Cannabis farmers and the cannabis industry in general have to navigate the same pitfalls that we see [elsewhere] in the California regulatory landscape. But when you add in [the cannabis industry’s] lack of access to banking, and [its] inability to transfer product across state lines — it makes it even more difficult for folks involved in this industry.An overarching issue is the tendency of localities to move toward indoor cultivation. We only have about 17 localities in the state — counties or cities — that allow sun grown cultivation [cultivation without supplemental light]. We’re not doing enough to educate localities and regulators about the energy impacts of high-intensity lighting, or [the drawbacks] of setting up systems where the only way you can cultivate cannabis commercially is through very energy-intensive methods — which go very much against California’s goals [for reducing] carbon emissions. I think the California Department of Food and Agriculture could talk more about sustainable cultivation — about implementing [incentive programs similar to those developed for] other industries — so that, from the get go, we’re establishing sustainable systems, rather than going back 10 or 15 years later to do a greening of the cannabis industry.If I had to rank the type of cultivator that licensed cultivators are okay seeing law enforcement go after, number one would be people that are doing environmental degradation on public land. Folks in the forest or the national park who are harming the environment — I would say that almost no one would ever disagree [with enforcement against them]. The attitude changes when we talk about people on private land. Because even though nobody wants folks to be diverting from streams,mobile vertical grow racks there is a sense that “It’s their land,” and maybe they’re trying to do better.

That’s part of the culture up here [in the Emerald Triangle]. A lot of folks came up here to buy big pieces of land [partly because] they wanted privacy, and to be themselves on their land. No one wants to see environmental degradation, but when it comes to private land, they may say “Is there a way you can go in and try to help [noncompliant growers] before law enforcement comes in? Can you go and give them a warning?” In terms of people on private land who are not harming the environment, there is a strong belief that law enforcement should not be involved. Maybe these individuals want to become compliant but can’t afford to become compliant. So instead of law enforcement prioritizing them, we should instead offer support and say, “What can we do to support you in transitioning to the regulated market?” It’s not an all-or-nothing thing. There are definitely people cultivating without a license who are way more egregious than others.Over the next decade, I do. I think that there are prob ably two main components that have to happen before we can start thinking about cannabis like other industries — one, of course, being banking. We cannot be treated like any other industry when we cannot bank. Until banking is allowed and we can get small business loans, we will not be like any other industry. The second thing is being able to ship across state lines. You can’t ship wine to every state, but you can ship it to most states, and the ability of states like California and Oregon, or California and Washington, to enter into an agreement so cannabis can flow across the borders — that’s another way that we will be able to be treated like every other industry. Until then, you have to cap production [at the level] your state can consume. Do we say, “Florida, you can only grow so many oranges because [your oranges] all have to stay in Florida?” That doesn’t make sense. I’m hoping that both [banking and interstate shipments] will happen in the next 10 years. I think banking will happen this year — the SAFE Banking Act [a cannabis banking bill] was introduced in Congress this year with over 100 sponsors from both sides of the aisle.Public complaints about odors dominate the complaints received by air pollution agencies in the United States and Europe .

As populations urbanize and move closer to industry, the volume of complaints has risen. For example, in Europe between 13 and 20% of the population is affected by odor annoyance, while in highly urban areas the fraction has risen to 25% . The inherent variability in the perception of odors makes the regulation of odors a challenge. This means that odors cannot be regulated directly like other air pollutants by setting concentration limits. Instead, human perceptions of odor have to be considered within the regulations. Some neighborhoods have highly sensitive residents, while other communities have become accustomed to an odor and rely on its source for their jobs.Fugitive emissions from such industries can lead to odor complaints due to the extremely low sensory thresholds. Further, upsets and their associated larger releases are especially problematic at oil refineries , where it can take a long time to fix the problem. Historically, odors have been regulated under public nuisance law or when permitting a new or modified facility by conducting dispersion modeling within a theoretical odor impact assessment. The latter approach is outside the scope of this paper because it has been reviewed elsewhere . The use of dispersion modeling within a theoretical odor impact assessment has only achieved partial success as evidenced by the ongoing volume of odor complaints. Odor as regulated under public nuisance law for existing facilities, rather than proposed new or modified facilities, is the focus of this paper. Public nuisance law originated in British Common Law. Such law distinguishes between “private nuisance” and “public nuisance” . Almost always, nuisance odor complaints fall under the latter category rather than individual rights . To address nuisance odor complaints, regulators may set subjective or objective standards. Based on population-based health studies of toxic air pollutants, objective standards have been set for pollutants. Odors, however, are multidimensional and require difficult-to-enforce standards. Unsurprisingly, the setting of odor standards varies greatly throughout the world and depends heavily on the industrial sector, type of activity generating the odor and level of public outcry.

Applying public nuisance law to odors has been criticized : “A direct measure of annoyance is typically made by an inspector or authorized officer of the state,indoor farming systems and if there are no complaints there is by definition, no problem. The inherent subjectivity built into the approach is a problem, as is its susceptibility to political influence or community pressure. It lacks continuity of regulation for both the community and the industry concerned and does not offer a ‘target’ for the design and management of odor control systems.” As an alternative, odor intensity limits have been set in some jurisdictions. Such limits remain sensory-based, bringing with them the inherent variability in human responses to odors, and typically are set at a certain number of volumes of odorless air required to dilute one volume of sample air until the odor is no longer detected by 50% of panelists . Dynamic dilution olfactometry, which requires a dilution instrument and evaluation by a trained panel, is typically used to set this limit.In air quality guidelines for Europe, the World Health Organization recommended guideline concentration values for six odorants , which are presented along with their sensory thresholds in Table 2.3. Five of the odorants have their WHO guidelines near or below their odor detection thresholds. The exception, hydrogen sulfide, has a WHO guideline slightly above the odor recognition threshold. Developing a guideline value for each of the thousands of odorants would be daunting. Further, odorants are typically present as mixtures, which alters the overall perceived odor. Therefore, the WHO recommended that future work for sensory annoyance should probably focus on odors as perceived by individuals rather than on the component substances .Based on the information gathered from around the world, a targeted literature search and phone interviews of odor experts and air inspectors were conducted to provide current perspectives on odor investigations. Literature searches were conducted online and at the University of California, Los Angeles, and California Air Resources Board physical libraries. The focus was post-2010, and when relevant articles or books were found the “cited by” function was used to find even more up-to-date information. A California-specific literature search was conducted as well. Reviews of the latest approaches to odor investigation were sought. Finally, relevant websites and posted materials not typically available in scientific journals were searched. To collect the latest information on nuisance odor investigations from California’s air districts and international experts, phone interviews were conducted. The interviewees’ insights were gathered and any available guidance documents and relevant case studies were requested.California regulates odors under California Health and Safety Code Section 41700, which states “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of people.” California primarily regulates its air quality through 35 local air districts, although the California Air Resources Board addresses odor complaints from mobile sources. In addition, CalRecycle offers odor guidance to composting operations.

CARB has a long history of addressing nuisance odor complaints. In the 1970s, questionnaires were used to collect information from residents near pulp mills on exposure to the odor and on health and annoyance reactions . In general, the frequency with which odor was noticed and the frequency and intensity with which respondents were bothered by the odor were correlated with perceived odor intensity and frequency as measured by dynamic dilution olfactometry within each community. More recently, an agreement was formed between CARB and the local air districts regarding the handling of odor complaints . It stated that CARB handles mobile source odor complaints and, for stationary sources, the local air district is phoned as soon as possible, but at least within one business day. It then gives local air districts 15 working days after receipt of the CARB letter to provide a written complaint resolution or summary progress report. Finally, CARB agreed to subscribe to an over-the-phone verbal translation service that it would make available to the local air districts. Several of the local air districts were contacted to gather information on how they currently investigate nuisance odor complaints. The information gathered is summarized next. One observation during the interviews was that CARB trains the air district staff on smokestack opacity measurements using their own eyes . Training regarding environmental odor evaluation could be developed as well. In 2008, SCAQMD Rule 410 took effect to address odors from trash transfer stations and material recovery facilities. Sufficiently large facilities were required to have an approved odor management plan with extra requirements for even larger facilities. In 2009, a panel of 10 air inspectors used odor profiling to evaluate a trash transfer station . Based on the observed odors, specific odorants were suggested and then confirmed analytically. In 2017, SCAQMD adopted Rule 415 to address odors from rendering facilities . The rule requires building enclosures with ventilation to odor control systems for odorous operations and best management practices, such as covers for trucks and trailers and time limits for moving materials during the receiving and rendering process. Also in 2017, Rule 1430 was adopted to reduce odors from grinding operations at metal forging facilities . Four confirmed odor complaints over six months trigger additional odor management controls, such as enclosures.Air inspectors use their own noses to confirm the complaint, which does not necessarily need to match the complainant’s description of the odor. Each person’s ability to describe odors varies too greatly to require consistent descriptions. Rather, sensing that “something” is there is sufficient. The next step is to identify the source and move upwind to verify that the odor is not coming from elsewhere. Air inspectors are assigned to specific areas and know the sources within their area well. They are trained on how to respond by pairing junior staff with more senior mentors. For more complex odors, monitoring and meteorological data are used. Hydrogen sulfide monitors have been used for direct measurements and SUMMA evacuated canisters and Tedlar™ bags have been used to collected air samples. Sometimes a SUMMA canister is given to a complainant to collect a sample over time.