Alcoholic Beverages Law Blog

A Check-In with the Idaho Wine Industry

Elaine Albrich — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:02:45 -0800

An update from our colleagues Allison Blackman and Nicole Hancock:

The State of Idaho is most infamously know for the potato but the recently reenergized Idaho Wine Commission, vintners, and wineries across the state hope to soon add Idaho Wines to the Gem State's reputation.

Idaho wines regularly net honors in regional and national competitions, and the media are increasingly taking notice. "They want something new to write about, and that's us," says Executive Director of the Idaho Wine Commission, Moya Shatz. The October issue of Sunset magazine sports a feature story headlined: "Discover new wine country: In Idaho's low-key Snake River Valley, the wine is getting seriously good."

Idaho is steadily earning a reputation for growing and producing vinifera wine grape varieties such as syrah and viognier, as well as classic varieties including merlot, cabernet sauvignon, chardonnay and riesling.

Southwestern Idaho, the location of Idaho’s capital Boise and the surrounding counties known as the Treasure Valley , boasts more than half of the state’s 47 wineries, a tally that has more than quadrupled since 2002, when Idaho had 11 wineries.

The Snake River Valley Appellation is the first registered AVA (American Viticultural Area) for the state, officially designated in April 2007. The AVA covers an area of 8000 square miles throughout Southern Idaho and has comparable latitudes to many famous wine regions of the world.

In Canyon County (about twenty miles outside of Boise) there are eight wineries within just 10 miles— making ideal a leisurely two day wine trip of the area.

Although Idaho’s wine industry is currently ranked 22nd in Wine Business Monthly’s most recent ranking of “Number of Wineries,” Idaho has been steadily expanding since the Great Recession.

An economic impact study conducted by Boise State University in 2008 found that Idaho’s wine industry contributed about $73 million to the state’s economy and 625 jobs. Although Shatz doesn’t expect to commission another such study until around 2015, she expects those numbers have already increased.

One of Idaho’s prime wine business assets is its two viticulture programs: one at the University of Idaho’s Parma research center (where the U.S. Department of Agriculture has funded 2 of 28 wine grape researchers in the U.S.) and the second at Treasure Valley Community College in Caldwell.

In celebration of Idaho’s winery growth- Stoel Rives is proud to release “The Law of Wine in Idaho: a Guide to Business and Legal Issues” at the Inaugural Idaho Wine, Beer and Distiller’s Law Seminar in Boise Idaho on March 1st, 2012, presenting Moya Shatz as the Special Guest Speaker. Please click here for more information regarding the event and for information on how to obtain a copy of the Law of Wine in Idaho.

Cowlitz County Superior Court Denies Motion For Preliminary Injunction Against I-1183

Susan Johnson — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:45:23 -0800

Defenders of I-1183 received a holiday gift last week from the Cowlitz County Superior Court. On Thursday, December 22, 2011, the Court issued two important rulings in the declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of I-1183.

First, the Court granted the motion to intervene brought a group of supports of I-1183 led by Costco and the Washington Restaurant Association. In so ruling, the Court observed that those entities’ economic interests were implicated by challenge to I-1183 and that their interests were distinct from those of the State. Those entities now will be able to participate fully in the defense of I-1183.

Second, the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction to block implementation of I-1183. The Court explained that I-1183 is the law of Washington and that Plaintiffs had not carried their heavy burden for altering that status quo.

Following that ruling and recognizing that the challenge to I-1183 turns largely, if not exclusively, on pure legal arguments, the Court set the following expedited schedule for summary judgment briefing and a trial date if necessary:

January 20, 2012: Opening Summary Judgment Briefs Due
February 10, 2012: Responsive Briefs Due
February 17, 2012: Reply Briefs Due
March 5, 2012: Summary Judgment Hearing
April 16, 2012: Trial

In setting this schedule, the Court stated that it welcomed extensive briefing on the issues presented. Thus, there might be an opportunity for the filing of amicus briefs.

We will continue to monitor developments in the case. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

I-1183 Faces Legal Challenges

Susan Johnson — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:30:23 -0800

Despite Washington voters’ approval of I-1183 in the November 2011 election, the effort to privatize the wholesale distribution and retail sale of liquor in Washington faces another hurdle. Last week, two lawsuits were filed in Washington courts challenging the validity of I-1183. The plaintiffs in both cases contend that the newly enacted law violates the single-subject rule for legislative bills and ballot initiatives under the Washington Constitution. Article II, § 19 of the Washington Constitution, which applies to both legislative bills and ballot initiatives, provides that “[n]o bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” The plaintiffs allege a violation of that constitutional provision because the terms of I-1183, in addition to paving the way for private retailers to sell liquor, affect fines for selling alcohol to minors, taxes, and the wine distribution and pricing scheme.

Some past single-subject challenges to ballot initiatives have been successful. For instance, in 2000 a group of plaintiffs succeeded in repealing an initiative that addressed both the fees for car license tabs and required voter approval for all future state and local tax increases. But I-1183 differs from that initiative because it did not join together two completely separate subjects but instead deals entirely with various aspects of state regulation of alcohol distribution and retail sales. Thus, the key issue in the litigation appears to be whether I-1183 conforms to the single-subject rule when the provisions deal with the same general subject.

One of the challenges to I-1183 was filed in King County Superior Court, and the other in Cowlitz County Superior Court. The King County case was brought by two labor unions and is named General Teamsters Local Union No. 174 v. State. The Cowlitz County case was brought by the Washington Association for Substance and Violence Prevention, a property owner who leases a liquor store to the state, and two grocery stores. It is named WASAVP v. State. Both groups of plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief blocking the implementation of I-1183. The plaintiffs in the WASAVP case have also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which is scheduled to be heard in Cowlitz County Superior Court on Friday, December 16.

Even though both lawsuits are against the Washington state government, it is very likely that businesses or associations whose interests are affected by I-1183 will have the opportunity to intervene in the litigation. We will continue to monitor the proceedings. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

TTB Publishes Notice of Rulemaking for Inwood Valley AVA

Jake W. Storms — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:58:40 -0800

On December 5, 2011, the TTB published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 125) regarding the establishment of the Inwood Valley Viticultural Area in Shasta, California. If established, the new AVA would consist of a 28,000 acre area, the vast majority of which is currently not dedicated to, or known for, vineyards. The TTB invites comments on the proposed rulemaking, with any comments due on or before February 3, 2012. A full version of the Notice and the documents relating to the underlying Petition can be found here.

Utah to Consider Privatization Models

Catherine Parrish Lake — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:05:48 -0800

The recent move by Washington voters to end state control of liquor sales, combined with ongoing corruption scandals within the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, is causing Utah lawmakers to renew privatization discussions. Support appears to be growing to limit the state’s involvement in liquor sales at least to some degree.

Utah is among the minority of states that control wholesale and retail liquor sales. Several Utah state legislators have expressed an interest in privatizing the retail business. Some have also expressed interest in privatizing wholesale sales. Governor Herbert has expressed interest in retail change but appears reluctant to remove control of the wholesale system. Wholesale privatization appears less likely than retail privatization, because of a perception that state control over distribution and pricing results in fewer alcohol-related problems.

Utah currently allows some private retail alcohol sales through “package agencies.” Package agencies are located in resorts and rural areas and offer a modest selection of products. Similar to liquor licenses, package agency contracts are granted based on population with one package agency allowed per 18,000 people. Expanding the package agency system, for instance to allow grocery stores to operate liquor outlets, could act as a bridge to full privatization.

Any privatization reforms will have to clear several hurdles, including compensating for the substantial profit the state realizes from liquor sales.

TTB Rules to Expand Sonoma AVAs

Jake W. Storms — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:06:12 -0800

On Wednesday November 16, the TTB published a ruling (T.D. TTB-97, available here) amending the federal definition of the Russian River Valley viticultural area and the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, by expanding each. The action first began in August of 2008 when Gallo Family Vineyards submitted a petition for the amendment. After receiving numerous comments both for and against, the TTB ruled to expand the Russian River Valley viticultural area south and southeast by 14,044 acres to 169,029 acres, an increase of 9%. This expansion will include land just west of Rohnert Park and Cotati.

The decision will also expand the Northern Sonoma viticultural area to include the entirety of the Russian River Valley viticultural area. The expansion will add 44,244 acres to the Northern Sonoma area, bringing its total to 394,088 acres, also an increase of 9%.

The TTB specifically noted in the ruling that the expansion will not affect currently approved wine labels but will allow winemakers in the expanded area to utilize the two viticultural designations not previously available to them.

The ruling goes into effect on December 16, 2011.

Liquor Sales to be Privatized in Washington State

Susan Johnson — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:24:43 -0800

Initiative Measure No. 1183 is passing by a 20% margin according to Washington Secretary of State’s 2011 General Election Results website. The same source indicates that, as of this morning, a majority of voters in only four of Washington State’s counties in the state were not definitively in favor of the measure.

A Press Release by the Washington State Liquor Control Board indicates that the agency “will continue to maximize revenue in responsible ways through the holiday season” and, in January, will focus on divesting its self of the state’s current wholesale distribution and retail operations. “By June 1, 2012, all liquor business operations - including purchasing, distribution and retail -- will be transitioned to the private sector.”

There are many unknowns that we expect to be addressed by agency rulemaking in the coming months of transition and we will be working closely with our current and future clients to help them understand how the changes affect their current business interests and strategic plans.

State Law Restrictions on Direct Sales to Consumers Are Ripe for Challenge

Jeremy Sacks — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:37:45 -0800

In the 2005 case Granholm v. Held, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Michigan and New York laws that effectively prevented out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to in-state consumers but that allowed in-state wineries to conclude in-state direct sales. The Court held that these laws violated the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Since then, lower federal courts around the country have had the tools to strike down similar state laws that facially discriminate against out-of-state producers without a permissible justification. For example, federal courts have struck down or enjoined facially discriminatory statutes—or selected provisions of such laws—in states such as Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.

But these rulings do not apply consistently across the country. For example, although the Sixth Circuit held unconstitutional Kentucky’s law requiring direct sales to be made only pursuant to in-person purchases, Indiana’s law requiring similar in-person sales remains on the books. And a number of other states retain laws restricting direct sales that appear legally dubious in the wake of Granholm and its progeny. But Granholm also has spurred Congressional attempts to restrict its reach. In 2010 and 2011, legislators introduced the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (“CARE”) Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. In its latest iteration the bill aims to eliminate the federal statutory requirement that imported alcohol be subject to state laws “to the same extent and in the same manner” as alcohol produced in-state. The original version of the CARE Act did not survive the life of the last Congress, and it is unclear if the current version will find any more support in the present one. But notwithstanding this threat to direct shipping by out-of-state producers, overly restrictive state laws favoring in-state direct sellers remain ripe targets for litigation seeking to enforce Granholm and its reading of the Commerce Clause.

UC Davis Holds Wine Law Conference

Jake W. Storms — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:13:25 -0800

I recently attended the UC Davis Wine Law Conference, held at the UC Davis School of Law. The conference's main focus was intellectual property and European imports/exports, as well as the affects of recent changes in the European Union rules regarding wine IP, with a specific focus on Italy. Panelists also discussed the affects of international beverage counterfeiting and how multinational parties can and should reach consensus on trade rules. The discussions were frank, sometimes even contentious, but overall very productive. The conference drew numerous high-level attendees, including members of the legal community, industry stakeholders, and regulatory agencies from both the United States and abroad.

IRS Publishes New Audit Technique Guide for Wineries and Vineyards

Jake W. Storms — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 20:04:22 -0800

The IRS recently issued a new Audit Technique Guide (“ATG”, available here) applicable to winery and vineyard operations. As with previous IRS guidance, the new ATG is meant to be used by IRS examiners; however the IRS anticipates the industry will rely upon the publication as a guide. It should be noted, the ATG should not be cited as the IRS's technical position.

Many of the issues in the new publication have been previously covered in prior IRS guidance. In this ATG, however, the IRS appears to streamline many of its positions. For example, the UNICAP rules, to which wineries are subject, have evolved since the 1995 guidance. While previously cited as only temporary, these rules have since been finalized, and additional UNICAP rules have been added.

While the streamlining in the new guidance is mainly procedural, the ATG does reflect some significant developments. One such change is the IRS's acknowledgement that vineyards may qualify for Section 179 deductions. Currently, Section 179 allows a $500,000 deduction to taxpayers who place over $2 million of property in service by the end of 2011. For 2012, Section 179 reduces those numbers to a $125,000 deduction for placing over $500,000 of property in service during that year. The deduction will be further reduced to $25,000 for tax years beyond 2012. The ATG states that, based on changes to the definition of property subject to the Section 179 deduction, "[c]ertain practitioners are taking the position that this new definition includes vineyards and are taking [the Section] 179 deduction."

In addition, the ATG addresses and essentially blesses an income deferral method rejected in a 1996 case. The ATG describes the case as involving an accounting structure in which a farmer, using cash method accounting and operating a vineyard as a division of a winery, would sell grapes to the winery without receiving payment until the wine was sold, up to two or three years later. As a result of using cash method accounting, the vineyard would defer income until such time as the wine was sold. The ATG states that in 1997, the IRS published treasury regulations allowing this accounting practice.

To learn more about the issues discussed above as well as other developments addressed in the ATG, please contact:

Carl Lewis at cslewis@stoel.com

Nikki Dobay at nedobay@stoel.com

Jake Storms at jwstorms@stoel.com

This post was created in conjunction with Nikki Dobay.

Court Upholds San Diego County's Winery Ordinance

Jake W. Storms — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:34:13 -0800

On April 15th, a California Superior Court Judge denied a challenge to San Diego County’s new Winery Ordinance. The Ordinance, passed in 2010 and available here, eases restrictions on tasting rooms and sales for smaller producers and allows others to essentially “fast-track” registration as a “small winery” with such designation allowing for pre-approved events, such as weddings.

The challengers claimed that the Ordinance’s Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) was inadequate. Judge Timothy Taylor disagreed, stating “[t]he Board of Supervisors was, by the EIR, adequately informed about the consequences of its decisions. The public (including petitioner) was provided with adequate information regarding the decisions of their elected leaders.”

The challengers have 30 days from the issuance of the ruling to appeal.

California State Water Board Moves on Frost Protection Program

Jake W. Storms — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:00:07 -0800

The State Water Resources Control Board (“Board”) held a workshop last week on a proposed regulation designed to assess and mitigate water use from the Russian River by growers in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties during frost season. Though no formal action took place, the Board received numerous comments on the proposed regulation.

The regulation would add Section 862 to the California Code of Regulations establishing that any water diversion from the subject area from March 15 to May 15 not in accordance with a Board-approved Water Demand Management Program (“WDMP”) would be deemed unreasonable. This includes the pumping of hydraulically connected groundwater, but excludes diversions upstream of the Warm Springs and Coyote Dams.

In addition, the new regulation would require the WDMP to include:

· An inventory of the frost diversion systems within the area subject to the WDMP

· A stream stage monitoring program

· Annual assessment of potential risks to salmonids from frost diversions

· Identification and implementation of any corrective actions deemed necessary to protect salmonids

· Annual reporting of the WDMP

The workshop was heavily attended by stakeholders from both government and industry and included a presentation of the projected cost of the proposed regulation. The draft economic report, available here, states that the average cost for those diverters in Mendocino County not requiring corrective actions would be $105.86 per acre in initial capital outlay and $28.50 per acre in annual costs; for Sonoma County, those numbers would be $59.98 and $18.74, respectively. For a 40-acre vineyard in Mendocino, this puts the total cost at $4,234 for initial capital outlay and $1,140 in annual costs; for Sonoma County, these numbers would be $2,399 and $749, respectively.

A common theme from the Board and the audience was that several important terms in the proposed regulation had yet to be satisfactorily defined. Chairman Hoppin, himself a farmer, repeatedly stated his hope that both sides would strive for a balance between protecting species and the water needs of farmers.

Several commentators expressed a need for the Board to address the permitting of offstream storage (i.e., storage ponds) as a tool to help address Russian River overdraft. Chairman Hoppin assured the audience that steps needed to be taken in this arena and that it was on the Board’s radar.

Formal rulemaking and the program’s environmental report are expected in mid-May, with final regulations in place by March 2012.

Stoel Rives Attorneys Speak at Wine Conference

Jake W. Storms — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:33:51 -0800

This past week, Stoel Rives partners Chris Hermann and John McKinsey and associate Jake Storms all participated as panel speakers at the Best Practices for Owning and Operating a Winery conference, held at the Hyatt Vineyard Creek in Santa Rosa, CA. John also acted as co-host of the conference, which covered a wide variety of topics affecting wineries and vineyards, from siting and permitting and valuation to how to build a brand and protect trademarks.

Chris, Chair of Stoel’s Winery and Vineyard Management group, spoke on custom crush agreements and the pitfalls that can affect those who do not adequately protect themselves. John, California Co-Chair of Stoel’s Winery and Vineyard Management group, educated attendees on energy use and utilizing renewable electricity sources. Jake, an associate in the group, spoke on industry trends and California-specific legislative and project actions, including AB 605 and the California High-speed Rail.

The event was well attended, with over 40 stakeholders present at the two-day event. This marks the fifth year of the event, which was sponsored by Stoel Rives and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, along with industry mainstay, Wines & Vines.

Napa County Farm Bureau Holds Water Forum

Jake W. Storms — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:03:49 -0800

On March 9th, the Napa County Farm Bureau held its first water forum in five or six years in St. Helena, California. Kicked off by Bureau President Jim Lincoln, the event was well attended, with over 100 concerned stakeholders listening to the most recent updates in California water issues.

Phillip Miller, the Deputy Director of Napa County Public Works, discussed a recent study by Napa County designed to compile countywide data, establish a framework for reporting, and provide recommendations related to any future groundwater permitting and monitoring program.

Of most interest was the presentation by Paula Whealen, a principal at the engineering firm of Wagner & Bonsignore. Ms. Whealen gave a general overview of new requirements for surface water users from the California State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”), including:

· All reports of licensees and progress reports by permittees and pre-1914 water right diverters are now due annually by July 1;

· Reports must provide the monthly amount taken from the source;

· They must state the monthly amount beneficially used; and

· They must be filed electronically as of this year.

o Filings will require high-speed internet access

Because all new reports must be filed electronically, the prior “fudge factor” regarding timelines for reporting will no longer exist. The SWRCB will be able to tell on July 2 who hasn’t filed the necessary reports. Failure to file all necessary reports constitutes non-compliance with the underlying water license/permit and can lead to fines and/or other administrative actions. It was also stated that, given the increase in the number of enforcement officers (25) and the establishment of a water rights enforcement office in Santa Rosa, California, there will be a significant increase in site inspections in the North Coast region.

A bit of sage advice given at the Forum is for all vineyard and winery owners operating under a license/permit to take it out, read it, and understand it. If you don’t understand your water rights permit, find someone who does, and most importantly, make sure you are in compliance. In addition, even for those sources that are not required to be reported (i.e., reclaimed water), it behooves vineyards and wineries to keep records of all water that is used on the property.

Sonoma Sets Fees, Program Schedule for Frost Protection Program

Jake W. Storms — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:24:37 -0800

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has adopted the final measures for moving ahead with the County’s Frost Protection Program (the “Program”). This final act was merely a carry-over from the February 8 meeting where the Board adopted the fee structure for the Program and extended the time frame for implementation of the Program until 2012.

Under the new Section 11B of the County Code, the Program will be used to gather information on vineyard and orchard water usage in the Russian River Watershed. As previously blogged, creation of the program started after complaints were made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that frost protection measures that use water from the Russian River Watershed were causing the death of certain protected salmonid species. The federal agency threatened to take action under the Endangered Species Act if the County did nothing. The County moved to create the Program ahead of State action, which is expected to occur in the next 12-18 months.

Implementation of the Program was originally planned for the 2011 frost season. However, County staff informed the Board at the February 8 meeting that two hurdles had sprung up that would delay actual implementation until the frost season of 2012. The first was a seemingly 11th-hour move by certain vineyard stakeholders to not back the program due to concerns of the public nature of the information gathered. The second was the negotiations over the issue of indemnification between the County and the non-profit organization created to assist in the implementation and that would oversee the gages in the long-term.

While a delay in implementation to the 2012 frost season was acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it was stated that any further delay would require action on the part of the agency. One Board member suggested that, due to the delay, the Board consider scrapping the Program and creating a fully voluntary concept. This idea was not acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was quickly discarded.

Vineyards and orchards within the Program’s umbrella must register with the County Agricultural Commission annually between January 1 and March 1. This year’s registration must occur by June 1. The fee set for the Program is $64.00 per site. This fee will be assessed annually with the required registration. The County estimates there are some 360 sites within the Program’s boundaries.

The Program will have to conform to any future State action regarding the Russian River Watershed. However, the Board was confident that the Program would meet with acceptance at the State level.

Changes to Utah's Liquor Laws

Catherine Parrish Lake — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:04:52 -0800

The 2011 legislative session wrapped up last night with several changes being made to Utah’s liquor laws, including:

Converting 40 tavern only licenses into 15 full restaurant licenses and 25 limited restaurant licenses (beer and wine only)
Allowing a hotel guest to order one drink at a time through room service
Permitting alcohol to be sold beginning at 11:30 a.m. (a change from noon for liquor and wine and 10:00 a.m. for beer)
Increasing the fees for liquor licenses (for instance the initial and renewal fees for a limited restaurant license increased to $750 and $550 respectively)
Banning the sale of mini-kegs
Allowing existing licensees to sell liquor licenses, although not until after July 31, 2012, when that portion of the law goes into effect
Creating a reception license for reception centers larger than 5,000 square feet that derive no more than 30% of gross sales from the sale of alcohol
Eliminating any doubt that an establishment cannot allow drink specials
Requiring dining club licenses to derive at least 60% of gross sales from food
Increasing enforcement

The bill (S.B. 314) now awaits Governor Herbert’s signature, which is expected. While the new law will free up an additional 40 restaurant licenses, many observers doubt that this will alleviate demand for long. The state currently has issued 21 more licenses than allowed under current law because of an overestimation of census figures. This law preserves the licenses already granted, but it will take some time before population catches up with the number of licenses already granted let alone freeing up additional licenses.

Chris Hermann recipient of Industry Partner award by Oregon Wine Industry

Kristen Leis — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:45:01 -0800

Stoel Rives partner and wine attorney Chris Hermann was one of two recipients of the Industry Partner award at the 2011 Oregon Wine Industry Symposium in Eugene, Oregon. This award is presented to a vendor or service provider to the industry who, in the course of doing business, has significantly assisted the growth and success of the wine industry and its members. Mark Freund of Silicon Valley Bank was the other award recipient.

TOM CRONE NAMED ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FIELD OPERATIONS

Chris Hermann — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:35:30 -0800

This was announced last week. Bernie Kipp has known Tom Crone for over 30 years. He hired Bernie for Regulations and later as District Director. He's a good guy with a practical approach. He would be the final decision maker in any action against field permitee.

TOM CRONE NAMED ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FIELD OPERATIONS

TTB Administrator John Manfreda and Deputy Administrator Mary Ryan have announced the appointment of Thomas R. Crone as Assistant Administrator for Field Operations, effective February 27, 2011. As TTB's Assistant Administrator for Field Operations, Mr. Crone is responsible for oversight, direction, and coordination of all Field Operations functions associated with TTB's tax collection and consumer protection programs. Mr. Crone brings a wealth of experience to the job along with his knowledgeable, practical, and collaborative approach that is so vital to carrying out our mission goals.

Washington Wine Law Legislative Update

Stephanie Meier — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:09:30 -0800

For those interested in the status of Washington State wine legislation, the Washington Wine Institute provided this useful legislative update to various wine-related bills moving through the House and Senate.

Join us for our 2nd Annual Washington Wine Law Seminar

Kristen Leis — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:33:03 -0800

Join Stoel Rives winery and vineyard attorneys and featured speaker Sean P. Sullivan, Editor, Washington Wine Report, on Thursday, February 17, at the 2nd Annual Washington Wine Law Seminar, in Woodinville, Washington at The Hollywood Schoolhouse. This seminar will address these pertinent topics and more:

Regulatory Q&A panel
The use of social media to promote your winery
Employment issues, including wage and hour, employee handbooks, and the use of volunteers in tasting rooms and in the crush and bottling process
Tax and succession planning
Distillery operations at a winery
Trademarks and your brand
Water rights
The use of solar panels in your winery and other renewable energy topics of interest

When:	February 17, 2011 7:30-8 a.m. — Registration and breakfast 8 a.m.-1 p.m. — Presentations and lunch
Where:	The Hollywood Schoolhouse 14810 NE 145th Street Woodinville, Washington Click here for directions
Parking:	Complimentary parking at The Hollywood Schoolhouse.
Cost:	Complimentary for winery and vineyard industry members.
Registration:	If you haven't already registered, please do so today. Click here.

Questions? Contact Trina Gremaux at tcgremaux@stoel.com or (503) 294-9226