|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
US: Commissioners reject cannabis ordinance after public hearing Lisa J. Wolf Eureka Sentinel Saturday 27 Jun 2026 The decision maintains the county’s prohibition on commercial marijuana operations, capping off weeks of legal anxiety, community soul-searching, and a looming corporate lawsuit. The proposed “June 2026 Cannabis Ordinance” aimed to legalize commercial cannabis establishments under restrictive parameters. However, a combination of community opposition, warnings from juvenile justice officials and a late-breaking legal analysis proving the county possessed a winning hand in court ultimately turned the tide. The anatomy of the ordinance The hearing began with Deputy Clerk Recorder Katie Zieman reading the text of the proposed ordinance into the official record. The amendment sought to reclassify “Cannabis establishments, as defined by N.R.S. Chapter 678, as amended, and all applicable regulations” as a permitted use within the county, albeit under heavy constraints. Had the ordinance passed, commercial operations would have been subject to a gauntlet of restrictions: Grandfathered state licenses: Eligibility was strictly limited to operators holding valid State of Nevada cannabis licenses acquired prior to June 1, 2025. Odor and enclosure mandates: Cultivation was legally confined to indoor facilities equipped with mandatory zero-detectable-odor filtration systems. Physical security: Facilities required an external perimeter fence at least six feet high, constructed of solid block or chain-link. The 10-mile buffer: In a move that practically exiled commercial entities to the county’s remote corners (although potentially near Carlin), all establishments were required to sit at least 10 miles away from unincorporated townships, including Palisade, Eureka, Crescent Valley and Beowawe. Taxation: The county proposed a quarterly license fee of three percent of gross revenues, complete with a strict schedule of late fees and financial penalties. NewGen Farm As Chairman Rich McKay opened the floor for public comment, the underlying motivation for even considering the ordinance became clear: fear of an expensive loss in the courtroom. Commissioner Mike Schoenwald noted that the Crescent Valley Town Advisory Board had met the previous evening, reporting “a lot of concern about the already current drug trafficking that’s happening on I-80” and “general concern about the litigation costs that have gone on from the county already.” The county has been locked in a legal battle regarding a complaint filed by Eureka NewGen Farm, LLC against Eureka County on September 25, 2024. For months, there were concerns the county would inevitably lose if it maintained its strict moratorium. That narrative was questioned by local residents Laurel Marshall and Garney Damele. Stepping forward, Marshall requested to read aloud the entirety of a letter the duo had submitted for the record on June 16, 2026. That narrative was questioned by local residents Laurel Marshall and Garney Damele. Stepping forward, Marshall requested to read aloud the entirety of a letter the duo had submitted for the record on June 16, 2026. “Simply purchasing land in anticipation of project approval may not, by itself, establish a vested right and therefore may not impose a direct and significant economic burden.” — Laurel Marshall & Garney Damele, June 2026 Letter to the Board The parcel in question was purchased in 2014 by High Rise Management, LLC, which shares a principal owner with NewGen Farms. While NewGen claimed it relied on the absence of a county ordinance when it applied for provisional state certificates in 2016, Marshall said the county acted with swift compliance. The county proposed its prohibitory ordinance by April 2017—just months after statewide legalization took effect—and enacted it on July 1, 2017. Furthermore, Marshall stated that the parcel remains completely undeveloped with “no improvements.” Crucially, she noted that the State Water Engineer denied NewGen irrigation rights to appropriate water for 100 acres back in February 2017. “They do not have water to cultivate marijuana,” Marshall said. “The necessity and requirement for water exists by the Plaintiff, but the legal ability to irrigate 100 acres does not exist… Real property also retains value and can be sold.” State statutes and local rights Beyond the water dispute, Marshall and Damele reminded the board that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 678D.510 explicitly protects local zoning autonomy, confirming that state law does not prohibit a local government from adopting measures that entirely ban adult-use cannabis establishments. Former State Senator Pete Goicoechea (2012–2024): “When we drafted the marijuana legislation, we made sure counties had the authority to decide whether to allow it or not.” Steve Gilbert, Deputy Director of the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board: “The county has a moratorium on marijuana now, they’ve been banning it. It’s a county-level decision… the State doesn’t get involved in County ordinances.” Marshall reminded the Board that Eureka County’s 2016 ordinance was explicitly tied to democratic consensus. When Question 2 legalized recreational marijuana statewide in 2016, voters in all three Eureka County precincts overwhelmingly rejected the measure. Youth, taxes and medical realities Public testimony highlighted a community divide. Brenna Rogne expressed uncertainty about where dispensary tax revenues would go, but advocated that if the ordinance passed, the funds should directly benefit local teenagers. “The 13- and 18-year-olds around this town do not have an outlet or anything to do,” Rogne said, noting that kids determined to find cannabis would do so anyway, given that a dispensary operates just an hour away in Ely. “I don’t want my kids on weed, but if it benefits the county money-wise… I think that would be great.” In contrast, Irma Davila, a Juvenile Probation Officer, issued an emotional warning based on firsthand experience in neighboring White Pine County. “White Pine County does have a dispensary, and we see an increase of kids [with high THC levels],” Davila testified. “Their cognitive thinking is not there, but once they get off the marijuana, their thinking gets better. Substance abuse treatment is not cheap, and insurance doesn’t cover it. Guess who pays: the Counties do. Protect the youth.” On the other side of the issue, Ashley Adams-Kemp argued against letting fear dictate policy. “There is a lot of misinformation about marijuana and cannabis in general,” she said, noting its success in steering patients away from harmful opioid pain pills. Schoenwald echoed this nuance, sharing that his own father had successfully used medical marijuana for five years to combat severe insomnia. Ballot box Faced with competing public viewpoints, Schoenwald floated an alternative: “Can we put this back on the ballot?” County Clerk Kathy Bowling informed the board that the statutory deadline to submit prepared pro and con arguments for the upcoming election cycle was the third Monday in July. More pressingly, the commissioners would need to draft the official ballot question, an explanation, and a detailed fiscal impact statement immediately. “So, if you guys can have all that together by Saturday, it goes on the ballot,” Bowling warned. “We can do a rough draft of that and then we can flush it out,” McKay suggested, prompting a burst of laughter from County Comptroller Kim Todd. District Attorney Ted Beutel stepped in to ground the room, reminding the board that the public and callers on the phone expected a decisive vote on the ordinance text itself, rather than rushing a flawed, formal ballot initiative ahead of a tight Saturday deadline. Unanimous denial The revelation that the county held some legal high ground changed the calculation for Chairman McKay. Furthermore, Garney Damele warned that because two conditional state license holders currently exist (NewGen and Congeriem 5 LLC), passing the ordinance could inadvertently allow two wide-open retail dispensaries to set up shop near town centers under loose state regulations. “Those are red lights to me,” McKay said. “Based on the information that we recently received from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, I think we do have a legal standing to not make a change to the ordinance and continue to hold our ground.” Schoenwald, acknowledging the shifting room, quickly moved to deny the ordinance changes while proposing a less formal community survey down the road to check the pulse of the electorate. Vice Chair Marty Plaskett seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously to deny the amendment, keeping commercial cannabis firmly illegal within Eureka County lines. https://eurekasentinel.com/2026/06/27/commissioners-reject-cannabis-ordinance-after-public-hearing/
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!