Wine Law

Subscribe to Wine Law

On December 8, 2021, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (“LCB”) approved New Rules to extend temporary pandemic-related licensee privileges for to-go orders and permanently amend the food service requirement for liquor licensees. The New Rules are clearly a step towards providing licensees additional flexibility to sell alcohol products in light of the ongoing pandemic.

The New Rules extend and amend endorsements for certain “to-go” products permitting licensees additional flexibility for selling to-go alcoholic beverages. First, the New Rules permit delivery by a third-party instead of only employees of the licensee. Second, the New Rules remove the obligation that breweries, wineries, and distilleries label to-go alcohol products and, for breweries and wineries, permit the sale of prefilled growlers in certain circumstances. Third, the New Rules clarify that payment for to-go wine and cocktails must be processed by a licensee’s direct employee. There are no fees for these endorsements, and they will now expire on July 1, 2023.
Continue Reading Washington State Liquor Control Board Extends Pandemic-Related Privileges for Licensees

Late last year, the President signed the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Act of 2020, which made most of the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act (“CBMTRA”) provisions permanent starting January 1, 2021.  The CBMTRA makes extensive changes to the federal excise taxes on wine, distilled spirits, and beer.
…
Continue Reading Significant Tax Credits for the Alcoholic Beverage Industry

As part of implementation of its Final Adopted Winery General Order, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB” or “Board”) will be holding a Winery General Order Fees Stakeholder Meeting on March 15 from 1:00-3:00 PM via Webcast. The updated notice for the Fees Stakeholder Meeting can be found here.

In addition…

At its January 20, 2021 Board meeting, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB” or “Board”) adopted its final General Waste Discharge Requirements (“WDRs”) for Winery Process Water (“Winery Order”) and associated Resolution for the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Mitigated Negative Declaration.

As a brief background, on July 3, 2020 the SWRCB released a draft Winery Order to the public for comment (see: July 15, 2020 blogpost on proposed General Order and July 20, 2020 blogpost on noticed stakeholder meetings).  The July 3, 2020 draft incorporated feedback from stakeholders regarding administrative draft documents circulated in 2019.  On November 12, 2020 we posted an Update to our prior blog article regarding the SWRCB’s issuance of a revised notice rescheduling the date of its November 17, 2020 Board meeting to December 15, 2020.  Since that time, on December 2, 2020, Board staff publicly transmitted a revised draft Winery Order and draft CEQA Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Notable revisions in the December 2, 2020 iteration of the draft Winery Order were made in response to comments received and include changes to design flow ranges used to determine tier designations for coverage under the Winery Order and technical requirements related thereto, among other changes.
Continue Reading Update: State Water Board Adopts Final Winery General Order

In July, we blogged about the State Water Resources Control Board’s (“State Water Board’) release of proposed General Waste Discharge Requirements for Winery Process Water Treatment Systems (see: July 15, 2020 blog post on proposed General Order and July 20, 2020 blog post on noticed stakeholder meetings).  The State Water Board recently issued a revised…

As a follow-up to our July 15, 2020 blog post regarding the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board) release of proposed General Waste Discharge Requirements for Winery Process Water Treatment Systems (proposed General Order), today the State Water Board issued a public notice regarding the first stakeholder meeting to discuss fees…

On July 3, 2020, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) released proposed General Waste Discharge Requirements for Winery Process Water Treatment Systems (proposed General Order) along with the draft California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study and Mitigated Declaration for public comment.  The proposed General Order will apply statewide, and includes requirements to ensure winery operations will not adversely impact water quality. The State Water Board also noticed a July 22, 2020 public workshop and future proposed adoption of the proposed General Order.  The July 22, 2020 public workshop will begin at 9:30 a.m. via remote attendance only.  Although a quorum of the State Water Board will be present at the public workshop, no final action will be taken at the workshop.
Continue Reading California Wineries Take Note: State Water Board Releases Draft General Order for Winery Process Water for Public Comment

Beginning in mid-2019, many Washington wineries will need a permit from the state Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) to discharge wastewater. Ecology issued the state’s first five-year Winery General Permit (the “permit”) on May 17, 2018, but delayed its effective date until July 1, 2019. The new permit will regulate discharges of process wastewater from wineries to land, groundwater, and wastewater treatment plants. No surface water discharges will be allowed under the permit. Ecology has not determined how much a permit will cost, but the new rules in the permit will add financial burden to businesses and may hinder the growth of small wineries.

Ecology decided to develop the general permit due to the rapid increase of wine production in Washington. However, according to Ecology’s Fact Sheet, wineries have not been a “major source” of pollution in Washington. Although Ecology stated in one of the agency’s Responses to Public Comments that “it was unable to find documented evidence of a Washington winery polluting groundwater,” it maintained that “a lack of evidence does not mean groundwater is not being impacted.”

The new permit will apply to wineries that discharge at least 53,505 gallons of wastewater or produce at least 7,500 cases (17,835 gallons) of wine or juice per calendar year. More specifically, wineries that meet the above threshold numbers will need the permit if they discharge wastewater according to one or more of the following methods: (1) to a wastewater treatment plant that is not listed; (2) as irrigation to managed vegetation; (3) to a lagoon or other liquid storage structure; (4) as road dust abatement; (5) to a subsurface infiltration system; or (6) to an infiltration basin.
Continue Reading Ecology Rolls Out Washington’s First Winery General Permit to Regulate Discharges of Wastewater

As we wrote about earlier this month, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) passed late last year included significant, temporary federal excise tax relief for wine, beer and spirits businesses for 2018 and 2019.  Unfortunately, in an apparent oversight of legislative drafting, the wine excise tax relief (provided in the form of…

The California Court of Appeal recently handed a victory to winemakers, ruling that a specific Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”) warning is not required regarding the presence of inorganic arsenic. The lawsuit, Charles et al. v. Sutter Home Winery et al., was originally filed in 2015 and alleged that wines made by over 15 named defendants exposed consumers to inorganic arsenic without the correct Prop. 65 warning.

Inorganic arsenic is a chemical identified by the State of California as a carcinogen and reproductive toxicant, and plaintiffs argued that defendants’ products required a specific warning to inform consumers about exposure to inorganic arsenic. Defendants prevailed on demurrer because the trial court found that the existing “safe harbor” warnings for alcoholic beverages complied with California’s Prop. 65 warning requirement as a matter of law, and that no additional warning for inorganic arsenic was required. In other words, the trial court determined that Prop. 65 does not require both a general warning and specific warning for an alcoholic beverage product. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed.
Continue Reading A Prop. 65 Win for Winemakers: No Separate Warning Required for Inorganic Arsenic

About the Alcoholic Beverages Law Blog

Learn More

The Stoel Rives Alcohol Beverage Blog provides wineries, breweries, distilleries, cideries, distributors and importers with articles and information across a broad spectrum of state and federal alcohol beverage law. The authors work on alcohol beverage related projects from our bases in California, Oregon and Washington, throughout the Western United States and beyond.