[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.

Cannabis Advisory Panel Meeting 10/10/2017

Transcript