[0:00] Mr.
[0:03] Very complete. I like it.
Okay. I'd like to call this meeting to
[0:06] order.
Welcome panel members. Thank you for
[0:10] being here tonight. Welcome staff.
Commissioner Morgan and guests. Uh
[0:14] before we move forward in through the
agenda, a couple housekeeping issues.
[0:18] Ask you to make check your cell phones.
Make sure they're on. I just mine. And
[0:24] then on some rules of orders as far
rules of order as far as recognition
[0:29] from the chair, if you have a comment, a
question or any information that you
[0:33] would like to share, please raise your
hand or get my attention somehow and
[0:39] raise hand would be good. And then I'll
recognize you. Uh last meeting we had
[0:43] some interactive discussions. I
appreciate that, but uh it got out of
[0:48] out of hand a couple times as far as
people not being able to speak and get
[0:52] their points across. So again, I'd like
you to uh follow that rule. And also, if
[0:58] um you could
refrain from any issues that are not on
[1:04] the agenda,
that would help also. So before we get
[1:09] started officially with a minute review,
I'd like to uh open the floor to Sean if
[1:13] you have some housekeeping issues or
some administrative issues.
[1:17] Yeah, I just uh like I um spoke to you
about
[1:21] You might want to grab a mic.
All right. So I'm just wondering um
[1:28] procedure as far as the emails that come
in to me um from panel members or
[1:35] community members. Um, do you want that
dispersed by email to you? Would you
[1:39] like me to make copies and made
available here at the meetings when we
[1:42] meet? Uh, what what kind of procedure
would you like around the emails that
[1:47] are coming in and pertinent to what's on
our agenda and what we're speaking to?
[1:53] Like emails,
just forward the emails. Like I think
[1:56] I've forwarded almost there was one that
came in this afternoon that did not get
[2:00] forwarded. So that will go out tomorrow.
But I'd like emails and then a copy
[2:05] written. Everybody needs
[2:09] you'll have to share that around. So
probably for sure
[2:13] I'd like email as well as a written copy
when we come here.
[2:30] Okay. So then I'd like next is to uh
call for an approval of the minutes.
[2:33] Does everybody have an opportunity to
read the minutes from the last meeting?
[2:38] So moved.
All right. Second.
[2:40] Second. Motion is second. Any further
discussion? Peter.
[2:45] Okay. So, all those in favor, please
raise your hand. All those opposed are
[2:50] approved as written.
How about
[2:55] [Music]
does anyone abstain?
[3:00] Thank you.
[3:04] Thank you.
All right. So, as you can see on the
[3:08] agenda, we're moving down item three
will be a presentation by our water
[3:12] master Jakestone. We'll get to a minute
and we'll follow up with questions after
[3:17] his presentation and then we will move
into Valerie's proposal and hopefully
[3:23] everybody took the time to read it and
she also is handed out a an update.
[3:29] So hopefully you can kind of review that
uh before we get to her part of this
[3:35] agenda and then uh I'd like to insert uh
okay we'll move on to All right then and
[3:42] um we'll move on to
you do that.
[3:47] Okay. All right. So having said that u
I'd like to introduce Jakestone and I'd
[3:53] like to thank you for being here
tonight. We appreciate you taking time
[3:57] out to uh provide your information.
Uh can everybody hear me? Yeah,
[4:01] definitely. Um so I walk around a lot,
so I'll try not to walk in front of the
[4:06] slides here. Um I'm going to try and go
through these pretty quick. It's kind of
[4:09] a rough and dirty water rights
presentation and then we'll have some
[4:13] time for questions afterwards. Um I'd
just like to thank everyone for inviting
[4:17] me here tonight. That's great. Uh any
chance we have to talk about water,
[4:21] we're going to try and jump at it. Um,
obviously this new fledgling industry is
[4:24] bringing up a lot of questions regarding
water. So, uh, anytime you guys want to
[4:27] invite me back here or just want to send
emails my direction, I've got a pile of
[4:32] cards in the back, uh, if anyone wants
to contact me, go through there. So, uh,
[4:36] just thanks thanks for being here.
Um, so Oregon Water Resource Department,
[4:41] um, for those who don't know, we're the
managing entity for waters of the state
[4:44] in Oregon, and we deal with water rights
disputes, uh, helping people file for
[4:49] water rights. Um, any kind of commercial
agriculture requires a water rights. So,
[4:53] we're the department that you go through
for that. Uh, we help municipalities and
[4:57] irrigation districts with their water
rights issues and water rights needs.
[5:00] and we've been around to work with the
state engineers office uh in the early
[5:05] 1900s and then in about the 1960s we
switched over to the water resource
[5:09] department. There's been somewhat of a
paradigm shift. We used to be primarily
[5:13] focused on getting irrigators their
water and then the endangered species
[5:17] act came out and we started to realize
we shouldn't use all the water. We might
[5:21] want to hang on to some for fish habitat
and that kind of thing. So in about the
[5:24] late ' 80s early 90s we kind of had a
paradigm shift where we switched more to
[5:28] a uh conservation natural resource
management model. So um we are complaint
[5:34] driven. Uh if we had the staff to do it
we would drive around and knock on every
[5:39] door we could but unfortunately we do
not. So a lot of times we you know we
[5:43] have a complaint we'll go to a certain
area and then check with other
[5:45] irrigators in that area.
Uh this little photo here is always a
[5:51] priceless gem. This was on my boss's
door for years. Whisy's for drinking,
[5:55] water's for fighting, Mark Twain. And uh
I didn't really realize the full scope
[5:59] of that until I started working for the
water resource department. Uh I've
[6:02] worked over in the Clamoth Basin a few
times and uh it's it very much is worth
[6:07] fighting. So,
so what we can do, obviously I kind of
[6:12] covered that, but water rights research
is find a well log. Uh if you're
[6:15] interested in a property, I strongly
suggest coming to us first. Um people
[6:19] usually come to us last. I get a phone
call saying, "I'm in escrow and I want
[6:22] to know about the water." Well, this
could take a while. So, um, I just
[6:27] encourage people to get that message out
there to come to us early in the process
[6:30] if you're interested in a parcel or
you're interested in doing commercial
[6:33] act.
[6:36] Uh, water rights 101. So, a water rights
kind of broken into a few different
[6:40] things and we're just going to briefly
touch on this because I don't want to,
[6:42] you know, exhaust my 20 minutes on this,
but there's the source of water, be it
[6:46] groundwater or surface water. So that's
going to be your your appropriation or
[6:50] your kind of point of diversion if it's
surface water. Types of use. A lot of
[6:54] people are applying for nursery, which
is a year- round irrigation use. Right
[6:57] now, cannabis growers generally like to
grow in the winter as well. Uh they
[7:00] don't stick to the traditional
irrigation season. Um priority dates. So
[7:03] you can be regulated. This is the thing
that people don't understand. They move
[7:06] to Oregon. They're like, I have a water
right. I can do what I want. uh if you
[7:10] have a 1997 or a 2007 waterite and
there's historic users on your uh your
[7:15] creek or your ditch,
once the flows go down, we regulate
[7:20] based off the need of the senior users.
So, your water rate might not really
[7:24] provide for you after August. And that's
something that people don't understand.
[7:28] Um points of diversion and
appropriation, again, that would be if
[7:32] you're on surface water or if you're off
of a well. And then places of use is
[7:36] going to be where it's applied to.
Another thing people don't understand is
[7:39] if you have uh one of the things we're
running into with cannabis is that it's
[7:42] been for the last 15 or so years medical
gardens were kind of hidden for security
[7:47] reasons and because just to keep it out
of the public eye. Um so they're in
[7:51] places that weren't traditionally
agricultural places. Um so if you have a
[7:55] water rate and it's for this part of
your property and you're deciding to do
[7:59] your cannabis over here, there's a
process. It's called a place of use
[8:02] transfer that you can go through with
the state. It's totally fine if you have
[8:05] a water right. It is a process that's
rarely if ever going to get denied, but
[8:09] it does have to happen in order for you
to legally irrigate uh where you're
[8:12] proposing to do so.
And then the must be used caveat. This
[8:17] is something that we're having to bring
up a lot lately because if a waterite
[8:20] hasn't been used for five consecutive
years, it's subject to cancellation.
[8:24] That process can be started in an
involuntary cancellation affidavit by
[8:28] two or more neighboring properties who
see that this hasn't been used for a
[8:33] period of five consecutive years.
they'll start that process. It's a
[8:37] lengthy process. It's an expensive
process. You It's on the landowner who's
[8:41] attempting to irrigate to prove up that
they have irrigated in the last 5 years.
[8:45] Um this, you know, I hadn't seen any of
these since I started with the
[8:50] department until cannabis started. And
then someone would move in, start a
[8:54] cannabis grow with a water right that
hadn't been exercised in a long period
[8:56] of time. Neighbors on either side find
that they're upset with that for one
[9:01] reason or another, and then they start
that process. So, another good question
[9:04] to ask uh or just to share with anyone
if they're interested in getting into it
[9:08] or if they want to look into properties
with water rights, has the water right
[9:11] actually been used? Uh, very important.
Um, old ditches that no longer exist,
[9:16] there might be a non-cancled water right
in that situation. Then people think
[9:20] they have a water, but they have no
access to the water.
[9:24] Uh, exempt uses of surface water real
quick here. Um, there are several
[9:28] exemptions for surface water. uh
firefighting obviously some forest
[9:33] management pro practices stock water is
an exempt use um uh livestock water
[9:40] obviously land management and with that
land management it's the ability to
[9:44] divert water for a temporary period of
time when you're doing riparian habitat
[9:47] work that kind of thing and then
rainwater um impervious surface
[9:53] catchments is a pretty big one
especially on the coast where they get
[9:56] so much rain um those are things that
we'll look at on a case by case uh and
[10:01] kind of see if you have the the system
or infrastructure in place to actually
[10:05] provide enough water to do your
agricultural uh projects.
[10:10] And then exempt uses of ground water. So
this is a big one right now. The state
[10:13] of Oregon has exempt uses for domestic
well 15,000 gallons a day and that's for
[10:19] your inside the home use around the home
use and then up to a half acre lawn and
[10:24] garden non-commercial. So that's the
little the tiein right there. If it's
[10:28] non-commercial, you can grow whatever
you'd like for a half acre. If it's
[10:33] going to be a commercial product, it
requires a water rate. So, that's one
[10:38] that we we find people not getting full
information on or having kind of a
[10:43] different idea of it. There's this 5,000
gallons per day commercial and
[10:48] industrial exemption. And it was unclear
as to whether or not they could be used
[10:53] to pro promote plant growth with the
intent to sell. Uh during the great boom
[10:58] in the early thousands um they had the
DOJ do a review of it and they decided
[11:04] that it was not to be used to promote
plant growth. So that 5,000galon a day
[11:08] exemption um we've we've seen growers
who have large infrastructure green
[11:13] houses and warehouses and you can use it
for cleaning your processing equipment
[11:17] obviously for drinking water and washing
stations but it is not be to be used to
[11:21] promote plant growth
[11:26] [Music]
and available water for new uses. Um
[11:31] this is kind of a Jackson and Josephine
County thing. Uh Jackson and Josephine
[11:35] County have stored water in the
Applegate and Lost Creek reservoir. So
[11:39] that's water that can be applied for if
you have access to either the Applegate
[11:42] or the Rogue River. Uh so that means
that you can get new water rights off of
[11:46] that. That having been said, it is a
federally managed project and the Bureau
[11:51] of Reclamation has released a statement
saying that they will not provide water
[11:54] for marijuana cultivation
specifically, but I myself have yet to
[12:00] hear of them saying no to a specific
application that applied for
[12:02] agriculture. So if you want more
information on that, I always suggest
[12:06] contacting the Bureau of Re reclamation
directly and and seeing if they have a
[12:10] new statement on that,
Jake.
[12:14] Yes.
Since Lost Creek,
[12:17] since Lost Creek and Applegate
Reservoirs are are the Army Corps of
[12:22] Engineers, right? And they fall under
the federal jurisdiction. Is that
[12:26] correct? How does that interplay with
the fact that the water goes to the
[12:30] state to regulate? Is that what is that
correct? Yeah. So there's kind of a
[12:35] how can the state then use it or what
federal laws state is illegal? How does
[12:41] that work?
So yeah, there's a that's a good
[12:43] question and it's one that smarter
people than myself and armies of lawyers
[12:47] have argued back and forth on. There's a
co-mingling of waters. You can't say
[12:51] that every single drop of water that's
coming down the Rogue River is coming
[12:54] from Lost Creek Reservoir. And
conversely, you can't say the same for
[12:57] the Applegate Reservoir. However, if
you're going to apply specifically for
[13:01] project water that's managed by a
federal entity, then it's directly
[13:05] conflicting with federal rules and
regulations. The waters that feed into
[13:09] both of those reservoirs are waters of
the state until they're impounded and
[13:13] stored in the reservoir. So, as you can
see, it gets kind of gray area and
[13:18] sticky, but there is a co-mingling of
the waters that are in there. So, if
[13:22] it's a water that's if you're applying
directly from the Bureau of Reclamation,
[13:25] then that would be federal water. If
you're applying for state waters either
[13:28] above or below the reservoir, then
there's a co-mingling. So that's where
[13:32] it's at.
As a as a followup, what's the
[13:36] jurisdiction of before, prior to the
reservoir, after the reservoir? What's
[13:40] the jurisdiction there? Any case law on
whose jurisdiction prevails?
[13:45] Um, state or
you mean like prior to the reservoir
[13:48] even being constructed or water above
the reservoir?
[13:51] Anywhere.
Uh, I would assume that anything above
[13:54] the reservoir is going to be managed by
the state. Um, if there's waters below
[13:58] the reservoir, most of the time any kind
of water rights infractions are going to
[14:01] be managed by us. The Bureau of
Reclamation, which is the managing
[14:04] partner for those reservoirs, does not
have inspection teams as far as I know,
[14:08] and they don't have people who go out
and complaints. If you have a water use
[14:11] complaint, it comes to my department,
and then we go and deal with it. The
[14:14] Bureau of Reclamation really manages the
dam along with the Army Corps of
[14:17] Engineer and the paperwork and
contracting of the water rights that
[14:20] come out of it. So obviously there's a
discrepancy on whether or not the
[14:25] federal government recognizes commercial
uh recreational cannabis and the state
[14:28] of Oregon. Thankfully I'm just the
Oregon guy for water. So that's what I
[14:33] focus on. Um
[14:37] let's see uh this groundwater caveat. I
just want to explain this. If you're if
[14:42] you have a well that's more than a/4
mile from an identified water course or
[14:45] fishing stream, then you can apply for a
groundwater right. Um, so that is
[14:49] another new appropriation method by
which you can get water rights if you do
[14:52] not have them.
Oops, a little fast there. Um, this is
[14:57] the website. Uh, it's on the bottom of
my cards, too, so don't bother writing
[15:02] it down if anyone wants that
information, but this is a really useful
[15:05] website and there's a ton of information
on here where you can find a well log.
[15:09] You can look up water rights. You can
get a rough idea of whether or not you
[15:11] have water rights. And then we have just
the agency spotlight where there's
[15:15] updates on things that are going on, the
Clamoth regulation
[15:18] down here, water use and marijuana. So
we're we're trying to keep up with the
[15:22] OLCC and OA updates as they come down
the pipe and trying to publish how that
[15:28] affects water. So question,
there was one um bullet that you did not
[15:33] Oh, sorry.
There was one bullet on the Yeah, the uh
[15:37] store water, winter water for reservoirs
and ponds. So is that not um
[15:44] administered by the usual irrigation
dates?
[15:48] Yeah. So uh the stored water reservoir
and pond. So in a lot of drainages all
[15:53] of the surface water is appropriated.
That means that at some point or another
[15:56] they issued water rights for everything
that they found was available.
[16:00] The caveat to that is during the spring
runoff, you can apply for a storage
[16:04] right, an offch storage right, meaning
that when there's a lot of water coming
[16:08] through the system, you could apply for
a pond structure. You would fill it. You
[16:12] would have the months of anywhere from
January to April to fill it depending on
[16:15] where you're located at. You get a
one-time fill and then you don't get to
[16:18] fill it again for the rest of the year,
but you can irrigate out of it if you
[16:21] apply for the proper certificates. So,
yeah, I'm glad you pointed that out.
[16:24] That is another method to get water
rights. And then the impervious surface
[16:27] again comes back to that exemption. So
[16:34] I'm I am assuming that those ponds,
storage ponds that are fed by a spring
[16:42] are still exempt. Is that true?
Uh so springs um it's considered water
[16:48] of the state if it runs off of your
property in a defined channel. If it
[16:53] never leaves your property, then it's an
exempt spring. But if that's something
[16:56] anyone wants to do agricultural
practices on it, we really encourage you
[17:01] to come to us because we'll do an a
spring investigation. We'll make some
[17:05] notes of what it's yielding. And so then
you have that registration. So moving
[17:09] forward, if there's a complaint or if
you sell the property, you can say I'm
[17:12] registered with the state. It's not a
water right because it's an exempt use,
[17:17] but we've come out, we've verified that.
So yeah, so if you had a springfed pond
[17:22] that just bubbled up out of the ground,
then it would be probably an exemption
[17:26] unless you created the pond structure,
right? You're keeping the water from
[17:30] going where it naturally would have. So
those become really difficult to try and
[17:34] prove up on some of these really really
old ponds that have never been permitted
[17:37] or recognized or anything. So but yeah,
that's
[17:42] today they might get involved. No.
Uh who they uh
[17:46] ponds might get in
involved in some of this growing because
[17:51] people have always said that if you have
a spring pet pond that originates on the
[17:56] source that's on your property does not
run off your property and clearly define
[17:59] channels the water is yours to do what
you wish to. You can irrigate or
[18:03] anything else out of it.
Right. If it's deemed an exempt source
[18:06] of water. So that means we have to come
out and make that assumption. So is it
[18:10] not an assumption also then Jake that
they get involved in today's market
[18:15] about irrigating?
Sure that's a fair assumption since
[18:17] we're throwing that word around a lot.
Uh this is just another look at the
[18:22] website a little more in detail with the
find a well log. Um obtaining your new
[18:27] water right. I don't know how familiar
you are with the process but there's the
[18:29] application. Then you get a permit and
then you have 5 years to prove up on the
[18:33] permit. The permit's going to state
where your conditions are, what your
[18:36] rate, what your duty is, if you're
building a pond, what the structure can
[18:38] be. You have 5 years to hire a certified
water rights examiner to come out and
[18:42] prove up on the water right. That's
called a claim of beneficial use. Uh the
[18:47] unfortunate reality is a lot of water
rights get stuck here
[18:51] because you have a piece of paper in
your hand that says you can store water,
[18:55] but there's this other step here. And if
this doesn't happen in a five-year
[18:59] period and there's no extension filed,
your water right or your water right
[19:04] permit could be cancelled. Um, a lot of
new water right applications after 2000
[19:09] were finding that this has happened
quite a bit. I spoke to a gentleman on
[19:12] the phone today and I have a water
right. Well, you had 12 you had 5 years
[19:17] to prove up on it 12 years later. So,
those things can happen. It's just a
[19:21] matter of kind of following through with
that whole process. the flowchart
[19:26] just a water right general water right
here you're going to have your source
[19:29] priority date what the use is uh where
your diversion point is the diversion
[19:34] point is another big um topic because
you may have a water right but you might
[19:39] not have access to the ditch or you
might not have access to the pump
[19:43] station. Um we're running into that a
lot. You know roads get put in and they
[19:48] just bisect an entire irrigated parcel.
Well, it's still covered by a valid
[19:52] water right, but you have no access to
it. So, that's another thing to look
[19:55] into when people are, you know,
considering a project projects and
[19:58] they're also considering new properties.
So,
[20:02] just a general map here. This is what
you're going to find with your
[20:05] certificate
and and that's just outlining your place
[20:09] of use. Um, I might leave this up at the
end, but this just goes into these
[20:13] exemptions a lot more in depth and this
is a big hot topic, a big topic of
[20:17] debate here. Uh, and then this up here
is a group shot. We had a bunch of
[20:22] decision makers from Salem come down
who'd never seen marijuana gardens. So,
[20:26] you know, the folks that are making the
decisions might want to get a look at
[20:29] them. So, they came down and we did a
field trip and drove around on the apple
[20:31] gate and some uh some of the larger
growers out there that were willing to
[20:35] have us on the property. A lot of these
people were pretty amazed. They had no
[20:38] idea. They they still thought they were
these little shrubberies and um seeing,
[20:43] you know, the commercial agricultural
aspect of it and that it, you know, can
[20:46] be a much larger thing.
[20:50] um use of water to grow a crop.
Commercial, you need a water right. I
[20:54] mean, that's really the the theme of
this whole slide. Um other sources are
[21:01] uh water providers such as a city,
municipality, or an irrigation district
[21:05] if you're in an irrigation district
boundary. And then water trucks. And I'm
[21:09] I'm bolding this here, receipts, because
we're finding people who apply for OCC
[21:14] Rec Gardens and they have a contract,
but they don't actually get any
[21:17] deliveries. Now, this isn't everyone.
It's, you know, there's always a bad
[21:21] apple in every bunch. Uh, but you got to
keep your receipts cuz if I get
[21:25] complaints saying that no one's actually
delivering water and I go out there and
[21:29] there are no receipts and I call the
trucking company that you have the
[21:32] contract with and they've never made a
delivery to you, then it's a violation
[21:35] of water law cuz they're using their
well
[21:40] and and
so um uh observations about groundwater
[21:46] applications. So another thing is even
though when we're going through the
[21:50] application process together and I look
at the availability and I say there's
[21:53] water available here for a new
groundwater right we're having such a
[21:56] dramatic influx in new applications for
water for groundwater rights that
[22:02] depending on how long it takes for you
to get through the review process which
[22:05] I wish it was faster but it's about 6
months to 18 months depending on what
[22:09] you're applying for you know there could
be someone in front of you who gets that
[22:13] last water right in a basin so it's just
another thing to consider we're we're
[22:17] you know We're on a limited resource
here and we are going to be running out
[22:20] of uh room for new groundwater rights.
And then we have an increased number of
[22:25] complaints and concerns about illegal
use and the impacts on neighboring
[22:30] wells. Now, to this point, the Oregon
Water Resource Department has yet to
[22:34] have a proven groundwater interference
claim from a cannabis grow. Now, let me
[22:39] let me explain that a little bit.
Everyone's heard an anecdotal story of
[22:43] someone's well going dry. A lot of these
are handdug wells which do not have well
[22:47] construction standards and do not go
down in confining aquifers. These are
[22:51] surface wells that are, you know, less
than 20 ft deep. That's not regulated by
[22:56] the department. Surface wells are since
they don't meet any construction
[22:59] standards, they wouldn't stand up in an
argument in court. So unless it meets
[23:03] construction standards, it doesn't get
that defensible position. So, as far as
[23:08] properly constructed wells that happen
in aquifers, we have yet to see one
[23:12] case.
I've just heard a lot of stories out
[23:15] there of people's wells going dry and it
does happen with surface wells. Surface
[23:19] wells is kind of your Wamut Valley
aquifer, right? It's a shallow aquifer
[23:23] and everyone's sticking a straw in it.
If you just have more homes, obviously
[23:27] it's going to draw down a little bit,
but when we're talking about real
[23:29] aquifers, groundwater aquifers, we have
yet to see any cases of um surface
[23:34] interference or draw down from other
wells.
[23:38] So what I'm talking about with these
applications,
[23:42] this is uh January 4th two or January
2004
[23:48] to January 2015 and this is 40. This
line here is 40. That's cumulative total
[23:54] of groundwater applications in that
period of time. Since legalization,
[24:00] we've gone quite a bit higher and we
still have the same amount of staff
[24:04] doing these application processes.
That's part of the reason it takes so
[24:07] much longer and we still have the same
amount of field staff if if anything
[24:11] less field staff to deal with complaints
and issues related to it. Um, so I I I
[24:17] stole this chart from Siobhan Haynes,
the Jackson County water master. It's
[24:20] kind of our hockey stick, but you can
see in it that clearly there's a lot of
[24:26] interest in new groundwater rights.
[24:31] uh this simple geometry slide. This is
kind of when we're talking about um that
[24:36] halfacre exempt for non-commercial. That
halfacre exemption for non-commercial is
[24:40] what most medical gardens are sitting
inside of. And what we do in that is
[24:45] we're not measuring this field,
this dry dirt. We're measuring the
[24:51] diameter of this pot and doing our
simple geometry and figuring out what
[24:54] the wed perimeter is. Uh if you have
raised beds like this, we're measuring
[24:58] your raised beds. If we go to a garden
with raised beds and it's clearly
[25:03] irrigating the rows between, which is
obvious in late August, um cuz this is
[25:08] southern Oregon, so if it's not dead,
then it's being wetted. So that's kind
[25:14] of how we measure the footprint for
medical gardens. If it's in ground, we
[25:18] measure the space. So, and we can we can
touch on that again later.
[25:24] Uh changes in irrigation methods. Um,
this is something that, uh, Siobhan and
[25:29] I have been looking uh, looking at a
lot. Uh, it's kind of interesting
[25:33] because traditional flood irrigation,
uh, center pivot sprinklers, um, you
[25:38] know, the big wheel lines are rather
inefficient for actual, um, you know,
[25:43] irrigation methods. What we're finding
is a lot of folks who used to do uh you
[25:47] know a couple cutings of hay a year now
someone came in and rented and just put
[25:52] a fence in the middle of it and they're
using less water and just applying it to
[25:56] a smaller space.
Um this is another good aerial that's
[26:00] kind of showing that process. You can
see this is the canal going through the
[26:05] middle of it. You can see how green and
verdant everything is in the previous
[26:08] year. And then now they're drying up
these fields. And these are the
[26:12] marijuana grows. And then this is an
area that's still being done for hay. Um
[26:17] so what this gives us an opportunity for
is conservation. Um there's something
[26:22] called instream lease. And that means
that you don't want your water right to
[26:25] get cancelled for non-use, but you're
not going to use it. Excuse me. You can
[26:30] lease that instream for a period of up
to 5 years. It's not a very expensive
[26:34] process at all. keeps your water right
valid and it gives more to the fish
[26:37] habitat. That water can't be applied for
by a new water user, but it's a great
[26:42] opportunity to give more water to the
stream system in the riperian habitat.
[26:46] Um, so that's something that we've been
trying to like encourage people to do as
[26:49] they move forward. Someone comes in and
just wants to do a 1 acre or half acre
[26:53] inside of this huge field, we'll work
with them on trying to get that least
[26:57] instream, the remainder of that water,
right? And that's a real simple process.
[27:01] It's probably the cheapest application
we have uh compared to everything else
[27:06] that you could apply for with the state.
Um just another before and after.
[27:13] And then uh I'll I'll go for open
questions here in a second, but these
[27:18] are the main points I want to hammer in
here. Commercial aggreate commercial
[27:22] agriculture requires a water rate. The
irrigation season in the Rogue Basin,
[27:27] unless otherwise notated on the
certificate, if you apply for year-
[27:30] round irrigation, is April 1st to
October 31st.
[27:35] And that's a big thing cuz a lot of
people don't realize that they start a
[27:39] little earlier than April and they want
to end a little later than October or
[27:42] maybe they want to do some greenhouse
grows or uh indoor grows throughout the
[27:46] winter. If it's commercial, you're going
to still need a water rate for that.
[27:52] Uh again the decre decrease irrigation
footprint is an opportunity for
[27:56] conservation. Meters are your friend.
And the point behind the meters are your
[27:59] friend statement is if a meter is a
condition on new permits it's not
[28:04] necessarily on a lot of the old permits.
If you put a meter on your permit and
[28:06] you can show your water use,
then it kind of helps the argument of am
[28:11] I using too much water? Does my neighbor
who's complaining against me have
[28:15] validity in this statement or should I
turn down my water use? Am I using too
[28:19] much? So, uh, and then when in doubt,
contact the water master's office. Um,
[28:24] in this little thing here, you're
grandfathered. Grandfathered water
[28:27] rights don't exist. Just want to put
that out there cuz it's a word that gets
[28:31] thrown a lot, thrown around a lot. And I
know they're they're using it with OA
[28:35] and we use it a lot regarding things
that have been approved and then rules
[28:38] change, but grandfather water rights
don't exist. So,
[28:43] uh, questions. I'm sorry if I went over.
I don't really know where to use the
[28:48] microphone.
Thanks Jay. Uh regarding the irrigation
[28:53] season, how does that apply if people
want to grow all your if you have a
[28:58] limited irrigation season, then how do
they get an exemption from the
[29:02] limitation?
Right? So you wouldn't get an exemption.
[29:04] What you would do is you do a character
of use transfer. And what that means is
[29:08] there are two parts to a water rate. You
have your rate and duty. And your rate
[29:11] is how many gallons per minute or how
many cubic feet per second you're
[29:15] allowed to divert or take from a well or
a surface water source. Your duty is
[29:20] your annual aotment. So it'll be
something acre feet, 10 acre feet, 9
[29:23] acre feet, something like that. So what
they would do is you would do a
[29:26] character abuse change. You'd still get
that same annual use. It just be spread
[29:31] out at a lower rate throughout the year.
Uh that is a process that you can go
[29:35] through. Um it's not as lengthy as
applying for a new water rate. And
[29:38] again, since you already have a water,
right, it's nine out of time, nine out
[29:42] of 10 times going to go through the
transfer. So, so yeah, good question,
[29:48] Pete.
Where does the um
[29:53] where's the beginning of the application
for water rights kick in? Is it
[29:57] literally at the first tomato?
The first tomato.
[30:02] Sure. Like on Okay. So, you know, we're
we're usually dealing with a situation
[30:06] where we're small farms, small gardens,
we produce our own produce at home for
[30:11] ourselves. Um, I'm not a commercial
operation.
[30:15] Uh, so one of the things that's been a
point of contention recently in the
[30:19] county is looking at the requirement
that medical growers report into the
[30:25] OOLCCC system. If they're over 12
plants, they're going to have to report
[30:29] into the system whether or not they
participate in commerce. signing up for
[30:33] this reporting does not mean they're
going to be participating in sales. So,
[30:37] does it start at the first tomato or is
there a threshold? Is any sale at all?
[30:43] It's the first penny. No agricultural.
Right. So, I I see what you're saying.
[30:47] The first sold tomato. Um, if you're
selling anything that you're growing
[30:53] with water, then you need a water right.
So, the first tomato, whether you're
[30:56] growing 50 square ft or 5 acres, it
starts at the first tomato is where you
[31:01] get involved. That's correct. And
obviously we haven't been out there
[31:04] hunting farmers markets. Uh but that is
the process. It's it's kind of we try
[31:10] and simplify it. If it's agriculture
with the intent to sell, then it's a
[31:14] commercial product. So,
and there's still back and forth right
[31:19] now between OA and the Oregon Water
Resource Department on how that 20
[31:23] pounds is going to play a factor for
medical growers who can then sell to a
[31:27] dispensary. We're trying to figure out
if that's something that they would
[31:30] register for in the beginning of the
year intending to sell or if we're going
[31:34] to find out about it after the fact
after they've already used the water to
[31:37] irrigate a commercial product. So that's
we don't have a a final on that yet.
[31:43] Another question.
Yeah. I'm wondering where the rest of
[31:47] the mics are. Uh no seriously though, uh
the um the discussion of the permission
[31:54] for OLCC
sales of up to 20 pounds from a medical
[31:59] garden um
doesn't actually come with the guarantee
[32:05] that a sale would ever be made.
So, for example, um, based on my
[32:12] conversations with the OLCC, what I'm
looking at is the earliest somebody
[32:17] would be able to provide anything from
this year's crop into the adult use
[32:21] system would be July 1st of next year.
That would be off of this year's harvest
[32:26] that's ongoing right now. Um, but
there's no guarantee that the OLCC is
[32:30] ever going to implement that. And I know
of a number of instances where people
[32:34] applying for this permission to continue
growing for up to eight cards on their
[32:38] own property are only applying for that
permission to continue providing to
[32:43] patients have no intention of
participating in the sales market.
[32:48] Uh so basically what I'm hearing here is
that they need to be able to demonstrate
[32:53] that they're not going to participate in
the sales market. if they're providing
[32:57] anything into the sales market,
then they would have to have the water
[33:01] right. And then I go back to your
language earlier about intent. Um, if
[33:07] they intend to provide, then you're
saying they would have to have the
[33:10] water, right? But if the OLCC changes
the distribution and doesn't allow that
[33:16] provision,
they still have an intent, but no path
[33:19] to market.
I'm trying to figure out how this works
[33:22] for people that are in the application
process right now. when it comes to
[33:26] their interface with your department.
I would say this I mean one thing to
[33:30] keep in mind though since the state has
deemed anything over 12 plants
[33:33] commercial and their definitions have
commercial the state legislators who's
[33:39] defined the commercial level.
Well, Commissioner Morgan um
[33:43] at least from the county standpoint
that's how they would accurate.
[33:46] So so land use land use anything over 12
has been deemed as a commercial
[33:50] agricultural product. The water resource
department that's that's not our
[33:53] that's commercial. Yeah, that's not our
our our our ruling or interpretation. Um
[34:01] that that that came from the as as I
understand it was from the uh department
[34:06] of a and then a ruling that it was an
agricultural product which then made it
[34:09] commercial um water resource department.
If if you want to grow one plant and
[34:14] sell it, then it's commercial product.
If you want to grow 200 plants and sell
[34:18] it, I hope you have a water right and
it's commercial product. But that's we
[34:22] try and just stick in the water part of
it because obviously this is a new
[34:26] industry and it's going to go through a
as it has gone through quite a few
[34:29] revisions, you know, in just the last
couple years. So
[34:33] if it's going to be sold, then you need
a water. And I'm I'm looking for
[34:38] clarification here because I know I'll
be talking to people in the near future
[34:41] who will be applying for metric tracking
in order to preserve their right to grow
[34:47] for their patients that are not going to
be participating in commerce in the year
[34:51] 2018. Uh by 2019, the state will have
phased that out completely. You'll
[34:56] either be at 12 plants or you'll be in
the OLCC system. this next year, the way
[35:02] people are going to handle those
conversions with the various blocks and
[35:07] hard deadlines that the state's built
in, that's going to affect the way
[35:11] people handle their applications over
the next few months here.
[35:14] Yeah, I like I said um a few minutes
back, Oregon Health Authority and Oregon
[35:20] Water Resource Department are
communicating on whether or not there's
[35:22] going to be a checkbox or something that
you say I would intend to sell. At this
[35:26] point, we don't have anything and it's
on something called the honor system.
[35:30] So, if that's your objective is to sell,
come get a water date.
[35:37] Sorry, I'll uh make this quick, but
there's actually two questions that I
[35:42] have. Number one, um, as Peter was just
indicating, somebody has a medical grow
[35:47] and they don't intend to sell, but in
2019 they decide to sell, do they have
[35:52] to reapply for a new water permit or do
they already get the one they have and
[35:56] they can keep it now and sell product?
Um, that's a good question. Uh, to
[36:00] clarify it, if they had a water right in
2018 and they didn't sell anything,
[36:05] they're fine, right? If you want to do a
commercial product in agriculture, you
[36:12] need a water rate. So, if 2018, they
didn't sell anything, that's great.
[36:17] 2019, they decide they want to sell
something, they require a water.
[36:21] So, this does require an honor system.
Yeah.
[36:25] Okay. I mean any any rule regulation or
code enforcement in any department
[36:29] there's just not a million of us. So yes
there's some honor system.
[36:33] That leads me in my second question.
Okay that if um and for simplicity sake
[36:39] I'm going to use the terms legal and
illegal legal grows. Okay we accept
[36:44] those as they are illegal grow. Um how
would you go about to investigate how
[36:49] they're watering their plants?
Well, generally we get a complaint on
[36:54] water use and marijuana. We contact OA
and OLCC, see if it's registered with
[37:00] either one. They don't give us any kind
of uh medical patient records or
[37:03] anything like that. They just tell us
whether or not is OA grow. Uh at which
[37:07] point we would look at the property and
make an assessment. What's the
[37:10] irrigation footprint? Does it require
water right? And you move that way. Uh
[37:14] if it's OLCC and it's registered and
they don't have a waterite, it's you can
[37:18] say you're trucking in water. That's the
one kind of loophole, but other than
[37:22] that, you need a water right. So, uh
there is the impermeable surface runoff.
[37:26] Uh again, there are exempt springs as
was brought up earlier, but all these
[37:29] things you would have had to get a stamp
from our office through their your
[37:32] application with OLCC. So, there's
already been dialogue between us and a
[37:36] lot of the OLCC growers because of the
fact that you have to come through us
[37:40] anyway. Um but again, if it's medical,
then it's does it fit into the halfacre
[37:45] footprint? Uh no, it doesn't. Then it
requires a water right. um if it's
[37:49] larger than a half acre. So, so that's
that's just the process we go through
[37:53] that. Uh any other questions? Gerard,
do you include any form of the system of
[37:59] barter
in your commercial definition?
[38:03] Uh that interpretation I we have not.
No, I don't believe that we've gotten
[38:09] into the bartering aspect. Um it's
I would have to get back to you on that.
[38:15] I honestly haven't been asked that
question, so I'm not gonna say yay or
[38:18] nay to be honest. Um, I guess it is
still a transaction taking place, right?
[38:23] Well, it's something for someone.
Yeah, it is. But, uh,
[38:26] for consideration,
yeah, that's a great question and I'll
[38:30] I'll I'll send that up flag pole and see
what kind of an answer I can get.
[38:33] In 2016, how many complaints
of this nature did you have in Josephine
[38:39] County?
Uh, well, for clarification, I'm the
[38:43] regional assistant water master. The
interviews for Watermaster are tomorrow.
[38:46] I've been working in six counties for 3
years. And I would say I we don't have a
[38:52] hard number on how many complaints we'd
have, but I'd say 60% of our complaint
[38:56] volume is directly involved with
cannabis. Of that, there are plenty that
[39:00] are just neighbor disputes. We had
neighbor disputes before there was
[39:03] cannabis. Some people just don't get
along with their neighbors. Um so, so
[39:08] that's important to note. But then there
are, you know, the bad apples out there.
[39:12] there are the people we show up to and
they're here's all my permits here all
[39:15] here's all my paperwork those are great
um but yeah it has increased our
[39:20] workload our hockey stick graph the
groundwater applications that's pretty
[39:24] equivalent to our complaints in our
workload in general uh in Jackson and
[39:28] Josephine County now again I've been
working in six counties Douglas County
[39:31] doesn't have this issue um Clamoth
doesn't Clamoth has plenty of other
[39:35] issues um and then Kuz and Curry on the
coast they have cranberry box but other
[39:41] than that they don't have a lot of
agricultural land. So, um, and then the
[39:44] folks who are attempting to grow outdoor
cannabis out there, it's not as good of
[39:48] a grow season as, you know, Jackson and
Josephine County. So,
[39:53] any question?
Just hang on. Okay. Um, my question is
[39:59] is I know that you've only been in the
position for 3 years, but previous to
[40:03] 2015 when measure 91 passed, how many
complaints would you say there actually
[40:08] was for these water rights and disputes
over water with cannabis in mind?
[40:15] Uh, good question. So, I worked for
Jackson County as the assistant water
[40:18] master for 3 years back in 2007. Um, it
was kind of interesting for me to go
[40:22] away and come back and see how some of
the dialogue has changed.
[40:26] Uh there's always been complaints. Time
in memorial. As long as there's been a
[40:29] water law and a reason to dispute your
neighbor's claim on something, there's
[40:32] always been complaints. Um cannabis
complaints have gotten more uh numerous
[40:38] since the legalization of recreational
pot. Uh medical, again, I think I I
[40:45] mentioned it earlier. I think because
medical generally was hidden and kind of
[40:49] out of the out of sight uh for security
reasons or just because they wanted it
[40:53] that way. And I believe there was a rule
that you had to have at least some kind
[40:56] of visual barrier. Um
there weren't weren't as many
[41:01] complaints. However, in the last 5 to 6
years because of the influx of people
[41:05] moving here to grow medical and then
recreational, yes, it's it's increased
[41:09] the complaint number. I I don't have
hard numbers for you. Uh that's
[41:13] something that we weren't even
considering tracking until the last year
[41:16] and a half. Um, now in our complaint
columns, in our water right research
[41:20] columns, in our application columns,
we're just checking whether or not it's
[41:24] cannabis involved. And that's really
just an analytic for us to say how much
[41:28] is this industry affecting our workload.
So I'm I'm Does that answer your
[41:33] question?
To
[41:35] a degree. I'm just trying to gauge on
cuz I mean medical cannabises have been
[41:39] around since 1998 and now we've come
full circle until recreational and as
[41:44] soon as soon as measure 91 passed
everybody threw up their arms and was at
[41:49] war with their neighbors over something
that been going on in our valley for 17
[41:53] years without incident. So I mean what
type of effects are truly taking place
[41:58] out there with water? You know the
depreciation of water? Um, I mean from
[42:03] the starting to the ending point and
then on from the ending point of OM and
[42:09] P into this recreational market. Um, if
we were to put the two side by side, um,
[42:14] I think there'd be a very stark contrast
there.
[42:17] Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment.
Um, I think that legalization changed
[42:22] the conversational topic. Uh, the first
one of these meetings I went to, I think
[42:26] it was Commissioner Morgan brought up
the fact that the vote was pretty close
[42:28] to 50/50 in Josephine County. No one
likes to be losers. So, if you lost that
[42:33] vote and you don't like what's going on
next door, it's going to increase
[42:36] complaint and call volume. Um, I think
visibility is a factor. Again, medical
[42:41] gardens were generally kind of hidden.
Now they're out in places where they
[42:44] didn't see them before. Uh, and then
it's also just volume. There's just more
[42:48] of it. Um, as far as water use is
concerned,
[42:53] you know, I I regulate the same streams
almost every year. Um and generally
[42:57] around the same time depending on
snowpack and you know the aquafer
[43:01] system. So uh again we haven't seen a
dis an actual groundwater interference
[43:06] claim that came through and yielded
something. Uh we have seen impact on
[43:10] water rights of course because people
again who didn't use their water right
[43:14] for a long period of time are now trying
to do so. um you know, flag lots that
[43:19] hadn't been developed forever are now
developed and and they're irrigating and
[43:22] and they're doing their agricultural
products or or projects. So, it's
[43:27] increased the workload, but I don't have
hard numbers or like data that that
[43:32] maybe you're looking for in that. So,
again, did that answer your question?
[43:38] Good enough, sir.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh anybody
[43:41] else? I think I'm taking all of your
time here. So, okay.
[43:44] Any other questions for the panel?
All right. Thank you very much.
[43:48] Yeah, no problem.
Yeah. Thank you.
[43:52] Poweroint available.
The PowerPoint.
[43:55] Um, sure. Yeah.
Send your email.
[43:58] Yeah, that's fine. Yeah,
I have it. All you know,
[44:01] there you are. So, you don't have to
worry about it, Jake.
[44:04] [Music]
Unless you want me to leave that page up
[44:08] still. No, that's fine.
[44:13] All right, moving through the agenda.
I'm gonna go to item five and I'm going
[44:18] to turn this over to Valerie.
Thanks.
[44:22] You're welcome. Thank you for your work
on the first.
[44:31] [Music]
I think most of what um I planned today
[44:36] pretty much.
[44:39] I think I pretty much tell you what, let
me switch you.
[44:42] Okay.
I think this one better
[44:44] [Music]
here.
[44:54] Can you hear me?
Yes.
[44:58] So, I don't know if there's a a lot more
to cover other than what I've already
[45:01] kind of written up and I don't want to
flog you all with my words. So, is there
[45:08] with what I've submitted? Are there any
specific questions?
[45:13] Thank you.
Um, if if I've made a couple notes on
[45:18] this and by and large, I would have no
exception to anything you wrote, but
[45:22] there are a couple um changes that I
would like to see made.
[45:26] um in the uh the first uh I don't know
which bullet point that is the one that
[45:32] refers to number of employees to be
determined by proposal and conditions. I
[45:36] don't know if it's allowed and Lily you
might be able to give me better sense of
[45:40] this but I'd like to have proof of W2s
and W9's for anybody who's employed.
[45:48] So, and and what this is um what this is
referencing is back to article 92, which
[45:55] the full language is in the first um
submitt that I made. And um so basically
[46:01] what I try to do is just kind of so you
wouldn't have to read through the whole
[46:04] code.
It's just try to write what actually the
[46:07] code what the code in the application
process would be looking at. Um so I
[46:14] think that 92 would work. it it maybe
could use a few tweaks to be applied to
[46:19] the cannabis industry, but I I could
see, you know, why that why that would
[46:23] be something you would want to
definitely look at.
[46:26] The um and I'm just using this as your
document rather than going through the
[46:31] whole other one. So,
um I think one of the issues is people
[46:37] who are coming here working and they
have no investment in the community,
[46:41] they take their cash and they leave. So,
I think there should be some checks and
[46:45] balance to make sure that people who are
being hired are actually paying their
[46:50] fair share into our community. Um, this
next bullet straight down, applications
[46:54] require public notice. Uh, I would like
to see you strike at the director's
[47:00] planning director's discretion. It has
it would it would be 1500 ft from the
[47:05] property.
So, in article 92 or actually, let me
[47:10] correct myself. That's not true. public
notice typically is 1500 square feet and
[47:14] then there's a a line in the code um
that says at the director's um
[47:19] discretion and what I've seen that used
before um is um things like a a winery
[47:25] tasting room was getting approved and
there was an easement for access um and
[47:30] it was a rather long road and so even
though that 1500 square 1500 ft um did
[47:36] not cover the full length of that road
they still included everyone who lived
[47:41] lived on that road to be because they
would be affected by the traffic. So
[47:46] basically, it's not to they can't make
it less, it's to make it more notice,
[47:51] not less notice. The 1500 ft is a
minimum.
[47:55] Okay. All right. Uh if I can continue
on. Sorry, I'm monopolizing the time
[48:00] here. Um your invitation field trip,
I would agree to that. I think that's a
[48:05] great idea if we can also find an equal
number of people who have been
[48:09] negatively impacted by these drugs
so that we have four that have are good
[48:15] growers and for the uh citizens provided
they give us permission to come on their
[48:19] property. A lot of these folks are
afraid to go and see what has negatively
[48:24] impacted them as well.
Um the next page the uh non-binding
[48:31] ballot measures. We've already seen what
happens with non-binding ballot
[48:34] measures. The minority gets the
governing uh authority to do whatever it
[48:39] is they want. Apparently, um if they
have a ballot measure, I'd like to see
[48:43] it be a binding one. Um and in in
reference to your 64
[48:49] in favor ban, uh your math is
impeccable. But wouldn't uh using that
[48:55] same formula, wouldn't that mean that
even less people voted against or voted
[48:59] for it? So, if only 1.75 of Josephine
Countyy's adult population voted for it,
[49:04] that means even less people voted uh uh
for the for the uh marijuana grows. Is
[49:10] that correct?
What I'm trying to say is that we should
[49:14] if if this
what I'm trying to say is that I think
[49:20] it's very farreaching to base banning an
industry from an area based on 1,200
[49:28] less than 1,200 votes.
Yeah.
[49:31] I think and it's not even a vote for
something specific. It's a vote for um
[49:36] an an opinion an an advisory question
from what I've read is really trying to
[49:42] get an opinion of a region.
And conversely,
[49:46] the minority, which is even less
percentage,
[49:50] uh shouldn't take priority either.
I I would suggest we don't go down that
[49:53] rabbit trail.
Yeah.
[49:55] Because it's not a topic that you guys
decide. Uh so for the sake of not having
[50:02] you guys arguing over something that
it's not a recommendation
[50:06] of you guys um if you stick to the
topics you'll find more productivity
[50:11] than arguing whether a ban should be or
not because the commissioners are
[50:16] already in play with something and so
they've asked for recommendations on
[50:21] what's in play not whether it should be
in play or not. So, um, unless that is
[50:28] your recommendation, but there is no
recommendations. I just don't want to
[50:31] see 20 minutes go between you guys
saying it should be and no, it shouldn't
[50:35] be when you have an opportunity to talk
about the details and and and
[50:40] specifically can have more productivity
that way. I
[50:44] sure uh but I appreciate where you guys
are coming from, but you you can
[50:48] convince this whole panel that it
shouldn't be and that make no difference
[50:52] because we're already in a process with
the board. So I don't want to waste your
[50:55] time.
Excuse me. Steve, thank you. Just if you
[51:00] could clarify something. You the words
you just used were banning an industry
[51:05] from a certain area. So when you say
banning an industry, would you please
[51:09] define for me what you mean by an
industry?
[51:14] Commercial cannabis.
Commercial. Or are you referring to
[51:17] medical?
I'm not referring to to medical.
[51:21] Thank you.
Sure.
[51:25] for me when we talked about
[Music]
[51:30] what is pharmaceuticals I mean
pharmaceuticals it's medicine correct
[51:35] but it's still part of an industry and
here we have almond people that are
[51:39] trying to grow medicine for patients and
it seems as if we are getting cast to
[51:44] the side and stepped on um
so that we don't have to compete with
[51:50] the recreational folks
When we talk about these things about
[51:55] banning an industry, OM isn't industry
per se. You know, patients are for
[52:01] profit, right? I mean,
pharmaceutical agencies have been
[52:07] exploiting that for so many years. Let's
not forget that some of these people
[52:11] aren't we're not necessarily out for
profit. And yes, we do want to make a
[52:15] living for the 365 days of sacrifice
that we have to make and our families
[52:19] have to make. and for all that time and
investment that we put into it. Um it is
[52:24] substantial time and it is a good chunk
of money as well just to have the
[52:29] infrastructure to pull anything off to
give away free medicine to people that
[52:33] want a better quality of life or a
better quality of death. So when we talk
[52:37] about industry we have to think about
the patients too and what that ind
[52:41] industry truly looks like.
Okay. I think again a lot of personal
[52:47] convictions going on in here tonight. I
understand that, but we need to focus
[52:50] back on the proposal. So, if we could
keep our comments to that. Uh, Cedar,
[52:54] did you have anything?
Oh, my
[53:00] Well, specifically about Valerie's
proposal, um, I'm in support of it. Um,
[53:06] I feel like, uh, I think there's a lot
of reasons to use existing regulation to
[53:14] address existing neighbor complaints.
Um, I actually put together a
[53:21] couple of minutes of statement that
covers issues around the proposal and
[53:26] what we're talking about that I'd like
to read if this would be an appropriate
[53:29] one.
[53:33] Just hold that mic close so we can hear
you.
[53:35] Okay, there we go. In Josephine County,
farming has always been allowed in all
[53:40] zones except commercial. The state
legislature has defined cannabis as
[53:44] agriculture.
Thus, other than reasonable time, place,
[53:48] and manner restrictions, cannabis
production is explicitly allowed on RR5
[53:52] zones in Josephine County. Currently,
in discussing time, place, and manner
[53:57] restrictions, Oregon case law defines
reasonable
[54:00] as directed to the prevention of the
evils and adapted to the accomplishment
[54:05] of the above purposes.
In the case of cannabis production on
[54:09] RR5, the evil consists of negative
impacts upon neighbors.
[54:14] However, blanket restrictions on
cannabis production fail the test of
[54:18] reason because they take away the rights
of an entire class of lawful businesses
[54:21] and individuals instead of reasonably
targeting the offensive behavior.
[54:27] Um,
before we can intelligently discuss the
[54:31] offensive behavior, we need to know
which complaints are truly cannabis
[54:34] related. In Josephine County, a large
percentage of residents grow cannabis.
[54:39] Some of these cannabis growing residents
are bad actors who have annoyed or
[54:43] alarmed their neighbors. Most of these
bad actors would be annoying their
[54:47] neighbors regardless of whether or not
they brew cannabis. And making rules
[54:51] about cannabis will not influence their
offensive behavior. Bad actors are
[54:56] generally unconcerned about regulations
and nothing short of active enforcement
[54:59] will change that.
The good actors who will obey new
[55:04] regulations are likely to be the ones
who already maintain good relationships
[55:07] with their neighbors.
We need to audit and organize the
[55:11] complaints in order for them to be
meaningful. Otherwise, we don't know
[55:14] anything other than a neighbor had an
issue with another neighbor, which is a
[55:18] human condition that predates cannabis
zoning issues.
[55:22] I recently read quotes in the daily
courier that were attributed to one of
[55:28] the commissioners who's not present. I
was actually hoping that he would be
[55:32] present. But um
the point is I'm concerned about the
[55:37] implication that the county may not
grandfather currently licensed and
[55:40] operating businesses on RR5.
Um and forgive me for my indulgence for
[55:46] a moment. My great great great
grandfather came to southern Oregon in
[55:50] the 1880s to work in the nickel mine
near Riddle. My family has been earning
[55:54] a living working with natural resources
here for over 130 years. We handbuilt
[55:59] our house and raised our four children
in Williams and we love our community.
[56:03] Josephine County published a pamphlet
stating that we could operate a
[56:07] regulated cannabis farm on RR5 zoning
and so we bought two parcels and are now
[56:13] in our second year of successful
operation.
[56:16] We have very good relationships with our
neighbors. We employ 30 people and we
[56:21] pay our county, state, and federal
taxes. We are very concerned about
[56:25] Josephine County attempting to
retroactively restrict our ability to do
[56:29] legal business.
Cannabis is the greatest economic
[56:34] opportunity that our county has had in
many decades. We can promote the
[56:38] economic development of our county by
supporting regulated business in
[56:41] America's fastest growing industry. The
state is now enact enacting sweeping
[56:46] changes in the medical cannabis program
that will likely result in a 75%
[56:50] reduction in RR5 production in 2018.
Rather than immediately layering
[56:57] further new regulation on top of the
state rules, I believe that Josephine
[57:01] County would be better served observing
the the the profound impact of the state
[57:06] rules and then responding with a more
informed perspective. I support the
[57:11] utilization of current rules to enforce
existing neighbor complaints.
[57:16] Thank you. Thank you.
Any other comments for Valerie
[57:21] on her proposal?
Is there a consensus to move this
[57:26] forward for commissioners?
I had a comment.
[57:31] Jackson County, if I understand, has
made the move a year or so ago from this
[57:36] residential to EF zoning. Is that
correct?
[57:40] What have we looked at what they did to
enact deal with existing growers? They
[57:46] had the same situation we do here. What
did they initiate and put forward and
[57:52] what is how is their process work since
they've been in the EF zoning only arena
[57:57] that we are heading to? Because if it's
already been done, Val's proposal is
[58:02] excellent, but if there's something
better that we can also look at, why not
[58:06] look at find out what Jackson County has
done, how it's worked. It's been in a
[58:10] process now for a year plus, and give us
some more information to maybe make her
[58:16] proposal even better.
I can give you at least uh half the
[58:21] answer to that, Renee. Um, Jackson
County has never acknowledged
[58:25] agriculture on rural residential lands.
So, the basis for Jackson County is
[58:29] different than in Josephine County and
the rest of Oregon.
[58:33] That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be
looking at what they're doing because
[58:36] they've done a couple of good things and
they've made a couple of huge mistakes.
[58:40] Um,
what I get concerned about when we're
[58:44] making rules, and this has been a topic
on a number of committees that I've been
[58:48] on, you know, we're trying to regulate
here in the interest of public health
[58:50] and safety, and we need to make rules
that people can easily understand and
[58:55] follow. And there are huge benefits to
doing that because rules that are easier
[58:59] to understand, gain you a higher rate of
compliance, reduce the cost of
[59:03] enforcement, everybody's happier at the
end of the day. Make the burdens too
[59:08] ownorous, make the hoops too difficult
to jump through, make the process too
[59:12] long. Um, we had cannabis cultivation
prior to legalization.
[59:17] And in my talk with a sustainable
forester two weeks ago, he and I agreed
[59:22] that we'd rather see four plants in
every backyard than one more single grow
[59:26] on forest land.
[59:30] Thank you, Peter. Any other comments?
Just one. Um, I I think if we start off
[59:36] the idea that that it's too difficult to
enforce or it's um going to be too
[59:42] difficult um to apply these things,
we're just going to go on a slippery
[59:47] slope. Everything's too difficult. Um we
need to go one way or another and we
[59:52] need to make a definitive answer.
[59:57] Sorry.
I believe the difference between the RR5
[1:00:02] or any rural residential land in
Josephine County and that of Jackson
[1:00:06] County was the the inception of those
two zones through SP 100. Jackson County
[1:00:13] made their priority to be quiet
enjoyment. We did not. So they
[1:00:17] differentiated themselves from basically
from their birth. Um so that's never
[1:00:24] going to change as far as they were
concerned. I do believe I said it before
[1:00:27] so I'm not going to burden everyone with
it now and that is the fact that I'll
[1:00:32] just reiterate that we're talking about
again trying to make a square peg fit in
[1:00:36] a round hole and so fine if this is
where you want to go it won't hold up it
[1:00:44] just won't hold up because of the fact
that you're doing something that is
[1:00:48] basically the inception and from the
comprehensive plan of the entire
[1:00:53] Josephine County is better predicate
ated upon SP 100. And if you go to SP
[1:00:58] 100, you'll find out 92, 45, and 42 all
are subordinate
[1:01:06] rules to make the residential use
priority. And so I think you're just
[1:01:11] trying to find a way to lessen the
impact or say for today we can do this,
[1:01:17] but I think you're only making it worse
because it's going to continue to
[1:01:21] happen, because it's fundamentally
flawed. I do believe we should be taking
[1:01:25] this time and effort like Renee talked
about and that is talking about EFU
[1:01:31] making the pathway to EFU with a lot of
resource more pl more acquirable getting
[1:01:38] some of the restrictions out of the way
on dwellings and septics so that they
[1:01:42] can facil be fil facilitated in that
zone and everything I've ever read about
[1:01:47] this stuff and I'm not anywhere near
what you guys are but I can tell you
[1:01:51] that everything I come up with says
commercial grow commercial farm product
[1:01:55] is the word commercial seems to be an
endemic in it and I don't know how
[1:01:59] you're going to erase it
[1:02:05] any other comments excuse me
[1:02:12] um so the the farm that we purchased
that we now grow cannabis on was
[1:02:16] previously a commercial hay farm and
it's our R5 we have irrigation right
[1:02:21] next to the well So I I wonder how that
um if that seemed seems to conflict with
[1:02:29] what you're saying is
I didn't say it was perfect.
[1:02:36] It's not perfect.
Jared, we have to find some sort of
[1:02:41] middle ground between Royal Residential
and EFU and Woodlaw Resource. I'm not
[1:02:46] saying that this is perfect because this
by no means perfect. Um, but we have to
[1:02:50] find software middle ground because
these people have invested so much time
[1:02:54] and money and effort into building
something that just got switched when
[1:02:58] Measure 91 hit. So before that, there
was no such thing as commercial um,
[1:03:03] grows here in Oregon and then all of a
sudden Measure 91 hit and it turned into
[1:03:07] commercial.
This is such a drastic change that's
[1:03:12] taken place over the last 2 years. We
have to find some way to be able to work
[1:03:15] within our local resources and our
citizens. Um, D Young, I just watched
[1:03:21] this video, YouTube clip the other day
about Dong saying that he doesn't want
[1:03:25] to get rid of all of Josephine County's
residents. You know, people that have
[1:03:29] been here for so many years. Well, I've
been here for many, many years. I've
[1:03:34] been an active participant within my
community. Um, I don't want to go
[1:03:38] anywhere, but I have to find a way if I
want to continue to be in this industry
[1:03:43] to be able to get off my res rural
residential or to make my rural
[1:03:46] residential conform one way or another.
Now, what about the three deaf people
[1:03:50] that I employ? What are they going to
do? H how can we make this transition
[1:03:55] into another parcel of land easier for
us? So, it makes it easier for us to
[1:04:00] comply. There has to be some sort of
exit strategy or segway that we can
[1:04:06] utilize to get us off land. I know for
myself, I had an offer to grow
[1:04:11] recreational on 38 acres. That's rural
residential. It's 38 acres. It was EFU
[1:04:17] land back in 1979 and they changed the
zoning on it. Um, I want to be able to
[1:04:22] be part of the industry. I still want to
be able to provide for patients and I'm
[1:04:26] have I'm really torn on this because
either I I'm a sellout or I'm a sellout
[1:04:33] one or the other and really it's both in
the same. So how do we work within the
[1:04:38] OMP parameter or the people that have
been supplying OM and allow them to make
[1:04:44] a step forward into a legal market
because people don't want to be black
[1:04:48] market and this is the only way for us
to be able to come above the table and
[1:04:52] so many of us like myself want to be
above the table. So, how do we do that
[1:04:57] and still work together? Because I don't
see very much middle ground,
[1:05:04] I'll see you all just to answer part of
your question that you you did there and
[1:05:08] that is the fact that you mentioned the
fact about your investment
[1:05:12] of the of of how much money and time etc
that you've had.
[1:05:17] Unfortunately, if you go down that path
and we say let's just argue say there's
[1:05:22] a threshold. What's the threshold?
$100,000, 200,000. If you've invested,
[1:05:28] although not totally kosher, but you've
invested $100,000, you then deserve a
[1:05:34] resolution from the board of county
commissioners to grandfather you in. Is
[1:05:38] it $200,000? What do you do about the
people who don't know about this amount
[1:05:42] of money who are going to come up and
say, "Look, 10 years ago, I decided to
[1:05:47] have a commercial operation and I was
run out of rural residential zone land
[1:05:52] and I didn't know I had to have a
specific amount of money I invested in
[1:05:56] order me to be able to stay there." So,
it brings up a whole bunch of things
[1:06:00] that are not intended perhaps, but they
will come and they will come in the form
[1:06:04] of suits that just because cannabis had
a threshold of $150 or $200,000 or your
[1:06:11] time involved,
then their people are going to say,
[1:06:15] "Well, I had more than that, aren't I
entitled to the same protection by the
[1:06:19] board of county commissioners?" And
that's where you go. So the idea is that
[1:06:25] what you've got in rural residential and
hay by the way was used for animals
[1:06:29] which did
put to productive use. Uh the idea is
[1:06:34] that uh in rural residential it's in SB
100 as to what it is, what its purpose
[1:06:39] and where it's located and it's very
specific and everything subsequent to
[1:06:44] that has been deferred to this position
of residential odor
[1:06:51] interference etc. It's all there.
I'm not making it up. It's there.
[1:06:56] I think where we're going now is again
that back and forth. um what I'm hearing
[1:07:01] I think what we need to see or I'd like
to see for those of you who are in the
[1:07:05] industry and you know have the expertise
and the knowledge maybe again offer some
[1:07:11] solutions as Valerie did and present to
this panel as we move through this I
[1:07:16] think that might be beneficial.
Commissioner Morgan has a few comments.
[1:07:25] I don't really know that this group is
going to have another opportunity after
[1:07:28] tonight to talk on the topic as a group
necessarily.
[1:07:32] um potentially because the commissioners
are moving forward and so um the main
[1:07:40] thing is when we met last time I or two
times ago I passed out you know this is
[1:07:47] what we're looking at any feedback we
got there um I had basically had four
[1:07:52] things that I heard come out of the
comments there wasn't a consensus but
[1:07:55] those four things in a meeting with the
commissioners I took back and said there
[1:07:59] was a wait see what the state does wait
and do nothing. There was a don't change
[1:08:05] it, make a path to EFU and Woodlot
easier and then the home uh occupation
[1:08:12] options. And so basically everything
that I heard out of the group I took
[1:08:17] back to the commissioners. So there
wasn't a this is a consensus. This is
[1:08:20] just the feedback we got back. Um and as
commissioners we didn't really um come
[1:08:27] to a consensus either which is uh you
know it's one of those things that we
[1:08:32] wrestle back and forth and uh each of us
kind of come from different places of of
[1:08:36] where we're at with it. So where we had
left it was that um Commissioner D.
[1:08:42] Young was going to make some
recommendations and that was forwarded
[1:08:45] to us. Uh couple things I should let you
know. Uh first off the agenda coming out
[1:08:50] late was my fault. I was super ill and I
missed four days of work last week
[1:08:57] because the doctor told me to stay home.
I was very very ill and so it's my fault
[1:09:01] it was late. Um
but I also missed some of the
[1:09:06] conversations about this stuff until and
they put it off again till today. So
[1:09:11] today I I got um a new draft of kind of
what was proposed by Commissioner D.
[1:09:17] Young and I passed that out to each of
you. But before you go trying to look at
[1:09:21] this, I want to point out a different
form to you that's listed at the top
[1:09:26] that says summary of non-typographical
changes because this identifies the
[1:09:32] inlay changes and recommendations that
are in the other one. So other than
[1:09:37] having to pour through and try to find
it, this is a quicker way of trying to
[1:09:41] see what those emitted changes are. And
I can tell you already based on our
[1:09:45] conversation today, we're not all in
agreement about these either. Um, one of
[1:09:50] them already is changing. The um the
third paragraph down says number two
[1:09:55] created a definition for commercial
marijuana. Instead of saying anything
[1:09:58] over 12 plants is commercial, language
was added to say if a lot is less than 5
[1:10:03] acres, anything over six is considered
commercial. Um, and we struck that the
[1:10:08] state is who's defining commercial as 13
and over. we're not going to argue with
[1:10:12] the state on their definition. And so
two of us today said, "We don't like
[1:10:16] that." Um the other thing is is I'd
gotten feedback from the Williams
[1:10:20] Citizens Advisory Council that they had
come with a compromise of working in
[1:10:24] their community with uh growers and
non-rowers. They're they're pro-
[1:10:28] industry group for the most part. And
their recommendation was a 100 foot set
[1:10:32] back from a property line and a 200t set
back to a residence. and I uh forwarded
[1:10:38] that information to the commissioners
and they both were agreeable to that. So
[1:10:41] that's something that they're looking at
as a setback at this time as 100 foot uh
[1:10:46] from a property line of 200 from a
residence and again that came from a
[1:10:50] group that was vetting through a
community who was trying to find a a
[1:10:55] compromise from industry and
non-industry. Um, and really when we go
[1:11:01] back to the purpose of the rural
residential, cuz I I keep going back to
[1:11:06] what's the purpose, what's what's the
whole zoning area, those setbacks are
[1:11:10] what give you that piece in those areas
when you have something that's a
[1:11:13] non-conforming use. And so even our
current code that says you can't
[1:11:17] interfere do, you know, the farming
can't interfere with the neighbors, how
[1:11:21] do you adjust that? you have a
reasonable setback that allows a buffer
[1:11:25] that allows something to happen without
it being an impacting the neighbors and
[1:11:29] stuff like that. So, um there is still a
question as to whether or not um what
[1:11:37] would be grandfathered or not. My my
standpoint is
[1:11:43] if you have gone through the process of
getting your lux and gone through the
[1:11:46] process with our um planning commission
and you were in compliance going into
[1:11:52] this process or if you're converting to
the OLCC system from the OM, you're
[1:11:58] you're showing you want to be in
compliance with the system and we need
[1:12:01] to give you every opportunity to do it
right. If you're not,
[1:12:07] there's nothing to grandfather in. If
you're not working with the system, if
[1:12:10] you're not working within what the
regulations are, what's to grandfather?
[1:12:14] You're already not complying with the
rules. Uh so there is no grandfathering
[1:12:18] in of somebody who
uh has clearcut a property against or
[1:12:24] done put in coververts without
permission, all this other kind of
[1:12:27] stuff. So it it's one of those things
that um there's going to be a balance,
[1:12:32] but that's my opinion. There's two other
commissioners that have opinions and I
[1:12:36] can't speak for them on what their
opinions are, but my opinion is that if
[1:12:41] you want to be considered a
non-conforming use, your best way of
[1:12:45] doing that is conforming with as many of
the regulations as you can. And one of
[1:12:50] those is that you're not impacting the
neighbors. Uh anyhow, so
[1:12:55] um this list was kind of a um where this
recommendations stand is the
[1:13:02] commissioners are meeting on Thursday
morning. They're going to make their
[1:13:06] final recommendations and they're moving
forward on Thursday morning at our admin
[1:13:11] meeting. And so any changes of
um a non-conforming use staying with the
[1:13:19] property versus in a home occupation, it
does not. It stays with the occupant,
[1:13:24] not the property. Um all those kinds of
things have yet to be determined and
[1:13:29] still have to be decided. And what we
have learned is that we're not so
[1:13:35] significantly out of phase with what was
recommended that we have to start the
[1:13:39] process over. So we will be able to go
on to a second or we probably we have to
[1:13:45] repeat the first reading if I believe
correct vote on that approval will go to
[1:13:48] the second reading but we don't have to
start over with the planning commission
[1:13:52] re notifications and all that other kind
of stuff. So these changes are not so
[1:13:55] significant as to change the purpose of
what started so the process is going to
[1:14:00] continue. Um
I got this information today and brought
[1:14:07] it to you guys tonight. Uh it's I know
it's not a lot of time uh to look at
[1:14:12] things and like I said
um
[1:14:17] we're not in agreement on all of them.
There's a couple of them is like what's
[1:14:20] that mean? I I I did my little cheat
sheet today of okay, yeah, that one's
[1:14:23] okay. No, that one I don't like. What's
that mean? Um and some of those things
[1:14:28] we're going to work out on Thursday. Uh
the other thing is is um our staff
[1:14:32] person is also out uh for medical
purposes and so it's one of those things
[1:14:37] that
uh it's kind of just where we're at.
[1:14:41] That's why I still have questions next
to some of these cuz I don't have an
[1:14:44] answer yet myself. But I want to make
sure that I'm giving you guys the
[1:14:47] information as soon to me getting it as
I can so that we're all processing that
[1:14:51] together. Uh, but when I heard from the
commissioners today that we're going to
[1:14:56] Thursday and from Thursday we're
probably moving forward, that's why I
[1:15:00] say this is probably your last
opportunity as a group to speak on the
[1:15:04] topic because the purpose and the bylaws
of what the group is is more than just
[1:15:09] these land use regulations. It's more
than that. And um and so
[1:15:17] essentially
um wanted to give you a heads up that
[1:15:21] probably won't be revisiting necessarily
in this format because you'll have an
[1:15:25] opportunity in the public formats in the
hearings. Uh there'll probably be two
[1:15:29] more hearings. If we have to repeat
reading one, there'll be a hearing for
[1:15:33] that and then it'll be at least two
weeks in the second reading. So there'll
[1:15:36] be two more opportunities for public
hearing and public testimony. Um, and so
[1:15:43] just want to make sure that uh we're all
on the same page and you guys have the
[1:15:47] same information.
Clearly, this isn't something we've done
[1:15:51] before. We're we're figuring it as we
go. We've taken our time on this because
[1:15:55] we want to try to do to the best of our
ability, find a way that decreases the
[1:16:01] impact on the bad apples, uh, holds them
accountable. Um, but at the same time,
[1:16:08] those that are truly doing it right,
gone through the steps appropriately,
[1:16:13] not having an impact on their neighbors,
going through that process shouldn't be
[1:16:18] punished for those that are
doing things wrong. And so, um, at least
[1:16:25] that's kind of where we're at. So, I I
haven't specifically gone through all of
[1:16:30] these and these yet. I've just gone
through the summary. Um, Valerie's was
[1:16:35] the only proposal per se that has been
presented in the last month and we
[1:16:40] wanted to make sure you had time to
present that. Um, you guys can make a
[1:16:44] recommendation of going on that or you
guys can take few moments to look
[1:16:48] through these and see if you have any
comments. Uh, I welcome those. If there
[1:16:52] is a consensus of the group, I would be
interested in receiving that. If there's
[1:16:57] not, I'll do what I did last time and
say, "This is the types of feedback I
[1:17:01] got." But there was no consensus. I just
want to make sure that there's no
[1:17:07] misconception that you're going to have
weeks and months to talk about this.
[1:17:10] It's not going to happen. So, or in this
setting. So, I just want to give you
[1:17:16] guys that chance.
I'd like to raise a point of order.
[1:17:18] I'm sorry. This isn't for you to
discuss.
[1:17:20] The point of order.
I I'm going to be really clear. If you
[1:17:23] want to interrupt the meeting, we can
recess the meeting or we can stop the
[1:17:26] meeting, but you don't get to
participate in this meeting.
[1:17:29] This is not a participation. It's a
point of order.
[1:17:31] Then you can leave, Chris, cuz this
isn't a time for you to participate.
[1:17:36] This was not on the agenda.
This was a response to Valerie's
[1:17:41] proposal and giving their information.
But again, it's not your time to speak.
[1:17:46] So that's enough. Otherwise, I'm going
to ask you to leave.
[1:17:50] Tell me if a point of order is
inappropriate. I'm gonna ask you to
[1:17:53] leave if you're going to keep talking
and if you don't then we're just going
[1:17:56] to stop the meeting and these guys don't
have an opportunity to speak to the
[1:17:59] moment. So that's a pretty
straightforward thing. So if you'd like
[1:18:03] to stop so these guys can take part in
their advisory committee. Then we'll
[1:18:07] keep going.
I have a point of order about the
[1:18:10] complaints.
You can leave as well, Mark. That's
[1:18:12] easy. This it's very clear. We can stop
the meeting if you want these guys to
[1:18:16] have their moment.
I just I just want to address that
[1:18:19] point. Then I'm going to ask that we
have a recess and we'll go from there.
[1:18:24] But if you want this meeting to continue
where this group has an opportunity to
[1:18:27] do their job, stop talking from the
audience.
[1:18:32] [Music]
Rene, my question is for you Gerard. You
[1:18:37] mentioned earlier that Valerie's if I
remember correct heard you correctly
[1:18:41] that Valerie's proposal if brought
forward by the commissioners in the
[1:18:46] recommendation
would be moot due to the previous
[1:18:52] land use that you quoted the whatever
you
[1:18:57] SP 100 is that correct essentially
in your opinion essentially it
[1:19:04] what I was saying is that SP 00 created
the priority of the residential use.
[1:19:11] Everything that is cited in valeries
talks about the home occupation for
[1:19:16] instance which is subordinate to rap. It
gives you words like interfere. Uh you
[1:19:22] cannot create a problem with things like
odor. Uh you know I've never seen an
[1:19:26] odor pay attention to the wind for
instance. You may have a 100 foot
[1:19:29] setback but the wind blows it over the
100 foot setback. So, what I'm saying is
[1:19:34] when it's on the ground and you're
trying to practically apply it, it won't
[1:19:38] apply. It won't work. What you're going
to be doing, you're still going to be
[1:19:42] fanning the flames between one
citizen against another, one plan, one
[1:19:48] property owner to another. When in fact,
the basis is to solve it. Spend our time
[1:19:53] solving it, trying to get it where it
can flourish and where it won't have
[1:19:58] these continual harassments from the
neighbor. So then, commissioner,
[1:20:03] according to you, then if we do not
decide this tonight, it's moved.
[1:20:08] Correct. Because you guys are moving
forward with your proposal, which
[1:20:12] doesn't have this language in it.
Correct.
[1:20:15] Not my proposal. It
the county the commissioner's proposal.
[1:20:18] Correct. That um but that's not to say
that if this group had a consensus of a
[1:20:23] recommendation that I can't take it back
to them and say this is what the
[1:20:26] consensus of the group was. Um, I I have
been given other advice that Senate Bill
[1:20:31] 100 doesn't supersede this and that the
home occupation could be a possibility.
[1:20:36] You know, there is ways that you can
decrease the odor impact, not only the
[1:20:40] setbacks, but what about a row of pine
trees on the edge? You know, something
[1:20:44] that has an alternate smell that
counters wind. What's the thing you
[1:20:49] smell through the wind is the pine
before you smell something else? I don't
[1:20:52] know. You can have a lavender farm for
crying out loud. Sorry, I just had to
[1:20:56] throw it out there for you, but
I can't speak to that.
[1:20:59] I uh but there there are this is already
allowed under Senate Bill 100. We're
[1:21:07] already operating and it's not been
successfully challenged that they can't
[1:21:12] do this under Senate Bill 100. Um, so I
don't think
[1:21:20] I I just think that it allows a level of
scrutiny or
[1:21:26] yes, it does do a case by case basis
that it allows you to look at it and see
[1:21:30] what is the impact on the neighbors,
what is the impact in the community,
[1:21:34] what is the impact of that one that's
already existing at the time and it's
[1:21:38] continuing in a good nature. I think it
addresses some of those issues. I can't
[1:21:43] say that you have to do this. So, I'm
just saying it was a proposal brought by
[1:21:46] one of you guys. Matter of fact, it was
the only proposal that had other than
[1:21:51] just wait, which the commissioners
aren't waiting. So, that's not
[1:21:56] recommended as a proposal. So, it's the
only proposal that you guys have had. If
[1:22:00] there's little tweaks or if there's any
recommendations on looking at these, I'd
[1:22:04] love that feedback.
[1:22:13] Well, under those circumstances, with
the commissioners moving forward soon, I
[1:22:19] move that we uh accept Valerie's
proposal to use existing regulations and
[1:22:27] mechanisms to deal with the complaints.
I second that.
[1:22:32] Okay. So, we're getting a consens a
consensus from the group to move or at
[1:22:36] least present that information to the
commissioners. Is that what I'm hearing?
[1:22:40] Right.
Okay.
[1:22:42] Actually, it's not a voting issue. It's
a consensus.
[1:22:46] Question.
Yeah.
[1:22:47] Just point before you ask that.
Can you repeat your wording? Because I
[1:22:53] was trying to write it down of what your
wording was of your motion. Well, the
[1:22:58] simple way to say would be uh I move
that we accept Valerie's proposal.
[1:23:03] Okay.
And recommended
[1:23:06] and recommend it to the commissioners.
Correct. Thank you.
[1:23:11] Any further discussion on that?
Second. All right. Motion a second.
[1:23:19] Go ahead.
Sorry. I think most of us are we're
[1:23:23] interested in seeing the industry
flourish. We're interested in seeing
[1:23:26] patients be well taken care of and
provided medications that will help them
[1:23:31] at the same time. Uh does the board have
on its agenda
[1:23:36] um something that will allow enforcement
of the rules and regulations? Because if
[1:23:42] we're not able to enforce them, then the
problems will just persist or the
[1:23:46] problems will increase. And I think this
is really what we're all looking for.
[1:23:49] And I don't mind that someone does
something uh next door to me that
[1:23:53] doesn't really impact me. But once it
starts to impact me, that's the problem.
[1:23:57] And as you look at the that uh
the graph, the water permits and the
[1:24:04] complaints have gone up. Uh regardless
of what the complaints are, some will
[1:24:09] not be valid. Some will just be someone
grinding um their own axe. Some of them
[1:24:13] will be valid. And it gets more and more
difficult if we have 3,100 grows or
[1:24:17] above 3,000 legal OMN grows and we're
seeing more and more complaints if we're
[1:24:22] getting people in. It's hard as a
businessman. I understand it's difficult
[1:24:26] for anyone who's got to grow. They've
got employees. They bring in trimmers.
[1:24:29] They bring in seasonal help to help
them. How do we manage that? And if
[1:24:32] people aren't managing it well, then how
do we deal with it? I think it's great
[1:24:36] that the folks in Williams uh came
together and they had a consensus about
[1:24:40] setbacks, but really it comes down to
how is the county going to deal with
[1:24:45] issues that arise now and in the future
and if we don't have the money or the
[1:24:50] manpower um then what's the alternative?
[Music]
[1:24:56] So yesterday I was in Salem and um the
meeting I was at, they had a bunch of
[1:25:04] state heads of head of DHS, head of OIA,
uh the head of the OLCC
[1:25:12] uh come and talk to us and marijuana and
enforcement was one of those topics.
[1:25:16] Currently, there's three OLCC inspectors
in Medford that cover Jackson and
[1:25:21] Josephine County. They're increasing
that to seven. So they're in the process
[1:25:25] of hiring. Uh in addition, we now have a
marijuana enforcement sergeant based in
[1:25:30] Central Point with one detective. And in
by March, they're going to have a second
[1:25:34] one. So there's three detectives
essentially that will be dealing with
[1:25:38] enforcement just of marijuana in
Josephine and Jackson counties. Um, and
[1:25:42] then interestingly, one of those
conversations I missed on Thursday that
[1:25:47] they've revisited today was that the
county is um looking at hiring an
[1:25:53] additional attorney to process
um the enforcement of complaints and
[1:25:58] additional enforcement employee to help
process through and verify
[1:26:03] investigations of those complaints. and
then funding a deputy to be a liaison on
[1:26:09] the marijuana stuff to deal with and
essentially uh as I heard it coined in
[1:26:14] the media was a pot patrol. Um but the
idea is that is the code enforcements
[1:26:20] are doing that that they're safe. They
have the law enforcement backing to do
[1:26:24] that. Um and the question is how do we
pay for it? So, uh, the 3% local tax
[1:26:32] that comes off of retail is restricted
to,
[1:26:38] um, public health, prevention,
treatment, and public safety. So, out of
[1:26:43] those, it could pay for the deputy, but
we don't know how much we're getting.
[1:26:48] It's I I don't remember what the last
amount was that we've gotten on the
[1:26:52] dispensaries so far this year. Um, the
last number I heard was 60,000, but I
[1:26:56] don't remember how many months was
involved. So I will try to get an update
[1:27:00] on that so we can see the portion we're
getting from the state is supposed to be
[1:27:03] reported on later in this week. Um the
first allocation was going to be based
[1:27:09] on population. future allocations were
going to be based on how many retail and
[1:27:13] grows and everything else like that and
canopy size and and because our canopy
[1:27:17] size is greater that was one of the
things Rob Levette had had reported on
[1:27:21] in his presentation is that we may get a
greater amount but we don't know um
[1:27:27] because
we've been waiting for how many months
[1:27:31] since January 2016 to see if they'll
ever distribute the money. They say they
[1:27:35] will by October 11th. Oh, wait. That's
tomorrow. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, we're
[1:27:40] not getting the money by October 11th.
We're supposed to by the end of the week
[1:27:43] hear how much the portion to the
counties is going to be. And we don't
[1:27:47] know what our portion of the portion to
the counties will be because it's based
[1:27:50] on population. Uh, generally speaking,
in other areas, Josephine County's cut
[1:27:55] of the pie tends to be around 2 3%.
So, um,
[1:28:03] it kind of that's what I've seen in
other trends. So we're not looking at a
[1:28:07] lot necessarily in the first payment. So
there's the sustainability of of these
[1:28:12] positions, but those positions are going
to the commissioners on Thursday morning
[1:28:16] that we would pot would be then moving
to next week's weekly business session
[1:28:21] to approve. And so a deputy, an
attorney, and a code enforcement
[1:28:27] um to process land use issues,
complaints regardless of the industry.
[1:28:34] but then the um deputy to assist so that
they're safe in their process. So, OLCC
[1:28:40] is increasing inspectors by four. Uh the
other thing the OLCC lady said was that
[1:28:45] so far their priority has been
registration and at this point they're
[1:28:50] switching to enforcement. So, OLCC as a
whole is changing their their priorities
[1:28:56] as well to process. And how she
described it was we get a report in our
[1:29:01] office. We look up if they're one of our
lenses. If they are, we're going to go
[1:29:06] inspect, see how they're in compliance.
That kind of process. If they're not
[1:29:10] ours, we're going to go here you go OSP
and pass it to them to follow up. Now,
[1:29:16] how much two detectives can get done
is to be seen. I'm not saying it's an
[1:29:22] easy answer, but it's two detectives
more than we have on it right now. and
[1:29:26] it's not able to be processed. So, one
thing I learned is I we have this
[1:29:31] backlog of open property complaints and
it's like why weren't those processed?
[1:29:37] Well, the priority of previous
commissioners was not to enforce that.
[1:29:42] And so, as they're still trying to
process through where things continue, I
[1:29:47] mean, that's part of this backlog of
working through some of these
[1:29:50] complaints. And so hiring an attorney
and
[1:29:54] uh then code enforcement to investigate
those that can get some of these
[1:29:58] processed and get going and go through
that process. So right now that's the
[1:30:01] enforcement side of things is where it
stands is that uh the state says they're
[1:30:06] going to be doing more and they have two
employees. Oh, the other piece just as a
[1:30:12] side note, we'll deal with it on agenda,
but we've asked uh the sergeant over the
[1:30:17] marijuana enforcement in Central Point
and the local OC head to come speak on
[1:30:24] enforcement at our next meeting. Um so
that you get an opportunity to hear from
[1:30:29] them kind of where they're at, where
they're going. So, um
[1:30:34] get an opportunity at least
[1:30:39] [Music]
Not all land use applications are
[1:30:44] approved. If the director was here, the
planning director was here, she I
[1:30:50] believe she would tell you that
conditional use permits and home
[1:30:54] occupations are probably the two that
are most likely to get denied because
[1:30:59] they have such a high level of scrutiny
applied. And because those the it's not
[1:31:03] just about um having a proper septic
installed, it's also about the comments
[1:31:09] and concerns of the surrounding
neighborhood um that that have to be
[1:31:13] answered to. So I believe that this this
establishes a very high level of review.
[1:31:18] I do understand Gerard's point of view
and and it is true. We can't mitigate
[1:31:23] everything. I don't expect that every
application for a commercial cannabis
[1:31:27] grow is going to be approved. In fact, I
I will bet you that there will be more
[1:31:31] denied than approved. But it does allow
for those who have the property that is
[1:31:37] able to be developed in this manner. It
gives them that opportunity to to do so,
[1:31:41] such as a feeder property that used to
be a hay farm. Um there's there's
[1:31:48] there's an opportunity here to allow for
those who can mitigate in the situation,
[1:31:54] allow them to be given that chance to do
so. Also,
[1:31:58] it's written into the rules that if they
do not mitigate appropriately, if they
[1:32:03] do not follow the conditions of approval
that they their permit can be taken away
[1:32:07] from them. Also, in the OLCC rules, if a
a jurisdiction goes through the proper
[1:32:15] steps of um of uh concerning violations
on a property, that can be turned over
[1:32:21] to the OLC and the OLCC can remove the
license. So, there's there's it it's not
[1:32:27] just saying
we're going to allow them. It's saying
[1:32:31] case by case and it's a very high level
of scrutiny.
[1:32:36] One thing on that I mean I did hear one
of the commissioners say today that he
[1:32:42] would not vote for anything that
required approval of neighbors. Uh that
[1:32:46] they would solicit feedback from
neighbors but you never going to take
[1:32:51] the rights of an individual away from by
neighbor complaints. It does give an
[1:32:56] ability to have things mitigated of
concerns and such like that but approval
[1:33:01] uh the neighbors won't have a say over
approval is that was the opinion of one
[1:33:06] of the commissioners uh based on the
list
[1:33:11] Stephen quick comment I understand in
Colorado that taxation occurs based on
[1:33:16] the at the multiple levels including the
level of the grow uh is there any
[1:33:22] mechanism that we have in the county for
additional taxation that would then
[1:33:28] provide for enforcement
uh of the rules and regulations which
[1:33:32] could then lead to everyone being happy.
No.
[1:33:40] So, um the state has been very clear
that this is their game and their money
[1:33:47] market. They've allowed the counties to
have a 3% taxation, which every
[1:33:52] community that had a ballot asking for
tax in November 2016 passed. Even in
[1:33:59] communities where they didn't allow
marijuana, they passed the tax. That's
[1:34:02] interesting. Um but uh there is a
proposal uh it as far as a fee that
[1:34:10] would basically be per license fee
that's coming out of Josephine County,
[1:34:14] but it'll go to the state legislature in
the next legislative session. If it
[1:34:17] passes, it would go to voters next
November, as in a year from now,
[1:34:21] November, uh to look at a different
option. But right now, the only
[1:34:25] mechanism for the county to have a
taxation is the 3% and then the state
[1:34:30] 17% is distributed. And like I said,
that distribution changed from
[1:34:35] population to how many. They at least
added the canopy in to our lency count
[1:34:40] because instead of it being what, six
dispensaries, it's now every whole CC
[1:34:45] grows into that. So, it changed what our
percentage will be on that. Um, but
[1:34:51] there's no way to guess how much money
that will bring into the county. And um
[1:34:58] yeah,
[1:35:01] Jeff,
just one last comment. You had me
[1:35:06] leaning in your direction until I just
heard that there are no teeth in this
[1:35:11] thing. So what's the point? You're If we
leave it to the discretion of county
[1:35:16] commissioners and they say, "No, we
don't want to disregard it," then
[1:35:20] there's no teeth. There's no point in
going any further. If there's it it
[1:35:24] either has to be a regulation that is
enforced or it has to be one that is
[1:35:29] disregarded completely. And what I just
heard you say was there's one that won't
[1:35:33] go for strict enforcement which again
mitigates the entire
[1:35:37] That's not what I said. I said he
doesn't want the application to be based
[1:35:42] on neighbors complaints
being that the approval of an
[1:35:46] application can't be stopped just by
neighbors complaints because the same
[1:35:50] thing that we heard in presentation
earlier was neighbors have been
[1:35:53] disputing water lines and property lines
forever and you don't know what the you
[1:35:57] don't know what the motivation is. Now,
the complaint can have specific listed
[1:36:01] things that they can mitigate in that
application, but just saying a neighbor
[1:36:05] opposes is not enough for that
application to not be approved is all I
[1:36:11] was saying by that. And his statement
was if there's any piece of this that
[1:36:15] requires neighbors approval,
then he wouldn't vote for that. So, if
[1:36:21] it requires neighbors approval, it won't
get that commissioner support.
[1:36:26] Isn't that what I just said? No, you
said there's no teeth to any part of it.
[1:36:30] I'm just saying in the application, that
was one piece of an application in this
[1:36:34] proposal was it still would have the
notification to the neighbors and it
[1:36:38] would give them a chance to register
objections, but that doesn't mean that's
[1:36:42] where it stops. That person has a right
to mitigate those objections and make
[1:36:47] make them right and then they go forward
or not. So, um there's a due process
[1:36:54] essentially is what it is and everybody
has a right to due process.
[1:36:57] Hold on. See has one. Go ahead.
Um
[1:37:03] um as a Williams resident, with all due
respect to the Williams CAC and their
[1:37:08] hard work, um I don't uh believe that
they could be described as pro-regulated
[1:37:15] cannabis industry. And um I don't think
that there was a consensus about those
[1:37:20] setbacks.
[1:37:24] Just to to make a note, I'm going to
forgot your names. When the in the home
[1:37:29] occupation process, what happens is a
notice goes out to all the neighbors
[1:37:33] that are in that certain proximity of
your future business. And they then
[1:37:40] receive that notification. They have the
right to participate in the process by
[1:37:45] thumbs up, thumb down, making comments,
but having had home occupation, going
[1:37:49] through the process, they aren't the
make or breaker whether or not you get
[1:37:52] your home occupation. They just are
allowed to participate in the process
[1:37:56] because you want your neighbors, you
know, if you're going to open up a a
[1:38:00] paint, you know, auto body store next to
your your 80-year-old grandmother's
[1:38:04] place, she want to have a say in what's
going on and know about it and be able
[1:38:08] to speak on it. So, that's all it is. is
just one part of the process of the
[1:38:12] neighbors being allowed to speak.
Yeah.
[1:38:14] And I just want to respond to that just
and I would I would understand exactly
[1:38:18] what you're saying if we haven't already
seen our political leaders disregard 64%
[1:38:22] of the population of this county.
Okay. Gerard,
[1:38:28] are you going to change the home
occupation threshold with interference?
[1:38:33] Are you changing the definition of
interference?
[1:38:39] I'm not doing anything but taking
recommendations from a committee at the
[1:38:42] moment.
I was wondering in your in your in your
[1:38:44] brief notes here, it doesn't mention
anything about it, but that's a that is
[1:38:48] something that's there about if there's
an objection and there's a list of those
[1:38:51] objections. Are you trying to is the BCC
trying to remove the established
[1:38:57] priority of residential use for instance
which is clearly also stated in
[1:39:02] so based on what I saw in Valerie's
presentation and the bullet point
[1:39:07] residential use is still primary
function
[1:39:10] but if you make it so that you take out
or you have for instance in this
[1:39:15] particular instance where you're saying
that one of the commissioners says that
[1:39:18] if there is anything in favor of that
he's not going vote for it. Um, are we
[1:39:25] going to have the
existing
[1:39:30] ordinance code left the way it is with
some changes or are you going to create
[1:39:35] a new home occupation?
So you guys at currently made a
[1:39:41] recommendation of these proposals
and or rather
[1:39:47] these proposals with these bullet points
or using that system to do it. Um I
[1:39:53] believe it would potentially require a
change of home occupation
[1:39:58] to require farming or agricultural
commercial to be included in the home
[1:40:02] occupation. So we'd have to define where
in home occupation it would be required.
[1:40:07] So, it would require that to be added to
the home occupation portion. As far as
[1:40:13] defining interference,
I don't think I would change what's in
[1:40:16] there.
It's already defined. And so, um,
[1:40:23] but I can tell you that what the
commissioners are looking at is this
[1:40:27] other one having had received no other
recommendations from anybody.
[1:40:34] So the other one doesn't change the
definition of interference either uh
[1:40:39] because that's currently in the rural
residential code related to farm in
[1:40:45] rural residential. So that remains
[1:40:50] with the caveat that it cannot interfere
with the residential use.
[1:40:55] It doesn't it says with the neighbors
right
[1:40:58] residential use that's already in there.
So that will stay.
[1:41:02] Yes. Who's has it been recommended to
remove it anywhere?
[1:41:05] No, I'm asking you because there's been
I thought I answered that already. It's
[1:41:09] not being recommended to change.
I think it's fair to say, Lily, there's
[1:41:13] been discussions that you have add lived
that aren't on here. And I want to know,
[1:41:16] for instance, doesn't say anywhere in
here that one of the commissioners has
[1:41:19] already said what you said. So, I'm I'm
I'm assuming that what you're saying is
[1:41:24] things that you know, and you're adding
to this that could affect this outcome
[1:41:28] of this.
I just said what one commissioner said
[1:41:30] that he was taking into consideration.
It didn't change a recommendation. I
[1:41:34] just heard one commissioner say if you
have a piece in there that requires
[1:41:38] approval of neighbors to go forward, it
will put neighbor versus neighbor and I
[1:41:42] won't approve going forward with that.
That was one commissioner's opinion. It
[1:41:46] takes two commissioners to get something
to move forward.
[1:41:49] What I'm saying is that's why I'm asking
these questions because it's logical to
[1:41:53] think if that's something that's not on
this list, maybe something else is
[1:41:56] changing that you know about we don't
make have on this list. I made this
[1:42:01] the punch list. I'm talking about the
one.
[1:42:03] Oh.
[Music]
[1:42:06] So is that is there anything else that's
why I'm asking these questions is to
[1:42:11] find out. Is there anything else that we
don't know about that's not being
[1:42:13] mentioned on this printed list that you
gave us as a as this?
[1:42:17] Have you read it yet?
[1:42:21] This list.
You didn't make that one, did you? No,
[1:42:25] that was Director Schmeltzer made that
to give us a summary of what these
[1:42:28] changes were because Commissioner D.
Young at the request of the
[1:42:31] commissioners brought back a list of
recommendations. This is the
[1:42:35] recommendations that he brought back.
This was the summary of those
[1:42:39] recommendations.
Wrong one.
[1:42:43] This one is the summary of those
recommendations.
[1:42:47] And in the conversation today,
[1:42:52] there was that was one of the things the
commissioner said. I don't
[1:42:56] I haven't read this yet. I got it today.
Is there anything? Okay. So, there's
[1:43:00] nothing you know of then.
Not that I know of. No. I also know is
[1:43:04] everything's still on the table for
Thursday.
[1:43:07] That's
um
[1:43:09] Well, we're going to take a vote on
whether or not Yes.
[1:43:14] So, having said that, we have first and
a second. on this motion to approve to
[1:43:19] move Valerie's proposal forward to the
commissioners for review.
[1:43:23] Any further discussion? All those in
favor raise your hand.
[1:43:30] All those opposed,
any abstain?
[1:43:36] The eyes have it and we'll move forward.
It's 53.
[1:43:46] All right, that pretty much covers the
agenda for tonight. Next to set the next
[1:43:52] meeting, um, having spoken with or
contact through the commissioner with
[1:43:57] OSP and OLCC to have our representatives
here, um, I would ask the panel to
[1:44:03] consider moving the meeting from the
14th to the 7th, November 7th. that
[1:44:09] would accommodate both of our guest
speakers and also the commissioners are
[1:44:12] going to be out of county on the 14th.
If we move into the following week,
[1:44:17] which would be the 21st, that gets into
Thanksgiving. I don't think we want to
[1:44:21] do that. After that's the 28th, and then
we're only two weeks from the next
[1:44:25] meeting in December. So, do I hear any
problems with having the next meeting on
[1:44:30] November 4th?
4th or 7th?
[1:44:33] Or seventh, excuse me, 7th. Same time, 6
p.m. here, commissioner. We'll have it
[1:44:37] here. It just continues. Good. All
right. And again, we'll have our two
[1:44:41] speakers from OSP, Morgan State Police,
uh, and also from OLCC. Sean,
[1:44:47] Mr. Chair, can we, um, have a We have a
53 on the vote. Three opposed, five in
[1:44:53] favor.
Yes.
[1:44:54] But there's nine members.
Did you vote?
[1:44:57] I did not vote.
Okay. Did you abstain?
[1:45:00] I'll abstain, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
[1:45:03] Okay.
Go ahead.
[1:45:12] Uh, one other thing.
Go ahead.
[1:45:14] Um,
[1:45:19] so
one thing I did pass, I got an email uh
[1:45:24] that Oregon Health Authority sent out as
far as plant limit changes and growite
[1:45:30] inspections. So you have it just so you
have the information that I got. Just
[1:45:33] trying to make sure to pass along any
information.
[1:45:37] I'm sorry. And I noticed that there's
nothing about rural residential outside
[1:45:41] of city limits, which is kind of the
whole crux of the issue here, isn't it?
[1:45:46] I didn't create this form. Oregon Health
Authority created this form. That's
[1:45:49] two-sided, and I have no comments on
what it says. I didn't create it. I
[1:45:55] simply received an email and printed it
and brought it to you. So, there's
[1:46:00] there's contact information on there
probably
[1:46:04] on
the website at the top of Oregon Health
[1:46:09] Authority. You can go there to the
agenda items for next meeting. Um like I
[1:46:13] said, there had been some suggestions of
OLCC
[1:46:17] uh coming. So uh we had invited our
local OLCC folks to come along with the
[1:46:22] enforcement. There's also been an email.
Um
[1:46:28] let's see, that was Jared's comments.
This one was a request to potentially
[1:46:33] have Amanda Borup or Danica Hipsman uh
come down and speak to the group at some
[1:46:38] point. Um and so can try to get those
scheduled in and and get going. There's
[1:46:45] any other things that you guys would
like to have try to schedule. Cedar, you
[1:46:50] had sent that email. Uh if you have
contact information, can you forward
[1:46:54] that to Sean so we can try to get those
scheduled? Um,
[1:47:00] and then if there were other items,
again, if you have agenda items that
[1:47:04] you'd like to have added, I you know, we
can email Sean or ask for them to be
[1:47:08] scheduled in.
[1:47:12] The only thing that I was going to say
is I did um include an invitation to
[1:47:17] come for the panel to come to my farm.
Um, I'm open to doing that at any time,
[1:47:23] but it would be kind of interesting to
do it at this point with harvest going
[1:47:26] on. is the busiest time. Um, so it's
it's kind of a a way for them to see
[1:47:30] just uh rather than just coming in and
seeing a bunch of plants standing there
[1:47:35] seeing how how things operate.
So public meeting law is an interesting
[1:47:39] thing. We'd have to notice it. It'd have
to be open to the public. We'd have to
[1:47:42] just put an agenda out. Um, and so
I'll take a video.
[1:47:48] I I just I just want to um
it's it's one of those things that it's
[1:47:55] what makes unfortunately government
committees interesting is public meeting
[1:48:00] law. Um and so workshops like that are
possible um that you like I said you
[1:48:07] develop an agenda time frame that kind
of stuff you you notice it and then you
[1:48:12] go and do that. It's just a matter of it
takes a little more coordination than
[1:48:16] just simply saying, "Hey, everybody show
up and I'll give you hot dogs." You
[1:48:18] know, that kind of thing.
Um the OLCC does not allow me to have
[1:48:22] public open public access at my farm,
but um maybe I can get a video meeting
[1:48:27] or something like that to to
Thank you.
[1:48:33] All right. Other comments, concerns,
questions? All right. Then have your
[1:48:37] hearing none. The agenda has been set.
Oh, sorry, Jared.
[1:48:42] Just a question about the setbacks. Um
why are we making those setbacks more
[1:48:47] stringent than what the OLCC already
dictates what they want to see in those?
[1:48:53] Because they have said that the counties
have the right to set time, place, and
[1:48:57] manner and current setbacks are not
keeping the peace.
[1:49:01] Okay. So we went from 300 foot or sorry
30 foot to 300 foot and now we're back
[1:49:06] to considering 100 foot. Have we
considered just making it the standard
[1:49:11] 75 foot just like the OLCC requests?
It's again OLCC
[1:49:19] doesn't have I mean they've said we can
set time place manner so it's up to each
[1:49:24] that is a possibility 75 ft is an option
um but again the current setback isn't
[1:49:30] keeping the peace with the interference
with neighbors and so um for me it was a
[1:49:35] matter of receiving feedback in the
community of a compromise that would
[1:49:40] potentially try to uh mitigate the
issues between neighbors. We're still
[1:49:47] trying to keep the primary focus of
residential and keeping the peace in the
[1:49:50] community. So
the current the current setback has
[1:49:52] nothing to do with OCC um cultivators
whatsoever and it's reasonable time,
[1:49:58] place, and manner. And the reason you're
getting this is because your county
[1:50:01] commissioners are prohibitionists.
That's your opinion.
[1:50:06] Hi Jared. Anything else?
Yes. Um a question about the easement.
[1:50:11] um is it talked about how you can't get
water trucks up to your farm if you it's
[1:50:16] accessed off an easement. Um what
exactly were you trying to achieve by
[1:50:20] that?
[1:50:23] Me personally,
no. Uh I'm just looking at 81.020.
[1:50:29] So there were complaints received about
private
[1:50:34] roads easements that damage was being
caused. We've getting res we're getting
[1:50:39] reports and complaints about public
roads getting damaged from the amount of
[1:50:42] traffic going over them. Uh that is
greater than the portion proportion of
[1:50:47] traffic that has been in the past which
is causing damage and maintenance
[1:50:51] requirements to be sped up. And then
again with people that are just working
[1:50:56] on site and then leaving without no kind
of claim of ownership of that road
[1:51:01] causing damage and leaving without being
accessed. So, one of the suggestions was
[1:51:07] is that if you don't own the entire
portion of that easement or private
[1:51:12] road, you don't get to run water trucks
on it. So,
[1:51:17] um
if you don't own the easement,
[1:51:22] for instance, um if your property
doesn't abut to the whole portion, the
[1:51:27] property.
Okay.
[1:51:28] Yeah. The property have that was what
the wording was.
[1:51:33] It was a property issue. If if you have
if you have the responsibility to fix
[1:51:38] the road and it's your grow, no harm, no
foul. Uh what what's was going on is
[1:51:44] that
it wasn't people responsible for the
[1:51:48] property causing damage taking off and
then the people that own the rest of the
[1:51:51] road or the properties around the rest
of the road are left to eat the bill of
[1:51:55] fixing it. And it was a question I had
if there's civil consequence, why are we
[1:52:01] legislating this issue when somebody can
file in court the damage that's done
[1:52:04] against the property? And there's a way
of doing that already. So
[1:52:11] anyhow,
this just seems like a knee-jerk
[1:52:13] reaction to probably a very few
incidences um but would limit or have
[1:52:20] devastating outcome to multiple farmers.
Um, I mean, I just don't see where this
[1:52:26] is beneficial to anybody aside from a
very
[1:52:30] few individuals that are dealing with
some of these circumstances.
[1:52:35] Okay.
Yeah. If of course all these points
[1:52:39] being made are valid perspectives. We
have open forums that are coming up on
[1:52:44] the review of this document. So, I
would, you know, encourage you obviously
[1:52:48] to attend there. Any other questions,
concerns from the agenda? All right,
[1:52:54] having heard none, then I'm going to
adjourn this meeting. The time is 7:53.