Water storage and irrigation practices for cannabis drive seasonal patterns of water extraction and use in Northern California

Dillis, Christopher; McIntee, Connor; Butsic, Van; Le, Lance; Grady, Kason; Grantham, Theodore E.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110955

Cited by 12 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This scenario pertains to nearly 20% of legal growers that have a registered water right permit ≥900 m 3 . Such policy-mediated water scarcity compounds on the existing grower concern of physical water storage limitations [60].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each gauge is listed as a compliance gauge in the CCP and has a set of monthly instream flow criteria [15]. Since cannabis water demand estimates are still uncertain and vary based on farm size, storage capacity, and cultivation practices [60], we estimated water demand using registered cannabis water rights accessed through a public water rights database [61]. We downloaded registered cannabis water rights (type = registration cannabis) for Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino counties and considered those with a beneficial use of "irrigation," a diversion rate of 37.85 L/min (10 gal/min), and diversion and storage dates of 1 November-31 March.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water Availability for Cannabis in Northern California: Intersections of Climate, Policy, and Public Discourse

Morgan

Spangler

Stuivenvolt-Allen

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Availability of water for irrigated crops is driven by climate and policy, as moderated by public priorities and opinions. We explore how climate and water policy interact to influence water availability for cannabis (Cannabis sativa), a newly regulated crop in California, as well as how public discourse frames these interactions. Grower access to surface water covaries with precipitation frequency and oscillates consistently in an energetic 11–17 year wet-dry cycle. Assessing contemporary cannabis water policies against historic streamflow data showed that legal surface water access was most reliable for cannabis growers with small water rights (<600 m3) and limited during relatively dry years. Climate variability either facilitates or limits water access in cycles of 10–15 years—rendering cultivators with larger water rights vulnerable to periods of drought. However, news media coverage excludes growers’ perspectives and rarely mentions climate and weather, while public debate over growers’ irrigation water use presumes illegal diversion. This complicates efforts to improve growers’ legal water access, which are further challenged by climate. To promote a socially, politically, and environmentally viable cannabis industry, water policy should better represent growers’ voices and explicitly address stakeholder controversies as it adapts to this new and legal agricultural water user.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Availability for Cannabis in Northern California: Intersections of Climate, Policy, and Public Discourse

Morgan

Spangler

Stuivenvolt-Allen

et al. 2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indoor operations have significant greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, releasing roughly 42%-96% more GHGs than outdoor cultivation (Dillis, 2020). One kilogram of processed cannabis grown indoors generates roughly 4600 kg of CO 2 , the equivalent of 3 million average U.S. cars (Mills et al, 2022), or 2283-5184 kg CO 2 -equivalent per kg of dried cannabis flower, with variation by location (Summers et al, 2021).…”

Section: Environmental Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These emissions primarily derive from lights, electricity, natural gas powering environmental controls, and CO 2 supplied to enhance plant growth. Indoor cultivation, however, may use less water than outdoor (Dillis et al, 2020).…”

Section: Environmental Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from Cannabis legalization?

Kavousi

Giamo

Arnold

et al. 2021

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review article assays the scholarly and popular press literature on the opportunities and challenges the growing legalized cannabis industry offers U.S. local governments and communities. Localities are an important focus because in many states with legalized cannabis, local jurisdictions have authority to prevent or condition its cultivation, sale, and use. Opportunities potentially flowing to localities from legalization include increased tax revenues and land values, business expansion, and increased employment; public health and safety benefits; and the potential for legalization to advance social and racial inclusion. Challenges include the possibility that economic benefits will be more limited than anticipated; complex regulatory environments facing local governments and cannabis businesses, possible increases in pollution, blight, and public health and safety concerns; and less advancement of social and racial equity than hoped by advocates. We offer recommendations for scholars investigating cannabis governance concerns and practitioners directly grappling with them.

show abstract

“…Indeed, cannabis production has sparked considerable conservation concern for its potential effects on water, land, and wildlife (Carah et al, 2015; LaChance, 2019; Wartenberg et al, 2021). These effects may occur in part through (1) water withdrawals that lower freshwater availability (Bauer et al, 2015; Dillis et al, 2020; Zipper et al, 2019), (2) road construction or use of pesticides that lower freshwater quality (Carah et al, 2015; Portugal & Hwan, 2020), (3) clearing or fencing of undeveloped land that removes or degrades wildlife habitat (Butsic et al, 2018; Butsic & Brenner, 2016; Wang, Brenner, & Butsic, 2017; Wengert et al, 2021), (4) toxicants or poaching that directly kills animals and poses particular risk to terrestrial carnivores like the fisher ( Pekania pennanti ; Gabriel et al, 2012; Thompson et al, 2014; Gabriel et al, 2015, 2018; Rich, McMillin, Baker, & Chappell, 2020), and (5) human disturbance (from increased human presence, use of security or grow lights, or noise from generators and equipment) that alters animal behavioral cues (Parker‐Shames, Xu, Rich, & Brashares, 2020; Rich, Baker, & Chappell, 2020; Rich, Ferguson, Baker, & Chappell, 2020). These five impact pathways likely vary depending on surrounding context, production practices, and license status but provide a general guideline for potential ecological effects (Wartenberg et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The spatial overlap of small‐scale cannabis farms with aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity

Parker‐Shames

Choi

Butsic

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid expansion of cannabis agriculture in the Western United States provides a rare opportunity to study how an abrupt change in land‐use policy affects local biodiversity. There is broad speculation that cannabis production on private land is expanding and having negative effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, yet there exist little empirical data to evaluate this concern. In this study, we mapped and characterized outdoor cannabis production during the first season of legal recreational production (2016) in a large legacy cannabis‐producing region of Southern Oregon, Josephine County. We descriptively compared cannabis farms to all available private parcels based on proximity to rivers/streams and undeveloped land and their overlap with carnivore richness. Using publicly available satellite imagery, we found approximately 1.34 km2 (331 acres) of cannabis cultivation within Josephine County during the first season of legal recreational production. Most cannabis production areas were small (median size 414 m2), spatially clustered at all observed scales, and recently established (67% were not visible in 2013–2014 pre‐legalization). When compared with all available private parcels, cannabis was preferentially located in forested areas, undeveloped land and slightly closer to rivers. Within riparian areas, farms were slightly closer to rivers with predicted occurrence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). While projected carnivore richness was similar between cannabis and all private parcels, projected fisher (Pekania pennanti) occupancy was more than five times higher on cannabis farms, with a median occupancy of 0.69 (interquartile range: 0.24–0.87). Our results establish a baseline for cannabis land cover at the time of early recreational legalization and rapid expansion and can be used to predict future patterns or ecological consequences of cannabis development in other production areas. Understanding the potential ecological impact of cannabis is increasingly important as legalization expands and may also offer insights into other rural land‐use change frontiers.

show abstract

Water storage and irrigation practices for cannabis drive seasonal patterns of water extraction and use in Northern California

Cited by 12 publications

References 28 publications

Water Availability for Cannabis in Northern California: Intersections of Climate, Policy, and Public Discourse

Water Availability for Cannabis in Northern California: Intersections of Climate, Policy, and Public Discourse

What do we know about opportunities and challenges for localities from Cannabis legalization?

The spatial overlap of small‐scale cannabis farms with aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About