It’s what we wished for

Two decades ago, lots of Sonoma County winemakers and innkeepers were jealous over the attention heaped on their counterparts in Napa Valley, but they swore they’d never actually want to be another Napa or another wine country version of Disneyland. Back then, Sonoma’s wine and hospitality people would chortle, “Sonoma’s for wine, Napa is for auto parts.”
Napa sold t-shirts and trinkets and charged tasting room fees. Sonoma was more “authentic” and the wine tasting was free. Napa had tour buses, too much traffic and burdensome crowds. Sonoma had a Wine Road that meandered past wineries, small towns, a river with redwoods and a spectacular coastline.
Napa got all the great press reviews and Sonoma was the stepchild, appreciated for its “rustic wines” but considered too unsophisticated to ever produce really great wines.
But 20 years ago also marked the launching of the Sonoma County Tourism Program. The government-sponsored program united the wineries, innkeepers and visitor centers to sell Sonoma County to the world and steal some of Napa’s thunder. Guess what? It worked.
Now Sonoma is a destination too, just like Napa, Monterey, Lake Tahoe and Disneyland. Now, Sonoma is the name of a fashion line of shoes and clothing. There’s a restaurant in Chicago named Sonoma. And, there may be winemaking regions in less-discovered parts of Oregon and elsewhere that are jealous of Sonoma’s success — but don’t want to be like us. Are we the new Napa?
According to some winery neighbors, the Sonoma County wine industry is ruining our rural character and quality of life. It’s gotten too big and too successful. There are too many winery hosted special events, weddings, private parties and million-dollar auctions. We got what we wished for and now we don’t like it so much.
But, according to a survey just released by the Sonoma State University Wine Business Institute, the opposite is true. Survey respondents (88 percent) said the wine industry has a “very positive” impact on our quality of life, local economy and contributes to our natural beauty and culture.
The survey findings cited jobs, increased tourism revenues and contributions back to local communities by the industry as sources of local pride and added enjoyment for not just visitors, but local residents, too.
Which is it?
Clearly, the debate over Sonoma County’s wine industry and its high-profile dominance of our landscape, economy and culture is intensifying. The county is studying new laws to restrict winery special events. The drought has hastened the need for tighter water use laws for vineyard irrigation, municipal supplies and endangered fish protection. The reponses to permit applications to build or expand a winery have begun to resemble public lynchings. Where is this debate headed?
Already, irrational charges about “Big Wine” and “alcohol farmers” has muddled this important discussion. There’s a big difference between agri-industry and agri-culture. Going forward, we must protect farming rights and activities while we mitigate the encroachment of non-farming uses on our rural lands and small town culture.
Sonoma County’s farms are still small, family-owned businesses. There are over 450 wineries and 1,800 vineyard owners here not named Gallo or Kendall-Jackson. Almost half (40 percent) are 40 acres or smaller.
It’s our fault Sonoma County has become a praised and popular tourist destination. Four million visitors spent $1.7 billion here last year. That’s a big reason we still have an agriculture-based economy and lots of farming and preserved open space landscape. Before grapes, it was poultry, eggs, hops, prunes and apples. (Is marijuana next?)
All ag regions have their dominant crop. In Iowa it’s pigs and corn. San Joaqiun County has an Asparagus Festival and Gilroy glorifies all things garlic. Fresno crowns a Raisin Queen each year. And, Napa can only wish they had it as good as us.
— Rollie Atkinson