The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will take up a proposal next Tuesday that would open roughly 14,000 acres of currently restricted watershed land to permitted cannabis cultivation, a change that has already drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the county’s longest-running argument.

The proposal, introduced by Third District Supervisor Andrea Rojas, would amend the county’s commercial cannabis land use ordinance to allow cultivation permits in portions of the Mattole, South Fork Eel, and Redwood Creek watersheds that have been off-limits since the ordinance was adopted in 2016. The amendment includes setback requirements of 600 feet from any Class I waterway and mandatory enrollment in the county’s water resource protection program.

“We drew those lines ten years ago based on incomplete data and worst-case assumptions,” Rojas said at a planning commission hearing last month. “The science has improved. The monitoring data is better. And we have hundreds of legacy operators in those watersheds who went through the provisional process and got frozen out.”

The proposal would affect an estimated 180 to 220 parcels, most of them in southern Humboldt. Many of those parcels have existing cultivation that predates the ordinance and currently operates under Proposition 215 patient gardens or simply without permits.

Environmental groups are not aligned on the question. The Mattole Restoration Council issued a statement opposing the amendment, citing ongoing coho recovery work in the watershed. “Opening these areas to commercial cultivation before we have achieved our restoration benchmarks would be premature,” the statement read. The council pointed to sediment loading data from 2024 that showed several tributaries still exceeding targets.

But the Humboldt Baykeeper took a more measured position, saying the organization would not oppose the amendment if the county strengthened enforcement of the water resource protection program, which has been widely criticized as underfunded and understaffed.

“The question is not whether people are growing in those watersheds,” said Baykeeper executive director Quinn Ferrera. “They are. The question is whether we’d rather have them inside the regulatory system or outside it.”

The county Planning and Building Department estimates the amendment could generate between 60 and 90 new cultivation permit applications in the first year. At current fee rates, that represents roughly $600,000 to $900,000 in application revenue, though the department cautioned that processing times remain backlogged at 14 to 18 months.

Fourth District Supervisor Mike Farley, who represents much of the affected area, said at the last board meeting that he was “inclined to support the amendment with conditions.” He wants a two-year sunset clause that would require the board to review environmental data before making the zone changes permanent.

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn has been more skeptical. “Every time we open a new zone, we hear the same pitch: bring them into the light, regulate them, protect the environment,” Bohn said. “But the enforcement side never keeps up. We’re still chasing unpermitted grows in zones we opened six years ago.”

The DCC, which must approve any local ordinance changes that affect state licensing, has signaled that it would defer to the county on zoning decisions as long as CEQA review is completed. The county’s environmental impact report for the amendment is expected to be certified before the vote.

Public comment at the April 8 meeting is expected to run long. The Humboldt County Growers Alliance has organized a letter-writing campaign in support of the amendment, while the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis has announced it will bus members from Eureka to the hearing.

The board meets at 9 a.m. in the supervisors’ chamber at the county courthouse in Eureka. Remote public comment will be available through the county’s Zoom portal.