Exploring the Differences and Similarities between Various Napa Valleys

A sizeable amount of Napa winemakers are puzzled and agitated by county officers who prevent them from conducting their operations—even when they comply with regulations.

Though it may seem unbelievable, given Napa’s reputation as America’s premier luxury wine region, the valley used to be a minor farming area inhabited by determined farmers not too long ago.

The valley is now celebrated for its exceptional wines and imposing estates. Four million tourists visit each year. Many come to see the glittering tasting rooms and wine cellars owned by large corporate brands, but a considerable number of small family wineries continue to form the essence of the valley. In 2015, 68% of Napa wineries generated less than 20,000 cases per annum.

However, there is an escalating apprehension that the county is not backing its largest economic asset, particularly when it concerns small-scale wineries. In 1968, wine makers and local officers collaborated to establish the Napa Agriculture Preserve, the first initiative of its kind in the country. The concept was that zoning the land for farming was the most effective way to safeguard it from excessive development. However, an increasing number of Napa inhabitants do not think that grape farming and wineries are the best ways to preserve the land. Some citizens of Napa argue that wineries have transformed into more of tourist spots and event venues rather than small farms. The county already has some of the nation’s most complex regulations for gaining approval, and local communities are increasingly opposing these approvals.

Several parties have instigated legal actions concerning usage permits and water privileges. Numerous minor vineyard proprietors are expressing resentments with the county governance, incorporating authorizations for fresh constructions and upgrades for waste water treatment. Moreover, a federal probe over potential dishonesty in the permit issuance process is in progress.

Anxiety is mounting that this scenario will only render the Valley less inviting to smaller vineyards. “The county’s strategy will further divide the market to favor larger corporations and drive smaller vineyards to shut down,” claimed Hoopes Vineyard proprietor Lindsey Hoopes, turning into an unanticipated representation of growing frustrations within the valley.

Subsequent to Napa County representatives serving Hoopes with notices for purportedly conducting samplings devoid of an appropriate permit, a case was lodged against her in 2022. Hoopes, resolute that she was acting within her legal rights, lodged a counteraction, alleging that the officers overstepped their regulatory powers.

Hayes Drumwright, founder of Vida Valiente and Memento Mori vineyards, has been embroiled in a half-decade conflict with the county over constructing a vineyard residence for Vida Valiente in the rural area of St. Helena. Drumwright avers that he has accomplished all the requisite prerequisites, adhered to all the regulations and passed each compulsory environmental analysis, traffic investigation and more. He even earned a positive response from a public works officer and fire chief. However, in a December 2023 review, he was repeatedly disapproved to commence construction. “I am aware other vineyards are facing similar predicaments,” Drumwright declared. “Don’t waste my time and resources if adherence to these rules is irrelevant.”

Drumwright is planning to construct not far from where Jayson Woodbridge, the founder and owner of Hundred Acre Wine Group, has taken legal action against the county. Woodbridge lodged two suits against the county due to the officials’ refusal to grant him permits for wells and the replanting of trees destroyed in the 2020 wildfires.

The public has witnessed merely a fraction of the disputes. Behind closed doors, several wineries have received subpoenas from the FBI, and local authorities have reportedly sanctioned some developments improperly, according to environmental groups.

Brian Bordona, Napa County’s director of Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, stated, “Divisions arise where some people express disappointment over the perceived surplus of wineries and inadequate regulations, while others argue that current regulatory measures are excessive.”

Woodbridge spoke of a growing sense of resentment, and declared, “ The reason behind my lawsuit is witnessing countless individuals, without ample financial resources but with a dream, get knocked down by the county. I possess the capability and resources to confront the county. I partake in this dispute not just for my sake but also for everyone of us and for Napa Valley’s future.”

In 1990, the government of Napa County put into effect the Winery Definition Ordinance (WDO). This legal document set the regulations for winery operations, covering aspects like production, sales, and marketing. It became mandatory for new wineries to get a use permit before they could start operations; wineries already in existence were exempted but would need to get a permit if they planned to expand.

There were an exemption for small wineries – categorised as those producing less than 8,500 cases every year. However, they had to adhere to regulations stated in a certificate of exemption instead of obtaining a formal use permit.

In 1981, the father of Lindsey Hoopes began farming in Oakville. After she assumed control of the family business in the year 2012, Lindsey began the search for a new venue for their small winery. Eventually, in 2017, she acquired Hopper Creek Vineyard and Winery which is located in Yountville. Like Hoopes, Hopper Creek had also been welcoming guests for many years under the exemption for small wineries. Lindsey was under the impression that their small winery exemption allowed them to continue welcoming visitors.

However, the records of Napa County reveal that it was never permitted for Hopper Creek to host tastings. Their certificate leaves no room for “public tastings” events. In response, Hoopes maintains that her team and herself offer only private tastings, and they are strictly by appointment.

The county refused to comply and penalized Hoopes for organizing tastings and other violations, such as stringing fairy lights, on-site yoga classes and retailing non-wine goods. In 2022, the county initiated a lawsuit.

Hoopes states that the county is exploiting a gap in time. “Miniature wineries [like ours] were granted rights during the 1980s,” elucidates Hoopes. “To sell wine, one must bring lips to the glass.” She lodged a countersuit versus the county.

The county ordinarily avoids speaking out on potential or active legal cases, yet court documents reveal that officers perceive Hoopes’ definition of what constitutes “public tastings” to be too broad. Hoopes also holds an O-2 license, which permits for a tasting room by state alcoholic authorities. State law forbids local administrations from abolishing such privileges.

Having been a former assistant district attorney in San Francisco, Hoopes has a benefit in court. Nevertheless, she acknowledges that other minor wineries would probably not possess the financial supply or legal tools to protect themselves.

There are others in the same situation. Summit Lake Vineyards and Smith-Madrone Vineyards and Winery also received notices of violation from the county, and were hoping to join the lawsuit. Unfortunately, their request was denied, which means they are battling the legal issue on their own. Like Hoopes, these wineries were established before the Winery Definition Ordinance came into force, so they believed they should be allowed to conduct tastings and sales under the grandfather clause.

However, Hoopes’ lawsuit means much more to her than merely defending her small business. “This case isn’t about me. It’s about the precedent this will set.” Proceedings for the civil trial began on January 29 at a Superior Court in Napa County. A verdict is yet to be decided.

Winemakers are changing their practices to accommodate the shifts in climate, which have resulted in an increase in wildfire risk. The deadly wildfires of 2020 which ravaged Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Lake, and Yolo counties, have caused a change in attitude towards development, especially in rural areas. Previously, wineries and their accompanying vineyards were considered a positive factor in the face of fires because the vines can slow down the progress of the fire. However, authorities have been making it increasingly difficult to develop properties in recent years.

The story of Hayes Drumwright’s Vida Valiente wines is a case in point. He has been proposing to build a winery and a tasting room on Crystal Springs Road in rural St. Helena. In December 2023, after five years of working to meet all the necessary conditions, he fulfilled all the requirements mandated by the county. But, the Napa County Planning Commission voted against Drumwright’s project.

We’re trying to abide by every rule. We did traffic and water studies we didn’t need because we wanted everything buttoned up,” Drumwright said. He highlighted that two commissioners opposed the winery due to its geographical placement along a rural roadway in a region susceptible to wildfires; Crystal Springs Road is not distant from where the Glass Fire of 2020 originated. Despite this, both the public works agency and the fire marshal permitted the project.

According to Drumwright, “I’ve spent five years and a million dollars on this,”. He then reached out to all the county commissioners, inviting them to visit the site. Out of all the invitations sent out, only two commissioners came. Commissioner Kara Brunzell on the other hand, failed to respond to any of the e-mails or the four phone calls Drumwright made to her. (Any requests for comment from Napa officials by Wine Spectator were redirected to Bordona.)

In Drumwright’s narrative, during the presentation of his case, a number of neighbors contested that two cars wouldn’t be able to pass each other on the road near where Drumwright planned to construct. “Although we spent thousands on traffic surveys!” Drumwright expressed his frustration. Eventually, Brunzell voiced her discomfort with the project, mentioning excessive traffic and potential water usage. Megan Dameron, another commissioner, referred to a letter from a Crystal Springs Road resident which expressed a concern about the infeasibility of cars to pass and concerns about safety.

“The chief commissioner brought the hearing to a halt,” Drumwright recounted, “And he expressed, ‘I can’t believe this is happening. We need to have faith in the experts. If the rules don’t apply, then what exactly are we doing?’”

Drumwright points out that county regulations require properties to lessen fire threats, which includes removing dead plants and creating safe gaps around built structures. Moreover, the county enforces a rule for new vineyard developments to plant three or four times more trees than the amount displaced by the construction.

These regulations have led Jayson Woodbridge to file a lawsuit against the county. County officials ordered Woodbridge to replant trees on his Napa Valley estate, 80 acres of which were destroyed in the 2020 wildfires. Woodbridge’s goal was to create a vineyard utilizing groundbreaking, non-destructive farming techniques after eradication of the burned trees. However, he received a potential county code violation in 2022, with court records showing a Stop Work Order that Woodbridge alleges was never received by him.

Woodbridge maintains his actions were completely lawful. “We’re fully within our rights to clean up the land after a disaster like the Glass Fire, and the county shouldn’t dictate what we do with our private property,” he asserted. He further sued the county when officials declined to authorize water well permits for various vineyard properties. His lawsuit accuses the county of disregarding his state water rights entitlement.

In California, water rights management falls under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board, and not local governments. Nonetheless, Napa county itself handles well regulation through county codes, with the aim of preventing groundwater contamination or pollution.

Well permits should be readily issued per state and county regulations without undue and unjust water usage constraints. Yet, usage was one of the reasons the county denied Woodbridge’s well permit. Stringent usage limitations currently placed on existing wells were demanded to be accepted by Woodbridge by the county.

“Agriculture and vineyards need water, and we as landowners are invested in its judicious use,” Woodbridge commented, highlighting excessive regulatory intrusion. “We have every entitlement to utilize water effectively as per our rights tied to our owned or purchased properties.”

The tussle over development has gone south. In December, the FBI demanded records from several vintners and the Napa County Farm Bureau that supports wineries. In the same month, Alfredo Pedroza, a County Board of Supervisors’ member and a staunch advocate for wineries, had his residence searched by the FBI. Pedroza has been a point of contention for environmental groups opposed to the expansion of wineries.

Local media leaks revealed several distinguished vintners among those subpoenaed, including Dave Phinney, Chuck Wagner, and Kathryn Walt Hall. Kathryn and her husband, Craig Hall, were embroiled in one of the most explosive recent development battles. They bought Walt Ranch, an untouched plot on Atlas Peak, in 2005 for $8 million, with the vision to establish a 208-acre vineyard. Although environmental groups resisted the project, after ten years of discord and modifications to the plans, it got the green light from the county board in 2021.

After a year, critics pointed out a possible conflict of interest involving Pedroza when it was discovered that his father-in-law had bought land next to Walt Ranch using a loan supported by Pedroza. Exhausted by the ongoing disputes, the Halls decided to put an end to the project.

No comments have been given by the FBI and the local U.S. Attorney in relation to the subpoenas.

Carlton McCoy,

the president and CEO of Lawrence Wine Estates, a company overseeing six wineries in Napa, has no ongoing issues with the county. He, however, gets the points of contention raised by his colleagues and other locals and notes a gap and a miscommunication. McCoy emphasized, “We need to establish a conversation to address concerns instead of indulging in a blame game.”

McCoy also raises a question on why the public is allowed to file objections even when a winery has abided by the county laws. According to him, “When building a winery, approval is subjected to public sentiment. Why should this be the approach? Managing a wine region in this manner is not feasible. Not to belittle homeowners, but this is what they signed up for and the county has unduly let them control situations, which goes against the principle of agricultural preservation.”

Bordona emphasizes that the county is open to meaningful dialogue, which could entail having conversations to scrutinize current regulations, evaluate the effect of new wineries, and investigate workable solutions that align with our residents, businesses, and county’s collective interests.

Some winemakers are starting to think that wineries are not recognized as agricultural, hence, they are treated differently compared to other businesses, this includes vineyards. Hoopes noticed an ascending surge of opinion that the preservation of agriculture is contrary to winery operations. Winery operation is seen as a bond that cannot be broken from Agricultural Preserve founders. Without the ability to profit from the land, what is its purpose? It all circles back to the value of the wine industry, which is determined by what the market requires, not just the growth and cultivation of grapes but also the production of wine and provision of hospitality services.

There are concerns regarding the impending local elections, as three supervisorial seats could potentially change hands. Drumwright has heard that matters are going to take a turn for the worst significantly. He mentioned that if they do not get approval this year, there might not be a chance for it the following year.

What frustrates Drumwright is the notion that local officials do not consider his vision for Napa. He said that he has had a brand in the area since 2010 and that he cares about who enters the valley. He thinks it’s significant that visitors see small wineries resisting corporatization. He wonders if the magic of Napa can continue for future generations if the builders of these brands are deemed insignificant.

-With reporting by Chris Cardoso

Stay on top of important wine stories with Wine Spectator’s free Breaking News Alerts.

---

About the Author: Chris Lehoux

Meet Chris Lehoux, an experienced wine connoisseur and dedicated blogger with a deep passion for all things wine-related. With years of expertise in the industry, Chris shares insightful wine reviews, valuable wine tasting tips, expert pairing advice, and captivating tales of vineyard visits. Join Chris on a journey through the world of wine, where every sip is an adventure waiting to be savored!