Blogs and Articles

The Cannabis Conundrum

How will marijuana cultivation impact water in the West?

  • Email This Post Email This Post

For weeks I thought I had a skunk problem. Every evening, the scent returned. But as it turns out, odiferous varmints were not to blame. My home, nestled in an agricultural region of California, has recently found itself at the epicenter of the cannabis industry. And it seems that this burgeoning agricultural business may affect more than one’s olfactory receptors.

Six western states have legalized cannabis—Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Alaska, and California. But a number of water professionals are asking how the growth of this industry might impact water resources.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago is seeking a visionary Executive Director. The District is an award-winning wastewater agency which has been a leader in protecting the Chicago area water environment for over a 120 years. For information and to apply, click here or contact [email protected]The District is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Cannabis cultivation has the potential to affect water resources in a variety of ways according to experts, but primary concerns are that irrigation withdrawals could reduce the flow of streams or that wastewater could pollute waterways with agricultural chemicals. To date, however, no one—neither regulatory officials, policymakers, nor growers—can offer a definitive answer regarding how this nascent industry might impact water in the West.

Growing cannabis requires a significant amount of water; that much is clear. But because of the former illegality of its cultivation, there is little data tracking the industry’s water consumption. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife asserts that a cannabis plant grown outdoors in Northern California can consume as much as 6 gallons of water per day, but the industry’s growers contend that 2.3 gallons per day is a far more realistic estimate. Furthermore, they explain that many cannabis operations are taking over acreage once dedicated to more water-intensive crops such as alfalfa, and therefore may conserve water in comparison.

Growers also explain that cannabis offers more economic value per gallon of water or acre of land than many other crops. States keen to benefit from taxes on this high-value crop have worked to develop new regulatory frameworks focused on water consumption. And each state seems to be handling these legislative structures differently.

The state of Washington has attempted to regulate water usage by limiting the number of grower licenses it offers as well as the number of retailer licenses. Colorado’s rules prohibit the application of certain chemicals during cultivation and limit commercial marijuana cultivation to indoor grow operations which can be more easily monitored. While some states require minimal oversight, others have rigorous regulatory processes.

California’s rules for irrigation water allocations, runoff, and wastewater produced are far more detailed, as outlined by Water Deeply. While many states grant first-come, first-served “appropriative” rights for available water, in California, “riparian” rights mean that growers near a stream have access to a water supply. Therefore the strategy lawmakers are pursuing is to limit the amount of water that must be flowing through a channel before water can be diverted for marijuana growth to ensure that resources aren’t overly taxed. They will also limit the acres of land a grow operation can disturb and will regulate wastewater disposal and permitting through cooperation with local, state, and federal law enforcement.

What predictions do you have for the cannabis industry’s effect on water in the West? What suggestions do you have for the regulatory frameworks? WE_bug_web

Related Posts


  1. A good indication of water consumption for marijuana would be the state of Colorado. Since the Colorado River also provides water for California, a comparison of the river’s water loss from Colorado growers, as well as losses from the Red River, the Rio Grande and tributaries would give anecdotal evidence of the smilar effects n California.

  2. There are many instances in rural areas where unregulated “pot grows” are harmful to the environment. Improperly applied herbicides and fertilizers, dewatered streams, vehicular damage to stream beds, and unsanitary disposal of human waste and garbage are the major negative factors. All of these conditions were created by the fact that the basic nature of an illegal business disregards the rules of society. Now that it’s legal and prices have dropped considerably, sane regulations have an opportunity to eliminate these negative consequences.It’s time the Feds got on the bandwagon, so that the banking industry can play an important part in ensuring that the necessity for cash as the only viable currency eliminates yet another opportunity for crime to benefit. Prohibition didn’t work for booze, it never worked for pot, and in both instances it created numerous negative societal consequences without preventing widespread use. Would it be better for humans to live happily without needing some substance or other to soften the stresses of cold, hard facts? Sure would be. Is that something that will happen in the foreseeable future? Nope.

  3. It should be regulated same as any other crop. They must pay and also be regulated for water consumption same as other ag growers. Assembly Bill 1881 / MWELO (2007) put strict “water budgets” on all consumers of CA. water (ag, homeowners, commercial, etc). They should have to comply just the same.

  4. If you are concern about water quality then what about fracking they use good water that can never be used in our life time, And yes if the Feds were to move cannabis from schedule 1. Because we all know that there is medical use for cannabis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *