Insight and Information for the Wine, Beer and Distilled Spirits 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…
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
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
This blog post was co-authored by Stoel Rives attorneys Wes Miliband and Eric Skanchy.
Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), California’s landmark groundwater legislation, local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (“GSAs”) must be formed to assess conditions in their local water basins and to develop locally-based groundwater sustainability plans (“GSPs”).
GSAs, which must be formed by June 30, 2017, will have the ability to register and monitor wells and to potentially restrict pumping and prevent drilling of new wells. GSAs will also have the ability to assess new fees and taxes. These local agencies will be in the driver’s seat when it comes to addressing a very complex problem seen in many areas of California: managing groundwater to ensure long-term sustainability of groundwater supplies.
Given the influence these GSAs will have, it is not surprising that various interest groups and stakeholders covet a seat at the table. This was not lost on wine industry representatives in Sonoma County, who petitioned the County to give the industry voting power on the yet-to-be-formed GSAs.
Continue Reading Sonoma County Rejects Wine Industry Request for Voice in Groundwater Regulations
The following is an adaptation by my colleague Tony DeCristoforo of a post by Bryan Hawkins, Kirk Maag and Adam Belzberg that originally appeared on Stoel Rives World of Employment blog.
California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed AB 1066, which will require grape growers and other agricultural employers in California to pay overtime under the same conditions as non-agricultural businesses. The bill is the first of its kind in the nation.
California law defines employees “employed in an agricultural occupation” broadly to include any employment relating to the cultivation or harvesting of agricultural commodities, or the maintenance and improvement of a farm and/or farm equipment. Prior to the signing of AB 1066, such employees were entitled to time-and-a-half pay after working 10 hours in a day or 60 hours in a week. This is substantially different from the overtime laws for California employees in most other industries and occupations, where overtime pay typically kicks in after eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.
Continue Reading California Expands Overtime for Farmworkers
The following post was written by my colleagues Tom Woods, Parissa Ebrahimzadeh & Bao Vu
As part of the Northern California business community and as an advisor to business, we support the Napa and the surrounding Bay Area in getting homes and businesses back on their feet following the August 24, 2014 Napa Valley earthquake.
The earthquake that rocked Napa Valley and nearby regions left an estimated $1 billion in damages, according to a county news release. The McClatchy News Service recently observed the quake “upended more than wine barrels and mobile homes. It also was an unsettling reminder of how few Californians – homeowners and businesses alike – carry earthquake insurance.”
Sure, insurance agents will discuss earthquake insurance policies with business owners, but Napa Valley region had not experienced a quake of such magnitude since 1989. Thus, this rare but catastrophic risk was one for which the cost-benefit analysis dictated to many Californians that they should forgo the expensive form of insurance. Statistically, the shocking drop in homeowner earthquake insurance policies purchased over the last decade was dwarfed by the 29% drop in the number of California businesses that purchased policies over the same period. Reports are that only 10% of California businesses and residents carrying property insurance also carry earthquake insurance.
Where the wine and agriculture industry suffered $48 million worth of damage, and with over 120 businesses affected, the questions running through so many confused and disrupted lives include: “What do I do now? Did I need earthquake insurance, specifically? Am I covered? How do I perfect a claim if I am covered and where can I go for help?”…
Continue Reading Rebuilding: Dealing with or Without Earthquake Insurance
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued a notice yesterday stating that it will consider waiving – on a case-by-case basis – late filing, payment or deposit penalties for taxpayers unable to file payment of Federal excise taxes due to the August 24, 2014, Northern California earthquake. Text of the statement follows below.…
My colleagues Ryan Waterman and Parissa Ebrahimzadeh have evaluated the potential impacts of the new California industrial storm water permit on breweries, distilleries, and wineries in the state. See below for their report.
On April 1, 2014, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) unanimously adopted a new Industrial Storm Water permit (2014 Permit). You can find the new Industrial Storm Water permit and supporting documents here, along with a change sheet also adopted by the State Board.
By way of background, the federal Clean Water Act prohibits certain discharges of storm water containing pollutants except in compliance with a permit. The 2014 Permit is a state-wide permit (called a “general” permit) for all covered industrial facilities in California. Covered industrial facilities must comply with the 2014 Permit when it comes into force in order to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
The 2014 Permit completely re-writes the prior 1997 Industrial Storm Water permit (1997 Permit), and includes many substantive changes. In particular, the 2014 Permit will vastly increase the number of industries affected and impose new and increased compliance requirements.
That is one reason why California breweries, distilleries, and wineries need to know about the 2014 Permit.…
Today, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) released for public comment its Draft Industrial Storm Water Permit and supporting documents. This is the fourth (and likely final) version of the Draft Industrial Storm Water Permit, which is designed to replace the existing Industrial Storm Water Permit issued in 1997.
The Draft Industrial…
