Tag Archives: measure

Seven Steps To Avoid the Green Rush Blues: Investigate Water Supplies Before Planting Cannabis

By Amy M. Steinfeld
No Comments

A clean, reliable water supply lies at the heart of every successful cannabis farm. It’s no surprise that the stakes for finding land with ideal growing conditions, including adequate water, are high. But new buyers (and lessees) caught up in the green rush often gloss over water rights or are unaware of California’s byzantine rules governing the irrigation of cannabis.

Water rights are complex. Water regulations applicable to cannabis cultivation are even more complex. And our new climate reality convolutes things further. Longer droughts, more volatile weather, political uncertainties, increased groundwater regulation and water quality concerns are exacerbating tensions over local and statewide water supplies. In many areas of California, landowners can no longer rely on local water districts to meet their needs.

A robust investigation of the property must consider water supplies. Because a property’s water supply is dependent on water rights, local ordinances, state regulations, politics and hydrology, it’s important to consult a water lawyer (and in some instances a hydrologist) before closing. A bit of foresight can prevent a grower from being left high and dry.

The following checklist provides a roadmap to conduct water rights’ due diligence. While many of these details are California-specific, this type of due diligence applies throughout the West.

Step 1: Identify Available Water Supplies and Consider Potential Limitations On Irrigation, Including Potential Future Changes

Conduct a site visit to identify existing water infrastructure, natural water features and existing or potential water service options. Next, determine if the property is served by a public water supplier. If that’s the case, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) does not require any specific documentation to irrigate cannabis, but the water supply must be disclosed in the CalCannabis license application.

Groundwater is generally the best supply for cannabis, but the era of unregulated groundwater pumping is over. Many groundwater basins in California are now governed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), which requires water agencies to halt overdraft and restore balanced levels of groundwater pumping from certain basins. As a result, SGMA may result in future pumping cutbacks or pumping assessments. It’s imperative to identify the local groundwater basin via the Department of Water Resources’ Bulletin 118, and determine whether the groundwater basin is adjudicated or governed by a groundwater sustainability agency. Growers should also test the local water supply’s pH and salt levels because cannabis plants are finicky and water treatment can be cost prohibitive. If a new well is needed, growers should consult with their local county before drilling a new well. In some areas, moratoriums and restrictions on drilling new wells are on the rise.

As a rule of thumb, cannabis cultivators should avoid using surface water to irrigate cannabis. Surface diversions are subject to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s permitting authority. And under the interim State Water Board Cannabis Policy, commercial cannabis cultivators cannot divert anysurface water during the dry season (April 1 through Oct. 31), even if they have a riparian right that can be used to irrigate other crops. During the dry season, cultivators may only irrigate using water that has been stored off-stream. And even during the wet season, cannabis cultivators must comply with instream flow requirements and check in with the state daily to ensure adequate water supplies are available. Cannabis cultivators are also required to install measuring devices and track surface water diversions daily. And buyer beware, a groundwater well that extracts water from a subterranean stream may be considered a surface-water diversion. So be especially cautious if the well is located close to a creek or river.Develop a water use plan to optimize water efficiency 

Step 2: Identify Water Supplies Used On the Property, Including the Basis of Right, and Quantify Historical Use

Review information on historic and existing water use. This may include past water bills and assessments. If there is a well on the property, the seller or lessor may have metering data, electrical records and crop data that can establish historic groundwater use. Cultivators must submit a well log to CalCannabis as part of the cannabis cultivation application. If surface water is available, the purchaser should review the State Water Board eWRIMs database for water rights permits, licenses, stock pond registrations and certificates, decisions and orders. The purchaser should also identify surface water diversion structures and review annual filings to determine compliance with all terms and conditions of the water right. Lastly, the purchaser should request all documents and contracts pertaining to water rights.

Realistically estimate water demand for irrigation and other on-site purposes.Step 3: Confirm Ownership of Right and Assess Any Limitations On Water Right

Determine whether the right has been abandoned, lost to prescription or forfeited. Evaluate the seniority of the water right, availability of the right, adequacy of place of use, purpose of use (must include irrigation), season of use, and quantity of any permitted or licensed post-1914 right. Determine whether historical diversions pursuant to an appropriative right support the full amount of the claimed right, and whether any changes to the water right are needed to support the proposed new use. Cultivators in California who plan to utilize surface water also need to file for a “Cannabis Small Irrigation Use Registration” to store water during the wet season for use during the dry season.

Step 4: Reconcile Water Demand With Available Supply

Realistically estimate water demand for irrigation and other on-site purposes. Develop a water use plan to optimize water efficiency (drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, water monitoring, hoop structures) regardless of supply sufficiency. Many counties, such as Santa Barbara County, require that cannabis growers meet certain irrigation efficiency standards. Determine whether available supplies can meet all proposed demands, including plans for full buildout. If not, consider whether additional supplies are available for use on the property.

Step 5: Determine Water Supply Compliance Obligations

 The rights associated with water supplies are defined by their source, the time frame during which supplies can be taken, the quantity of water to which the right attaches, and any limitations on the purpose of use of the water supply. There may also be reporting requirements associated with taking and using the supply—these can include requirements to report the quantity of water used as well as information regarding the end use of the water. Failure to timely report can have serious consequences. Cannabis cultivators are also subject to additional water quality regulations and restrictions, including waste discharge requirements pursuant to the State Water Board’s Cannabis General Order.

Step 6: Negotiate Deal and Draft Conveyance Documents

After obtaining an understanding of the water supply associated with the property, the property conveyance documents may be drafted to incorporate the transfer of rights associated with the property’s water supplies. These may include the assignment of contracts pursuant to which water supplies are obtained, the transfer of permits or licenses as to the water supplies, or the transfer of water rights arising out of a judgment or decree.

Step 7: Consider Unused Water Supply Assets That Could Be Monetized 

To the extent the water supply rights associated with the property exceed the cannabis plants’ water demand, it may be possible to monetize unused or excess water supply assets through transfer of the rights to a third party.

If you have any questions about water rights related to cannabis cultivation it’s always in your best interest to contact an experienced water attorney early on in the process.

New Taxes for California Cannabis Industry

By Jasmine Davaloo
No Comments

Welcome to the evolving world of cannabis legislation and taxation in California. With the recent 2018 midterm election, a green wave of new laws and regulations has washed ashore, and Taxnexus, a cannabis tax compliance service provider for cannabis businesses, has analyzed the results, looking for insights to guide cannabis business owners in 2019.

In summary, the trend of local counties and cities imposing new cannabis taxes on dispensaries, distributors and cultivators continues, but with some important lessons being learned.

A Brief History of California Cannabis Tax Regulations.

The legalization of cannabis in California brought with it cannabis excise tax and cultivation taxes with the hope of bringing in significant amounts of income in cannabis taxes. The state had projected $185M in cannabis tax revenue for the first six months of 2018. Although California has since collected tens of millions of dollars fewer than anticipated, it did bring in over $135M in the first and second quarters from a brand new industry.

Local governments are able to collect these taxes directly from cannabis businesses.  With the green light from the state and the need for a new source of revenue, many local governments followed suit and passed laws to impose taxes on cannabis businesses operating in their jurisdictions. The need for additional revenue is even greater for localities that allow cannabis business operations given that the state takes virtually all of the state-imposed cannabis taxes while the local government entities are burdened by the related costs of regulations and enforcement at the local level.

Cannabis business taxes have an extra allure for local jurisdictions. Unlike local sales and use taxes, the state does not require local cannabis business taxes to go through the state before a portion of it gets funneled back to the localities. Local governments are able to collect these taxes directly from cannabis businesses.

Since January 1, 2018, many local jurisdictions have come onboard and placed ballot measures for their voters to decide whether to tax cannabis businesses. According to research conducted by Taxnexus, by the end of the second quarter this year, there were over 500 different local cannabis tax rates in California.The new cannabis tax measures are also continuing the trend of widely ranging local cannabis tax laws.

Midterm Results Continue Overwhelming Support for Cannabis Industry

With over 50 cannabis tax measures placed on the November 6 local ballots, most of which passed with overwhelming support from voters, the number and variation of local cannabis business taxes continue to grow. This demonstrates the continuing trend of local governments welcoming cannabis businesses, the evolving voter attitude toward recreational cannabis, and perhaps most importantly, the localities’ desire to take their cut of the new industry’s tax revenue.

The new cannabis tax measures are also continuing the trend of widely ranging local cannabis tax laws. Given that the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act granted local jurisdictions control over deciding their own cannabis business regulations, there is no statewide uniformity. Here are a few examples of the cannabis business tax measures that were on local ballots on November 6:

San Francisco

While some local jurisdictions were quick to impose cannabis taxes, others have delayed in taxing their local cannabis businesses. San Francisco’s Proposition D, which received a 66% voter approval, won’t go into effect until January 1, 2021. It imposes taxes on cannabis businesses that do business in the city, whether or not they are physically located there. The new cannabis business taxes are as follows:

  • For cannabis retail businesses, 2.5% of gross receipts up to $1M and 5% of gross receipts over $1M.
  • For cannabis non-retail businesses, 1% tax of gross receipts up to $1M and 1.5% of gross receipts over $1M.

These taxes do not apply to the first $500,000 of recreational cannabis gross receipts nor revenues from medical cannabis retail sales. The measure allows the Board of Supervisors to adjust the tax rates up to 7%. The cannabis businesses taxes are expected to generate $5M to $12M in cannabis tax revenue, and will go into the City’s general fund.The new tax measures underscore the lack of uniformity in local cannabis business taxes throughout the state. 

Emeryville

Emeryville passed a new cannabis business tax measure to increase its current nominal rate. Measure S imposes a cannabis business tax of up to 6% of gross receipts. This is estimated to generate $2M in tax revenue to be used for unrestricted governmental purposes.

Oakland

Oakland is among the few local jurisdictions that placed a measure on its November 6 ballot to lower its existing cannabis business tax rates. Previously, Oakland imposed a 5% tax on medical cannabis and a 10% tax on recreational cannabis, for all cannabis activities throughout the supply chain. These are among some of the highest cannabis tax rates in the state and are squeezing out small operators. Although Oakland has long been seen as the leader in California’s cannabis industry, the high taxes are making it difficult for its cannabis businesses to compete with nearby cities that charge lower taxes. While the city acknowledged the hardship its high taxes imposed, it maintained that it could not lower the rates on its own and required the voter approval. On November 6th, Oakland voters passed Measure V by 78%, which gives the City Council the authority to lower the city’s cannabis tax rates through an ordinance. To give additional relief to the cannabis businesses in the city, this measure also allows them to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts- something they cannot do on their federal tax returns. Furthermore, local cannabis business taxes can now be paid on a quarterly basis instead of one annual payment at the beginning of each year, which was severely burdensome for most businesses.

Lake County

Voters in Lake County approved Measure K by a majority vote to tax cannabis businesses in the unincorporated county effecting January 1, 2021. The county was previously only taxing cultivators at $1 to $3 per square footage depending on the method of cultivation. These rates will be reduced to $1 per square footage for cultivators and nurseries, and other cannabis businesses will be taxes between 2.5% and 4% of their gross receipts.

Mountain View

While there is a maximum of four cannabis businesses permitted to operate in Mountain View, over 80% of voters approved Measure Q to tax them. The measure imposes up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes, with an estimated annual revenue of $1M.Some have even set the effective dates of their cannabis tax laws several years out to allow their local cannabis businesses an opportunity to establish roots and drive out the black market.

Lompoc

Some jurisdictions have passed more creative cannabis business tax regimens than one rate applicable to the entire supply chain. Voters in Lompoc in Santa Barbara County approved Measure D2018 to authorize the city to impose following cannabis business taxes:

  • Up to $0.06 per $1 (6%) of recreational retail sales proceeds;
  • Up to $0.01 per $1 (1%) of cultivation and nursery proceeds;
  • An annual flat fee tax of $15,000 if net income is less than $2M of manufacturing and distribution proceeds;
  • An annual flat fee tax of $30,000 if net income is $2 Million or more of manufacturing and distribution proceeds;
  • A total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 (6%) of microbusinesses proceeds, not including medical cannabis transaction proceeds; and
  • No tax on testing.

Riverbank

There are signs that other localities that waited to jump onboard have learned from these high-taxing jurisdictions and opted for lower rates. There are even those localities that although they do not statutorily permit cannabis businesses to operate in their jurisdictions, they still want a piece of the action when it comes to cannabis taxes. The city of Riverbank in Stanislaus County currently does not allow cannabis businesses to operate without first obtaining a permit from City Hall and entering into a development agreement with the city that negotiates how much of their revenue the city would take. However, the voters just passed Measure B, which authorizes Riverbank’s City Council to impose a business license tax of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses in the event the city allows cannabis businesses to operate within its city limits in the future. This tax has incentives other than the apparent potential of tax revenue. This guarantees the city a cut of the earnings of any illegal cannabis businesses, and serves as a protection in the event the permit and development agreement scheme the city has enacted is later found to be invalid.

The Chaos Continues

The new tax measures underscore the lack of uniformity in local cannabis business taxes throughout the state. Compliance is especially burdensome for delivery companies and multi-location and multi-license cannabis businesses. Cannabis businesses are required to keep up with new and evolving cannabis tax regimens, which, judging by the shortfall in cannabis tax revenues compared to their projections so far, is a difficult feat for these highly-regulated businesses.Of course, there are still some local governments that appear to have missed all the signs and have passed new high taxes. 

The overall trend in 2018, persisting through the midterm elections, is that more local jurisdictions are joining the cannabis tax bandwagon, and while the tax rates and structures are still all over the map, there appears to be some movement toward honing the cannabis business rates toward that “sweet spot.”

Cities like Oakland and Berkeley that immediately began to tax cannabis businesses at high rates have lowered or taken steps to lower their tax rates to keep their competitive edge and retain cannabis businesses within their jurisdictions. There are signs that other localities that waited to jump onboard have learned from these high-taxing jurisdictions and opted for lower rates. Some have even set the effective dates of their cannabis tax laws several years out to allow their local cannabis businesses an opportunity to establish roots and drive out the black market.

Of course, there are still some local governments that appear to have missed all the signs and have passed new high taxes. In due time, they, too, will give in to the market pressures and make necessary adjustments if they want to continue to benefit from the legal cannabis industry in their jurisdictions.


Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis tax calculation, sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

California Midterm Ballots To Bring Green Wave of Cannabis Tax Regulations

By Jasmine Davaloo
No Comments

As state and local jurisdictions rake in millions of dollars in tax revenue from the state’s legal cannabis industry, new states, counties and cities are piling onto the cannabis tax bandwagon. There are currently hundreds of local cannabis business taxes in place in California. On the November ballots, there are 47 new local cannabis tax measures. In fact, even some local jurisdictions that outlaw cannabis operations want a piece of the green pie and are asking voters to impose cannabis business taxes.

More cannabis tax measures being passed means more regulations and compliance responsibilities for cannabis businesses. This is especially taxing (pun intended) for multi-licensed and multi-location cannabis businesses. With hefty monetary penalties and even revocation of business licenses as consequences of noncompliance, adherence to state and local tax regulations is of paramount concern to cannabis businesses. Below is a list that Taxnexus has put together showing all of the cannabis tax measures on the November 6 ballots in California:

Taxnexus is an automated transaction-to-treasury cannabis tax compliance solution for the entire cannabis supply chain that provides point-of-sale state and local cannabis sales and use tax calculation, tax data management as the authority of record, and timely filing of returns with all applicable taxing authorities.

California City and County Cannabis Tax Measures November 6, 2018 Ballots

City County Measure Name Proposal
Adelanto San Bernardino S Adelanto Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $5.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 5% on other businesses.
Atascadero San Luis Obispo E-18 Atascadero Cannabis Business Tax To impose a tax on cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 10% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, 2.5% for testing laboratories, 3% for distribution businesses, and 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses.
Atwater Merced A Atwater Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a 15% tax on marijuana businesses.
Benicia Solano E Benicia Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $10 per square foot for marijuana nurseries and 6% of gross receipts for other marijuana businesses.
Capitola Santa Cruz I Capitola Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a rate of up to 7% with no expiration date to fund general city purposes.
Chula Vista San Diego Q Chula Vista Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: 5% to 15% of gross receipts or $5 to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Colfax Placer C City of Colfax Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.
Colton San Bernardino U Colton Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $25.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 10% on other businesses.
Emeryville Alameda S Emeryville Marijuana Business Tax To enact a marijuana business tax at a rate of up to 6% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Fresno Fresno A Fresno Marijuana Business Tax To tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to $12 per canopy square foot and up to 10% of gross receipts for medical dispensaries and other marijuana businesses, with revenue dedicated to the city’s general fund an a community benefit fund.
Goleta Santa Barbara Z2018 Goleta Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following initial rates with a cap at 10% of sales: 5% for retailers; 4% for cultivators; 2% for manufacturers; and 1% for distributors/nurseries.
Hanford Kings C Hanford Cannabis Business Tax To tax cannabis businesses at an annual maximum rate of $7 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using artificial lighting only, $4 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using a combination of artificial and natural lighting, $2 per square foot of canopy for cultivation businesses using natural lighting only, and $1 per square foot of canopy for nurseries, 1% of gross receipts of laboratories, 4% of gross receipts of retail sales, 2% of gross receipts of distribution and 2.5% of gross receipts of all other types of cannabis businesses.
Hesperia San Bernardino T Hesperia Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $15.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
La Mesa San Diego V La Mesa Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 6% gross receipts and up to $10 per square foot of cultivation.
Lassen Lassen M Lassen County Commercial Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a tax on commercial marijuana at rates of between $0.50 to $3.00 per square foot for cultivation and 2.5% to 8% on gross receipts for other businesses, such as retail, distribution, manufacturing, processing, and testing.
Lompoc Santa Barbara D2018 Lompoc Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $0.06 per $1 of non-medical retail sales proceeds; $0.01 per $1 of cultivation proceeds; $15,000 for net income less than $2 million of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; $30,000 for net income $2 Million or more of manufacturing/distribution proceeds; a total aggregate tax of $0.06 per $1.00 of microbusinesses proceeds; and no tax on testing.
Malibu Los Angeles G Malibu Marijuana Business Authorization and Tax To authorize the sale of recreational marijuana in the city and imposing a general tax at the rate of 2.5% of gross receipts on the sale of recreational marijuana.
Marina Monterey V Marina Marijuana Business Tax To authorize marijuana businesses to operate in the city and authorizing the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to 5% of gross receipts, with revenue funding general city purposes.
Maywood Los Angeles CT Maywood Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a maximum rate of 10% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Moreno Valley Riverside M City of Moreno Valley Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax To enact a tax on cannabis sales and cultivation, not exceeding 8% of gross receipts and $15 per square foot of cultivation.
Morgan Hill Santa Clara I Morgan Hill Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at annual rates up to $15.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 10% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses.
Mountain View Santa Clara Q Mountain View Marijuana Business Tax To enact a tax on marijuana businesses of up to 9% of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.
Oakland Alameda V Oakland Marijuana Business Tax Amendments To amend the marijuana business tax law to: allow marijuana business to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts and to pay taxes on a quarterly basis; and allow the city council to amend the law in any manner that does not increase the tax rate.
Oroville Butte T Oroville Marijuana Tax To authorize an annual gross receipts tax on cannabis businesses at rate not to exceed 1%, with initial rates of 5% on retailers and manufacturers; 4% on cultivators; 3% on distributors; 2% on nurseries; 0% on testing laboratories; and 7% on microbusiness to generate approximately $300,000 to $600,000 in annual revenue.
Paso Robles San Luis Obispo I-18 Paso Robles Cannabis Business Tax To impose a maximum tax rate on every person or entity operating or conducting a cannabis business within the City a cultivation tax of up to$20.00 per square foot of space utilized in connection with the cultivation and processing of cannabis; a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for all cannabis transportation; a gross receipts tax of up to 15% for all cannabis manufacturing, testing, and distribution; and a gross receipts tax of up to 10% for dispensaries.
Pomona Los Angeles PC Pomona Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 6% of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses to fund general city purposes.
Riverbank Stanislaus B City of Riverbank Cannabis Business License Tax To authorize the City Council of the City to impose a business license tax at a rate of up to 10% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries, to help fund general municipal services.
San Bernardino San Bernardino W San Bernardino Marijuana Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to $10.00 per square foot on nurseries and up to 6% on other businesses.
San Diego San Diego AA City Council Marijuana Business Tax Measure To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at the following rates: $14 per square foot; up to 8% on manufacturing and distribution; up to 10% on medicinal retail; up to 12% on adult-use retail; and up to 3.5% on testing.
San Francisco San Francisco D San Francisco Marijuana Business Tax Increase To tax marijuana businesses with gross receipts over $500,000 at a rate between 1% and 5%, exempting retail sales of medical marijuana, and expanding the marijuana business tax to businesses not physically located in San Francisco.
Santa Ana Orange Y Santa Ana Recreational Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $0.25 to $35.00 for gross square footage and up to 10 percent for cultivating, manufacturing, distributing, selling, or testing.
Santa Clara Santa Clara M Santa Clara Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 per square foot for cultivation.
Simi Valley Ventura Q Cannabis Business Tax To enact a maximum tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses in the City after January 1, 2019, as follows: for testing, 2.5%; for retail sales, retail delivery, or microbusiness retail, 6%; for distribution not to consumers, 3%; for manufacturing, processing or nonretail microbusiness, and any other type of business not otherwise specified, 4%; and for cultivation, a tax per square foot of canopy ranging from $2.00 per square foot of canopy to $10.00 per square foot of canopy, depending on the type of lighting (artificial or natural) used.
Solvang Santa Barbara F2018 Solvang Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at an initial rate of 5 percent of gross receipts with a cap of 10 percent and a maximum annual increase of 1 percent.
Sonora Tuolumne N City of Sonora Cannabis Business License Tax To enact a business license tax at a rate of up to 15% of gross receipts on cannabis businesses, to help fund general municipal services; and increasing the City’s appropriations limit for the Fiscal Years 2019-2023 by the amount of tax proceeds received.
Suisun Solano C Suisun Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to impose a tax of up to $25 per square foot and 15% gross receipts for marijuana businesses.
Union City Alameda DD Union City Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at rates of $12.00 per square foot for cultivation and 6 percent of gross receipts for other businesses to fund general municipal services.
Vista San Diego Z Vista Retail Medical Marijuana Sales and Tax Initiative (November 2018) To authorize commercial retails sales of medicinal marijuana for up to 11 retailers and enacting a 7% tax on the business’ gross receipts.
Contra Costa R Contra Costa County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize Contra Costa County to tax commercial marijuana businesses in the unincorporated area in the amount of up to $7.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 4 percent gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses to fund general County expenses.
El Dorado N, P, Q, R, S Commercial Cannabis Tax Measures To impose a general tax on any independently authorized commercial cannabis activity in the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County at rates up to: $30 per square foot or 15% for cultivation; 10% for distribution, manufacturing, and retail; and 5% for testing laboratories, effective until amended or repealed, with estimated annual revenue of $1,900,000 to $52,800,000.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for medicinal use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for recreational adult use on parcels of at least 10 acres zoned Rural Lands, Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, and Agricultural Grazing that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for medicinal use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

To authorize the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for recreational adult use on parcels zoned Community Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial High, and Industrial Low that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax, and subject to a site-specific review and discretionary permitting process with notification to surrounding property owners and environmental regulation.

Lake K Lake County Marijuana Business Tax To authorize the county to enact a marijuana business tax at the rates of $1.00 per square foot for nurseries and cultivators and between 2.5% and 4% for other businesses.
San Joaquin B Unincorporated County of San Joaquin Cannabis Business Tax To impose a special tax on commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated San Joaquin County at a rate of 3.5% to 8% of gross receipts, with an additional cultivation tax of $2.00 per square foot of cultivation space.
Tuolumne M Tuolumne County Commercial Cannabis Business Tax The County to impose a 0%-15% gross receipts tax on commercial cannabis businesses (but no less than $0-$15 per square foot for cultivation businesses as annually increased by a consumer price index) in the unincorporated area of Tuolumne County, and to authorize the Board of Supervisors to implement and adjust the tax at its discretion, with funds staying local for unrestricted general revenue purposes, including but not limited to public safety, health,environmental protection and addressing industry impacts, unless repealed or amended by voters.
emerald test retail

Colorado Approves Emerald Scientific Proficiency Tests for Regulatory Compliance in Cannabis Testing

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments
emerald test retail

Emerald Scientific recently announced their proficiency-testing program, The Emerald Test, has been approved by Colorado as a third party provider for proficiency testing in licensed cannabis laboratories. The Emerald Test, held twice annually, is an inter-laboratory comparison and proficiency test (ILC-PT), allowing data to be collected pertaining to the performance of laboratories on a national scale. Proficiency testing is designed to measure how accurately laboratories perform and is a critical tool for quality assurance.

Colorado requires labs to participate in a proficiency-testing program in order to be certified to conduct required testing on cannabis and cannabis products for safety and quality. According to the press release, Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division, under the Department of Revenue, conducted an evaluation process to determine which applicants could meet the performance standards for regulatory compliance concerning proficiency testing. The contract was awarded to Emerald Scientific following this evaluation process.

emerald test retailAccording to Ken Groggel, director of the Proficiency Testing Program at Emerald Scientific, a number of states have recognized the need for independent proficiency testing as a required piece of regulatory compliance. “The Emerald Test Inter-Laboratory Comparison/PT is state approved in Washington & Colorado for cannabis testing laboratory licensure,” says Groggel. “States with cannabis or hemp production, as well as labs in other countries are now actively participating in the Emerald Test as a tool for quality improvement, efficiency upgrades and product safety.” He says the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division has contracted with Emerald Scientific to provide third party PT programs for microbial contaminants, residual solvents and pesticides.

Ken Groggel, director of the Proficiency Testing Program at Emerald Scientific

Beginning in 2014, The Emerald Test has been offered twice a year and, in 2017, over 50 labs participated from 14 states and 2 countries. “Laboratories that have enrolled more than once have seen significant improvement in their results, an indicator of improved performance for industry customers,” says Groggel.

Proficiency testing is important for ensuring quality, safety and product content accuracy. “This should be the priority whether you are a grower, manufacturer, testing laboratory, regulatory entity, medical patient or adult use consumer,” says Groggel. It also helps labs meet regulatory requirements and achieve ISO 17025 accreditation. “Independent proficiency testing helps determine if the lab is able to deliver the services marketed to its customers,” says Groggel. “Regulatory agencies can use this information when licensing, monitoring & enforcing good science for public safety.”

As new states legalize cannabis and develop consumer protection regulations, proficiency testing programs can help labs demonstrate their commitment to responsible and accurate testing. “When PT results show the cannabis testing lab is capable it is up to the government to ensure accountability for performance on behalf of all its citizens,” says Groggel. Labs can enroll starting on September 25th in the Fall 2017 Emerald Test ILC/PT.

What’s Happening on Capitol Hill? Part 2: A Bill-By-Bill Review

By Brian Blumenfeld, J.D., M.A.
No Comments

Since the first session of the 115th Congress convened on January 3, 2017, twenty-four cannabis reform bills have been introduced, fifteen in the House and nine in the Senate. All of them address in varying ways the puzzles that have emerged as more and more states legalize cannabis in the face of federal prohibition. Some are narrow, some are broad, some are for medical cannabis only, some for recreational too, some have more bipartisan support than others, but all indicate in some manner the direction federal reform will eventually take.

H.R.1227 – Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017

Understanding the content and status of these bills and what they would mean for the industry if/when they are enacted, will help stakeholders anticipate changes that we know are bound to drop, and therefore be better prepared to adapt to them when they do.

Generally lacking in the journalism on cannabis is coverage and analysis of federal proposals deep enough to provide a useable understanding of the policies they stand to codify. As CIJ is dedicated to providing just such useable information to industry-insiders, this bill-by-bill review fills the gap.

All twenty-four bills fit rather neatly into one of three categories: De-scheduling/State Control Reform, Medical Cannabis Reform and Banking/Tax Reform. This second article in the series will look at the first category, and the next article will wrap up the last two.

De-Scheduling/State Control Reform

HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017

Policy: The bill proposes two major changes to the CSA. The first is to strike cannabis from the statute, essentially leaving the regulation or prohibition of it up to each state. The second is to insert into the CSA a provision that makes it a federal offense to transport cannabis from one state to another in any way that violates state law. In other words, if a state wished to continue prohibiting cannabis, it would be both a federal and state crime for anyone to transport cannabis into that state. Likewise, if a state wished to legalize and regulate cannabis, but wanted to prevent out-of-state cannabis from entering, the transportation provision would permit that state to do so.

Impact: Industries in states that have already legalized cannabis will structurally remain the same. Banking will open up for these state businesses, and so will the opportunity to write-off ordinary business expenses. Questions about contract enforcement and risks of federal prosecution will become moot, and when state regulatory bodies make decisions on how to govern the industry, they will no longer have to concern themselves with U.S. DOJ enforcement and/or prosecutorial policies. The big potential change will be seen if two or more contiguous states that have legalized cannabis decide to permit transport of the drug between their states. Markets will expand, opening access to new customers and challenges from new competitors. Licensees may also have the option to venue shop, and we could see states themselves competing with one another to attract cannabis business with the carrot of favorable regulations.

Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA)
Photo: C-SPAN

One possible pitfall to keep in mind is that this legislation could violate something in constitutional law known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—a topic CIJ will cover should it surface.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on February 27, 2017 by Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA)
  • Cosponsors: 4 Republican, 11 Democrat, 1 At-Large
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

HR 2528 – Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2017

Policy: This bill would add to the CSA a provision specifically declaring no congressional intent to preempt state cannabis laws.

Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Photo: Center for American Progress Action Fund, Flickr

Impact: HR 2528 would rule out the potential for a judicial resolution to the federalism controversy. Most legal challenges to state legalization regimes have relied on a theory of Supremacy Clause preemption. Most notably was the 2014 case initiated by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado, which you can find broken down here. Although the Supreme Court denied to hear that case, the issue is outstanding and remains an important factor, if not the central factor, in cannabis cases currently pending in federal court. Under this reform, state cannabis laws would be safe from invalidation, but it is less clear whether a mere anti-preemption clause would strip the federal government of its other powers under the CSA, or alter in any way the current status of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. Questions arising under such uncertainty would likely have to go through long and hotly contested litigation before we have concrete answers. So although this proposal would resolve the ticklish issue of preemption, it leaves unaddressed the many other conundrums posed by federal-state divergence.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on May 18, 2017 by Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)
  • Cosponsors: 1 Republican
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

HR 1841 – Regulate Marihuana Like Alcohol Act

Policy: This bill sets to accomplish a number of different reforms: remove cannabis from CSA; allow for import and export except into states that wish to prohibit cannabis altogether and/or prohibit its importation into the state; decriminalize cannabis use on national forest land; require a permit from the Secretary of the Treasury to import cannabis and to engage in any cannabis business activity; mandate businesses that obtain a Treasury permit to also comply with all State laws (so if state wants to continue to prohibit, they may); share jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of the new federal laws between the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabaco, Firearms and Explosives which is to be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.

Representative Jared Polis (D-CO)
Photo: Joshua Lawton, Flickr

Impact: If enacted, this bill will have many of the same impacts as the abovementioned HR 1227- Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017. The IMPACT section for that bill will also pertain to this bill, with the following exception: by requiring a permit to operate a cannabis business from the Department of Treasury, the bill would add a layer of regulation on top of state law. Treasury Permits would be conditioned on permitees complying “with all other Federal laws relating to production, sale and consumption of marijuana.” Although §302 of the bill limits Treasury’s discretion in denying applications to only certain, enumerated disqualifying factors, the “other Federal laws” the bill refers to could embody any number of policy and jurisdictional preferences either enacted by the Congress or promulgated by the executive agencies charged with administration. At the current stage of speculation the best we can say is that descheduling cannabis under this bill would be a benefit to the industry, but out of all of the present proposals the provisions authorizing federal regulation present the greatest uncertainty for the shape the future of the industry might take.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on March 30, 2017 by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO)
  • Cosponsors: 1 Republican, 14 Democrat
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
    • Energy and Commerce
    • Ways and Means
    • Agriculture
      • Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry
    • Natural Resources
      • Subcommittee on Federal Lands

HR 975

Statute: Adds one sentence to the CSA that excludes its application to any person acting in compliance with State cannabis laws.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

Impact: The bill would have the same impact as the above HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017, with the only exception that the transportation provision in HR 1227 makes it clear that states will be permitted to prohibit the importation of cannabis from other states if they want to. This bill, without speaking directly to the matter of interstate importation, could leave the question open-ended until resolved through judicial interpretation.

Procedural Status:

  • Introduced on February 7, 2017 by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
  • Cosponsors: 8 Republican, 12 Democrat, 2 At-Large
  • Referred to House Committees on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

Legislative Update

On Tuesday, August 1st, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the twenty-fourth cannabis reform bill. The bill has yet to be assigned a number or referred to committee, but it is called the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, and makes some interesting contributions to the lineup of reform proposals.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Photo: Nick Fisher, Flickr

For legalization purposes, the bill both removes cannabis from the CSA and removes prohibitions on importing and exporting. The above analysis for descheduling and import/export would apply to Booker’s bill in the same way. The interesting twist thrown in is how criminal and racial justice objectives are linked to incentives for states to legalize. The ultimate decision to legalize or not in a given state will continue to be the prerogative of each state, but the catch is that if a state does not legalize cannabis and the number of arrests for cannabis offenses in that state disproportionately impacts minority or low-income citizens, then the federal government will pull funding it provides to that state for criminal justice-related programs. This could push more states who would otherwise not legalize onto the reform bandwagon. Such states will have to pit how much they value federal funds against how much they value criminalizing cannabis. If the former outweighs the latter, policy logic will dictate that they legalize. Updates on this bill, and movement on any others, will be tracked by CIJ.

For the next piece in this series, we will review the bills currently pending in Congress that cover medical cannabis reform and banking/tax reform. Stay tuned for the latest on what’s happening around Capitol Hill and in federal cannabis policy circles.

Election Day Results for Cannabis: California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Maine Legalize Recreational Cannabis

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Update: With 100% reporting (589 of 589 precincts), voters in Maine passed Question 1, legalizing recreational cannabis by a very narrow margin of 50.2% to 49.8% (378,288 in favor and 375,668 against is a margin of only 2,620 votes)


Voters in California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada passed ballot initiatives legalizing the recreational use of cannabis, creating huge new markets for the cannabis industry overnight. Voters in North Dakota, Florida, Montana and Arkansas passed ballot initiatives to legalize forms of medical cannabis. Voters by a margin of 52.2% to 47.8% rejected Arizona’s Proposition 205, which would have legalized recreational cannabis.

With 100% of the votes in for Maine’s Question 1, voters narrowly passed legalizing recreational cannabis, the polls show it won by a very slim margin, less than 3,000 votes.

newfrontier_logo_finalNew Frontier Data and Arcview Market Research released an Election Day update to their growth projections for the cannabis industry by 2020. The release projects: “The legalization of cannabis in California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Florida, Arkansas and North Dakota will result in new markets that account for $7.1 billion in sales by 2020. We project the overall U.S. cannabis market will exceed $20.9 billion by 2020.” Those numbers include overall cannabis sales and assume the markets are all fully operational by 2018.

Giadha DeCarcer, (photo credit: CNN Money)
Giadha DeCarcer, founder and CEO of New Frontier (photo credit: Frontierfinancials.com)

According to Giadha DeCarcer, founder and chief executive officer of New Frontier, there is overwhelming support for medical cannabis and a majority of Americans are in favor of legalizing recreational cannabis as well. “The ten initiatives on the ballot reflect the accelerating public debate on legal cannabis access,” says DeCarcer. “The passage of California’s adult use measure and Florida’s medical initiative expand legal access into two of the country’s most populous states.” The market potential is notably enormous in California, it currently being the 6th largest economy in the world. “Additionally, the passage of the measure in Massachusetts opens the first adult use market in the Northeast extending the reach of legal adult use access from coast to coast,” says DeCarcer. “The passage of the measures in Arkansas and North Dakota shows that public support on this issue is not solely confined to urban, liberal markets but extends into conservative rural states as well.”

According to the release, by 2020 California could reach a total market size of $7.6B and Massachusetts could grow to $1.1B. Massachusetts being the first mover in the Northeast to legalize recreational cannabis will be watched very closely by a number of surrounding states that appeared bullish on cannabis legalization previously.

Leslie Bocskor, president and founder of Electrum Partners
Leslie Bocskor, president and founder of Electrum Partners

Leslie Bocskor, president and founder of Electrum Partners, believes the Election Day results will bring an influx of investing opportunities to the industry. “We are going to see a diverse approach from the irrationally exuberant to the sophisticated and experienced investor and entrepreneur getting involved, creating businesses and investing in the industry that will create innovation, jobs, wealth and tax revenue far beyond the consensus expectations,” says Bocksor. “The cannabis industry is more than one industry; it is an entire ecosystem, impacting so many verticals, such as agriculture, industrial chemicals from hemp, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and more. We see the funding of innovation that might have been absent without the velocity and heft that has come from this phenomenon,” adds Bocksor. As these newly legalized markets begin to launch, it will require a considerable amount of time to see the industry flesh out in each new state.

whitehouse
Tom Lohdan, Flickr

Donald Trump winning the presidential election and the GOP retaining control over the House and Senate could mean a lot of uncertainties for the future of the cannabis industry on a national scale. President-elect Trump has previously flip-flopped on the issue of cannabis legalization, but has said in the past he favors leaving the issue of medical use up to the states, advocating for access to medical cannabis, while recently saying he opposes regulating cannabis for adult use, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. The MPP gave him a C+ grade for his views toward cannabis.

On The O’Reilly Factor in February 2016, Trump told the conservative political commentator that he supports medical cannabis while opposing the recreational use. “I’m in favor of it [access to medical cannabis] a hundred percent. But what you are talking about [recreational use], perhaps not. It’s causing a lot of problems out there [in Colorado],” says Trump. It is still unclear at this time exactly what Trump’s policy will be for the now 28 states that have some form of legal cannabis.

aaronsmithncia
Aaron Smith, executive director of NCIA

Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), appeared optimistic regarding the outcomes of Election Day. “More than 16 million voters, including in two of the three most populated states in the nation, chose legal, regulated cannabis programs that promote safety, boost the economy, help sick patients and address social injustices,” says Smith. In the press release, the NCIA spelled out their priorities for congressional action on cannabis policy: Opening up bank access for state-compliant cannabis businesses, ending the effects of federal tax code Section 280E on cannabis businesses and removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act via descheduling. “Last night’s results send a simple message – the tipping point has come,” says Smith.

Soapbox

How Cannabis Can Positively Impact California’s Drought

By Lukian Kobzeff
2 Comments

As the drought in California persists and quickly becomes the new hydrological norm, many within the state have embraced efforts to find ways and means to live within the drought forced water “budget.” Because of the importance of water conservation, the cannabis industry should embrace its socio-ecological responsibility and seize the opportunity to help shift the perception of cannabis cultivation into that of a sustainable, high-value agricultural crop that can be grown in an environmentally safe manner, while using water efficiently.

The intersection of Prop 64, MCRSA and the drought provides the cannabis industry with a unique opportunity to positively impact water conservation. Because legal cannabis cultivators are just now designing blueprints for grow sites, these cultivators are in a position to build infrastructure and systems specifically designed to achieve permanent, sustainable water conservation.

By embracing and championing water conservation, the cannabis industry will achieve two goals: being a collaborative player in the larger community working towards sustainable water use and enhancing the overall perception of the cannabis industry in the conscious of the general public. For an industry seeking legitimacy, there is no better way to put cannabis in the mainstream conscious than by embracing environmentally responsible philosophies. Here are a few measures the cannabis industry should embrace:

Measure

The current drought has generated a state-wide conversation about tracking and recording water usage. Some commentators believe California is suffering from a water data problem. Recently passed AB 1755 is a step by California to address that shortcoming by creating a technology platform to aggregate and share water data. Cannabis cultivators should get onboard with measuring water usage. One method is to install sensitive flow meters in each drip station to precisely measure water used during each grow cycle. First, this provides the cultivator with a precise data set. Precise data sets are extremely important, especially when trying to achieve the two-part-goal of conserving water and maximizing crop yield. Second, having precise data sets allows the cultivator to determine, from harvest-to-harvest, increasingly precise ratios of input (water) to output (flower). Most likely, this input:yield ratio is subject to diminishing returns at the margin; that is, adding additional water will not proportionately increase crop yield. For instance, 50 units of water could produce 50 units of crop, but 75 units of water might only produce 55 units of crop. By measuring the input (water), the cultivator is able to identify the precise threshold where diminishing returns set in and can therefore reduce the “diminishing returns” water usage, saving money and conserving water.

Collaborate

Building on water-usage data collection, cultivators can then collaborate with each other and with water agencies. By sharing data sets, cultivators can quickly develop ideal input:yield ratios, can better understand how water usage fluctuates within each discreet grow cycle and can develop methods such as deficit irrigation and real-time soil moisture measurements. This collective industry knowledge will help each individual cultivator to reduce water-usage. In collaborating with local water boards, the boards will better understand how much water is being used and conserved by the industry. Additionally, if the boards have a more precise understanding of the expected usage per season or per specific period in a grow cycle required by cultivators in their jurisdictions, those boards can better plan for the peaks and troughs in water demand. Besides data sharing, agencies and cultivators can collaborate in developing “fill stations” (offering free, non-potable recycled water for irrigation), or help fund development of direct potable water technologies and other recycled water technologies. Collaboration amongst growers and with water boards will lead to greater water conservation.

Energy Saving

An ancillary benefit to water conservation behaviors is the reduction of energy consumption. It takes an immense amount of energy to pump and transport water to end-users, such as cultivators. Reducing water usage in turn reduces energy consumption, because less water used means less water transported and disposed of. This is one method for indoor cultivators to offset energy consumption. In addition to reducing energy usage by conserving water, cultivators can follow Irvine Ranch Water District’s example of implementing an energy storage system to reduce costs and ease energy demand during peak hours. Indoor cultivators should adopt the same basic structure and mechanics: install Tesla battery packs to store energy for use during peak hours (when electricity is more expensive) and recharge the batteries at night when demand is low (and electricity is cheaper).

Opportunities Abound

This is an exciting time in California’s history, with the pending election of Prop 64, the passage of MCRSA, and the opportunities present in the water-energy nexus. The $6 billion cannabis industry has an incredible opportunity to have a far-reaching impact on water-conservation. By being an active collaborator conserving water, the cannabis industry can position itself as a trendsetter and private sector leader in sustainable and eco-conscious methods, technologies, and processes.