particular Commissioner’s meeting on the Interim Marijuana Ordinance,
the chamber was filled with at least 100 members of Holman’s group. Some were more
reserved, he told me, but he was outspoken because he didn’t feel he should have to live
next to a marijuana farm.
I understand the concept of the RRR1/5 because it’s part of our job, but
having a marijuana farm in a residential neighborhood it’s just not, it’s
not morally right. I mean, you’ve got kids who live here and who wants
to live next to a place that draws in people that are mainly less than
honest. I don’t know how else to put it, I mean, living next to a prison
yard is pretty awful. It really brings down the country feel that we went
for out here.
184
Holman began researching the health effects of marijuana. He learned that
particulates disperse off of marijuana plants when vented, especially in the morning and
evening when dew and condensation hold the pungent odor stagnant unless moved by
strong gusty winds out of the forested environment. Particulates move through the air and
are known to cause breathing problems in people with asthma. Holman wrote the County
Commissioners “This odor has already made getting the children on the school bus—the
school bus stop is located (has been there over six years) at the corner of the projected
marijuana grow facility—nauseating.” According to Holman, the odor of just 45 plants
was atrocious.
“Then there’s the light pollution,” said Holman “because they have to have the
prison yard lights so my bedroom was on the back side of the house right kitty corner
from his proposed pot farm so I would have light all day and all night.” If that wasn’t
enough, Holman was also bothered by the noise from generators and the constant traffic
in and out of the facility. At the time, only one member of the prior Board of County
Commissioners, Bud Blake, seemed to care about his situation. Holman had this to say
about the new Thurston County Commissioners:
Now we’ve got three what I think are pretty fair Commissioners up
there that are trying to make their way through this nightmare. They
just can’t seem to. They don’t seem to want to be the ones to lay down
the hammer and say ‘We’re done. It’s gunna’ be this.’ So they keep
passing these interim ordinances for six months and six months and six
months but at some point they’re gonna’ have to make a decision.
There are people that are going to vote them out too.
Holman’s neighbor had applied for a Tier 1 license. Although it was supposed to
be a small facility, Holman knew, based on the construction, that his neighbor was
planning something much bigger. “He was going to grow way more. His property is 224
185
feet wide by 900 feet long, just like mine, and it’s awful. It’s right on the street. And there
were so many more things that he did that were illegal.” Holman has a wetland at the
back of his property. The 300 foot wetland buffer extends onto his neighbor’s property.
He continued:
He cleared it without permit. He brought in, I’m going to guess about
10,000 yards of fill dirt, and lifted the level of the land like four feet. So
he had a nice flat area. And it caused flooding in the two properties
down below him and he doesn’t care. There is so much. I mean blew
the transformer. Illegally wiped out wetland buffers, and raised the
land. I mean the guy has just been totally illegal.
Holman had heard, but could not verify, that after four and half acres were
completely cleared, graded and the wetland buffer filled in on the lower half of his
neighbor’s property, he was fined approximately $100,000 or more “and that’s why he
can’t sell his property because he owes just too much.” Apparently water now cascades
down into his neighbor Randy’s lot “and over into the storm water retention pond, and
then over into the other guy’s lot and it’s caused problems,” he told me.
I asked Holman if his neighbor had ever had a special land use permit to do what
he was doing. He said he had been able to stop the activity before the Tier 1 greenhouses
were completed. His neighbor could legally grow 45 marijuana plants in his shop as a
medical cooperative, however, someone else, Goldwater Industries from Arizona, owned
the property and that was another issue. “One of them has a felony and can’t have a
permit, and then I think his son picked up a felony and lost his and that’s why they quit
growing here” Holman told me.
Apparently the neighbor was cultivating more than the medically authorized 45
marijuana plants because Holman discovered another marijuana crop in cultivation on a
186
ten acre property about a mile away. He had observed his neighbor repeatedly filling a
500 gallon water container on the back of his truck and watched him drive away so one
day decided to follow him. In doing so, he discovered more marijuana hidden in a nearby
forest. Water had to be delivered from elsewhere because the property didn’t have a well.
Holman first showed the site to another neighbor and then informed the authorities. He
told me:
This is how I know there’s something going on because that night they
must have got a tip that they were going to be raided the next day. They
came with a U-Haul and took out a ton [of marijuana] over there next
to me and we went back over there [the other property] and they’d
pulled all their plants out of the ground and threw them onto someone
else’s property.
Holman’s home is on a shallow aquifer. “We’re only 98 feet and there’s hundreds
of us on it and it does tend to get a little murky at points and starts spewing brown water
and it started when he started doing that. So we shut him down from doing that.” Holman
told me he went over to his neighbor’s property after he had simply opened his spigot and
left. The water flooded out everyone on neighboring properties below. “Why did he do
that?” I asked. “Again just to be spiteful, and I just went over there and shut it off. Well
now he’s got security cameras everywhere.” Holman had to install a water filtration
system to help purify his water because it became muddied with tannins and ore. His
neighbors had purification systems put in because the marijuana cultivation was
“definitely drawing down on our water levels.”
Holman has tried to be a good steward for his neighborhood:
I do what I’m supposed to do. I call who I’m supposed to call. I report
what I’m supposed to report and they pretty much do nothing. There
was no notification on what he was doing out here at all. And county
187
said ‘Well, it’s not up to us to notify you, it’s up to you to look it up.’
That’s what they told me at county and I’m like you guys came out and
made me put up an erosion gate and put yellow signs all over my
property and you’re telling me it’s not up to you to notify neighbors of
what’s going on? Because there was nothin’ out here. And that was,
yeah, a big sticking point for me.
Although Holman voted in favor of legalization, he said “I just don’t want it in a
residential area. Period. If you want it to be on big acres, put it way out in the middle of
nowhere on big acres but I’m for the industrial where they have the facilities to regulate
the pollutants and the water.” As he pointed out, unfortunately no one has startup capital
to purchase an industrial parcel at 1.5 million dollars and add another six or seven
hundred thousand in build out, because banks won’t fund a business that is considered
illegal federally. “It’d be really great,” he said, “if the Federal Government would just
step in and be like either ‘No, you’re not doing it.’ or, ‘Yes, you’re going to do it but it’s
going to be by our regulations’ because they’re much stiffer and they don’t play, you
know, politician corrupt games on the low level where 15 thousand gets your vote.” One
of the problems that Holman sees is that legal transgressions are being allowed and that
penalties are not strong enough.
The penalty should be if you’re caught once doing something illegal
‘OK. Here’s a ten thousand dollar fine.’ If you’re caught twice you’re
shut down. You lose your license. The property’s done. You’re never
growing again. I mean if you make it that black and white they’re going
to do it right because nobody wants to give over 10 grand and nobody
wants to lose their right to grow.
Holman has been waiting for his neighbor to list the property so he can buy it. I
asked why he thought it hadn’t been listed with the operation now shut down. He
responded:
188
To spite me. He’s that vindictive. His brother threatened me a couple
times on the road. I mean drove up in his truck, slammed on his brakes
and just stared at me. And I’m just standing on my property loading
stuff in and out of my truck and I just looked at him. I’m right here.
They’re not brave. They won’t get out and say anything, but they try to
intimidate you. I don’t get intimidated. But, that’s happened a few
times. And I’m always polite, you know, and I wave. I’m neighborly.
They’re not doing anything illegally then I try to be neighborly, but
they still have this hatred toward me because I’m the one that shut them
down out here.
I wanted to know if that was the only retaliation Holman had experienced. He told me
“The threats, Oh my god . . . when they were shutting down they were cussin’ and
screamin’ at me when I was out here working on my tractor. Just stuff like that and
they’re trying to intimidate me, you know, but I just try to be nice, call ’em my
neighbors.”
In closing Ira was nostalgic when he told me:
Right on the back side of my shop is the Centralia western Chehalis
bear migration trail. That’s where they migrate right through there. And
we see them every year. I haven’t seen them in a while because his
stuff has fences and stuff everywhere and the deer are becoming less
and less. The elk we don’t see them anymore. We used to have an old
man out here who was as big as my truck and he was the coolest old
elk. He had moss growing off of his rack and he was the coolest guy.
Haven’t seen him in years. I’m into the environment. That’s why I
moved out here, I like nature.
Conclusion
Throughout the course of this research I have had contact with individuals
embroiled in legal proceedings to prevent an industrial-scale marijuana operation from
locating in their community. I could add more stories similar to the above. Yet there are
always two sides to a story I realize. Although it would have been interesting to interview
a marijuana business owner out of compliance with the regulations, such as my neighbor,
189
I did not think it would add to the focus of this thesis. I also chose not to interview the
WSLCB as I had had my own negative experiences with the agency. I believe the
interviews above speak for themselves.
3.4 PHASE III: THURSTON COUNTY SURVEY ANALYSIS
Phase III of this research involved a second survey mailed to residents living
within close proximity of a proposed, or already licensed, marijuana operation located in
a rural residential neighborhood of Thurston County. For this survey I selected residents
situated up to an approximate half-mile of a Tier 1, 2, or 3 facility throughout the county.
Of the 200 surveys sent out, only three were returned as undeliverable. The response rate
was slightly higher than the Phase I survey. The few (seven) who were unaware of a
facility, yet returned an incomplete survey, could indicate the marijuana application for
land use had fallen through in that location. A total of 61 survey responses were collected
from May 1, to June 11, 2018.
Marijuana producer locations vary throughout Thurston County, resulting in
greater impacts to some residents than others. As with the Phase I survey, responses
could be limited to only those who felt strongly enough to provide feedback, both
positive and negative. As depicted in the graphs below, the results indicate the majority
of participants are either undecided, somewhat, or very much impacted by a marijuana
facility in their neighborhood. Similar to the Phase I statewide survey, a strong majority
indicate they would prefer not to have a marijuana facility located in their vicinity.
The Phase III survey was divided into two sections. Section One required a
response indicated on a scale of 1 – 5:
190
1 = Not At All 2 = Not Really 3 = Undecided 4 = Somewhat 5 = Very Much
#1. To what degree has a marijuana facility impacted your neighborhood?
Participant Response
Overall Neighborhood Impact
17
9
1
2
12
13
4
5
7
3
Level of Impact
n = 58
Figure 28: Thurston County - Overall impact from Tiers 1, 2, or 3.
Odor
19
1
17
9
2
9
2
3
4
Level of impact
Participant Response
Participant Response
#2. Due to this marijuana facility have you been impacted by any of the following:
5
n = 56
Noise
26
8
1
2
3
10
3
4
Level of Impact
8
5
n = 55
Garbage
29
1
10
6
3
6
2
3
4
5
Participant Response
Participant Response
Figure 29: Thurston County - Impact from odor and noise.
27
6
1
Level of Impact
n = 54
Pollution
2
7
3
3
4
11
5
Level of impact
n = 54
Figure 30: Thurston County - Impact from garbage and pollution.
191
Participant Response
Traffic
26
7
1
2
11
4
9
3
4
Level of Impact
5
n = 57
Figure 31: Thurston County - Impact from traffic.
#3. What is your level of safety concern due to the commercial marijuana facility?
Safety Concerns
Participant Response
Participant Response
#4. Have you noticed an increase in crime following the arrival of this marijuana facility?
22
15
1
13
6
4
2
3
4
5
Increase in Crime
23
13
1
Level of Impact
2
16
3
4
4
4
5
Level of Impact
n = 60
n = 60
Figure 32: Thurston County - Safety concerns and crime
Section Two required a Yes / No response.
#5. Were you notified about this neighboring marijuana facility?
Notified About Facility
Yes
13%
No
87%
n = 60
Figure 33: Thurston County - Notified about marijuana facility.
192
#7. Have you considered moving elsewhere because of this marijuana facility?
#8. Would you prefer not to have this marijuana facility in your neighborhood?
Considered Moving
Not in Neighborhood
Yes
27%
No
34%
No
73%
n = 60
Yes
66%
n = 59
Figure 34: Thurston County - Considered moving / Prefer not in neighborhood.
Question #6 asked “If you tried to prevent this marijuana facility did officials
assist you appropriately?” It also allowed for the additional response: “Not Applicable.”
The majority (75%) selected “Not Applicable” and the remaining 25% said “No.”
However, that 15 out of 59 responded in the negative and no one chose “Yes,” is worth
noting.
Question #9 provided space for further comment. Participant responses have been
included below. Forty percent of participants responded to question #9 with the majority
expressing some type of concern related to a marijuana operation close by.
“They are good neighbors. Unlike some of the people that live
near me.”
“No noted adverse impact on neighborhood.”
“Marijuana has been around for many years, it is grown in the
ground. It can help people to relax and sleep.”
“It’s about time! Now watch the corrupted state rake in the
cash!”
“Not a big deal—like a liquor store. Folks in these parts tend to
work hard and earn little. Availability of options to relieve that
193
stress or ‘escape’ nearby may help. How to help/prevent? It’s
the irresponsible use/abuse that can occur anywhere may be
worth future study.”
“It is great to see previously unused buildings now active with
economic development due to marijuana laws getting changed.
Better than empty buildings!”
“My neighbor has a small grow-op that is built very well, with
lots of security cameras. If any impact, it makes for a more
secure environment.”
“It was here before I was. Owners are considerate and do a good
job managing traffic now. My first year there were some issues
during harvest. Other neighbors were concerned about cars
coming to the back of our dead end street and put up signs and
gates. I have no issue with the farm.”
“So far, its presence has not caused any negative impact on my
property.”
“This facility is about 1/4 - 1/2 mile from my house, on my
road. A lot of workers end up at our house. The school bus
stops about 2000 feet from the facility. It’s literally in a
neighborhood. Harvest time it smells awful and traffic increases
dramatically. We keep hoping it will fail or move.”
“I see several points of pollution sources that impact my sense
of environmental health.”
“Concerned that we had no idea; and while we are not opposed
to its purpose, the potential for criminal activity is
disconcerting.”
“Marijuana is still against Federal laws! U.S. national
government not enforcing law. How many ‘DUI’ accidents
(fatalities) have been directly contributed to marijuana
intoxication! One that I know of in Rochester [a] teenage girl
[was] killed! Those that grow work with, and use, are
shortening their length of life! Dumb idiots.”
“We only knew there was something in the neighborhood from
the odor. Other neighbors also did not know and didn’t notice
the odor. There have been no other indicators of a facility.”
Concerned:
194
“Cities and counties go to great lengths to keep industry and
private residences in separate zonings but then they allow
marijuana facilities in residential neighborhoods. It’s all about
$! If it was in their neighborhood they would certainly decline
the facility.”
“Don’t know yet if it will impact us with odor because it is
relatively new. If it does we will definitely not be happy.”
“They have been working on this site over two years, nothing is
going on as yet. Workers come and go. Workers complain no
pay so they leave. Moved a couple trailers in but nothing is
hooked up. Perk holes been dug but no septic at the facility. If
they are growing anything I have no idea.”
“Tiny permit posted on the road. My family has been on this
property since 1907. Noise of multiple vehicles, plus garbage
truck, delivery trucks; additionally the road is a private road and
the marijuana growers do nothing to maintain and repair the
road. Traffic drives fast (one lane dirt road) past my house
causing dust in summer. They have installed floodlights which
impact neighbors at night. This was a quiet, established rural
neighborhood. They moved from CA and ruined our
neighborhood. Even though they have security on their
property, I can’t afford to make all my buildings secure beyond
locking them (I have a home, three large barns, two sheds and a
rental house.) They have less than five acres, but built a second
home on the property to house ‘visitors.’ I feel that the county
turns a blind eye to what they are doing since their grow op is a
tax revenue for the county and state. Finally, marijuana sales are
not permitted near schools because of the concern of the
wellbeing of children, yet this couple has a child and obviously
he lives on the property. I included this when I responded to the
Liquor Control Board when the application for the permit to
grow was posted and was told there was nothing that could be
done. Obviously, money wins out and the laws are only applied
when convenient.”
“A commercial facility should be approved prior to construction
in a rural residential area. We often smell odor when outdoors.
Conversations with ORCAA sound like there is little they can
do to improve air quality, as anyone who wanted a permit for
growing marijuana was given one without question.”
“The smell is overwhelming and the sound of venting became a
nuisance. Mainly smell, we have to go inside while venting
times.”
195
“I am offended that they were allowed to begin operations
before notifying neighbors. Now it looks like they are here
forever. Those operating it on the Mahan’s farm are notorious in
the past for breaking county codes. Give them enough time and
they'll do it again. It took $60,000 to stop the county from
giving them a motor sports permit. Enough is enough!”
“We have two facilities on our short street (one is next door to
us). Concerned about the density. One added another well
recently. Also concerned about how run-off is being handled.
Some days the skunk-like smell is overpowering and makes it
difficult to be outside. Have also smelled burning pot. A
Commissioner told me there was nothing they could do about
the situation.”
“I would really prefer not [to] have facilities in our area.”
“These facilities should be zoned industrial or commercial and
if rural areas, only zoned Agricultural, never in residential even
five acre parcels. The one in our neighborhood is too far away
to smell but the house two down says it’s always an awful smell
when they are processing.”
“This is all driven by MONEY and unscrupulous inconsiderate
Get-Rich-Quick Hooligans. The LCB and to a lesser extent
Thurston County care NOTHING about neighbors and
neighborhood impacts. We are all dismissed as NIMBYs.”
“The problem is that 1) They burn garbage and trash and use
gas to start their outdoor fires—they obviously do not get a burn
permit or follow any of those rules. We often wonder what plant
parts/chemicals are being burned. 2) It was listed as a ‘home
based’ business in permitting—said no increase in cars coming
and going—not true. People in and out from early in AM to late
at night—big semis, delivery trucks, lots of ins and outs. They
were required to have a driveway adequate for a firetruck to
come in and turn around—this is not a normal home
requirement. 3) They are always constructing something—hard
to not hear it as it is on our fence line right next to our house . . .
This is a manufacturing process and should be located in an
appropriate location—somewhere like an industrial park with
lots of warehouses . . . We are on just over two acres and the
grow operation is on about the same as we are—too small for
buildings right on our property lines.”
196
As with the Phase III survey these comments express a variety of opinions and
experience. Most reflect points addressed in this thesis. However, it should be noted that
this feedback came from rural residential areas all over Thurston County. Although some
respondents have no issue with a facility, and others are supportive of empty buildings
now being filled with new jobs available, those who have been negatively impacted have
brought up additional concerns that include: the overpowering smell to some of burning
marijuana and the illegality of doing so; multiple facilities locating in the one small area;
the added financial burden to neighboring residents; accidents that have led to a teenage
fatality in at least one instance; and for a few, the impression that this is all about the
money and the tax revenues now flowing to an unconcerned government.
The Phase III results represent a fragment of Thurston County’s total population,
and a small portion of those residents neighboring a marijuana operation throughout the
state. Why survey recipients chose not to participate in this survey requires speculation
on my part; it could be that some individuals are more sensitive to odor or noise, for
example, than others. However, despite this small sample size, results indicate that some
Thurston County residents are negatively impacted by a marijuana facility. This phase of
the research did not differentiate among respondents according to marijuana Tier level, so
it is impossible to determine whether the overall size of an operation affects the degree of
impact. Future research to include a state wide survey of neighborhoods surrounding all
three marijuana production and processing Tier sizes, as well as marijuana cooperative
operations, is recommended.
The Phase I and Phase III survey results show some similar patterns. In overall
neighborhood impact, extremes appear at either end of the Section One scale in both
197
surveys and percentages are identical. When considering the overall impact to
neighborhoods the percentage of Washington residents not impacted at all, or not really
(scale 1 or 2) the total is 45% compared to Thurston County also at 45%. This leaves
55% of Washington State and Thurston County residents either undecided, somewhat
impacted, or very much impacted (scale 3 – 5) by a marijuana facility.
In all other areas, except for concerns about safety, the majority responded that
they were not really, or not at all impacted by a nearby marijuana facility. However, the
majority of participants in both surveys indicated that they would prefer not to have the
marijuana facility in their neighborhood. I provide those comparisons in the tables below:
Table 2: Comparison of Washington State and Thurston County Section I survey results.
Washington State
Scale 1 - 2
Thurston County
Scale 1 - 2
Washington State
Scale 3 - 5
Thurston County
Scale 3 - 5
45%
72%
75%
78%
75%
61%
45%
62%
45%
50%
62%
72%
61%
58%
35%
60%
55%
28%
25%
22%
25%
39%
55%
38%
55%
50%
38%
28%
39%
42%
65%
40%
OVERALL
ODOR
NOISE
GARBAGE
POLLUTION
TRAFFIC
SAFETY
CRIME
Table 3: Comparison of Washington State and Thurston County Section II survey results.
NOTIFIED
ABOUT FACILITY
CONSIDERED
MOVING
PREFER NOT IN
NEIGHBORHOOD
Washington
YES
Thurston County
YES
Washington
NO
Thurston County
NO
19%
13%
81%
87%
19%
27%
81%
73%
56%
66%
44%
34%
Section two revealed that the majority of Washington State and Thurston County
residents were never notified about the marijuana operation locating in their
198
neighborhood. In addition, more than half of Thurston County and Washington State
residents stated that they would prefer the marijuana facility was not located in their
neighborhood.
Had zoning not been redefined in Thurston County’s Interim Marijuana
Ordinance, I believe more complaints associated with commercial marijuana operations
locating in rural neighborhoods would have been received by county officials, with these
results potentially leaning further toward negative impacts. Instead, some marijuana
businesses in Thurston County have failed or moved elsewhere due to these changes in
zoning, or through loss of a license for a variety of reasons. Some survey participants
may never have been aware that an application had been filed to locate a commercial
marijuana operation in their neighborhood.
Although this research provided an opportunity for participant comment,
additional views from policy makers, marijuana industry stakeholders, healthcare
professionals, and residents on either side of the marijuana land use and policy debate,
would have made a valuable contribution. For example, I am aware of a neighborhood in
King County where a group of families are taking a legal stand to counter an industrialscale marijuana operation attempting to locate within their community. Additional
interviews with marijuana business owners would also have enhanced this research. I am
aware of marijuana entrepreneurs upset that the WSLCB encouraged buildout before
those business-people had acquired a land use permit. In an attempt to get in ahead of the
game, they took a risk on unpermitted construction, and, when regulations changed, lost
their investment. Future research should include these people.
199
________________________________________________________________________
1. Holman, I. (2016). Not In Our Neighborhood. Letter of Complaint submitted to Thurston
County Resource Stewardship Long Range Planning. Yelm, Washington resident.
2. Cline, V. (2018, February 16). Compliance and Enforcement Officer. Washington State
Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office Water Resources Program. Olympia,
Washington. Personal interview.
3. Bauer, S., Olson, J., Cockrill, A., Van Hattem, M., Miller, L., Tauzer, M., Leppig, G. (2015,
March 18). Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on aquatic
habitat in four northwestern California watersheds. PLOS ONE 10 (art. e0120016).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120016
4. Washington State Department of Ecology. (2016, December). Frequently asked questions:
water resource rules and regulations for marijuana growing in Washington State.
Publication No. 14-11-003. Water Resources Program Washington State Department of
Ecology. Lacey, Washington.
5. Washington Administrative Code (2018). RCW 90.44.050. Permit to withdraw. Washington
State Legislature. Available: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.44.050
6. McNamara, N. (2017, August 10). THC in Seattle water ‘Highest Detected in the World’.”
Seattle Patch. Seattle, Washington. Available: https://patch.com/washington/seattle/thcseatte-water-highest-detected-world
7. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20). Government Relations Director at the Center for Public Affairs.
Washington State Department of Health. Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
8. McNair, F.L. (2018, March 16). Executive Director. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA). Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
9. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2017, December 4). Q&A Spokane Regional
Clean Air Agency’s Proposed Rules for marijuana Production & Processing. Spokane
Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). Spokane, Washington.
10. Lopez, J. (2018). Compliance Office. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). Spokane,
Washington. Personal interview.
11. Snaza, J. (2018, February 26). Thurston County Sheriff. Thurston County Sheriff’s
Department. Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
12. Northwest HIDTA. (2018). Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat
Assessment and Strategy for Program Year 2018. Northwest HIDTA. Seattle,
Washington.
13. Oliver, C. (2018). President and Co-Founder. Washington's Finest Cannabis. Spokane,
Washington. Personal interview.
14. McIver, M. (2017, August 21). Narcotics Taskforce Officer’s Report. Case Number: 16-035
TNT. Unlawful Manufacturing of a Controlled Substance – Marijuana. Thurston County
Narcotics Taskforce. Olympia, Washington.
15. Oliver, C. (2017). 5 years post legalization; Over-regulation threatens the viability of small
cannabis farmers. Washington's Finest Cannabis. Spokane, Washington.
16. Jack and Cary (2018). Rochester, Washington former residents. Personal interview.
17. Holman, I. (2018). Yelm, Washington resident. Personal interview.
200
_____________________________________________________
CH. 4 CURBING THE CONUNDRUM
Land use decisions impact us all. They affect our water, community
character, wildlife, and environment, public safety, roads, and
economy. Thurston County’s land-use regulations are intended to
promote sound, coordinated development and the most appropriate use
of land, and to conserve and restore natural resources that make
Thurston County such a special place to live.
Thurston County’s Land Use Ordinance, 20161
4.1 POLICY OPTIONS TO CONSIDER
On May 1st, 2018, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners renewed, for the
11th time, the county’s Interim Marijuana Ordinance. A small group responded during the
public comment period. Others attended the public hearing. People again raised concerns
about the zoning of marijuana operations in rural residential or agricultural areas,
referring to some of the issues discussed in this thesis. Two industry representatives
attending the hearing asked the BoCC to change the zoning to allow marijuana
production and processing in agricultural areas in the county. I supported the renewal of
the 11th Interim Marijuana Ordinance that does not allow the zoning of marijuana
production and processing operations in rural residential or agricultural areas of
unincorporated Thurston County and presented the following testimony:
In 2014 my husband and I began a four-year journey fighting the threat
that was destroying our neighborhood character. We are still fighting
that battle at a cost, so far, of $70,000. $70,000 to stop an injustice
resulting from a county ordinance. Lack of foresight in county and state
regulations did not, and still do not, adequately protect residents from
an industry so new to the state. No one knows what the eventual
outcomes will be . . .
However well intentioned, the LCB with just 16 officers is incapable of
enforcing the regulations, and even more so when they identify upset
neighbors as NIMBYs. Common people like ourselves have nowhere to
201
turn if regulations do not protect the safety of our communities, our
easements, our air, water, and soil, our pets, our children, our elderly,
our neighborhood character, and the health of the natural environment.
Our story is an example of what harm the inappropriate zoning of
marijuana can invite to a community.2
Those in favor of changing the ordinance and allowing industrial-scale marijuana
production and processing in rural areas argued:
House Bill 2136 was the marijuana 502 fix Bill which allowed
legislature jurisdictional powers to reduce the buffer from a thousand
feet down to 150 feet . . . Now in my review of all this I did not see any
sort of nod toward that ability to reduce zoning and actually put these
businesses in a place where they won’t impact the community. Right
now you’re shoving them into industrial and commercial sectors which
are outpricing other businesses to exist there. It’s creating what we call
clustering and that clustering is creating a non-fair competitive
advantage against other businesses . . .
The USDA considers this an agricultural product. I understand the
legislature has been looking at it over and over again. According to
them, as far as I know, and everybody I talk to, it’s an agricultural
product unless we’re talking about tax. So, it’s your job to dictate the
health of this community both by the farmers, and by consumers, and
by the public, and it is my job to tell you you’re doing a poor job at it. I
think you should relook at this, tool it better, and give something to this
new industry.3
These disparate opinions exemplify the divide that my research identified between
those who are seeking to establish marijuana businesses throughout Washington, and
those like myself and others who are being severely impacted by such operations as they
degrade neighborhood character and the environment. As previously stated, early
versions of the Thurston County Interim Marijuana Ordinance permitted commercial
marijuana production and processing operations in rural residential and agricultural areas
of the county. Due to public outcry, as of November 10, 2015, these areas were removed
from the interim ordinance.4
202
The data collected for this thesis reveal that not all Washington State residents
neighboring commercial marijuana production and processing facilities have been
negatively impacted by the industry. As shown in the results section, 56% of residents
neighboring a Tier 3 operation in rural areas across Washington State would prefer not to
have the marijuana facility in their neighborhood. In Thurston County that number is
somewhat higher at 66% for residents close to either a Tier 1, 2, or 3 marijuana operation.
Throughout the state only 19% had considered moving elsewhere while in Thurston
County 27% indicated they had considered this option.
The Phase I and III survey responses demonstrate several key points:
The majority of participants located within an approximate half-mile of a
marijuana operation indicate they were never notified about the incoming
facility (81% across Washington State and 87% in Thurston County).
We see somewhat similar results between those not impacted at all (33%
across Washington State to 29% in Thurston County) to those who
indicated they have been impacted “very much” overall (29% across the
state compared to 22% in Thurston County).
The data shows that a higher percentage of Thurston County residents
have been impacted in all categories than participants neighboring only
large facilities across the state.
Both the statewide survey targeting only Tier 3 facilities (Phase I), and the
more encompassing county survey of all three Tier levels (Phase III),
show similar patterns in response to impacts to odor, noise, garbage,
pollution, and traffic.
The size of a facility may not be a point of contention, but rather concerns
such as odor, noise, unsightly fencing, could be bothersome regardless of
the Tier level of a marijuana operation depending on multiple variables.
These variables could include parcel size, distance from neighboring
properties, obscurity, indoor or greenhouse operation, private easement or
public road access, ethical business practices, odor and noise control,
young families in the neighborhood, to name just a few.
203
These results should suggest discussion and further research. Residents of
Washington State and elsewhere need to be made aware of the potential for social and/or
environmental impact to residents situated in close proximity to commercial marijuana
production and processing operations. New legislation is needed to protect rural
residents, the environment, and consumers from any harms associated with the marijuana
industry. The burden should not be borne by those challenging illicit behavior, fighting
against the loss of neighborhood character, or expending thousands of dollars to
safeguard their communities.
For the time being, the WSLCB has put a moratorium on all applications for Tiers
1, 2, and 3 marijuana licenses.5 However, Washington’s Governor Inslee declared in
January, 2018 that the marijuana industry will be moving “full speed ahead.”6 Therefore,
as long as the WSLCB has the authority to license a facility prior to land use approval,
property owners should pay attention, in particular should county zoning regulations fail
to adequately protect them. House Bill 2630, introduced by Representatives Griffey,
MacEwen and Van Werven in 2017, was intended to limit the powers of the WSLCB to
license a marijuana facility prior to land use approval (Appendix IV). In summary, House
Bill 2630:
Establishes that the issuance or renewal of a marijuana-related business
license by the Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) is contingent on the
applicant providing written proof that it is in compliance with the
regulations of the local jurisdiction where the business is, or proposed to
be located.
Authorizes the LCB to tentatively approve a license for an applicant who
otherwise meets applicable licensing requirements but has not provided
written proof of compliance with local regulations.
204
Prohibits a licensee having only a tentative approval from engaging in any
marijuana-related commercial activities requiring an LCB-issued license.
Requires the LCB to issue the license if, within six months of tentative
license approval, the applicant provides the LCB with written proof of
compliance with all local regulations.7
The provisions listed in this proposed Bill relate to a serious problem with
marijuana policy that has been discussed throughout this thesis—the ability of the
WSLCB to grant and renew a marijuana license before any land use applications for a
marijuana operation have received county approval or permits. Each of the Bill’s
provisions would have offered greater protection to neighboring residents by limiting the
power of the WSLCB. The introduction of this Bill indicates that some government
officials are aware of this disturbing weak point in marijuana policy. Hopefully the issue
will be addressed again during upcoming legislative sessions.
New legislation, such as HB 2630, restricting the power of the WSLCB to license
without land use approval, could prevent the expansion of the industry into unprepared
neighborhoods. The state has seen commercial marijuana operations quickly move
beyond the “mom and pop pot farm” some voters may have originally envisioned. As in
my example, my neighbor ran with the opportunity to expand his illicit marijuana
operations into a massive, industrial-sized, dual facility smack in the middle of a rural
residential area. Media reports indicate that even Monsanto is now considering entering
the marijuana market.8 As big money investor interests increase, small-scale
professionals, like Crystal Oliver (interviewed for this thesis), could be left struggling to
compete and maintain a license through specialty “boutique” marijuana products.9
205
Large investors are moving the dial on the marijuana industry in Washington
State. Where smaller marijuana operations fail, the newly available licenses can only be
sold to investors who can afford to buy one. Should policy allow corporate giants running
industrial-scale marijuana operations to move into areas zoned rural residential or
agricultural in Thurston County, the impacts to our farmland, forested landscapes, and
community character could be significant. While HB 2630 is a beginning, I do have
suggestions for marijuana policy improvement. I consider these in this next section.
4.2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The surveys and interviews conducted for this research comprise three subjects of
inquiry related to marijuana policy: 1) Environmental impacts resulting from inadequate
regulations. 2) Changes in marijuana policy and the outcomes. 3) Social impacts in rural
areas resulting from flaws in marijuana policy. As a result of this inquiry, below I discuss
what marijuana regulatory weak points need to be addressed in future policy
improvements to ensure the well-being of rural residential communities.
Marijuana Policy—Environmental and Social Improvements
I begin with improvements I consider necessary to protect the state’s valuable
water resources. Water consumption should be of major concern in the regulation of
marijuana production and processing through a revision of the 1945 Groundwater Code
and Clean Water Act. Estimates of water consumption in California clearly indicate the
need for monitoring water use in licensed Tier 2 and Tier 3 marijuana operations to
ensure usage falls below the allowance of 5,000 gpd without need for a water right
permit. Monitoring water consumption in marijuana cultivation and processing should be
206
a requirement whether in Washington State or anywhere else in the country legalizing the
drug. Detailed records of that usage should be maintained throughout the state to be used
to alter policy if needed, and for research purposes.
The 1945 Washington State groundwater code that allows 5,000 gpd in
commercial water use was established decades before marijuana cultivation became a
legal enterprise. According to DOE Water Resources Compliance officer Vicki Cline,
this earlier code has not been updated to address water usage by this new industry. Based
upon my research and experience, I do not believe the 1945 code adequately protects
Washington’s aquifers or streams from excessive water consumption, or potential
contamination, by the marijuana industry. Therefore, the Groundwater Code and Clean
Water Act should be revised to address this vacuum. As discussed earlier, I calculated
that a Tier 3 production facility, with the low estimate of 2,500 plants requiring six
gallons of water per day (gpd) per plant, could consume almost 15,000 gpd of water
during high production cycles. When I asked Cline if anyone was looking at these
numbers she responded:
That’s a good question. I don’t know whether our policy folks at our
headquarters office are poking around at Washington State extension
service to incorporate anything in the extension, into the irrigation
guide which is used statewide for water duties for crops. So I don’t
know. That’d probably be a good question to pose to the Washington
State extension service to see if they’re actually coming up with any
numbers that are real. Then once that happens, I think maybe our policy
folks would possibly look at updating our water use guidelines to
include that type of crop.
207
Based upon Cline’s remarks, my calculations, and the rapid expansion of the marijuana
industry, I suggest new policy be implemented immediately to measure and address water
consumption by the marijuana industry.
The diversity of Washington State, with its varied topography and growing
conditions on either side of the Cascade mountain range, provides a unique challenge to
policy makers. At the very least, legislation should take into account marijuana
operations’ multifaceted footprint in dry versus wetter climate conditions when revising
or improving regulations. Snowpack in the Cascades is predicted to drop significantly (as
is already occurring) due to Climate Change. This will put a strain on irrigation water for
agriculture crops needed to feed a rapidly expanding state and global population. Eastern
Washington is likely to experience more extreme dryness however, both eastern and
western Washington could face significant water shortages throughout the summer with
wildfires also more prevalent due to longer dry periods. Water availability, impacts on
groundwater supplies, and contamination of existing waterways all need serious
consideration when deciding how best to monitor, and where to locate, an industrial-scale
marijuana operation.
Many times during my research I spotted commercial marijuana operations in the
countryside, prison-like and resembling a detention facility, that totally detracted from
the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood. As mentioned earlier, I witnessed
unsightly marijuana operations situated along scenic byways, on stunning hillside
plateaus, in the midst of apple orchard valleys and agricultural fields, amongst wildlife
passage areas, beside nature reserves, next to wetlands and streams, and in the middle of
residential neighborhoods. Allowing marijuana operations in residential or agricultural
208
zones could mean an invasion of such prison-like facilities, and the associated worker
traffic, noise, security floodlighting, chemical runoff, odor, and an excessive array of
cameras. Adding light pollution to the countryside would impede the viewing of the stars
at night.
In a conversation about marijuana and odor control, Fran McNair, with the
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, pointed out that the “legislature loves the money.”
This means certain politicians want to ensure that marijuana remains a viable product and
continues to contribute to state tax coffers, while at the same time, the industry is pushing
to be fully recognized as agricultural. Washington State has left the decision to county
zoning and marijuana ordinances as to where a marijuana operation can be located.
McNair told me, “The WSLCB says it’s not agriculture and that’s why we call marijuana
a controlled substance.” I brought up the fact that as marijuana can be eaten in a variety
of products wouldn’t that qualify it as a food source leading to agricultural classification.
McNair shed some light on the policy difference when using the example of wine (also a
controlled substance) with marijuana. “The growing of grapes would be agriculture, but
the processing to make it wine is not. There’s a differentiation there . . . a different
controlled substance [that’s] not regulated like marijuana. So what’s different is growing
the grapes is agriculture. It doesn’t become a controlled substance until it becomes liquor
or wine.” This caused me to reflect upon a comment made by Crystal Oliver, the Tier 3
business owner in Spokane interviewed for this thesis, who compared grapes and hops to
marijuana as an argument for wishing her children could participate in her marijuana
production activities.
209
McNair told me the marijuana industry wants to be zoned agricultural for two key
reasons: 1) Owners do not want to be controlled by air quality agencies such as ORCAA
that require installation of expensive odor and VOC filter systems. 2) Producers want to
retain as much of the revenue as possible. She added “If they can say that they’re
agriculture then, I mean, agriculture is the biggest exemption you can have when paying
property tax and everything else.”
I argue that in order to reduce disruptions to communities brought about by light,
noise, odor, traffic, chemical waste, and VOC pollution, state regulations should mandate
marijuana be cultivated indoors in industrial or commercial areas. Regulations should
prevent marijuana businesses from circumventing air quality control regulations by
expanding into rural areas where, by purchasing a second or third license from failed
marijuana businesses, or subleasing land to another marijuana business, they could
expand operations beyond five acres. This was a key point brought out in the Green
Freedom LLC versus ORCAA Appeal heard before the Hearing Examiner in March,
2018.10 Where allowed to operate as agriculture in an area larger than five acres, McNair
informed me, a marijuana business would no longer fall under air quality control by
agencies like ORCAA and would instead be regulated by the Department of Agriculture,
with a more lenient odor policy. Cheaper land is available in agricultural areas and
marijuana producers would have fewer regulations to be concerned about. It’s a win-win
for producers but can be a lose-lose for the neighbors. The state legislature and county
policy can prevent this from happening. “They’ve got the controls to be able to say this
area is not zoned for this, for marijuana” McNair told me.
210
Rural families should not fear for their health and safety. At times during my fight
against the facility next door to me, I was so terrified, I asked for a police escort. I am
aware of other neighbors close to a marijuana operation who feared for the safety of their
children if they opposed the facility. To ensure public safety, officials must enforce
zoning regulations that locate marijuana operations in industrial or commercial areas
only—thereby restricting them to areas already accustomed to high traffic volumes and
24-hour per day operations, and keeping them out of residential areas. Advance Notice of
Construction must be required, even for siting in industrial/commercial zones, allowing
the public the opportunity to voice opinions on the proposals. A full environmental
impact review must be conducted prior to issuing a commercial marijuana license or land
use permit to ensure that air emissions, water run-off, and waste disposal do not create
undue hazards for the community. Revised legislation, or a final marijuana ordinance—
whether in Thurston County or elsewhere—should safeguard and prioritize neighborhood
character, community safety, and the health of the environment.
Based on my research, I recommend:
Tier 1, 2, and 3 commercial/industrial marijuana production and processing
operations be located only in areas zoned industrial or commercial.
The WSLCB should not be allowed to issue a marijuana production or processing
license prior to final approval and permitting of a marijuana land use application.
Those applying for any marijuana special land use be required to submit a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the entire area to ensure habitat,
aquifer, and watershed protection.
Any applicant misrepresenting facts, or employing other deceptive measures
when submitting applications, or repeatedly ignoring violation notices, should be
denied a marijuana special land use permit and marijuana operations license.
Government agencies collaborate in the permitting process. This would include
ongoing communication between the representatives of the Washington State
211
Liquor and Cannabis Board, the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, the
Washington State Department of Health, the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Washington
State Environmental Protection Agency, Thurston County Community Economic
Planning and Development, Thurston County Law Enforcement, and relevant
waste disposal agencies.
Properties within a mile radius of a proposed rural marijuana operation should be
notified at the time a marijuana license or marijuana special land use application
is submitted, should be provided with all information related to the intended
activity, and should be given 90 days to respond before any processing of a land
use application is initiated.
A Notice of Construction be required by air quality agencies such as ORCAA and
Department of Ecology Water Resource Programs in conjunction with a
marijuana land use application.
A water meter be required at all Tier 1, 2, and 3 marijuana facilities.
No construction be allowed to commence before the developers receive a
marijuana operation land use permit, and ONLY following a comprehensive
assessment of community and regulatory agency comments.
Marijuana applicants who degrade the landscape by initiating construction
without a marijuana special land use permit must be required to restore the site to
its original appearance.
Applicants for marijuana operations who initiate construction without final land
use approval, or with existing property violations, not be considered vested or
allowed to develop the facility any further.
Marijuana operations found to discharge industrial wastewater from production
and processing into any type of individual on-site septic system not be considered
vested, or granted any special land use exemptions.
Any marijuana production or processing operation failing to abide by state
regulations should be given only one opportunity, after a significant fine, to
correct the issue. A second violation should result in the permanent loss of a
marijuana license and land use permit.
All commercial marijuana product be tested from seed to sale and be stamped
with a WSLCB quality assurance logo.
212
Marijuana cultivation is best suited indoors where production, processing, air
circulation, temperature, light, security, pests, irrigation, power consumption, industrial
wastewater discharge, garbage disposal, odor, and noise can be better monitored and
controlled, thereby creating less impact to neighboring communities. Although indoor
cultivation is a preferable method of ensuring community well-being, outdoor or
greenhouse production could remain available to the marijuana industry under the right
circumstances. Land use and zoning are critical decisions when monitoring the industry.
Because they factor so highly into these considerations, zoning options will be considered
more critically in the next section.
Zoning as a Practical Solution
As indicated above, commercial marijuana production and processing facilities
are not compatible with rural residential neighborhood character. They are compatible
with industrial neighborhood character. Because of the harmful social and environmental
impacts outlined in this thesis, the current zoning that allows marijuana operations in
rural residential or agricultural areas is irresponsible. Building marijuana operations in
commercial and industrial zones gives producers greater access to security, industrial
wastewater sewer systems, and electrical power.
According to Thurston County Land Use Ordinances, “There are more than 60
types of zoning in Thurston County,” however they generally fall into five main
categories: Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, Open Space, and Industrial.11
I consider each below:
Residential – Areas designated for single and multi-family residences.12
213
County planners trusted with protecting residential enjoyment of property and the natural
environment of this state must not expand this designation to include any kind of
marijuana processing facility.
Commercial – Areas intended for businesses which provide consumer
goods and services as well as a wide variety of commercial, retail, office,
and recreational uses.13
When siting marijuana operations in places with commercial zoning, state, county, and
city agencies should disclose to the public any potential negative impacts to existing
businesses and communities, as well as the job and tax benefits anticipated.
Agricultural – Areas now used for agricultural and farming purposes
which may be developed for urban use sometime in the future.14
Marijuana production is not recognized as agriculture by the Federal Government and
thus should not be located in areas used, primarily, for the production of food.
Open Space – Public recreational uses or area to be left in a generally
natural state.15
Articles outlining the degradation to public lands in California and reports from
Northwest HIDTA in Washington State summarize the harm inflicted by the marijuana
industry on open space areas. As outlined in the Cole Memo (see p. 58), marijuana
operations should be barred from these areas.
Industrial – Areas intended for research and development, factories,
warehousing, and other industrial uses.16
As stated, based on the potential human and environmental degradation connected to
commercial marijuana operations, siting of these facilities is best suited to industrial
zoning. Industrial zoning allows for the added infrastructure and security measures
214
required to safely run a marijuana production and processing operation. Industrially
zoned areas allow for large structures, protective fencing, security, lights, noise, and
appropriate water and waste facilities that ensure safer processing of pollutants that might
otherwise enter the environment.
Additional Recommendations
To prevent further damage to water resources and forested or agricultural
landscapes in Washington State, as my research has identified, I suggest a need for more
than one policy improvement. First, marijuana tax revenues should be allocated to
combat the problems resulting from industry operations and sales of marijuana.
According to Thurston County Sheriff Snaza, legalization of marijuana is fueling an
increase in homelessness and drug addiction. A portion of tax revenues received from
marijuana sales should be applied to solving these social problems. Giving young people
a place to shelter with mental health care provided, and assistance programs that would
introduce new directions in their lives perhaps involving gardening, animal husbandry, or
ecological preservation, would be one way to address the problem. With juvenile youth
access and consumption of marijuana on the rise, as noted by Northwest HIDTA,
marijuana tax funds should be used to educate young people about the detriment of such
choices on their health and future prospects.17 In addition, since marijuana facilities have
been found to harm the environment, as demonstrated by my own story and those of other
residents interviewed, revenues from the industry need to be allocated to repair that
damage. Legislation also should be introduced to protect those ecosystem services from
the negative impacts of overconsumption, or contamination of the state’s water and
pollution of the air. Funding should go to further research into the environmental impacts
215
of the industry as well as hiring additional staff at agencies like ORCAA and SRCAA.
During interviews I was told these agencies have seen a significant increase in their
workload since legalization. According to Sheriff Snaza, marijuana tax revenues should
also be applied to WSLCB officer training and an increase in county law enforcement
personal to tackle the growing problems associated with legalization of the marijuana
industry as discussed in that interview.
My research indicates that marijuana continues to support a black market
economy, with weak regulations failing to curb this behavior. Therefore, serious
consideration also needs to be given toward new policies that confront continuing
unlawful marijuana activity despite legalization. Rather than relying on random spotchecking and complaints to identify problems at a facility, WSLCB officers should be
required to physically visit premises on a regular, rotating basis. I suggest introducing
policy that requires a bi-monthly inspection of all licensed Tiers in the state. This would
require more WSLCB officers to be employed with the agency. Policies that to date have
allowed the agency to ignore community interests and the health of the surrounding
environment require immediate revision.
4.3 AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
With predictions of dryer summers, reduced snow packs, and diminished water
availability resulting from changing conditions in the state’s climate, I offer an alternative
revenue source to Washington State residents that could provide benefit to local
communities and the environment while remaining lucrative to political interests. Rather
than allowing the stripping away of forests, hillsides, wetlands, and other stunning natural
features to support an industry that my research shows has not been as well-regulated as
216
some would suggest, entrepreneurs and land owners could invest in what grows naturally
and more readily in many parts of western Washington: old-growth forest.
Marijuana versus Old-growth Forest
As an alternative to taxes collected through marijuana sales in the State of
Washington, I suggest the cultivation of old-growth forests that might benefit future
generations by slowing climate change. As the state’s population increases, putting
pressure on available land and resources, we need to consider how we best utilize our
precious landscapes. We must learn to consider nature, instead of conquering ecosystems
for monetary gain and pleasure, thereby upsetting the balance of life in the process.
Perhaps, as marijuana producers focus on intensifying chemical highs, we are forgetting
the intoxicating high of simply walking through an ancient forest. A connection to the
natural world is fading in our psyche and the natural world is disappearing as a result.
Environmental and political leaders addressing climate challenges with graphs,
charts, and team meetings all stress the need to develop strategies to tackle the problem.
Discussions meander around what a changing climate will mean for temperature, water
supplies, food sources, forests, species, and human habitat, all important considerations
for agencies tasked with thinking ahead for public benefit. Whether considering adaptive
management, or applying mitigation techniques, the good intentions of these groups,
without implementation, have no impact. Good intentions that result in even more
problems just don’t make sense. Why then, we should ask ourselves, has an industry like
commercial marijuana production and processing, with such potential for detrimental
environmental impact, been wholeheartedly embraced without adequate policy protection
217
to safeguard Washington’s water supplies, agricultural lands, forest habitats, and the
well-being of the people?
Instead of “racing full speed ahead,” as the Governor has announced to expand
the marijuana market, Washingtonians and political representatives need to focus
attention on other revenue sources.18 I do not think we should be following the example of
California’s marijuana market in degrading a forested landscape to produce a commodity
governed by inadequate regulations and enforcement. As reported by HIDTA, illegal
marijuana operations destructive to forest habitat are also being discovered on
Washington’s public lands.19 Ignorance and greed only leads to environmental
catastrophe.
Paula Swedeen, policy director for Conservation Northwest, proposed that more
old-growth forests would have an impact on CO2 levels because older trees are
significant sequesters of carbon.20 In fact, she said, older forests in western Washington,
Oregon, and California have the highest carbon densities in the world. They continue to
accumulate carbon even after a period of 400 years. Although this topic is beyond the
scope of this thesis, in tackling rising GHG emissions, we need to find solutions that will
provide CO2 sequestration. Trees will provide air quality, habitat survival, and economic
development. Thus, as an alternative to increasing revenues through marijuana
production in the state, I propose the economic alternative of selling forest carbon credits
through tree cultivation on a scale as small as an acre. This could provide income to
small-scale property owners and protect Pacific Northwest forest habitat. I also suggest
naming the concept “Treasure a Tree” or “TAT.”
218
Swedeen stated that while old-growth forests decrease carbon footprint, it will
take decades to sequester the carbon released when a forest is destroyed. “Keeping old
growth on public lands is one of the best things we can do” she told students at the
Evergreen State College in 2017.21 I would also argue in favor of maintaining healthy tree
populations on private lands, no matter how small. Reigniting an affinity for this ecoservice on a broad cultural platform could have profound repercussions. Those who take
the time to foster the growth of trees, to develop a strong bond with forested landscapes,
might have a deeper concern for what is happening to our forested and rural areas due to
the inroads of industrial-scale businesses such as marijuana operations. Should forest
reserves continue to diminish worldwide, temperatures increase, and greenhouse gasses
escalate, TAT might even outperform marijuana as a revenue source, while providing
cleaner air, healthier individuals, and a safer environment.
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Thurston County Washington Permitting and Land Use (2018). Land Use Ordinances. Thurston
County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/landuse/landuse-home.html
2. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (2018, May 1). Public Hearing – Renewal of
Interim Marijuana Ordinance. Michelle Horkings-Brigham. Thurston County
Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=9812078&searchid=30222285-4afe-4bfa-8508d2c1bbd12478&dbid=0:
3. Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (2018, May 1). Public Hearing – Renewal of
Interim Marijuana Ordinance. Jed Haney. Thurston County Washington. Olympia,
Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=9812078&searchid=30222285-4afe-4bfa-8508d2c1bbd12478&dbid=0
4. Thurston County Washington Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2015, November 10).
Ordinance No. 15210. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia,
Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=5581486&searchid=53a0f74e-4ae3-4061-8df119824224fe03&dbid=0
219
5. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (2018). Marijuana Licensing. Washington State
Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/marijuana-licensing
6. Kollar, J. (2018, January 12). Washington Responds to Fed’s Marijuana Crackdown. Nisqually
Valley News. Yelm, Washington.
7. Griffey, MacEwen, Van Werven. (2018, January 22). HB 2630 Bill Analysis. Brief Summary of
Bill. Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research. Commerce
& Gaming Committee.
8. Schneider, P. (2017, June 21). Monsanto and Bayer are moving to take over the cannabis
industry. Waking Times. Available: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/06/21/monsantobayer-maneuvering-take-cannabis-industry/
9. Weeks, K. (2018, February 20). Government Relations Director at the Center for Public Affairs.
Washington State Department of Health. Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
10. Francks, H. C. (2018, March 20). PCHB NO. 17-028c Green Freedom LLC v. Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency. Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office. Tumwater,
Washington.
11. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2). Land Use Ordinances. Thurston
County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/landuse/landuse-zoning.html
12. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2).
13. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2).
14. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2).
15. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2).
16. Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2).
17. Northwest HIDTA (2018). Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat
Assessment and Strategy for Program Year 2018. Northwest HIDTA. Seattle,
Washington.
18. Kollar, J. (2018, January 12).
19. Northwest HIDTA. (2018).
20. Swedeen, P. (2017). Policy Director Conservation Northwest. The Evergreen State College.
Olympia, Washington. Lecture.
21. Swedeen, P. (2017).
220
_______________________________________________________________________
CH. 5 IN CONCLUSION
As I write this conclusion to my research, a four year battle with stakeholders
involved in the marijuana production and processing industry in Washington State comes
to a close. My husband and I intervened in an Appeal by our neighbor to extend his
application for special land use after he missed deadlines to address multiple land use
violations. The Hearing Examiner ruled in our favor. Our neighbor then appealed to the
Thurston County Commissioners. They also ruled in our favor. Today, May 15, 2018,
was the last possible day my neighbor might have appealed these rulings to the
Washington State Superior Court. The industrial-scale marijuana operations next door to
my property are no longer vested in our community.
Objecting to the unlawful marijuana activity occurring in our neighborhood cost
my family more than $70,000 in legal expenses. The many days I spent searching for
government assistance to do something about the injustice usually resulted in an agency
pointing to a different agency as being accountable. Ultimately, I discovered, the power
to determine the site for a marijuana operation in Washington State, lies with County
Commissioners and city officials. Until legislation is able to reign in the actions of the
WSLCB and provide greater protection to communities, residents concerned about
maintaining neighborhood character would do well to take an active interest in county
hearings scheduled to receive public comment on shifting marijuana regulations.
Without adequate land use regulations, oversight of chemical usage, controlled
product standards, final stage product testing, and stronger law enforcement, commercial
marijuana producer/processors could be significantly impacting the environment and
221
health and wellbeing of thousands of individuals throughout the state, including
marijuana tourists visiting from elsewhere. Reflecting upon the findings of this thesis one
has to wonder if marijuana applicants have given any consideration to the ramifications
to individuals and communities as they plan and develop their facilities within
neighborhoods where children play and walk to and from school, and long-time property
owners value safe, clean air and water, and a peaceful environment for retirement or to
raise a family.
The Cannabis Conundrum, I have come to realize, is how it does what it does.
More than 1,500 plants, overnight, can disappear. A WSLCB officer skirted the question
concerning my neighbor when I queried “What happened to all of those plants?” outside
the Thurston County Courthouse in 2017. “It’s our job to intervene only after an
applicant is licensed” was his response. Such obscurity has long been the nature of a trade
that with some, still operates in the shadows, despite the good will of voters and ethical
marijuana business owners. Hidden in an obscure valley, as with my neighbor, none
would ever realize what was happening, other than those directly impacted. Do residents
really want Thurston County to become the next “Pot Silicon Valley”? I have wondered.
I was one of the approximate 56% of the state’s population who voted in favor, while
44% of Washingtonians did not approve the legalization of recreational marijuana.
Certainly those who voted against do not want such a reality.
In my personal quest from 2014 to 2018, and throughout this research, I have seen
how, at times, concern for the well-being of others is cast aside in the name of profit.
Although the industrial or commercial zoning of marijuana production and processing
will not altogether alleviate harmful issues associated with the industry, it will at least
222
help to contain unsightly development, chemical abuse, and multiple concerns to
communities. Innocent neighborhoods have been impacted because of weak regulations.
Only more stringent marijuana policy can direct the industry in a manner that prevents
further degradation, stress, and anxiety.
Being jeered at. Being denied access to the electrical power grid in order to install
our own security. Being bombarded with the noise of endless hours of generators and
industrial fans that shrank enjoyment of our property to the inside of our home. Being
observed by strangers for years as we moved to and from our property. Being almost
robbed of the dream for the future of our land. Having our family at risk. Being
considered NIMBYs by government representatives. None of this has been easy. Despite
this long ordeal with our neighbors I would vote again to legalize marijuana for the sake
of all who might benefit from its medicinal properties. Had my personal journey with
cancer taken a different path, I would have chosen marijuana’s solace over other painkilling drugs. Perhaps we would have fared better as a society had marijuana never been
banned at all. Perhaps Zephyr would still be with my family, leaping after rocks thrown
into our pond. My hope is that as marijuana becomes legalized in other areas, as I believe
it will, the disruption to families and property, the world over, will diminish because the
shadow behavior that has long surrounded this extraordinary plant will be a thing of the
past. It’s time the worldwide charade of abuse of power through drugs, ruled by money
and greed, come to an end. Ethical behavior that abides by appropriate regulations
concerned for the welfare of all, must become the new mandate if we hope to preserve
the pristine environments, and even our very planet, that we all call our home.
223
_______________________________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayers, R. (2017, December 6). A Conversation with Artist Fred Tomaselli. Huffington Post. Available:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ayers/i-think-its-hilarious-rob_b_786621.html
Baker A. (2016, October 2). Proposed Thurston County Zoning Changes for Marijuana Growing.
(Submitted to Thurston County Resource Stewardship.) Yelm, Washington resident. Email
correspondence.
Bauer, S., Olson, J., Cockrill, A., Van Hattem, M., Miller, L., Tauzer, M., Leppig, G. (2015, March
18). Impacts of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation on aquatic habitat in four
northwestern California watersheds. PLOS ONE 10 (art. e0120016).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120016
Bernstein, S. (2017, August 6). Toxic waste from U.S. pot farms alarms experts. MSN News.
Board of County Commissioners for Thurston County. (2018, April 4). Appeal No. 18-102103VE.
Project No. 2014101488 Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
Brigham, J. (2016). Private email correspondence with Puget Sound Energy. Yelm, Washington
resident.
Bush, E. (2018, February 7). With tracking systems hobbling, marijuana industry scrambles to keep
pot on shelves. The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington. Available:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/marijuana/with-tracking-system-hobblingmarijuana-industry-scrambles-to-keep-pot-on-shelves/
Carah, J.K., Howard J.K., Thompson S.E., Short Gianotti A.G., Bauer S.D., Carleson S.M., Dralle
D.N., Gabriel M.W., Hulette L.L., Johnson B.J., Knight C.A., Kupferberg S.J., Martin S.L.,
Naylor R.L., Power M.E. (2015, August). High time for conservation: Adding the
environment to the debate on marijuana liberalization. BioScience 65: 822-829.
Caulkins, J.P., Kilmer, B., Kleiman, A.R. (2016). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to
Know. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. New York.
Cervantes, J. (2006). Marijuana Horticulture: The Indoor/Outdoor Medical Grower’s Bible. Van Patten
Publishing.
Chalem, K. (2016, February 24). Memorandum: Marijuana Interim Regulations A.1.ii – May 19, 2015
Letter to Goldwater Properties. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. .
Olympia, Washington.
Chalem, K., (2016, February 24). Memorandum: Marijuana Interim Regulations. Staff responses to
questions posed by Planning Commission members Thurston County Washington Resource
Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting
Chalem, K. (2016, February 24). Memorandum: Marijuana Interim Regulations - Staff responses to
questions posed by Planning Commission members. A.1 Information for planning
commission to review. Email from Ira Holman, February 18, 2016. Thurston County
Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
224
Chalem, K., (2016, January 20). Resource Stewardship Planning Commission Briefing: Proposed
Chapter 20.63 – Marijuana Regulations. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource
Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/presentation-to-planning-commissionproposed-marijuana-regulations.pdf
Chalem, K. (2016, February 3). Resource Stewardship Planning Commission Briefing: Proposed
Chapter 20.63 – Marijuana Regulations. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource
Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/presentation-to-planning-commissionmarijuana-interim-regulations.pdf
Clarke, R.C. Merlin, M.D., (2013). Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of California
Press. Berkley, Los Angeles, London.
Cline, V. (2017, February 23). Ground Water Withdrawal and Irrigation Water for
Commercial/Industrial Use – Parcel No. 22603110000. State of Washington Department of
Ecology State of Washington. Lacey, Washington. Letter.
Cline, V. (2018, February 16). Compliance and Enforcement Officer. Washington State Department of
Ecology Southwest Regional Office Water Resources Program. Lacey, Washington. Personal
interview.
Cushman, B.D. (2016, December 8). Application for Other Administrative Action - Code
Interpretation pertaining to Project No. 2014101488 (Marijuana Producing/Processing
Application). Cushman Law Offices. Olympia, Washington. Available:
www.cushmanlaw.com
Cushman, B.D. (2017, February 15). Letter of inquiry regarding: Project No. 2014101488 (Marijuana
Producing/Processing Application). Cushman Law Offices. Olympia, Washington. Available:
www.cushmanlaw.com
Decorte, T., Potter G. (2015). The globalisation of cannabis cultivation: A growing challenge.
ScienceDirect: International Journal of Drug Policy. Available:
www.elseveir.com/locate/drugpo
Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). (1993, September). Carbofuran: Pesticide Information
Profile. Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, Michigan State University,
Oregon State University, and University of California at Davis. Available:
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/carbofuran-ext.html
Francks, H. C. (2018, March 20). PCHB NO. 17-028c Green Freedom LLC v. Olympic Region Clean
Air Agency. P. 10. Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office. Tumwater, Washington.
Fuller, T. (2017, September 9). Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here. If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board.
The New York Times. New York. N.Y. Available:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/us/california-marijuana-growers.html
Gabriel, M.W., Woods, L.W., Poppenga, R., Sweitzer, R.A, Thompson, C., Matthews, S.M., Higley,
J.M., Keller, S.M., Purcell, K., Barrett, R.H., Wengert, G.M., Sacks, B.N., Clifford,D.L.
(2012, July 13). Anticoagulant rodenticides on our public and community lands: Spatial
distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest carnivore. PLOS ONE 7 (art. e40163).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040163
Gettman, J. (2016, March 8). Pot Matters: Marijuana Use Disorder. High Times. Available:
https://hightimes.com/health/science/pot-matters-marijuana-use-disorder/
225
Griffey, MacEwen, Van Werven. (2018, January 22). HB 2630 Bill Analysis. Brief Summary of Bill.
Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research. Commerce &
Gaming Committee.
Hammersvik, E., Sandberg, S., Pedersen, W. (2012, August 13). Why small-scale cannabis growers
stay small: Five mechanisms that prevent small-scale growers from going large scale.
ScienceDirect: International Journal of Drug Policy. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.08.001
Himmelstein, J.L., (1983). The Strange Career of Marijuana: Politics and Ideology of Drug Control in
America. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut.
Holman, I. (2016). Not In Our Neighborhood. Letter of Complaint submitted to Thurston County
Resource Stewardship Long Range Planning. Yelm, Washington resident.
Holman, I. (2018, May 1). Yelm, Washington resident. Personal interview.
Humboldt Growers Association (HGA). (2010, December 13). Humboldt County Outdoor Medical
Cannabis Ordinance Draft-Water Usage. Humboldt Growers Association (HGA). Humboldt
County, CA. Available: http://library.humboldt.edu/humco/holdings/HGA2.pdf
Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC). (2015, August). Regulatory Guidance for
Cannabis Operations Version 2.0. Interagency Resource for Achieving Cooperation (IRAC).
Irby, K. (2018, January 4). Sessions ends policy that allowed legal pot, disrupting state markets.
McClatchy Washington Bureau. Available: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nationworld/national/article192953934.html
Johnson, N. (2018, January 11). Lewis County Sheriff: Trend of Large, Illegal Pot Grows Likely to
Continue. Investigations: Power Bills a Giveaway for Clandestine Pot Growers. The
Chronicle. Centralia, Washington. Available:
http://www.chronline.com/search/?l=25&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&t=article%2Cvideo
%2Cyoutube%2Ccollection&app=editorial&q=Lewis+County+Sheriff%3A+Trend+of+Large
%2C+Illegal+Pot+Grows+Likely+to+Continue
Kantas, T. (2016, October 21). Administrative Special Use Permit – Marijuana Production &
Processing. Planning (3.) Project No. 2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM.
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=MinutesTextSearch
Kantas, T. (2017, January 13). Administrative Special Use Permit – Marijuana Production &
Processing. Project No. 2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County
Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=MinutesTextSearch
Kantas, T. (2016, November 4). Land Use Violation and Question. Email correspondence with Masias
at lcb.wa.gov Thurston County Resource Stewardship. Olympia, Washington.
Kinder, P.D. (2016, June 14). Not in My Backyard Phenomenon. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Not-in-My-Backyard-Phenomenon
Kollar, J. (2018, January 12). Washington Responds to Fed’s Marijuana Crackdown. The Nisqually
Valley News. Yelm, Washington.
226
Kovner, G. (2015, June 30). Fisheries panel to hold Sacramento hearing on water use by pot farms. The
Press Democrat. Santa Rosa, California.
Lapook, J. (2016, December 28). Mysterious illness tied to marijuana use on the rise in states with
legal weed. CBS Evening News. Available: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mysteriousillness-tied-to-marijuana-use-on-the-rise-in-states-with-legal-weed/
Leavenworth, S. (2018, April 3). California’s underground pot market continues to thrive. Is the tax
man to blame? The Olympian. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.theolympian.com/news/nation-world/article207815209.html
Lopez, J. (2018). Compliance Section Manager. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency. Spokane,
Washington. Personal interview.
Manns, R. (2016, October 20). 2nd Notice of Violation. Case #CZ 16-105016 Project No. 2014101488.
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
Masias A.V. (2017, April 17). Enforcement Report of Complaint. Blue Moose - Complaint Number
C7C7107A and C7C7107B. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia,
Washington.
McIver (2017, August 21). Narcotics Taskforce Officer’s Report. Case Number: 16-035 TNT.
Unlawful Manufacturing of a Controlled Substance – Marijuana. Thurston County Narcotics
Taskforce. Olympia, Washington.
McNair, F.L. (2018, March 16). Executive Director. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA).
Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
McNamara, N. (2017, August 10). THC in Seattle water ‘Highest Detected in the World’.” Seattle
Patch. Seattle, Washington. Available: https://patch.com/washington/seattle/thc-seatte-waterhighest-detected-world
McPartland, J.M., Clarke, R.C., Watson, D.P. (2000) Hemp diseases and pests: management and
biological control: an advanced treatise. CABI Publishing. New York, N.Y.
Mills, E. (2012, April 17). The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Energy Policy 46: 58–
67. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.023
Nguyen, H., Malm, A., Bouchard, M. (2014, August 21). Production, perceptions, and punishment:
Restrictive deterrence in the context of cannabis cultivation. International Journal of Drug
Policy. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.08.012
Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact Report
Volume 2. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative Support Center
Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). (2017, June). Marijuana Impact Report
Volume 2. Pg. 20. Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Investigative Support
Center Treatment and Prevention. Washington State.
Northwest HIDTA (2018) Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat Assessment and
Strategy for Program Year 2018. Northwest HIDTA. Seattle, Washington.
227
O’Hare, M., Sanchez, D.L., Alstone, P. (2013, June 28). Environmental risks and opportunities in
cannabis cultivation. BOTEC Analysis Corp. Available:
http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/BOTEC_Whitepaper_Final.pdf
Oliver, C. (2018). President and Co-Founder. Washington's Finest Cannabis. Spokane, Washington.
Personal interview.
Oliver, C. (2017). 5 years post legalization; Over-regulation threatens the viability of small cannabis
farmers. Washington's Finest Cannabis. Spokane, Washington.
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). (2016, December 5). ORCAA Complaint Form ID
17412. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). Olympia, Washington.
Oregon Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA). (2017, December 11). Marijuana and Pets. Oregon
Veterinary Medical Association. Available: https://oregonvma.org/carehealth/safety/marijuana-pets
Pardo, B. (2014, May 18). Cannabis policy reforms in the Americas: A comparative analysis of
Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay. Science Direct: International Journal of Drug Policy.
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.05.010
Pemberton, L. (2017, April 27). Residents want pot businesses kept out of rural areas. The Olympian.
Olympia, Washington.
Piljman, F.T.A., Rigter, S.M., Hoek, J., Goldschmidt, H.M.J, Niesink, R.J.M. (2005). Strong increase
in total delta-THC in cannabis preparations sold in Dutch coffee shops. Addiction Biology,
10(2), 171-180. Available: http://doi.org/10.1080/13556210500123217
Puget Sound Energy (PSE). (2016, June 10). Organic Harvest, LLC (Grow Op). Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. Tacoma, Washington.
Roffman, R.A. (1982). Marijuana As Medicine. Madrona Publishers. Seattle, Washington.
Russell, R. (2008, November 6). Affidavit of Ryan Russell in Support of probable Cause for Seizure.
No. 08-2-02591-5. Detective Ryan Russell. Superior Court of the State of Washington in and
for the County of Thurston County.
Saint, A. (2017, April 12). Memorandum – Stormwater Scoping Report – Response Jim Hayes Site
Plan. Project No. 2014101488. Thurston County Department of Resource Stewardship
Stormwater Utility. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
Saul, K.M. PhD. (2017). Personal correspondence. The Evergreen State College. Olympia,
Washington.
Saul, K.M. PhD. (2018). Personal correspondence. The Evergreen State College. Olympia,
Washington.
Schneider, P. (2017, June 21). Monsanto and Bayer are moving to take over the cannabis industry.
Waking Times. Available: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/06/21/monsanto-bayermaneuvering-take-cannabis-industry/
Seaman, L. (2015, July 10). Marijuana’s Environmental Impacts. Water and Wildlife. Stanford Woods
Institute for the Environment. Available: https://woods.stanford.edu/newsevents/news/marijuanas-environmental-impacts
228
Selsky, A. (2017, August 14) Marijuana states try to curb smuggling, avert US crackdown. Associated
Press. New York, N.Y. Available:
https://www.apnews.com/f1c7244ac5384f9e9c08201967526791
Shimada, T. (2016, November 17). Re: Please_DocuSign_these_documents_Electric_Com. Private
email correspondence. Seattle, Washington resident.
Short Gianotti, A.G., Harrower, J., Baird, G., Sepaniak, S. (2016, November 18). The Quasi-legal
challenge: Assessing and Governing the Environmental Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation in
the North Coastal Basin of California. Science Direct Land Use Policy. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.016
Smith, J. (2017, March 31). Illegal Pot Farms Are Poisoning California’s Forests. The Atlantic..
Boston, Massachusetts. Available:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/backcountry-drug-war/521352/
Smith, R. (2015, May 19). Letter to Goldwater Properties. Project No. 2015100095. Folder Sequence
No. 15 100286 ZM. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department.
Smith, R. (2016, August 18). Re: New Application for Marijuana Producer/Processor. Magnum Buds.
License #: 413102. Michael Kain, Planning Manager Thurston County Commissioners.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
Snaza, J. (2018, February 26). Thurston County Sheriff. Thurston County Sheriff’s Department.
Olympia, Washington. Personal interview.
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2017, December 7). Article IV. Exhibit R –
Stationary Source and Stationary Source Categories Subject to Registration. Spokane
Regional Clean Air Agency. Spokane, Washington.
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2018, February 28). Compliance Assistance Program
– Marijuana Production & Processing in Spokane County. Pg. 2. Spokane Regional Clean Air
Agency. Spokane, Washington.
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). (2017, December 4). Q&A Spokane Regional Clean
Air Agency’s Proposed Rules for marijuana Production & Processing. Spokane Regional
Clean Air Agency. Spokane, Washington.
Stanford, D.A. (2014, May 2) Re: Organic Harvest, License 413102, and James Arthur Weller. Letter
to WLSB. Slinde Nelson Stanford Attorneys. Portland, Oregon. Available:
www.slindenelsonstanfordcom.
Stone, D. (2014, May 20). Cannabis, pesticides and conflicting laws: The dilemma for legalized states
and implications for public health. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Available:
www.elseveir.com/locate/yrtph
Subritzky, T., Pettigrew, S., Lenton, S. (2015, December 1). Issues in the Implementation and
evolution of the Commercial Recreational Cannabis Market in Colorado. International
Journal of Drug Policy. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.12.001
Swedeen, P. (2017). Policy Director Conservation Northwest. The Evergreen State College. Olympia,
Washington. Lecture.
Sweet, S.L. (2016, June). The energy intensity of lighting used for the production of recreational
cannabis in Washington State and implications for energy efficiency. Master of
Environmental Studies Thesis. The Evergreen State College. Olympia, Washington.
229
The News Tribune Staff. (2017, November 28). Suspected illegal pot grows busted in Thurston, Grays
Harbor and King counties. The News Tribune, Aberdeen, Washington. Available:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article186966538.html
The Olympian Staff. (2017, November 29). 4 Thurston County sites among those hit in raid netting $80
million in pot plants. The Olympian. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article187231078.html
Thompson, C., Sweitzer, R., Gabriel, M., Purcell, K., Barrett, R., Poppenga, R. (2013, May 14).
Impacts of rodenticide and insecticide toxicants from marijuana cultivation sites on fisher
survival rates in the Sierra National Forest, California. Conservation Letters 7: 91–102.
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2015, November 10). Opportunity for the
Public to Address the Board. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/BOCCPublic/DocView.aspx?id=5629690&page=2&searchi
d=bb4277ce-f4f1-4203-88a0-2c1c7f1645a2
Thurston County Board of Thurston County Commissioners. (2016, November 8). Ordinance No.
15371. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1). Ordinance No. 15613.
Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=9808796&searchid=1f8ab1ca
-43b7-4996-b625-607e3a20889a&dbid=0
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2014, January 21). Ordinance No. 14978.
Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://weblink.co.thurston.wa.us/boccpublic/DocView.aspx?id=3232625&page=1&searchid
=f5891a2e-723c-4ed1-90cd-a9b8df100cfc
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, May 8). Ordinance No. 15465.
20.63.050 Development Standards Specific. Thurston County Resource Stewardship
Department. Olympia, Washington. Available: http://mrsc.org/getmedia/ec2b449d-0ebe4c71-8012-f00296977f43/t46o15465.pdf.aspx
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2016, May 10). Ordinance No. 15292.
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=6671052&searchid=5f7f1dde-6626-44de-ba9afde2074dd673&dbid=0
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2015, November 10). Ordinance No.
15210. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=5581486&searchid=53a0f74e-4ae3-4061-8df119824224fe03&dbid=0
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1). Public Hearing on Interim
Marijuana Renewal Ordinance. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/tchome/Pages/publicmeetings.aspx
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1). Public Hearing – Renewal
of Interim Marijuana Ordinance. Michelle Horkings-Brigham. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=9812078&searchid=30222285-4afe-4bfa-8508d2c1bbd12478&dbid=0
230
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2018, May 1). Public Hearing – Renewal
of Interim Marijuana Ordinance. Jed Haney. Thurston County Washington. Olympia,
Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/DocView.aspx?id=9812078&searchid=30222285-4afe-4bfa-8508d2c1bbd12478&dbid=0
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2016, June 22). Thurston County Board
Briefing. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/board-briefing-marijuana-regulations20160623.pdf
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, March 15). Thurston County Board
Briefing Request - Thurston County Marijuana Data. Thurston County Resource Stewardship,
Long Range Planning Division. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/bocc/Pages/agendas.aspx
Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). (2017, February 24). Work Session
Summary. Commissioners Planning Session – Cannabis. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/bocc/Pages/agendas.aspx
Thurston County Long Range Planning (2018). Welcome to the Community Planning Division.
Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov
Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2017). Regulating
Marijuana: Producer, Processors, and Retailers. Olympia, Washington. Thurston County Long
Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docket-marijuana.htm
Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016). Proposed
Ordinance under consideration for adoption. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource
Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, June 22). Thurston
County Board Briefing. Thurston County Long Range Planning Resource Stewardship
Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/board-briefing-marijuana-regulations20160623.pdf
Thurston County Permit Assistance Center. (2015, February 13). Master Application. Project
2015101304. 15 104057 VI Presubmission Conference. Thurston County Washington.
Olympia, Washington.
Thurston County Permit Assistance Center. (2014, April 8). Master Application. Project No.
2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Thurston County Washington. Olympia,
Washington.
Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, November 22). Administrative Special Use Permit –
Marijuana Production and Processing Project No. 2014101488. Folder sequence No 14
109460 ZM. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting
Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, August 23). Completeness Transmittal
Memorandum. No. 2014101488. Folder sequence No 14 109460 ZM. Parcel No. Thurston
231
County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting
Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2018). Document Library Research Project No.
2014101488. Folder Sequence No. 14 109460 ZM. Olympia, Washington. Thurston County
Resource Stewardship Long Range Planning Department. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014101488/hayes-appeal.html
Thurston County Permitting and Land Use. (2016, October 2). Land Use Ordinances. Thurston County
Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/landuse/landuse-zoning.html
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, September 20). An Ordinance
permanently adopting regulations for marijuana producers, processors, and retailers.
Attachment B. Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/planning/docket/docs/marijuana-regulationsproposed-ordiance-to-permanently-establish.pdf
Thurston County Resource Stewardship Department. (2016, February 24). Memorandum: Marijuana
Interim Regulations A.1.ii – May 19, 2015 Letter to Goldwater Properties. Thurston County
Resource Stewardship Department. Olympia, Washington.
Thurston County Washington Resource Stewardship Department. (2018). When do I need a permit?
Thurston County Washington Permitting and Land Use Resource Stewardship Department.
Olympia, Washington. Available: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/faq/faqclearing.html
Thurston County Washington. (2017). Browse Minutes, Ordinances and Resolutions. Thurston County
Board of County Commissioners’ Document Library. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wl-boccpublic8/Browse.aspx?startid=547344
Thurston County Washington. (2016, January 14). Land Use Ordinances. Thurston County
Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/landuse/landuse-home.html
Thurston County Washington. (2014-2016). Minute meetings by date. Thurston County Board of
County Commissioners’ Document Library. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wlboccpublic8/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=MinutesbyDate
Thurston County Washington. (2017). Thurston County Board of County Commissioners’ Document
Library. Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/wl-boccpublic8/welcome.aspx?dbid=0
Thurston County Washington. (2016, November 4). Thurston County News Release. Thurston County
Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
http://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/tchome/pages/newsreleasedetail.aspx?List-ID=1230
Thurston County Washington. (2018). Chapter 20.54 – Special Use. 20.54.040 – General Standards
3.(a). Thurston County Washington. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://library.municode.com/wa/thurston_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20Z
O_CH20.54SPUS
United States Department of Justice. (2007, February). Domestic Cannabis Cultivation Assessment.
Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Center. Product No. 2007-L0848-001.
232
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2017). Drug Schedules. U.S. Department of Justice.
Available: https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml
United States Energy Information Administration. (2017, May 19). How much carbon dioxide is
produced from burning gasoline and diesel fuel? Independent Statistics & Analysis U.S.
Energy Information Administration. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=307&t=11
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Climate Change indicators in the United
States 2016. Fourth edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-16-004.
Available: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. University of
Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available: http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. Module 1:
slide 14 University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available: http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. Module 1:
slide 15 University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available:
http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/module1/story_html5.html
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI). (2017, April). Medicinal
Cannabis and Chronic Pain: Science-based Education in Times of Legalization. Module 1:
slide 28 University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Available:
http://adai.uw.edu/mcacp/module1/story_html5.html
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2007: 60-day supply defined. University of Washington.
Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2009: Ogden Memo changed federal government’s
enforcement policy. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2011: Seattle law enforcement policy changed. University
of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2011: SB 5073 passes but is partially revoked by
governor. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2012: Voters approve Initiative 502. University of
Washington. Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2013: Cole Memo outlines regulatory expectations.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
233
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2013: Cole Memo outlines regulatory expectations.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (ADAI) (2017, April). Medical
Marijuana: History in Washington. 2015: Legislature passes Cannabis Protection Act (SB
5052) and Marijuana Tax Reform (HB 2136). University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-015. General information about marijuana
licenses. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-015
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55. Marijuana Licenses, Application Process,
Requirements and Reporting. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55
Washington Administrative Code. (2018, February 26). WAC 314-55-020 (9). Marijuana license
qualifications and application process. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-020
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-097. Marijuana waste disposal—liquids and
solids Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-097
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-165. Objections to marijuana license
renewals. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-165
Washington Administrative Code (2018). RCW 90.44.050. Permit to withdraw. Washington State
Legislature. Available: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.44.050
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-084. Production of marijuana. Washington
State Legislature. Available: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-084
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-102. Quality assurance testing. Washington
State Legislature. Available: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-102
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). RCW 70.275.080. Requirement to recycle end-of-life
mercury-containing lights. Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.275.080
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-040. What criminal history might prevent a
marijuana license applicant from receiving or keeping a marijuana license? Washington State
Legislature. Available: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-040
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-045. What marijuana law or rule violation
history might prevent an applicant from receiving a marijuana license? Washington State
Legislature. Available: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-045
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-075. What is a marijuana producer license
and what are the requirements and fees related to a marijuana producer license? Washington
State Legislature. Available: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-075
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-083. What are the security requirements for a
marijuana license? Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55&full=true#314-55-083
234
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-085. What are the transportation requirements
for a marijuana licensee? Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-085
Washington Administrative Code. (2018). WAC 314-55-515. What are the penalties if a marijuana
license holder violates a marijuana law of rule? Washington State Legislature. Available:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=314-55-515
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2016, December). Frequently asked questions: water
resource rules and regulations for marijuana growing in Washington State. Publication No.
14-11-003. Water Resources Program Washington State Department of Ecology. Lacey,
Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology. (2016, January). Water resource rules and regulations for
marijuana growing in Washington State. Water Resources Program Washington State
Department of Ecology. Lacey, Washington. Available: www.ecy.wa.gov
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2018). Freshwater fishing: Nisqually River. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/pink/nisqually.html
Washington State Department of Health. (2017). Hantavirus Cases and Deaths in Washington State.
Washington State Department of Health. Available:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/Hantavirus
Washington State Department of Health. (2018). Medical Marijuana Guideline for Use of Product
Compliant Logos. Washington State Department of Health. Available:
www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana/PatientInformation/
Washington State Department of Health (2018). Medical marijuana: Qualifying Conditions.
Washington State Department of Health. Available:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana/PatientInformatio
n/QualifyingConditions
Washington State Department of Health. (2018, February 26). Medical Marijuana: Rules in Progress.
Washington State Department of Health. Available:
www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana/LawsandRules/RulesinP
rogress
Washington State Legislature. (2018). RCW 70.94.011 Declaration of public policies and purpose.
Washington State Legislature Available:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.94.011
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2018). Air Quality and Odor Controls.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available: lcb.wa.gov
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (2018). FAQs on Marijuana. What about industrial
hemp? Does this create a new market for hemp products? Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available: https://lcb.wa.gov/mj2015/faqs_i502#PublicSafety-Criminal
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2018). Frequently Requested Lists.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/records/frequently-requested-lists
235
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2017). Marijuana Licensing FAQ. What
criminal history might prevent me from getting licensed? Washington State Liquor and
Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2018). Marijuana Licensing. Washington
State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/mjlicense/marijuana-licensing
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2017). Regulatory Guidance for Cannabis
Operations. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
lcb.wa.gov
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2017). Regulatory Guidance for Indoor
Marijuana Producers. Hazardous Waste Management. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board. Olympia, Washington. Available: http://www.lcb.wa.gov
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). (2017). Regulatory/Permitting Guidance for
Greenhouse Marijuana Producers. Local Government Permits and Regulations. Washington
State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) (2018). Vison, Mission, Goals, Values.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Olympia, Washington. Available:
https://lcb.wa.gov/careers/vision
Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB). (2014, April 10). Notification of Criminal History
Points. Organic Harvest. License #: 413102. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board.
Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB). (2014, January 21). Request for Required
Documents. Organic Harvest. License #413102. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis
Board. Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2016). Marijuana Revenue Appropriations.
Washington State Office of Financial Management.
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/budget/documents/Marijuana_Reven
ue_Approps_2016.pdf
Washington State Office of Financial Management. (2017, August 16). Total Population and Percent
Change 1990-2017. Washington State Office of Financial Management.
https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/statewide-data/washingtontrends/population-changes/total-population-and-percent-change
Weeks, K. (2016). Policy Counsel at the Washington State Department of Health. Washington State
Department of Health. Tumwater, Washington. Personal interview.
Weeks, K. (2018, February 20). Government Relations Director at the Center for Public Affairs.
Washington State Department of Health. Tumwater, Washington. Personal interview.
Weil, A. (1980). The Marriage of the Sun and Moon. Dispatches from the Frontiers of Consciousness.
P. 98. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. New York, N.Y.
Whittaker, M. (2015, June 16). High and Dry in California: How pot growers are illegally diverting
water from California’s streams and creeks. The Wall Street Journal. Available:
https://graphics.wsj.com/embeddable-carousel/?slug=CAWATER
236
Young, B. (2017, August 5). U.S. Attorney General Sessions criticizes Washington State’s legal
marijuana system. The Seattle Times Local News. Seattle, Washington. Available:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sessions-raises-concerns-over-washingtonsmarijuana-legalization/
Young, B. (2017, July 17). Washington’s pot industry: What it takes to expose hidden owners and keep
cartels and illicit money out of the state’s pot industry. The Seattle Times Local Politics.
Seattle, Washington. Available: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattlenews/politics/washingtons-challenge-hidden-owners-in-its-pot-industry/
Young, B. (2016, February 13). With much unknown, one expert says it’s ‘buyer beware’ – Pesticides
in Pot. The Seattle Times. Seattle, Washington.
237
_____________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I—Letter to Survey Participant
Michelle Horkings Master Thesis Survey
Dear Participant,
I am a student in the Masters of Environmental Studies program at The Evergreen State
College. For my thesis project I am conducting a mailed survey to research how policy
regulating large-scale marijuana operations in Washington State has impacted rural
residents and the environment.
All survey respondents’ identities will be kept confidential and the return address
envelope included will be destroyed upon my receipt. (If responding by email your email
will be deleted after returning the survey). Your response will be coded with others in
this confidential survey and used as statistics relating only to WA county responses and
NOT private individuals or addresses.
No names, emails, or addresses of participants will be included in my thesis data.
My thesis will be read by my faculty member and I will make a presentation on the
results of the compiled survey for my thesis. Your identity will be kept confidential and I
will not reveal any identifying information about you in my thesis, or subsequent
presentations and possible future publications.
If you have any questions about this project or your participation in it, you can email me
at hormic02@evergreen.edu or write to the return address included. The person to contact
if you experience problems as a result of your participation in this project is John
McLain, IRB administrator at The Evergreen State College, Library 2211, Olympia, WA
98505; Phone 360.867.6045.
Thank you for your participation and assistance!
Sincerely,
Michelle Horkings
238
APPENDIX II—Interview Schedule
THESIS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Date
Time
Name
Agency
Location
2/16/2018
3:00pm
Vicki Cline
WA Department of Ecology
Lacey
2/20/2018
1:00pm
Kristi Weeks
WA Department of Health
Tumwater
2/26/2018
9:15am
John Snaza
Thurston County Sheriff
Olympia
3/13/2018
Email
Kristi Weeks
WA Department of Health
Tumwater
3/16/2018
2pm
Fran McNair
ORCAA
Olympia
3/23/2018
10:30am Lori Rodriguez
SRCAA
Spokane
3/27/2018
Email
WAs Finest Cannabis
Spokane
4/26/2018
10:30am Jack and Cary
Private Residence
Centralia
5/1/2018
10:30am Ira Holman
Private Residence
Yelm
Crystal Oliver
239
APPENDIX III—Survey Questions
MAILED SURVEY
Survey questions were divided into two sections.
Section One
Section one required a choice from a scale of 1 to 5:
1 = Not At All 2 = Not Really 3 = Undecided 4 = Somewhat 5 = Very Much
1) To what degree this marijuana facility impacted your neighborhood?
2) Due to this marijuana facility have you been impacted by any of the following:
Odor
Noise
Garbage
Pollution
Traffic
Other (specify)
3) What is your level of safety concern due to the commercial marijuana facility close by?
4) Have you noticed an increase in crime following the arrival of this marijuana facility?
Section Two
Section two of the survey required a YES/NO response:
5) Were you notified about this marijuana facility before it was located in your neighborhood?
6) A. Have you tried to prevent this marijuana facility from operating in your neighborhood?
B. If you tried to prevent this marijuana facility did officials assist you appropriately?
Please briefly describe your experience:
7) A. Do you believe your property value has decreased due to this marijuana facility?
B. Do you believe your property value has increased due to this marijuana facility?
8) Have you considered moving elsewhere because of this marijuana facility?
9) Would you prefer not to have this marijuana facility in your neighborhood?
10) Any additional comments regarding this marijuana facility operating in your neighborhood?
240
APPENDIX IV—House Bill 2630
HOUSE BILL 2630
State of Washington 65th Legislature
2018 Regular Session
By Representatives Griffey, MacEwen, and Van Werven
Read first time 01/11/18. Referred to Committee on Commerce & Gaming.
AN ACT Relating to ensuring marijuana license applicants are in compliance with local
ordinances; and amending RCW 69.50.331.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 69.50.331 and 2017 c 317 s are each amended to read as follows:
(1)
For the purpose of considering any application for a license to produce,
process, research, transport, or deliver marijuana, useable marijuana, marijuana
concentrates, or marijuana-infused products subject to the regulations established under
RCW 69.50.385, or sell marijuana, or for the renewal of a license to produce, process,
research, transport, or deliver marijuana, useable marijuana, marijuana concentrates, or
marijuana-infused products subject to the regulations established under RCW 69.50.385,
or sell marijuana, the state liquor and cannabis board must conduct a comprehensive, fair,
and impartial evaluation of the applications timely received.
(a) The state liquor and cannabis board may cause an inspection of the premises to
be made, and may inquire into all matters in connection with the construction and
operation of the premises. For the purpose of reviewing any application for a license and
for considering the denial, suspension, revocation, or renewal or denial thereof, of any
license, the state liquor and cannabis board may consider any prior criminal conduct of
the applicant including an administrative violation history record with the state liquor and
cannabis board and a criminal history record information check. The state liquor and
cannabis board may submit the criminal history record information check to the
Washington state patrol and to the identification division of the federal bureau of
investigation in order that these agencies may search their records for prior arrests
and convictions of the individual or individuals who filled out the forms. The state liquor
and cannabis board must require fingerprinting of any applicant whose criminal history
record information check is submitted to the federal bureau of investigation. The
provisions of RCW 9.95.240 and of chapter 9.96A 14 RCW do not apply to these cases.
Subject to the provisions of this section, the state liquor and cannabis board may, in its
discretion, grant or deny the renewal or license applied for. Denial may be based on,
without limitation, the existence of chronic illegal activity documented in objections
submitted pursuant to subsections (7)(c) and (10) of this section. Authority to approve an
uncontested or unopposed license may be granted by the state liquor and cannabis board
to any staff member the board designates in writing. Conditions for granting this
authority must be adopted by rule.
(b) No license of any kind may be issued to:
(i) A person under the age of twenty-one years;
241
(ii) A person doing business as a sole proprietor who has not lawfully resided in
the state for at least six months prior to applying to receive a license;
(iii) A partnership, employee cooperative, association, nonprofit corporation, or
corporation unless formed under the laws of this state, and unless all of the members
thereof are qualified to obtain a license as provided in this section; or
(iv) A person whose place of business is conducted by a manager or agent, unless
the manager or agent possesses the same qualifications required of the licensee.
(2)(a) The state liquor and cannabis board may, in its discretion, subject to the
provisions of RCW 69.50.334, suspend or cancel any license; and all protections of the
licensee from criminal or civil sanctions under state law for producing, processing,
researching, or selling marijuana, marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, or
marijuana-infused products thereunder must be suspended or terminated, as the case
may be.
(b) The state liquor and cannabis board must immediately suspend the license of a
person who has been certified pursuant to RCW 74.20A.320 by the department of social
and health services as a person who is not in compliance with a support order. If the
person has continued to meet all other requirements for reinstatement during the
suspension, reissuance of the license is automatic upon the state liquor and cannabis
board’s receipt of a release issued by the department of social and health services stating
that the licensee is in compliance with the order.
(c) The state liquor and cannabis board may request the appointment of
administrative law judges under chapter 34.12 RCW who shall have power to administer
oaths, issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers,
books, accounts, documents, and testimony, examine witnesses, and to receive testimony
in any inquiry, investigation, hearing, or proceeding in any part of the state, under rules
and regulations the state liquor and cannabis board may adopt.
(d) Witnesses must be allowed fees and mileage each way to and from any
inquiry, investigation, hearing, or proceeding at the rate authorized by RCW 34.05.446.
Fees need not be paid in advance of appearance of witnesses to testify or to produce
books, records, or other legal evidence.
(e) In case of disobedience of any person to comply with the order of the state
liquor and cannabis board or a subpoena issued by the state liquor and cannabis board, or
any of its members, or administrative law judges, or on the refusal of a witness to testify
to any matter regarding which he or she may be lawfully interrogated, the judge of the
superior court of the county in which the person resides, on application of any member of
the board or administrative law judge, compels obedience by contempt proceedings, as in
the case of disobedience of the requirements of a subpoena issued from said court or a
refusal to testify therein.
(3) Upon receipt of notice of the suspension or cancellation of a license, the
licensee must forthwith deliver up the license to the state liquor and cannabis board.
Where the license has been suspended only, the state liquor and cannabis board must
return the license to the licensee at the expiration or termination of the period of
suspension. The state liquor and cannabis board must notify all other licensees in the
county where the subject licensee has its premises of the suspension or cancellation of the
license; and no other licensee or employee of another licensee may allow or cause any
242
marijuana, marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, or marijuana infused products to
be delivered to or for any person at the premises of the subject licensee.
(4) Every license issued under this chapter is subject to all conditions and
restrictions imposed by this chapter or by rules adopted by the state liquor and cannabis
board to implement and enforce this chapter. All conditions and restrictions imposed by
the state liquor and cannabis board in the issuance of an individual license must be listed
on the face of the individual license along with the trade name, address, and expiration
date.
(5) Every licensee must post and keep posted its license, or licenses, in a
conspicuous place on the premises.
(6) No licensee may employ any person under the age of twenty-one years.
(7)(a) Before the state liquor and cannabis board issues a new or renewed license
to an applicant it must give notice of the application to the chief executive officer of the
incorporated city or town, if the application is for a license within an incorporated city or
town, or to the county legislative authority, if the application is for a license outside the
boundaries of incorporated cities or towns, or to the tribal government if the application
is for a license within Indian country, or to the port authority if the application for a
license is located on property owned by a port authority.
(b) The incorporated city or town through the official or employee selected by it,
the county legislative authority or the official or employee selected by it, the tribal
government, or port authority has the right to file with the state liquor and cannabis board
within twenty days after the date of transmittal of the notice for applications, or at least
thirty days prior to the expiration date for renewals, written objections against the
applicant or against the premises for which the new or renewed license is asked. The state
liquor and cannabis board may extend the time period for submitting written objections
upon request from the authority notified by the state liquor and cannabis board.
(c) The written objections must include a statement of all facts upon which the
objections are based, and in case written objections are filed, the city or town or county
legislative authority may request, and the state liquor and cannabis board may in its
discretion hold, a hearing subject to the applicable provisions of Title 34 RCW. If the
state liquor and cannabis board makes an initial decision to deny a license or renewal
based on the written objections of an incorporated city or town or county legislative
authority, the applicant may request a hearing subject to the applicable provisions of Title
34 RCW. If a hearing is held at the request of the applicant, state liquor and cannabis
board representatives must present and defend the state liquor and cannabis board’s initial
decision to deny a license or renewal.
(d)(i) Before the state liquor and cannabis board issues a new or renewed license
to an applicant for a marijuana producer, processor, or retailer license, the applicant must
provide to the board written proof, as deemed appropriate by the board, that the local
jurisdiction within which the applicant’s premises is located or is proposed to be located
has determined the applicant is in compliance with all applicable local ordinances and
regulations.
(ii) If an applicant satisfies all requirements of license issuance or renewal in this
chapter, except for the requirement in (d)(i) of this subsection, the state liquor and
cannabis board shall tentatively approve but not issue the license. If within six months of
tentatively approving the license application the applicant provides the board with written
243
proof of compliance with all local ordinances and regulations as required in (d)(i) of this
subsection, the board shall issue the license. If the applicant does not provide such written
proof to the board within six months of the date of tentative license approval, the board
must deny the license.
(iii) During any time in which a marijuana producer, processor, or retailer’s
license is tentatively approved, the person or business with the tentative approval may not
engage in any conduct related to producing, processing, transporting, transferring, or
selling marijuana or marijuana products for which a license is required pursuant to this
chapter.
(e) Upon the granting of a license under this title the state liquor and cannabis
board must send written notification to the chief executive officer of the incorporated city
or town in which the license is granted, or to the county legislative authority if the license
is granted outside the boundaries of incorporated cities or towns.
(8)(a) Except as provided in (b) through (d) of this subsection, the state liquor and
cannabis board may not issue a license for any premises within one thousand feet of the
perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation
center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center, or library, or any
game arcade admission to which is not restricted to persons aged twenty-one years or
older.
(b) A city, county, or town may permit the licensing of premises within one
thousand feet but not less than one hundred feet of the facilities described in (a) of this
subsection, except elementary schools, secondary schools, and playgrounds, by enacting
an ordinance authorizing such distance reduction, provided that such distance reduction
will not negatively impact the jurisdiction’s civil regulatory enforcement, criminal law
enforcement interests, public safety, or public health.
(c) A city, county, or town may permit the licensing of research premises allowed
under RCW 69.50.372 within one thousand feet but not less than one hundred feet of the
facilities described in (a) of this subsection by enacting an ordinance authorizing such
distance reduction, provided that the ordinance will not negatively impact the
jurisdiction’s civil regulatory enforcement, criminal law enforcement, public safety, or
public health.
(d) The state liquor and cannabis board may license premises located in
compliance with the distance requirements set in an ordinance adopted under (b) or (c) of
this subsection. Before issuing or renewing a research license for premises within one
thousand feet but not less than one hundred feet of an elementary school, secondary
school, or playground in compliance with an ordinance passed pursuant to (c) of this
subsection, the board must ensure that the facility:
(i) Meets a security standard exceeding that which applies to marijuana producer,
processor, or retailer licensees;
(ii) Is inaccessible to the public and no part of the operation of the facility is in
view of the general public; and
(iii) Bears no advertising or signage indicating that it is a marijuana research
facility.
(e) The state liquor and cannabis board may not issue a license for any premises
within Indian country, as defined in U.S.C. Sec.1151, including any fee patent lands
244
within the exterior boundaries of a reservation, without the consent of the federally
recognized tribe associated with the reservation or Indian country.
(9) A city, town, or county may adopt an ordinance prohibiting a marijuana
producer or marijuana processor from operating or locating a business within areas zoned
primarily for residential use or rural use with a minimum lot size of five acres or smaller.
(10) In determining whether to grant or deny a license or renewal of any license,
the state liquor and cannabis board must give substantial weight to objections from an
incorporated city or town or county legislative authority based upon chronic illegal
activity associated with the applicant’s operations of the premises proposed to be licensed
or the applicant's operation of any other licensed premises, or the conduct of the
applicant's patrons inside or outside the licensed premises. “Chronic illegal activity”
means (a) a pervasive pattern of activity that threatens the public health, safety, and
welfare of the city, town, or county including, but not limited to, open container
violations, assaults, disturbances, disorderly conduct, or other criminal law violations, or
as documented in crime statistics, police reports, emergency medical response data, calls
for service, field data, or similar records of a law enforcement agency for the city, town,
county, or any other municipal corporation or any state agency; or (b) an unreasonably
high number of citations for violations of RCW 46.61.502 associated with the applicant’s
or licensee’s operation of any licensed premises as indicated by the reported statements
given to law enforcement upon arrest.
245
