Wineries Sue Napa County in Federal Court Over Restrictive Rules
Three Napa wineries filed a joint lawsuit against Napa County in federal court yesterday, alleging that county officials systematically violated their constitutional rights. The wineries—Summit Lake Vineyards, Smith-Madrone Vineyards & Winery and Hoopes Vineyard—filed the complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
This is the just latest development in a growing battle with the county. Vintners and growers cite government overreach, confusing regulations, inconsistent enforcement and more. Multiple parties have filed lawsuits regarding use permits and water rights in recent years.
Four million tourists visit Napa annually, and many stop at small wineries. In 2015, 68 percent of Napa wineries produced fewer than 20,000 cases per year. There is a growing concern that the county is not supporting its biggest economic draw, especially when it comes to small wineries. Many small-winery owners have grievances with the county government, including fights to get approval for new construction and mandated wastewater treatment upgrades. There’s also a federal investigation over possible corruption in the permitting process, with the FBI subpoenaing records from several wineries.
In their complaint, the three wineries argue that the “County of Napa regulates wineries within the County not based on clear, understandable ordinances, but rather upon an ever-changing patchwork of undocumented ‘policies’ and procedures. The few written ordinances Napa County does have are so vague that county wineries are unable to decipher what is and is not allowed and so vague as to allow Napa County officials to use their unfettered discretion to restrict winery operations as they see fit.”
“Only by going to the federal courts can we protect our constitutional rights to ensure fairness in being regulated by Napa County,” said Lindsay Hoopes, owner of Hoopes Vineyard, in a statement.
The county filed a lawsuit against Hoopes in state court five years ago, accusing her of violating rules by hosting tastings and yoga classes. Hoopes argues her winery has an existing small winery exemption for tastings, but county officials claim it is not valid. In August, Hoopes filed a motion to dismiss the case after finding new evidence that allegedly shows the county secretly changed the property entitlements of her winery and more than 20 others.
The owners of Smith-Madrone and Summit Lake were also granted small winery exemptions when Napa passed its Winery Definition Ordinance in 1990, which they argue has always allowed for tastings. But they were both informed in recent years that wasn’t the case.
Smith-Madrone owner Stu Smith has hosted tastings at his winery since his use permit was approved in the early 1970s. “Now, 48 years later, without my being notified or being allowed to be present to defend my rights,” he told Wine Spectator, “the county arbitrarily and capriciously changed my permitting to zero visitors a day and somehow came up with 10 visitors a week.”
The wineries argue in the lawsuit that the First Amendment and California law protect their rights to host visitors and events in their tasting rooms and serve samples and glasses of wine. The county further violates their rights, they say, when it requires wineries to get prior approval before hosting events while it regulates cultural events based upon the message delivered at those events.
Smith and Heather Brakesman-Griffin of Summit Lake Vineyard said in a joint statement, “Whether it’s unfair and capricious manipulation of the winery database, ever-changing interpretations of the road and street standards or other issues, there is a desperate need to find fairness, professionalism and integrity in how we are regulated.”
Napa officials told Wine Spectator they could not comment until they had reviewed the complaint.
Stay on top of important wine stories with Wine Spectator’s free Breaking News Alerts.
