Marijuana Business Magazine January 2019

Marijuana Business Magazine | January 2019 80 Regulations Environmental Navigating can make environmental improvements, she said. “We recognize that struggle and do support that,” Urso said. Electric utilities do, too. Bob Macauley, trade relations manager for Xcel Energy in Colorado, told the symposium the utility has a budget each year to help companies become more energy efficient. “We want to spend that money,” he said. SHOP AROUND FOR AN ADVISER A consultant can help growers fill out the stacks of necessary paperwork and com- ply with local and state environmental requirements. But it’s important to select your consultant wisely. “(Some) consultants are snakes and will screw you over,” warned Jennings, the California MJ business owner. For guidance, choose consultants as you would hire someone for a home repair: Talk with friends and get referrals, advised Hezekiah Allen, former execu- tive director of the California Growers Association who is now promoting marijuana farming cooperatives through Emerald Grown, a holding company where he’s the chairman. It’s also a good idea to check if your municipality or county has a list of rec- ommended consultants. Jennings related the anecdote of contacting a consultant about doing a required archaeological study of his property. The consultant wanted $7,500. Jennings hired someone off the county’s list who charged $800. Allen and Jennings agreed that some consultants look at the fast-growing marijuana industry and assume cannabis operations are awash in profits, when that’s simply not true. Allen also noted that some consultants might not be up to date with the latest regulations because such rules frequently are revised. “We see a lot of cannabis consultants who might be good at setting up finan- cial models but don’t necessarily have experience in the regulations,” Allen said. “So we have seen a lot of messy consul- tant-licensees relationships.” STUDIES CAN BE PRICEY Allen said it’s typical for small culti- vators in California to spend $40,000- $60,000 on environmental analysis and impact reports. Jennings ultimately found a handful of consultants he liked working with, but completing the entire process still cost him roughly $60,000. The pricier items were related to assessing and mitigating the impacts on natural resources and air quality, includ- ing equipment to mitigate odors. He paid another $15,000 in licensing and other fees to the city of Clearlake, which helped prepare the initial environ- mental impact study. Allen encouraged small growers in the same area to form cooperatives and share the costs of environmental analysis and reporting. For example, a consultant can be hired to assess the impacts of the entire area covered by the cooperative at one time. That approach can yield signifi- cant savings, he said. DON’T EXPECT SMOOTH SAILING Smith from the Resource Innovation Institute said government regulators in- creasingly will be vigilant in monitoring environmental impacts. That especially may be true in states that have aggressive goals to increase renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gases, such as Cali- fornia and Massachusetts. Jennings himself received plenty of scrutiny. For example, the county water resource engineer expressed concerns about potential groundwater contamination and even questioned Jennings’ water-usage estimates as being “alarmingly low.” The inspector’s concerns were addressed through such mitigation measures as a site-runoff plan. Jennings’ Chris Jennings spent about $60,000 to create environmental impact and analysis reports while planning a growing and processing operation in Northern California. Courtesy Photo