BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 243
Page 1
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
243 (Wood)
As Amended September 11, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 3, 2015) |SENATE: | | (September 11, |
| |60-15 | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not available)
Original Committee Reference: AGRI.
SUMMARY: Establishes a regulatory program for the cultivation
of medical cannabis, as part of the Medical Marijuana Regulation
and Safety Act (MMRSA).
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill
and instead:
AB 243
Page 2
1) Make findings related to the environmental impacts
associated with marijuana cultivation and the complex nature
of remediating marijuana cultivation sites, and that:
a) The federal government, including the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, has not regulated
pesticide use in medical cannabis.
b) Lawful growers of medical cannabis urge the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation to provide guidance on
the use of pesticides.
2) Require Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), in
consultation with State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), to establish a multiagency task force to address
environmental impacts associated with marijuana cultivation.
3) Require DFW to adopt regulations to enhance the fees on any
entity cultivating marijuana that impacts a bed, channel or
bank of any river, stream or lake, pursuant to Fish and Game
Code Section 1602, as specified.
4) Require the multiagency task force, established pursuant to
Water Code Section12029, DFW and the existing SWRCB pilot
project, established to respond to damages caused by
marijuana cultivation, to continue enforcement efforts on
permanent basis statewide to ensure the reduction of adverse
impacts of marijuana cultivation on water quality and fish
and wildlife.
5) Require each regional board, and permits SWRCB, to address
discharges of waste resulting from medical marijuana
cultivation and associated activities, including adopting a
general permit or establishing waste discharge requirements
or waivers as specified.
6) Require a state license to cultivate marijuana and require
the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to
establish a Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program in order to
license the cultivation of indoor and outdoor medical
marijuana.
AB 243
Page 3
7) Establish classes of cultivation licenses based on the size
of the operation and the location.
8) Require CDFA to establish a program to uniquely identify
medical marijuana plants, in consultation with SWRCB and DFW
that meets the following conditions:
a) The program must issue a unique identifier to each
plant that enables identification of permitted plants as
they are being cultivated;
b) The unique identifier must be attached to the base of
the marijuana plant and must only be issued to licensed
individuals;
c) CDFA must take steps to prevent fraudulent identifiers
and illegal diversion of unique identifiers to unlicensed
cultivators; and,
d) In implementing the program, CDFA must consider water
use and environmental impacts and ensure that individual
and cumulative effects of water diversion do not affect
the instream flows needed for fish spawning, natural
variability, or springs and other aquatic habitats.
9) Authorize CDFA to develop and implement regulations to carry
out the licensing program authorized under this bill and to
regulate weighing and measuring devices used to meet the
MMRSA's requirements.
10)State that nothing in MMRSA supersedes the authority of
SWRCB, regional water boards, or DFW.
11)Authorize a city, county, or city and county, through its
current or future land use regulations or ordinance, to issue
or deny permits that allow the cultivation of medical
marijuana, with the condition that the permit does not become
active until the cultivator receives a state license and
AB 243
Page 4
final local approval.
12)Require any local licensing requirements, including the
unique identifier program, to be equivalent to or more
stringent than CDFA's licensing requirements.
13)Prohibit a cultivator from applying for a state license if
they have not received the required local approval, or if the
local government has prohibited medical marijuana
cultivation.
14)Establish CDFA as the sole regulator in any local
jurisdiction that has not implemented a local permitting
system by March 1, 2016.
15)State that the cultivation licensing program does not apply
to a qualified patient if he or she does not cultivate
greater than 100 square feet, nor a caregiver if the
caregiver does not cultivate greater than 500 square feet and
does not supply more than five qualified patients and meet
certain other requirements.
16)Require each licensing authority which enacts the Medical
Marijuana Public Safety and Environmental Protection Act - to
levy fees adequate to cover the reasonable regulatory costs
of administering the MMRSA. These fees must be:
a) Charged to fairly and proportionately cover the total
cost of administering MMRSA;
b) Scaled based on the size of the business charged the
fee;
c) Deposited in the Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act Fund (MMRSAF), as created by this bill; and,
AB 243
Page 5
d) Used, upon appropriation of the Legislature, by the
licensing authorities to administer MMRSA.
17)Establish civil penalties for engaging in cannabis activity
without the required licenses and unique identifiers of up to
twice the cost of the appropriate licensing fee per day of
violation, to be paid as follows:
a) If the Attorney General brings action, to the General
Fund;
b) If a district attorney or county counsel brings
action, to the treasurer of the county in which the
judgment was entered; and,
c) If a city attorney or city prosecutor, to the
treasurer of the city or city and county in which the
judgment was entered, unless the case is adjudicated in a
superior court in the unincorporated area or in another
city, in which case the penalty shall be split evenly
between the treasurers in the two jurisdictions.
18)Authorize the destruction of medical cannabis associated
with any civil penalties.
19)Provide for a General Fund or special fund loan, including
up to $10 million from the General Fund, to the Bureau of
Medical Marijuana Regulation (Bureau) as established by AB
266, to support the initial regulatory activities authorized
by MMRSA.
20)Require repayment of any initial loans for regulatory
activities to be repaid by January 1, 2022, from the
regulatory fees charged by the licensing authorities and, if
necessary, from the Medical Cannabis Fines and Penalties
Account.
21)Require the Bureau to establish a grant program to fund
activities by state and local law enforcement to remedy the
environmental effects of cannabis cultivation, payable from
fines and penalties charged pursuant to the bill after all
outstanding loans for the program are repaid.
AB 243
Page 6
22)Appropriate $10 million from MMRSAF to the Department of
Consumer Affairs to begin the activities of the Bureau.
23)Provide that provisions relating to Joint Sunset Review
Committee oversight do not apply to the Bureau.
24)End the legal effect of current law stating patients,
individuals with identification cards, or their caregivers,
who associate in California to collectively and cooperatively
cultivate marijuana for medical purposes shall not solely, on
the basis of that fact, be subject to state criminal
sanctions when the Bureau posts a notice on its Internet Web
site that licensing authorities have commenced issuing
licenses.
25)Direct the Board of Equalization (BOE) to adopt a system to
report the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis
products throughout the distribution chain, which must not
duplicate CDFA's track and trace program. The system must
capture specified information regarding:
a) Amount of tax due by the designated entity;
b) Name, address, and license number of the designated
entity remitting the tax;
c) Name, address, and license number of the succeeding
entity receiving the product;
d) The transaction date; and,
e) Any other information deemed necessary by BOE for the
taxation and regulation of marijuana and marijuana
products.
26)State that no reimbursement for local costs is required
AB 243
Page 7
because this bill creates a new crime or infraction, among
other reasons, but requires reimbursement of local agencies
pursuant to existing law if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains other mandated costs.
27)State that the measure only becomes active upon the
enactment and operation of AB 266 and SB 643.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed fiscal by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) of
1996, provides certain legal protections for qualified patients
and caregivers that possess or cultivate marijuana. In addition
to Proposition 215, the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana
Program Act, which extends certain legal protections to those
that collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for
medical purposes. Marijuana is still illegal under state and
federal law.
By exempting qualified patients and caregivers from prosecution
for using or from cultivating medical marijuana (MM), California
law basically allows for the cultivation and use of MM. These
laws have triggered the growth of MM dispensaries in many
localities, and in response, local governments have sought to
exercise their police powers to regulate or ban activities
relating to MM. For many years there was uncertainty about the
ability of local governments to control MM activities,
specifically MM dispensaries location and ability to operate.
The California Supreme Court (Court), in 2013 held that
California's MM statutes do not preempt a local ban on
facilities that distribute medical marijuana. The Court held
that nothing in the CUA expressly or implied limited the
authority of a local jurisdiction, to regulate the use of its
land, including the authority to provide that facilities for the
distribution of MM will not be permitted to operate within its
borders. This has allowed many California jurisdictions to ban
the cultivation and sale of MM altogether.
AB 243
Page 8
There are limited environmental regulations for cannabis
cultivation, which have caused environmental damage to the North
Coast region of the State. The author point out that the
environmental degradation cause by marijuana growers needs to be
addressed.
In 2014, Governor Brown responded by approving $1.8 million to
create a pilot program in Northern California called the
"Watershed Enforcement Team" (WET). WET charged the State Water
Board along with the North Coast Regional Water Board to create
guidelines that address wastewater discharges from MM
cultivation. According to the author, this bill continues the
work of WET by establishing parameters that can guide statewide
standards and to create regulations around a product that has
never been regulated in California.
The cultivation of marijuana has caused significant damage to
California's natural environment. The potential for future
damage is made all the greater by the lack of regulation of the
medical marijuana industry, and in particular, the cultivation
of medical marijuana. This bill creates a regulatory framework
around cultivation. The unique identification program allows
for the tracking of medicinal marijuana plants to ensure that
marijuana is not being diverted to the black market and also
allows law enforcement to determine which plants are legally
being cultivated for medical purposes and which are being
illegally cultivated. This enables swifter eradication actions
against illegal grows while avoiding the accidental eradications
of legal medicinal plantings. This need is made all the more
dire by the current drought, which exacerbates the harm caused
by the illegal diversion of water to cultivate marijuana.
Analysis Prepared by:
Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084 FN:
0002434
AB 243
Page 9