State agencies probe True Leaf runoff after neighbors report persistent discharges

Jefferson County commissioners heard more than three hours of testimony on May 21 about alleged runoff and off‑site discharges from the True Leaf cannabis cultivation site, with state regulators describing the narrow scope of their stormwater permits and saying they are still investigating whether a concentrated process stream requires an industrial wastewater permit.

The Swany River Water Management District’s resource management director, Leroy Marshall, told the board the district’s reviews focus on stormwater: “The water‑quality volume is typically the first inch‑and‑a‑half of rain — that’s where most pollutants are. In an open basin we look at the post‑discharge rate versus the pre‑discharge rate, not the absolute amount,” Marshall said. He described the site’s permit history and multiple permit modifications, and said a sequence‑5 application is under active review to separate operational (process) water from stormwater.

That separation is central to the dispute. Residents and nearby landowners testified they have observed steady flows leaving True Leaf during dry periods and alleged erosion and property damage. James Lamb, a nearby landowner who identified himself as trustee for the Floyd Trust, told the board he measured what he described as sustained flows he estimated “hundreds to thousands of gallons per minute” during incidents in April and May; he said the discharges caused massive erosion and that footage documenting the events has been posted to social media.

Swany River staff said the district has documented complaints going back to October 2023, issued a notice of non‑compliance and negotiated a compliance agreement in April 2024. The district’s file for the site is item 152004 in its public portal; Marshall said the agency sent a notice of non‑compliance earlier this year, has done multiple site visits, required changes to the operation and maintenance plan and is treating the recent modification as a major change so it will be reviewed fully.

“We asked them to stop pumping offsite,” Marshall said, describing temporary mobile pumping the district observed during April. He added that True Leaf’s operation and maintenance plan now includes language about on‑site pumping, trucking water to a Madison site and irrigating from a sediment basin; the district is still verifying where pumped water is being routed and whether those paths are permitted.

At the Department of Environmental Protection, Deputy Secretary John Truit said DEP issued a warning letter on April 20 after initial review of the site’s water‑flow diagram. He said the department is evaluating whether the reverse‑osmosis (RO) reject and HVAC condensate streams — a concentrated “waste” stream from indoor cultivation — should be regulated as industrial wastewater under Chapter 403 and rule 62‑620 (monitoring and permitting).

“If the RO‑reject is a separate, concentrated waste stream, that triggers wastewater permitting and monitoring requirements,” Truit said. He told the board DEP is coordinating with Swany River and other agencies about whether a permit, a consent order or other enforcement steps are needed, and warned that any plan to truck water to an outside wastewater facility would require a separate permit process with that receiving entity.

Residents pressed regulators for more immediate measures. Nancy Keart asked why the district relied on complaint‑driven inspections rather than regular patrols; Marshall said the district operates with four staff covering multiple counties and 15,600 permits and therefore focuses inspections on verified complaints. Some residents called for cameras, steeper fines or temporary shutdowns; the district and DEP staff said they lack unilateral authority to compel a site shutdown absent a formal enforcement proceeding but that they would pursue penalties or consent orders if violations are substantiated.

County staff and regulators said key next steps include: Swany River issuing a request for additional information (RAI) for the sequence‑5 submittal (Marshall indicated the agency must put questions into the first RAI and expects to send one within the 30‑day review window), DEP completing its analysis of the RO reject stream and the parties coordinating possible industrial‑wastewater permitting if warranted. Marshall and Truit said the district keeps a public file portal (item 152004) with the compliance history.

What happens next: the district told the board it will treat the current modification as a major change and send an RAI; DEP said it will continue the investigation begun with a warning letter and will pursue permitting or corrective orders if sampling shows the process stream meets wastewater definitions. The board did not vote on any new county enforcement action at the meeting.

Sources and attributions: quotes and technical descriptions above are drawn from presentations by Leroy Marshall (Swany River Water Management District) and John Truit (Department of Environmental Protection) and from public testimony by nearby landowners including James Lamb and Nancy Keart.