The story up to now: The Tax and Trade Bureau, the U.S. Treasury department in charge of approving new AVAs has suspended decisions on any new ones. Read The Big Freeze for background on how the suspension of AVAs came about.


The U.S. Treasury Department’s embargo on approving any future sub-regional American Viticultural Areas (AVA) has thrown a very real scare into the heart of the wine industry. The Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), the agency that oversees the AVA system, says it wants to take a closer look at its own regulations, which were enacted almost 30 years ago.

In the last decade, the agency has approved sub-appellations at such an alarming rate that some believe it has rendered the system toothless. Worse, such regional approvals serve only to further confuse the consumer, partly because an increasing number have conflicted with existing brand names.

TTB finally took the drastic measure a few weeks ago, after four years of chatter about a group from Calistoga, who are seeking sub-appellation approval. The vitriol concerns two geographically named brands in Calistoga, which the Napa Valley group insists must change their brand names. Under current regulations, these brands – Calistoga Cellars and Calistoga Estate - would be eliminated by the sub-appellation approval.

TTB apparently had enough of the gaff, and under pressure, suddenly halted all petitions until it has the chance to take a hard look at what are the implications of their approval process.

There are concerns as it applies to domestic as well as to worldwide commerce and also pertaining to the viticultural significance of wine grape growing areas. There are serious implications for geographically named wineries and brands. Overriding it all is the very meaning and future of AVAs in this country.

What conclusions will TTB make after it opens yet-to-be-announced public hearings on the matter? Will there be drastic changes? Will the broken AVA system - which some say is being used merely as a marketing tool as opposed to the delineation of real climatic and soil distinctions – continue to exist as we know it?

To get a preview as to the nature of those hearings and to conjecture on what actions TTB will take, APPELLATION AMERICA sought out two experts who have intimate knowledge of the AVA system.

Sara Schorske and Alex Heckathorn have been winery compliance consultants for the last 24 years. Their Myrtle Point, Oregon Compliance Services of America (CSA) has written the petitions to establish the approved Sonoma Coast, Benmore Valley (Lake County, Ca.), San Francisco Bay, Wild Horse Valley (Napa), River Junction (San Joaquin County), Tracy Hills (San Joaquin County), Red Hills (Lake County), and Bennett Valley (Sonoma) areas. CSA has also amended Chalk Hill, Central Coast, and Alexander Valley AVA petitions.

Significantly too, CSA has been the compliance consultant since 1998 to Calistoga Cellars – one of the two geographic-branded names which have led TTB to freeze the AVA process. It is interesting to note that Heckathorn, an attorney who joined CSA in 1997 and Schorske, who began her career at Sonoma-Cutrer Vineyards, would not reveal precisely what it is they advised Calistoga Cellars to do on this issue. They nonetheless volunteered and were pressed by this reporter to disclose information that might have been discussed with their client.

Despite their affiliation with Calistoga Cellars, Schorske and Heckathorn, who have written dozens of articles on AVA compliance, are strong believers that geographically named brands should be eliminated; and that it will ultimately be beneficial to all parties that TTB temporarily discontinue sub-AVA approvals.