Last year, Sonoma County found itself deeply divided over a proposed Winery Improvement District — commonly called a WID — a 1% assessment on winery direct sales intended to fund regional marketing and promotion. Many of you likely remember that I opposed the proposal, at least in the absence of clear, innovative, and measurable marketing objectives.
Supporters of the Sonoma County WID frequently pointed to other California wine regions that had already implemented similar programs — especially Santa Barbara County, which approved its own WID in February 2025 — and warned that Sonoma County risked falling behind if it failed to act. After months of debate, public meetings, and even coverage in The Wall Street Journal, the Sonoma proposal was ultimately shelved, at least temporarily, in favor of exploring other approaches to regional marketing.
As often happens, once the public fight subsides, media attention fades and the story appears to disappear. But the underlying issues remain unresolved. In fact, developments in Santa Barbara County suggest that the WID conversation is far from over.
The headline-grabbing news is that Flying Goat Cellars — which opposed the Santa Barbara WID from the beginning — has now filed suit against the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, Board Chairman Bob Nelson, and the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association. The lawsuit was filed through the Goldwater Institute, a legal organization focused on limited government and individual rights.
The suit seeks to allow wineries to opt out of the WID and to recover assessments already paid by Flying Goat Cellars. I’m not an attorney — nor do I play one on television — so I’ll leave the legal analysis to more qualified minds. But the outcome could have significant implications not only for Santa Barbara County, but also for other regions that already operate WIDs, including Temecula, Livermore, and Lodi, as well as any region considering one in the future. I do have a copy of the lawsuit – if anyone would like a copy, please email me at claricewinecompany@gmail.com.
Perhaps more important, though less likely to make headlines, is another development involving transparency and governance.
Apparently following a complaint from attorney Matt Allen on behalf of vineyard owner Steve Pepe, the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association has begun publishing meeting agendas and minutes online in order to comply with California’s Brown Act governing public meetings. That may sound minor, but it matters. To my knowledge, neither Livermore nor Lodi currently publish comparable information, while Temecula — to its credit — has done so since the beginning of its WID.
Reading through the Santa Barbara meeting minutes and budgets raises several interesting questions.
First, somewhere between 46 and 50 Santa Barbara vintners reportedly are not paying into the WID system. That figure appears to come from a membership base of roughly 127 wineries listed online. Perhaps some are inactive or the membership list is outdated, but regardless, it suggests that a substantial percentage of wineries are choosing not to participate financially.
The minutes indicate that the Vintners Association has attempted to encourage participation, but under the WID structure, collections and enforcement actions are handled by a third-party entity that retains 40% of whatever funds it collects. That alone deserves scrutiny.
Second, the financial projections originally used to promote the WID appear significantly different from the reality.
During the campaign in favor of the WID, supporters claimed the assessment would generate roughly $1.65 million annually for “marketing and advocacy” — approximately three times the association’s prior budget. Yet according to recently released budget documents, actual WID revenue from April 1, 2025 through May 16, 2026 totaled just $818,621.60.
Would revenues increase if full participation were achieved? Presumably. But even so, current projections for the coming year reportedly reduce expected WID income to closer to $1 million — far below the original estimates used to sell the program.
Equally notable is how the money is being spent.
The single largest expense category was administrative wages, salaries, and benefits, totaling more than $330,000. Marketing expenditures — ostensibly the core purpose of the WID — totaled approximately $164,000, with nearly half of that dedicated to marketing and public relations retainers.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the expenditures are improper. But it does raise legitimate questions about whether the program is accomplishing what wineries were initially promised.
Finally, the organization itself appears to be entering a period of substantial transition.
The chair of the Marketing Committee is reportedly moving out of the county and stepping down. Meanwhile, the Board President, Vice President, and Secretary all have terms expiring, while the Treasurer is resigning. At the same time, in an effort to remain compliant with the Brown Act, the organization is dissolving several standing committees — including Finance, Events, Membership, Advocacy, and Board Transition — and replacing them with temporary working groups that apparently are not subject to the same public meeting requirements.
Whether that ultimately improves governance or simply reduces transparency remains to be seen.
To be clear, I remain skeptical of the WID model for Sonoma County — at least absent a clearly defined structure, measurable goals, and compelling evidence that such programs truly deliver meaningful long-term value to wineries.
At the same time, I would genuinely love to see a regional marketing effort become so effective, innovative, and successful that wineries enthusiastically wanted to participate. That would be a tremendous outcome for everyone involved.
So far, however, I haven’t seen convincing evidence that any existing WID has reached that point.