Understanding this dynamic is important for local governments as they develop land use policies to govern when, where and how much cannabis production is permissible . Cannabis production’s effects on neighbors is an important point for local government officials to consider as they develop and adopt new policies to encourage the transition of black-market cannabis operations into compliant operations. The effects of cannabis production on neighbors is also important to consider while formulating policies to mitigate unintended consequences — such as unwanted odors and nighttime lights — which can exacerbate land use and social conflicts. For example, should cannabis be allowed on lands zoned for timber production or prime agriculture? What areas are compatible or incompatible with cannabis? Increased cannabis production can directly or indirectly affect traditional agriculture and timber producers. Over the last decade, cannabis cultivation has expanded rapidly in rural communities, with many cannabis farmers having moved only recently to the areas where they grow . These new arrivals are sometimes described as green rush growers. Conflicts can arise if new growers, who are often unaware of community norms, don’t manage workers appropriately, control dogs, close gates, help maintain shared roads — or if, in other ways, they complicate operations for traditional agricultural producers. Likewise, even cannabis producers who have been in business for many years — including some whose families have grown cannabis for two generations — may hold different views of rural life than do traditional agriculture and timber producers . In addition, while cannabis is now legal in California, many cannabis farmers still grow outside the regulated system, and some traditional agricultural producers may retain the sense that illegal activity is negatively affecting their community.
In recent years, the environmental impacts of hydroponic systems for cannabis cultivation have been a matter of increasing focus in California, and traditional agricultural producers and other community members have voiced concerns about water diversions , pollution from chemical fertilizers , the impacts of pesticides on wildlife , light pollution and forest fragmentation . Concerns have also arisen regarding negative impacts on local livestock producers and challenges for public land managers attempting to control trespass growing operations . At the same time, cannabis cultivation can contribute to community well-being in a variety of ways. It can bring economic gains to rural areas where the timber, livestock and fisheries industries have experienced declines. For example, cannabis cultivation can provide new business opportunities to traditional agricultural producers in the form of heavy equipment work, firewood sales, trucking, forest management or construction services. In addition, cannabis production may help buffer population declines such as those experienced in many of California’s rural areas over the last 20 years; in particular, rural schools may benefit from the enrollment of cannabis growers’ children. More broadly, cannabis farmers can bring new energy to rural communities through engagement at schools, volunteer fire departments and other points of gathering. Traditional growers’ perceptions of cannabis farmers can vary based on several factors, including the scale at which cannabis farmers operate. Scales of operation have expanded greatly over the last 20 years. Some cannabis farmers produce a few plants for personal use, others augment their incomes by growing moderate amounts of cannabis and still others grow on an industrial scale, with multiple operations on numerous parcels. All scales of operation include both regulatory-compliant growers and black-market growers. One might expect traditional agricultural producers to regard these different varieties of cannabis growers differently. But large landowners are themselves not homogenous — for example, some are absentees. In this research we hypothesized that absentee landowners would have different experiences and perceptions of the cannabis industry than do traditional producers who live on their land. Humboldt County and many communities around California are currently setting ordinances to manage legal cannabis production. But as they do so, little is known about the potential interaction of cannabis with traditional agriculture and timber producers and whether these industries are compatible. Information about the effects of cannabis production on traditional agricultural producers may be helpful to policy makers because traditional producers are often important contributors to rural economies and stewards of public trust resources such as wildlife and clean water. We conducted this research with the goal of determining how larger landowners — who, in Humboldt County, are generally timber or beef producers — experience and perceive cannabis production.
We surveyed by mail all landowners in Humboldt County who own at least 500 acres . We asked a series of questions about landowner experiences with the cannabis industry and how the industry directly affected landowners’ economic well-being, community, property and personal safety. We also asked how, in their view, the cannabis industry influences the community and the environment. We asked landowners to provide their views on grower demographics and on changes in their communities over time. In addition, we compared the experiences and perceptions of absentee and nonabsentee landowners.Humboldt County has long been among the leading cannabis-producing regions in the United States . Located on the North Coast of California, Humboldt County is characterized by steep terrain and a Mediterranean climate; a climatic gradient runs from the cooler and wetter coastline to the drier and warmer inlands . Humboldt County’s agricultural and timber industries are significant in scale, with agricultural production amounting to $326 million in 2016 and timber production amounting to $70 million in the same year — although the timber numbers are down from a decade ago. These agricultural production numbers do not include cannabis production revenues, but recent estimates put cannabis production in the larger Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino region, known as the “Emerald Triangle,” at $5 billion annually . Humboldt County is home to numerous species of concern — including threatened and endangered salmonids, spotted owls, marbled murrelets, fishers and so on — that are protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act . Cannabis cultivation occurs within these species’ habitat areas, including in locations near and adjacent to old-growth redwood and Douglas fir forests. The intent of the survey was to understand how cannabis production in Humboldt County was affecting traditional agricultural producers, and therefore we focused only on landowners with enough property to derive a large percentage of their income from agriculture and timber activities. We identified landowners with at least 500 acres by combining land use and tax roll data. In total, 211 landowners fit this description. Landowners were mailed a paper survey, along with a stamped, pre-addressed envelope in which to return it, in January 2018. After 3 weeks, follow-up postcards were sent to landowners who had not returned their surveys. In total, 71 landowners responded to the survey . Of these, two landowners reported owning less than 500 acres and one landowner did not confirm meeting this minimum standard; we did not include these three surveys in our analysis. All survey responses were anonymous. Surveys were organized into three sections. One portion of the survey asked landowners about their direct experiences with the cannabis industry, asking them to agree or disagree with 22 statements that corresponded to four themes: how the cannabis industry has affected the economics of their operations ; how cannabis has impacted their local community ; how cannabis has affected their properties and how cannabis has affected their safety .
The surveys asked landowners to respond to each statement using a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement . Respondents could also respond “NA” to statements that did not apply to them. Additionally, respondents were given space at the end of each subsection to provide comments or examples. In another section of the survey, we tested respondents’ perceptions of cannabis by asking them how they felt about certain cannabis-related issues and whether cannabis cultivation has had positive or negative impacts on their communities, specifying that their responses should not necessarily be based on their personal experiences. We provided 36 statements that corresponded to four themes: community ; the environment ; changes over time in property values, community safety, community demographics and so on and grower demographics . Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statements using a 5-point Likert scale and were able to provide comments after each subsection. The third section of the survey solicited background information about each respondent. Respondents were asked whether they earned income from timber, ranching or dairying, how long their families had owned the land they worked and whether they were absentees. In addition, we asked landowners if they had been approached about selling their land for cannabis cultivation and if they had next-generation succession plans for the family ranch or timber business. We also asked if landowners knew of nearby indoor hydroponics cannabis growing. As indicated previously, all respondents included in our survey owned at least 500 acres of land. Twenty two percent owned between 500 and 1,000 acres, 51% owned between 1,000 and 5,000 acres and 28% owned more than 5,000 acres. Of the 69 landowners whose responses were included in our results, 63 respondents managed timberland and 56 respondents managed ranch land, meaning that most respondents managed both land types; only one respondent was involved in dairy farming. Forty-six percent of respondents lived on their properties full time, while 20% lived on their properties part time. Thirty-three percent of respondents were absentee landowners. In general, the land represented in the survey had been in respondents’ families for a long time — more than 50 years in 81% of the cases, 25 to 50 years in another 10% of the cases, less than 25 years in 6% and less than 5 years in only 3% of the cases. Fifty percent of respondents reported that their primary income was from traditional forms of agriculture or timber production; no respondents reported cannabis as their primary income source.Seventy-one percent of landowners reported that they did not grow cannabis on their property while 18% reported that they did. These percentages, however, are derived only from the 34 of 69 respondents who agreed or disagreed with the statement that they had used their property to grow cannabis. The remaining respondents — half the total — chose not to indicate whether they had grown cannabis, potentially indicating landowners’ reluctance to associate themselves with the cannabis industry.
About 40% of respondents had indirectly profited from cannabis through off-farm work such as heavy equipment work, trucking and so on . Fifty-seven percent of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “the cannabis industry has negatively affected my livestock operations,” while 27% disagreed with this statement. Over 60% of respondents agreed that cannabis had increased the cost of labor. Comments that respondents offered on the cost of labor included “Property values are inflated by the cannabis industry, hence costing us more for leases and ownership.” Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “shared roads have been degraded by cannabis growers” and 65% agreed that noise pollution has increased due to cannabis growing. Fifty-five percent of respondents agreed that growers increase light pollution and 71% reported having experienced illegal garbage dumping by cannabis growers on or near their property. Forty percent of landowners disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “I know growers who have values that align with my own” . At the same time, 34% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with that statement . One respondent added that “[M]onetary impact is obvious. Cultural and moral impacts are terrible.”Fifty-six percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that water sources have been impacted by cannabis growers, while 25% disagreed with this statement. Fifty-six percent also agreed that water had been stolen from their property. Seventy-two percent of respondents had experienced trespassing, while 20% had not. Forty percent of respondents reported that their fencing or infrastructure had been destroyed by cannabis growers, though a similar percentage had not. Fifty percent of landowners reported that neighboring growers had failed to assist with fence maintenance, and 75% of landowners reported having discovered trespass grows on their property . One respondent added that “[Growers’] dogs killed our cattle. My brother confronted a grower in fatigues carrying an assault rifle on our property. [Our] fences have been wrecked, roads damaged, and stream water theft.” Another respondent wrote that “Yes, this is true in the past, but with the pot market collapsing I don’t think this will be a problem in the future”.