Report Titled: Marijuana: It cost More Than You Think*

MCSO, Department of Fish and Game, United States Forest Service, and BLM mount a coordinated and concentrated effort to prevent environmental and watershed damage early in the growing season by initiating environmental inspections and cleanup programs for know sites (Findings 3-11). Response: The District Attorney is not listed as a "coordinating" agency and has no authority or control over the listed agencies. Consequently, the District Attorney cannot implement the Recommendation.

The Mendocino County District Attorney, (DA), support the efforts of law enforcement agencies by prosecuting those who cause damage to water resources and the environment. (Findings 1-5, 8) Response: The District Attorney has hired a prosecutor specifically to pursue environmental crime. The District Attorney's Office prosecutes these cases.

The DA charge growers, found in control of illegal sites, with the cost of site cleanup. (Findings 3-7, 9) Response: There is no criminal "charge" for clean up of illegal marijuana sites. A civil action to recover expenses associated with "remedial" action (i.e. clean up) may be brought by pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 11470.1. This action may be brought by the district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, the State Department of Health Services, or Attorney General. The funds received from a successful law suit would go to the law enforcement agency which incurred the expenses (i.e MCSO, or the local police department). The District Attorney cannot implement this recommendation due to lack of staffing. The first priority of the District Attorney's office is to bring criminal charges. County Counsel represents the Sheriff's Office and engages in the practice of civil law. It is suggested that County Counsel consider bringing these actions on behalf of the MCSO.

The appropriate law enforcement agency use asset forfeiture funds to institute a program to clean up illegal sites, remove toxins, open the natural water flow, and dispose of material used at the site; i.e. plastic pipe, water storage containers, and plastic sheeting. (Findings 3-7, 9) Response: To my knowledge, there is no authority to use asset forfeiture funds for environmental clean-up projects. This recommendation would need to be researched and discussed with the law enforcement agencies receiving asset forfeiture funds.

Appropriate equipment and procedures be used to insure the safety of cleanup crews. (Findings 8, 11-12). Response: The District Attorney cannot implement this recommendation because the District Attorney has no authority over the cleanup efforts.

It is the responsibility of citizens to perform due diligence and report suspected unauthorized taking of water and or creek degradation/pollution. (Findings 1-2, 13-14). Response: While the District Attorney agrees that citizens should report suspected environmental crime, the District Attorney has no authority to require due diligence and reporting of crime, consequently, this recommendation cannot be implemented. The District Attorney can encourage citizens to report environmental crime.

The Bureau of Land Management, (BLM), has used the California Conservation Corps to clean up illegal sites. The District Attorney is personally unaware of the BLM's practice of using the CCC for clean up efforts. I have no reason to disagree with the Grand Jury's finding.