There’s a bit of appellation angst brewing in Paso Robles these days. As the public comment period on the Westside AVA petition before the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) came to a close on April 24th, the comments were flying and so was the mud. (see comments)

One of the largest appellation in California, Paso Robles at 666K acres is ripe for some division. Just how much division is the question. Says Mary Baker of Dover Canyon, “We need better ways to define and label our wines to indicate where the fruit is grown. For years, we have been telling people that this fruit comes from the Adelaida region, or the Templeton Gap, but there is no context, no map that we can point to and explain what we’re talking about.”

Many growers, especially those on the western side of the appellation agreed that there was a clear difference between Westside and Eastside – sounds like the makings of a gang war musical, doesn’t it? Doug Beckett of Peachy Canyon took up the effort to define a Westside AVA, with a fair amount of support. Baker and partner Dan Panico of Dover Canyon, as well as 20 others, welcomed his efforts to get the ball rolling. Having a “Westside” appellation seemed like a good start. (see TTB application for Paso Robles Westside AVA)

Beckett’s petition, No 71 before the TTB, has been meeting with mounting opposition. One of the major shortcomings cited is that the map that was submitted to justify the Westside AVA made a straight line division – some say an arbitrary division – down the center of the Salinas River. Opponents claim it extends too far north and too far south, and ends up including both the wettest (Templeton Gap and Santa Margarita), and the driest (San Miguel) parts of the appellation. Baker and others who signed the original petition suggested that the map be amended. It was not. (see map of proposed “Westside” AVA)

As a result, a core group of vintners, many of them from the Eastside of the AVA, thought it prudent to propose a better division based on actual soils and climate studies. An AVA committee was formed, headed by Justin Baldwin (Justin Vineyards), Robert Haas (Tablas Creek), Dennis Collins (Treana), Kevin Kester (Bear Valley Ranch and Vineyards), and Jerry Lohr (J Lohr), with the goal of preparing a master plan that would outline discrete sub-AVAs that could be supported by scientific studies. They hired a soils expert (Deborah Elliott Fisk from UC Davis) as well as experts in climatology. They also hired legal counsel.

After approximately 14 months of study, the group drafted a proposal outlining the case for 11 sub-AVAs, plus an additional petition to extend the Paso Robles AVA to include the southernmost piece of the Santa Margarita AVA. All petitions have been submitted to the TTB with soils studies and other supporting evidence. It is not known when these petitions will wend their way through the TTB process and be available for public comment. There is no “Westside” sub-AVA among them.

The West Side Story

The Westside petition was filed with quotes by geologist Dr. Tom Rice that were apparently taken out of context. Rice, a soils expert who has studied Paso Robles for over 20 years, has since written several letters as part of the public commentary expressing his disapproval of the proposed Westside AVA. It should be noted that he wrote his initial letter in March of 2007, after the AVA commission stepped up its efforts to defeat the Westside AVA. Rice makes his point clearly: “The Paso Robles Westside petition states ‘the Westside contains soils unique to the area.’ This statement is inaccurate and was never included in my original soils report. Not a single soil series mapped by the USDA that occurs within the proposed Paso Robles Westside AVA is unique to that area. For example, one of the most common soil map units planted to vineyards is the "Linne-Calodo complex."

”These soils are derived from soil parent materials weathered from the Monterey Formation and consist of both siliceous and calcareous sandstones and shales with some limestone. These Linne and Calodo soils also occur on the east side of the Salinas River. They are located east of Templeton, in the El Pomar area, and also near the towns of San Miguel and Creston.”

His letter concludes emphatically: “I urge the TTB to reject the Paso Robles Westside petition based on its inaccurate representation of information related to soil diversity within the larger Paso Robles AVA.”

Additionally, many other comments posted on the TTB site point out that the claims made in the Westside petition with respect to unique soils, climate and so forth, cannot be supported.

At the same time, Doug Beckett notes that a fair number of letters from distributors, restaurants and consumers support the notion of the Westside AVA. In fact, he says, the term has historically been used to define that part of the appellation. He fears if the petition is rejected, the widely used term will thus be unprotected. He points out that opponents say the proposed Westside AVA is too big, but at the same time, they are seeking to make the entire Paso Robles AVA larger as part of their sub-AVA proposal.

“That doesn’t make sense,” says Beckett. He also wonders why they are spending so much money, (in excess of a quarter-million dollars), to defeat his proposal. Membership in the AVA committee has gone from $3K to $6K and he feels there is something political or financial behind it. He would prefer for this to not be a divisive issue for the community. But it is. After all, he says, “This is a natural AVA: the concept of Westside and Eastside are long understood. It offends nobody.” But apparently it is offending somebody.

Beckett worries that if his petition is turned down, other wineries outside the appellation will use the term “Westside” and the real Westside story will be confused and diluted. “We don’t need another Napa Ridge situation,” he says. “The Westside deserves protection.” Plus, he wonders, “Would the TTB actually approve of an appellation called ‘Adelaida’ in America? Isn’t Adelaida in Australia?”

Justin Baldwin, whose winery is the farthest west of all the Paso wineries, would not mind having a Westside appellation. He supported Beckett’s petition and tried to get the initial map amended so that the Adelaida and Templeton Gap areas would fit within the proposed Westside AVA neatly. When this was rejected, he began working on the AVA master plan. He says that the entire issue is all about marketing. “It doesn’t matter what you call a particular area, but we have come to the point in our evolution as a winegrowing region where we need to recognize our differences and celebrate them. It is time for us to take our place among the other great wine producing regions of the world and, on the basis of scientific fact, map out sub-AVAs that make sense.”

The Long-Brewing Territorial Imperative

The idea for sub-division is not a new one. Says Haas, “The idea to separate out Adelaida and Templeton area has been afoot since 1992. When the idea went before the PRVGA back then, the general opinion was that it was too early: the market didn’t know where Paso Robles was. So it died.” When the Westside proposal came out, many were in favor, including Justin Baldwin, who originally signed. He subsequently withdrew his support, as did Adelaida Cellars and Halter Ranch.

Gary Eberle of Eberle Winery, a pioneer of the Paso Robles wine industry, was one of the vintners who established the original Paso Robles appellation in 1983. “The boundaries were rather artificial at the time, but we wanted to include everyone who could possibly grow grapes in the area. Over time, we knew there would be a movement to subdivide into more homogenous AVAs. However, the Westside proposal is completely arbitrary. It takes all the extremes and combines them, including the driest and the wettest, the highest and the lowest, the most fractured soils. It’s laughable, really. It has no reality in geology,” says Eberle.

He supports the master plan, however, and hopes the Westside proposal will fail. However, he expects the Westside AVA proposal will be approved, as most petitions are by the TTB. Will reason prevail? Perhaps. Because the Westside AVA proposal is so fraudulent and ill-devised, he surmises that it may just fail. “The Master Plan proposal is a chance to do what we would have done back in 1982 if we had all the history of grape-growing and winemaking that we now have after 35 years.” He notes that if the Westside AVA is approved, and subsequently the Master Plan is also approved, there will be overlapping AVAs, as has happened in Sonoma. He notes that the TTB prefers to have discrete boundaries. “I am hoping that everyone will do the right thing!”

Doing it the “Napa Way”

One of the big concerns was that establishing a new Westside Appellation as per Beckett’s proposal would render that new AVA ineligible to use the Paso Robles designation. “We were concerned that we would sacrifice a valuable marketing tool in our Paso Robles brand name,” says Baker. Another concern was that it would prevent sub-AVAs from being established within this new Westside AVA. Many growers and wineries felt there were at least ten distinct areas that could be defined and supported within the Westside region alone.

Stacie Jacob of the Winegrowers Alliance says that a major milestone has been achieved with respect to maintaining the use of the Paso Robles AVA as the major appellation while still allowing the creation of sub-AVAs. A precedent for this was set previously by the Napa Valley winegrowers in petitioning the state to allow “Napa Valley” to be used as the primary AVA within which sub-AVAs such as Howell Mountain could be “nested.”

Assemblyman Sam Blakesley submitted AV87 as a rider to what is referred to as “the Napa bill”, effectively asking for the same treatment for Paso Robles. Jacob says the good news is that this legislation, which received wide support from organizations like The Wine Institute, Family Winemakers and California Association of Winegrowers, just passed the House with a unanimous vote on April 18. It now goes to the Senate. This makes it possible for the proposed Westside AVA, as well as the 11 proposed sub-AVAs, to use Paso Robles as the primary appellation on wine labels, with secondary designations beneath. In this use of conjunctive labeling, “Paso Robles” would appear first, followed by the name of the appropriate sub-AVA, e.g., Templeton Gap.

Whatever happens, as Bob Haas is careful to note, “We have to live with the outcome of the decision. And our children’s children have to live with it. Once an AVA is established, that’s it. We need to get it right. Let’s hope the TTB does the right thing.”

One long-time winery owner on the Westside, Gary Conway of Carmody-McKnight Estate, wants to know why we can’t all get along. He states in a letter posted on the TTB site, “What makes me very nervous about the hastily concocted 12 AVAs (which actually enlarge the overall Paso Robles AVA), is that none of them includes the name Paso Robles, and they certainly diffuse the concept of Paso Robles. A reality of such a balkanization would take many, many years, so let’s in the meantime in this temporal world at least be able to use, if we neighbors so choose, the name Paso Robles Westside.” Some of the appellations do include Paso Robles, but it is not clear why some do and some don’t.

Justin Baldwin and Doug Beckett agree on one fundamental issue: this is all about “my grapes are better than yours.” It’s an Eastside vs. Westside battle of pride. Notes Baldwin, “Only 10 percent of all the grapes in Paso Robles are grown on the Westside. Let’s not miss the main theme of the plot here. It’s not where the lines are: it’s all about the quality issue.” Doug Beckett couldn’t agree more. “In fairness to everyone, what is behind this? Soils? Bunk. There’s a lot more to this issue than people realize.” Sounds more like Westside Story with every passing day. Let’s hope nobody gets hurt.