“The owners of Napa Valley’s most popular Cabernet Sauvignon brand have come forward to speak out against ’25 years of gross excesses’ and ‘blockages’ that have prevented property owners from developing their vineyards. is suing Napa County.” San Francisco Chronicle report.
of lawsuit against Napa County filed in California court by hundred acres in Saint Helena high price “cult winery– alleges the county was involved in its “significant administrative overreach” maintenance rules And it has set up “mountains of bureaucracy and endless bureaucratic obstacles” that have hindered the winery’s ability to exploit and improve its assets.
“If you’re the average person trying to start a winery in Napa Valley, the bureaucracy is runaway and overkill on every level,” says Jason Woodbridge, owner of 100 Acres. Said wine business monthly this month. “If it gets in the way of agriculture, it doesn’t bode well for Napa Valley’s future.”
Woodbridge isn’t the only place Napa County officials see as a roadblock to winemaking.Earlier this month, his CEO at Napa Farms Bureau, Ryan Koblas Said The local farm department, which counts many winegrowers as members, has a Bloomberg Act that “‘many members who regularly call on us for help’ deal with the county.”
The lawsuit focuses on two key areas: 1) the cutting of charred trees and other vegetation damaged by the 2020 fires, and 2) the introduction of a pilot vineyard the winery installed earlier this year. I guess.
According to the lawsuit, the county claims that the charred trees removed by the winery are “vegetation,” and a county permit is required to remove the vegetation. It also argues that pilot vineyards are plantings and that county permits are required to plant vineyards.But the lawsuit alleges the county is targeting the winery “For clearing the property of the remains of dead charred trees that were incinerated by the 2020 glass fire.” [and seeking to prevent it] Planting unique and experimental dry-grown vineyards using a new non-erosion technique that does not disturb the soil of the plaintiff’s land and instead allows the plaintiff to “replant” the same type of high-fire-risk land from 2020 The trees that fueled the fire of the year.
Given the lawsuit’s focus on fire damage and novel vineyard planting methods, this is a major issue across California, for wineries Specifically, there is another possible way to mitigate that problem by helping reduce potential fuel for future fires —experts say The lawsuit could have “significant implications for the future of Napa Valley.”
The lawsuit traces its origins back to two years ago. It details how the winery’s land, along with thousands of other acres in the Napa Valley, were destroyed during the devastating Glass Fire. The fire left “blackened hillsides strewn with dead and dying trees” that can still be seen today. The fire “destroyed” 80 acres of the winery’s vegetation. After a year of no regrowth among the charred tree remains, plaintiffs say they removed a small portion of the unsightly and potentially dangerous tree remains.
Separately, in 2021, the winery decided to learn and try to replicate the once popular but little used wine grape “dry growing” method. soil disturbance or other erosive activity”—on its hillside.
“With this method, you put a small, bottomless container on the ground and fill it with compost and a single rootstock,” Suits explains. “The rootstock then grows through the compost and takes root in the soil without tillage, digging, or other soil-disrupting activities.”
The experimental approach that the winery began implementing in May holds a lot of promise.
“If successful, such dry-grown vineyards will offer many benefits, including improved erosion control by vineyards that develop the deep and extensive root growth necessary to reach underground water sources. Provides a substantial protective firebreak that protects the property, structures on neighboring properties, and is more scenic and potentially economical when compared to the barren and burnt landscape left by glass fires. It is a productive use of land, ”explaining the details of the lawsuit.
The county saw things differently. Within days of introducing the experimental approach, county inspectors showed up at the winery, claiming the winery might be in violation of county law.
“The notice said [the] The company cleared 7 acres of vegetation in preparation for the vineyard. ” Napa Valley Register report Early this month.
The county named the winery in September for various conservation violations, including “clearing vegetation and preparing land for vineyards,” according to details of the lawsuit. The county has taken steps to keep the vineyards safe, including hiring a botanist to map the vegetation at the winery, even though “the glass fire left very little vegetation on the property,” as the lawsuit explains. demanded that many costly measures be taken.
“The county’s indictments and regulatory demands have always been completely baseless,” the complaint explains. “Plaintiff never removed the vegetation canopy (which Glass Fire did), never moved the soil on the property. There was no ‘preparing the ground’ when laying out the vineyards. ”
The winery claims that the fire, not the winery, “cleared” the vegetation from its property. Also, the methods the winery used to introduce new rootstock into the hillside did not involve “earthwork,” which is prohibited by county law. “Indeed, the purpose of plaintiffs’ experimental, non-erosion vineyard was to see if a vineyard could be introduced without engaging in such activities,” the winery explains in the lawsuit.
By the end of the summer, the winery confirmed that the experimental “potted rootstock” process had taken hold. So the winery repeated this process over nearly an acre of its property.
Then, shortly after the winemaker met with the county in September to detail its position and actions, the complaint states that the county “if developing hillside vineyards, must comply with county-approved erosion control measures.” I took a position that I can neither support nor support that it is necessary.” plan. “The county has no legal authority to mandate the creation or execution of such plans,” the winery said.
The lawsuit alleges that the county violated the winery’s rights under the state constitution and is entitled to due process and equal protection under the law. Determine whether the conservation rules in question apply to the winery’s experimental vineyard and its “removal of the charred remains of trees and stumps killed by fire” and enforce such rules against the winery I am asking the court to ban the county from doing so.
Just days after the lawsuit was filed this week, the county, which has its own version of events, descended on the 100-acre property with a court order to conduct an inspection of the property. press release The county, which announced the search, suggested the timing of the raid was entirely accidental and was simply scheduled before the start of the rainy season.
Woodbridge, the owner of 100 Acres, is as frustrated as he is adamant.
“A major obstacle to getting anything productive done is bureaucracy, which goes beyond authority on many levels,” said Woodbridge. wine business monthly“They’re just doing it because they think they can get away with it.”
If Woodbridge and 100 Acres win, as I hope, the county will not allow it. 100 Acres, other wineries, consumers may be better off that way, in addition to the environment.
