What other facts are missing from John Hardin's latest fictional diatribe? Reprinted on LOCO, without fact checking.
Fact:
No such decision has been made. Saying the Supervisors and County are allowing new grows on forest land is incorrect. Does Hardin have any proof that any Supervisor is supporting such a proposal?
Hardin claims:
"For instance, the proposed new ordinance allows for more new grows in forest habitat"
Conditional use permits for pot grows in TPZ parcels was in the draft ordinance. I'm not sure what the status of that proposal is now.
ReplyDeleteWhat permitting is going to come down to is water. Is there water immediately available which is already legal for that land. If there is a creek on the property only that amount that has already been licensed for that property, only the volume and the time already established...the State Water Board isn't going to sign off on water use unless you jump through every hoop in place. And they're working with the Fish & Wildlife people...and since they're gearing up for the legal grows they're also gearing up for the illegal ones.
ReplyDeleteThey know all the streams and creeks, all the tributaries of the larger rivers down to the seasonal flows...
I don't read any of the grower publications but I do follow the State Water Resources Control Board, get email notices of all their activities. Very educational.