Your cart is currently empty!
On August 4, 2025, I had the opportunity to address an unusually packed meeting of the Sonoma County Winegrowers Association as we discussed the proposed Wine Improvement District (WID), which would impose a 1-2% assessment (tax) on all Direct-to-Consumer wine sales originating from Sonoma County. I’ve been involved in leading the effort to oppose this WID and I’d like to share with you what I said. Here goes:
“Good Afternoon,
I’d like to thank the members of the Sonoma County Winegrowers for this opportunity to speak to you today about the proposed Sonoma County Wine Improvement District.
As you can see from the turnout today, there’s an overwhelming number of Sonoma County wineries here that are opposed to this Wine Improvement District. These people are just a small percentage of almost 700 people thus far that have signed our petition also opposing this Wine Improvement District (https://chng.it/7K9B7Jp97L). As there has been no opportunity for us to voice our opinions up until now, I’d like to explain our opposition.
First, please don’t take our opposition to this WID to mean that we think that things are fine as they are. We agree with what you all have put forward thus far in your statements – that as a wine community we are facing enormous challenges and that our efforts thus far are failing to meet these challenges. As winery owners we stand willing to meet these challenges with new and creative ideas.
This would have been known to you had the Steering Committee that was formed to “explore” a WID actually been interested in exploring the idea. Instead, what was presented to us – in a press release from this very organization – was an already made decision to pursue a WID and to sell it to all of us.
And the efforts to sell it to us are undeveloped at best. Otherwise, how could a press release been put forward that claimed the partnership and support of the Sonoma County Vintners only to have them, two days later, come forward and deny that – saying in a letter to their members, “We want to be clear that the SCV Board of Directors has not endorsed, approved, or accepted the proposed WID initiative?” In the next few days, it will become clear that the Sonoma County Vintners aren’t the only organization that feels that their position on the WID has been misrepresented.
If the goal was really to explore the possibility of a WID, how could this organization, in a letter to its members, tout success figures from Temecula that are inaccurate and misleading? Let me explain. In a letter to you members to justify the WID you state, “in just five years, the Temecula Valley wine region grew its direct-to-consumer sales by 88% and its paid tastings by 75%- a compelling case for what’s possible when an industry invests in itself.”
- The 88% increase in DTC sales is not a like-for-like comparison. The earlier figures were based on actual sales data from 19 wineries, while the later numbers include actual and estimated data from over 40 wineries. This represents a 236% increase in the number of reporting wineries, which significantly skews the percentage growth in sales. In other words, the sales increase is largely explained by the increase in participants—not necessarily by WID-driven growth.
- The 75% increase in paid tastings is similarly misleading when viewed alone. At the same time, there was a drop of nearly 291,000 in unpaid and other tastings, suggesting shift in how tastings were categorized, rather than a clear growth in overall visitation or engagement.
- Overnight stays actually declined by nearly 38,000 during the same time period, contradicting the narrative of booming tourism and extended visitor engagement.
These details matter. If the intent was truly to explore the feasibility and value of a WID for our region, the data presented to members should be balanced, contextualized, and fully transparent—not selectively framed to support a predetermined outcome.
If Members would like a copy of these figures, I have them here and am happy to give them to you.
Let me emphasize that Temecula is the only winegrowing area where a WID has been in place long enough to make judgments about the results and they are far from convincing. At the recent Temecula Vintners meetings, members have asked what the ROI is for the WID and what are the metrics of success and, according to the minutes from these meetings, no one has had an answer.
If the goal of the Sonoma County Committee was truly exploration, why not give Santa Barbara – an area with more similarities to Sonoma than Temecula – a chance to show what potential successes a WID can bring? They’ve actually established some metrics for success – something none of us have seen from Sonoma County.
Just as disturbing to us are the comments being made by certain members of the committee. One member, on the radio, when asked how this WID tax would affect small wineries said this, “The assessment is something that would be passed on to the consumer. The winery itself wouldn’t pay the dollars….I suppose if a winery chose to pay the assessment themselves and include that on their receipts, that could be a burden.” This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how we work as wineries. The consumers are the entity that allows us to exist. Without them, we can all make the finest wines in the world, and we’d still go out of business. The idea of placing what has been acknowledged as a burden on the consumers in hope of attracting them to us is contrary to logic. And the idea that we should somehow hide this assessment from consumers by not including it on the receipt shows a disdain for them that many of us cannot embrace.
Consumers don’t publicly complain about this type of thing – they simply stop purchasing and stop showing up. Those of us on the front line – who are struggling to keep our prices down despite rising costs – see this on a daily basis. Many of us gathered here have already heard complaints about this proposed WID from our customers and we are listening.
In the letter from this organization to its members, we were told that the real purpose behind the proposed Wine Improvement District was “to rally our entire wine community- grapegrowers large and small, vintners of every size, and our hospitality partners, around a shared mission.” In virtually all the ways that this has been handled, the opposite has been accomplished. As a community, we seemingly have never been more divided. If the real purpose of the proposed WID is unity, this effort has already failed.
Those of us gathered here – and hundreds more representing the majority of wineries in Sonoma County – respectfully ask the Steering Committee and those of you on this Board to pause this initiative and engage in a genuine and transparent evaluation process. Specifically, this means:
- Put a stop to proposing a plan without winery and Sonoma County Vintner member input.
- Engage in meaningful dialogue with Sonoma County Wineries – both large and small – about how we can promote Sonoma County wine.
- Evaluate – in an honest way – how the WID system has worked in Temecula and give time to see how it works in areas more like Sonoma County.
- Truly listen to the myriad of ideas that we have – some of which are quite exciting – to help increase the sales of Sonoma County wines. Prioritize innovation over inertia.
- Demand real metrics for the success of any plans we propose and make certain that there are measurable ROI numbers for all wineries.
Sonoma County has long been a leader in quality, sustainability, and community. Let’s not risk that by rushing into a WID based on uncertain benefits and outdated ideas.
Thank you,
Adam Lee”