Unfazed and confused, Sutter County extends ban on industrial hemp despite grower push-back
Sutter County has outlawed industrial hemp farming for the rest of the year, and may ban the crop permanently as supervisors narrowly voted to continue the county ban on production and processing.
Sutter County supervisors on Tuesday voted 4-1 in favor of the ban, with chair Dan Flores the lone vote against, after a wave of public comments and two failed votes, including one that proposed a compromise that would have allowed some grows to continue miles away from certain facilities, such as schools and churches.
Their vote did not permanently ban industrial hemp production in the county, said County Administrator Steve Smith, but supervisors may entertain a more long-term decision on the crop sometime this year before the extension expires.
“It’s a very small industry and with the problems associated with it, I just don’t see how it could be worth it,” said Supervisor Jeff Stephens.
“I would like to just see the whole problem go away,” he added.
Faced with the option to continue the moratorium, change it based on feedback from community members and growers or let it expire resulted in confusion.
The first vote to extend the ban through this year, which required four votes, failed 3-2, with Supervisor Karm Bains joining Flores in voting against it. A second vote that suggested a 3.5-mile buffer between grow sites and some facilities such as schools failed by the same margin.
After a brief recess in which whispered conversations occurred between supervisors and county staff, Supervisor Mike Ziegenmeyer again proposed banning hemp, which Bains voted in favor of.
Bains said after the meeting that a threat made against the county agricultural commissioner, along with comments about her made during the meeting, helped swing his decisive vote.
In a letter requesting that supervisors extend the moratorium, Agricultural Commissioner Lisa Herbert said that she had received a death threat, which is believed to have been made prior to this most recent hemp-related dust-up, from someone associated with the hemp industry, a point that was underscored several times during the meeting.
“A death threat to our ag commissioner? We had to have security for our ag commissioner when she received a death threat,” Ziegenmeyer said. “That’s incredible. To me, this crop scares the hell out of me.”
How we got here
Months of a strong hemp odor — which smells identical to marijuana — wafting through the unincorporated town of Sutter, including its local schools, prompted officials to revisit the county hemp ordinance for the second time since introducing the crop to the county in 2019.
The ensuing neighbor complaints paired with consistent losses from the county agricultural department, which is tasked with ensuring the crop meets state and county requirements, led supervisors to approve a temporary ban on production in December.
With that ban set to expire at the end of January, supervisors were forced to make a decision on the recurring problem.
The county agricultural department lost more than $415,000 on its hemp program since its inception, according to a county report. The majority of the loss came early in the program, with losses of about $243,000 in the fiscal years ending in 2020 and 2021. The county lost $36,000 on the program last year.
The losses came amid deeper financial struggles for the county, including the agricultural department, which has had budget cuts in recent years and a hiring freeze on two positions.
“The taxpayers have absorbed this cost,” said Mat Conant, a former county supervisor who approved the initial ban in December, and spoke Tuesday in favor of extending it.
Four county superintendents wrote letters supporting the hemp ban, citing problems and embarrassment from the constant smell and concerns with the hemp industry at large.
“We do not want hemp near our school, in our community, or our county,” wrote Jedsen Nunes, Sutter-Union High School District superintendent. “No amount of revenue to our county is worth the negative impact.”
Sutter County District Attorney Jennifer Dupré also spoke in favor of the ban.
“We’ve been lucky so far,” she said. “My experience has been that even hemp, easily mistaken for marijuana, does often lead to what we call ‘pot rips,’ which are incredibly dangerous and often lead, not just to loss of life, but to significant injuries and significant damage.”
Woes for grows
Luke Wilson has grown hemp in Sutter County since it became allowed, including about 100 acres last year.
“We have contracts on the table for substantial production and dollars, and we’re bringing that back to the county,” he said. “We have over 50 full time employees that are employed from this crop.”
Hemp farming accounts for a minimal amount of farm production in Sutter County, with its largest crop since being introduced making up about 0.11% of available farmland, according to the agricultural commissioner’s letter. But a few of the local growers, including Wilson, have described investing hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to develop their hemp businesses.
Push-back from hemp farmers in mid-January led to a number of meetings between supervisors, farmers and concerned citizens, in which potential compromises were discussed.
Supervisors had the option to extend the ban through this year with modifications that could have allowed farmers to grow hemp under certain conditions, particularly farther from homes and schools than the county had previously required. The agricultural commissioner recommended banning indoor grows and hoop houses, if supervisors had decided to allow hemp farming.
“It’s an industry of development, there is a good opportunity here for economic growth in this industry,” said J.R. Thiara, a longtime Sutter County farmer. “None of the growers that I’m aware of, that I know, myself included, are doing anything illegal, whether we’re growing in a greenhouse, or pots or not pots.”