Paul Moser | Sep 12, 2024

In the last couple of months, you might have noticed the consistent stream of anxious and indignant letters from Napa County wine industry figures on the Napa Valley Register’s opinion page, broadly or specifically suggesting that the Napa County Board of Supervisors has been unfair and/or capricious in dealing with prospective winery and vineyard projects.

The subtext is pretty clear: the Napa Valley wine industry is under serious attack. This is, of course, completely bonkers. It’s a little like certain Christians screaming about Christianity being under assault in the United States. For such a beleaguered group, they certainly seem to wield a huge amount of clout.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone living in the valley who doesn’t understand and appreciate that the wine industry is the engine of the regional economy. No group of citizens - much less elected officials - is gathering in hidden locations to plot the demise of Napa’s grape-growing and winery businesses.

What is actually happening is that the system is working as designed, i.e., elected officials are responding to conditions in a rapidly changing world and to the clear demands of the voters who recognize those changes.

This doesn’t sit well with various wine industry advocacy groups such a Napa Valley Grape Growers and the Napa County Farm Bureau, but that is only because these groups have had overwhelming influence over our elected officials for many years, and are pretty grouchy that their influence should now be balanced by legitimate environmental concerns.

Industry grouchiness displays itself often by characterizing certain County Supervisors as misguided, fuzzy-headed environmentalists who might well forbid any further vineyard or winery projects in the valley.

When a Board decision seems to bear out those worst fears, as when the Le Colline vineyard project was rejected last November, supervisors were accused of ignoring the recommendations of county staff and of making decisions that are “emotional” and “not based in science.” This approach was abandoned when, for example, a controversial project like Vida Valiente Winery, in Deer Park, was recently approved. Whoops. Industry spokespeople then applauded the supervisors for overruling the Planning Commission.

The truth behind all this is that, despite industry advocacy groups’ paranoid complaints, the system is working as designed. It is not up to staff members of the county to make land use decisions. It should be unnecessary to remind industry representatives and everyone else that elected officials have the responsibility and the power to make final decisions.

And there is nothing capricious about their actions. The supervisors are thoughtful and deliberate in considering each proposed project that comes before them. If they might more and more frequently choose to emphasize the notion that an Agricultural Preserve cannot survive without first preserving the environment in which it exists, it is reasonable to assume that is why citizens voted for these supervisors in 2022 and 2024, and not for candidates more free-wheeling in their approach to growth.

In this year’s elections, Peter Mott, a wine industry champion, failed in his quest to become District 4 supervisor, defeated by Amber Manfree, an academic and long-time advocate for the environment.

In the District 5 contest, incumbent Belia Ramos defeated Miriam Aboudamous, even after the Aboudamous campaign took in a jaw-dropping $11,000 donation from the owners of the above-mentioned contentious Le Colline vineyard project, which was rejected by the Board last November.

Sure, it’s revenge politics and not very pretty, but still: it’s proof that the system is working quite well. You either have the support of the majority of voters or you don’t.

The important news is that all parties recognize the need to revise the dangerously outdated 2008 General Plan, the document intended to guide development both private and public throughout the county. The current Board is unanimous in giving this task high priority when it commences work with newly-seated members in January.

The supervisors seem clear that the world is a very different place today than it was in 2008, not to mention in 1968 when the Ag Preserve Ordinance was put in place, so it is reasonable to expect that the well-being of citizens and the environment in which they live will be given proper emphasis in the updated plan.

If industry representatives are unhappy about the process as it unfolds, then by all means: let’s hear from you. Input from all sides will be necessary to produce a realistic new General Plan.

But all should keep in mind that the Ag Preserve is often now viewed in broader terms that give as much weight to the word “preserve” as to the word “agricultural.”

Against the backdrop of extraordinary climate change, supervisors might well insist on further restrictions on development, necessary precisely to ensure that viticulture in Napa Valley survives for future generations.

NVR LTE version 9/12/24: Memo to the wine industry: the system is working

copyright © sodacanyonroad.org