TTB’s “Westside” rejection signals an end to irrational appellation-mania
Two years ago, 21 grapegrowers and winemakers petitioned the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) for a “Paso Robles Westside” appellation. The move came as no surprise, because for many years some vintners on the western side of Paso Robles — at 667,000 acres the largest AVA within one county in California — had argued that their side was utterly, completely different from the east.
Most writers, including myself, blandly accepted this. If you’ve ever driven along Highway 46, you know how the rolling hills of the west, which actually are the southern terminus of the Santa Lucia Mountains, flatten out east of the 101 Freeway. You know, also, that in summer, the temperature soars the further inland you go. So it made sense to split east off from west and allow a “Westside” appellation.
Last Friday, however, the TTB threw the “Westside” petition out the window. In its own blunt words, “This action was taken because, given the conflicting information provided, TTB could not conclude that a delimited grape-growing region exists that is recognized by the name Paso Robles Westside, or that the area described…is distinguishable by geographical features.”
This is a significant decision, not in and of itself (after all, it’s just another AVA, of which California has more than 100 anyway), but because it represents a new and more cautionary approach to AVAs on TTB’s part — as well as a more reasoned stance on the part of winery stakeholders. It wasn’t that long ago that TTB (and its predecessor, ATF) basically rubber-stamped appellation petitions. All anyone needed was enough time and money to hire someone to work on the required documents, and bingo, you could buy yourself an appellation. That’s how we got such clumsy Rube Goldberg contraptions as Paso Robles in the first place.
Over the last few years, we’ve seen TTB stumble in ways suggesting the agency didn’t quite know what it was doing. The dustup over Calistoga — still unresolved — indicated TTB did not possess the political will to deal with different sets of individuals who were deeply, and often bitterly, divided. This isn’t surprising for a government agency, but it made TTB look like a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats who, when faced with a tough decision, punted.
So it’s surprising, and refreshing, to see that they did the right thing in the case of “Westside.” In determining that “a delimited grape-growing region” does not exist, TTB based its decision on the facts. For the truth is, on closer inspection “Westside” was a nebulous proposal and deserved to be canned. It took me a while to understand that, but that’s what a learning curve is all about.
I think most of the smarter winemakers down there, even those in favor of sub-appellations, understood that “Westside” ultimately was not a good idea. “Anybody living and making wine in Paso Robles knows that there is more to it than just west versus east,” Vina Robles’ Matthias Gubler emailed me. From Justin Smith, the young owner of Saxum (itself a Westside winery): “It was way too big and vague to have any meaning.” And from Jason Haas, of Tablas Creek, who also opposed Westside even though his winery helped develop it: “It’s a good decision by the TTB; the Westside petition never did make much sense in terms of climate or topography.” Major kudos to these Westside vintners who opposed the petition. They stood to benefit commercially from it, but preferred to stand up for clarity, not profits.
Once upon a time, TTB might have approved “Westside” the same way they approved other mega-appellations, like Sonoma Coast and San Francisco Bay. But they seem to have finally learned their lesson: If a group wants a new AVA, make them prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it deserves to exist. Otherwise, don’t let it go forward.
Bear in mind, the Westside fiasco, which has caused frayed nerves in Paso Robles and pitted neighbor against neighbor, is occurring against the backdrop of similar proposals to sub-divide Paso into at least 12 other new appellations. Justin Baldwin, the co-proprietor of Justin Vineyards (a Westside winery), also opposed the “Westside” proposal, because he wants to see a comprehensive carving up of Paso Robles, not a piecemeal approach. “I’m surprised TTB did one thing [reject Westside] and not the other 12,” he said. “If the 12 went forward, I would not object to Westside, with the caveat that the lines were not drawn arbitrarily.”
The bottom line is that TTB now has the opportunity to refine the AVA process so that future appellations really do make sense. In rejecting “Westside,” TTB has shown it has the discernment to know when not to act. That’s a good start, for an agency that looks like it’s trying to reinvent itself. Let’s hope the future delineation of AVAs within Paso Robles will provide TTB with the opportunity, at long last, to get really good at the AVA game, because if they can’t, we might as well dismantle our whole system of AVAs and go back to Square One.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Hey Steve,
A small correction, Justin Baldwin is proprietor of Justin Vineyard and Winery, not Baldwin Vineyards. The Baldwin Vineyards you linked to is in New York, which is technically in the Way Way East Paso Robles Appellation.
Late Great HoseMaster of Wine
May 4th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Sorry. Corrected.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
[...] SteveHeimoff.com – A commentary on the attempted division of the Paso Robles AVA into West and East portions. [...]
May 5th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Steve, thank you for bringing this issue back into the limelight. As a San Luis Obispo resident, I have followed this story since the original application and the ensuing segmentation proposal that led to a halt in all AVA approvals. I too am glad to see that the TTB is willing to take a stand. I believe the main purpose of appellation designation is to help consumers know more about the product they are receiving. Of course, I can understand why wineries desire to differentiate growing regions, but I can’t understood why wineries would want to do so under false pretenses like the “Westside” appellation, which is based on nothing other than an arbitrary border. Creating appellations in such a manner will only ruin the credibility of the entire AVA system. This will not only disadvantage consumers but also wineries, many of whom rely on appellations as a major marketing tool.
May 5th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Makes sense. The more discriminating AVAs become the more they will mean. As with anything, if you just hand them out it’s not very special or important, but if only a select few can manage to meet high standards set forth then it means more to everyone.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
As a contributor to help defray the cost of applying for 12 appellations, just a few observations. As the largest AVA in California(i wonder where we are worldwide?), Paso Robles may be split by Hiway 101 into east and west artificially, but no question there are some significant differences from east to west. A few are, mountains and serious steep foothills on much of the westside vs gentle rolling hills on east. Soil types in west are predominantly limestone, yet on a drive thru the Adelaide
(which i highly recommend to one and all), i noted some beautiful red Georgia clay and loam at an altitude 800 feet higher than we are and maybe 6 miles north of us. Eastside is not predominantly limestone. Rainfall is an inch more/yr for every mile west you go from the freeway, and an inch less for every mile you go east. The east has abundant water, but it is sketchy on the westside, sometimes none at all. Cerro Prieto Vineyard & Cellars has a 350 gal/min well, most unusual for the westside. Our house well, on the same property makes 7 gal/ min, which means we need a storage tank for our home use. Whether you plant a vineyard depends upon water, and some pptys just do not have it. I have owned two other pptys on the westside that had no to very little water. On our vineyard ppty , there are roughly several thousand oaks, and along Vineyard and Adelaide drive, it is solid oaks. East is pretty much devoid of trees, altho there certainly are some. Eastside is generally 10-15 degrees warmer, and tho Cerro Prieto is blessed with Paso daytime heat we also get Templeton Gap nite time cooling from ocean breezes(typically fog), and normally we get a 55-60 degree day/nite temp split(really).
So there are differences, but i agree that separating E from W based on the above would have been a poor choice. As for the 12 newly proposed AVAs(12-18 mos ago?), my understanding was that they would be sub Aps, and everyone would still be covered by the Paso Robles AVA, with topography, soil, climate (terroir) being used to separate us into various sub-aps. Frankly I think that is a very useful and sensible idea, and it would ultimately get to the thing that we are loaded up with here…terroir. It is just that it is very different as you go from one of these 12 sub aps to the other. The comment that “Paso really doesn’t have niche” would be answered by making these sub-aps. In preparation for these divisions, a lot of thot was given to soil, climate, topography, but also natural runoff basins, different elevations, winds, etc. My last information is now relatively old as to where we went after the sub-apps got tabled sometime last yr. If you have any new info, I would be delighted to read it. As for the idea, it is hard to not get behind it, because it just makes sense, and the buyer would know generally what type of wine he could expect from each of these 12 different climate/topography/soil type divisions. The reasoning behind it is solid…i just hope it happens.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
The questions is what would you consider the proper division of East Paso and West Paso? There are some differences from West to East, but they are not uniform enough to provide an accurate or meaningful division.
You are correct that the proposal calls for sub-appellations, i.e. Paso Robles AVA will still exist. The Paso Robles AVA was originally created to include as much area as possible, which in hindsight may be considered a mistake since such varying conditions do exist. Now, the criteria such as soil and climate that you mentioned can be used to create proper appellations. At the same time, I think there is still a lot to be learned about the region since it has only been commercially producing wine for less than 40 years. While a lot more is known about the region, there is still a lot of more that is unknown, including what varietals or wine styles can truly define certain areas. As several proponents of the sub-division will tell you, it is still too early to for such a plan. Unfortunately, the “Westside” application forced a proper sub-division to be proposed.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Mike makes a good point in that it took a proposal of an East/West split to create a much better and well thot out 12 sub aps split. Originally, before there was a Paso AVA, there were just a handful of wineries in the Paso area. I had patients
(who were also friends) that had done everything from growing table grapes way east of town to another whose grandfather had brought over some of the early Zinfandel vines, back in the Twenties. Another started Pinot Noir here in Paso, and it was not only a gold medal winner, it was sensational. There is wonderful heritage here in Paso, from half a dozen Italian families, now in 4th generation, to a well known Russian consultant who helped with the early Pinot Noir program, to far sighted visionaries that truly put Paso on the map with world class wines.
The comment about it still being too early to create sub aps, however, i see a bit differently. Unquestionably, Paso is too metamorphic re: soils, climate, topography, which vines do best where, which vines don’t do well in certain proposed sub aps, etc. The amount of work that went into the sub aps, however, was not only immense(and costly), but it was excellent. There was finally a proposal to “carve up” this very dissimilar and huge AVA. That being said, i would think it would be extremely desirable for the AVA designators to proceed with the sub aps because it surely will be an improvement over what we have now.
There are some trends, many arrived at over yrs or centuries in Europe, particularly France, that we know about now—here in Paso. One is that as disparate a growing region as this is, Syrah appears to thrive virtually wherever it is planted, and produces beautiful, flavor-laden fruit. We also know there are several areas that are superb for growing Pinot Noir… and many that are not. Large, bold, superb Paso Cabs have areas where they do stunningly well and are recognized nationally. Nationally recognized Rhones seem tailor made for Paso, and again seem to be prevalent in many areas of the AVA. Rather than go on, let me just say that whereas there may be some vinter/grower opposition to sub aps, i personally don’t know many who are vociferously against the sub aps; I do know many who strongly support it, and with good geological,climatic, soil type, vine preferred prevalence(ie, vines like their surroundings), natural geographic splits, rainfall, wind and ocean breeze similarities…to name but a few. E/W was a bad idea. The 12 sub aps is a thotful, well done, and extensively researched idea. Have we had extensive experience with growing/winemaking in these 12 sub aps? No. But did Bordeaux appellation have extensive experience when it was first established? Perhaps, but at the start of the domain, was everybody happy? Did every grower/vintner care? Probably not, but it was a good idea, and was based upon information that was available at the time.
To not allow these sub aps to occur means just more yrs of the Paso brand being, well…unbranded, when there is extensive data, now available and presented to the AVA body, which makes an excellent case for the 12 sub aps. We have to start someplace, and this might as well be it. Do the opponents of the sub aps want us to wait another 100 yrs before permitting sub aps? 200 yrs? The data is in and it makes sense. It addresses the exact criticisms that E/W did not. Why not go ahead with a caveat that if part of sub ap “X” turns out to be slightly more in one sub ap than another, that change could be made at a later time. It is time for the sub appellations to be granted; it may not be perfect, but it is very close…and it is miles better than what we have now.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Hi Steve,
Thanks for this article. I definitely agree that this is a promising step by the TTB — an indication that they are taking their responsibilities seriously to evaluate the credibility of a submitted appellation.
I did want to clarify one thing. We were never involved in the creation or submission of the Westside petition, nor have we ever used the term on our labels or our marketing. We are members of the Paso Robles AVA Committee, which submitted the 12-appellation proposal still under consideration by the TTB, which, as you know, was created in part to provide the TTB with what we felt was a better alternative to the Westside petition.
Thanks, as always, for focusing attention on these issues!
-Jason