On April 2, 1969, Washington Governor Dan Evans signs House Bill 100 – commonly known as the California Wine Bill. The new law removes trade barriers protecting Washington's moribund wine industry from outside competition. Soon the state will be flooded with inexpensive table wines from California, forcing Washington wineries to take a new approach. "Washington producers could not compete ... so they were forced to turn up-market for sales. A quality wine industry emerged, since that was the only kind that made sense" ("Crisis & Change ..."). Wine journalist Andy Perdue, assessing the impact of the California Wine Bill, will refer to April 2, 1969, as "the first day of the modern Washington wine industry" ("Washington's Date With Destiny").
A Modest Wine Industry
Although wine consumption became legal again in December 1933 with the repeal of federal Prohibition, Washington's wine industry stumbled for decades, slow to innovate or build a sustainable future. Concord grapes were the dominant varietal. A few winemakers dabbled in European vinifera wine grapes, but Washington primarily made sweet, fortified wines sold in taverns. "These were favored by the unsophisticated palates of consumers during that period and continued to be made well into the 1960s" ("Washington's Date With Destiny").
Until 1969, state laws prohibited the retail sale of out-of-state wines – even though California had moved far ahead of Washington in the production of fine wines (California wines could be purchased only from Washington State Liquor Control Board outlets). As explained by wine writer Paul Gregutt, "Part and parcel of these laws were trade restrictions that taxed out-of-state wineries heavily but allowed Washington wineries to sell directly to retail accounts. The price advantages, designed to foster the local industry, also meant that few quality wines from California or anywhere else could find much of a market in Washington" (Gregutt, 5).
Without serious incentive to compete with California, nor to invest in high-quality vinifera vines, Washington's wine industry grew stagnant. By the end of the 1960s, only five or six commercial wineries were operating in the state. According to Gregutt, only two – Associated Vintners, and American Wine Growers' Ste. Michelle brand – would be of lasting importance. Associated Vintners (which became Columbia Winery) and Ste. Michelle were at the forefront of an industry growth spurt that began about two years after the California Wine Bill was signed into law.
House Bill 100
The political battle to open Washington to California wines is detailed in the 1997 book The Wine Project by Ron Irvine (b. 1949). Irvine writes that in the 1950s, "the California wine industry continued to keep on the Washington State Legislature and the governor's office by continued threats of retaliation on Washington's beer, apples, and lumber. In 1958 the state of California brought suit in the United States Supreme Court against the state of Washington in an effort to open up the wine market" (Irvine, 196). The Supreme Court refused to rule on the case, however, and the battled lurched forward into the 1960s.
In 1967, two years before the California Wine Bill was passed, a similar measure, House Bill 635, was defeated by one vote in the state House. The deciding vote was cast by the Speaker of the House, Republican Don Eldridge, who cited "outright vote buying and bullying" by California wine interests as reasons for defeating the bill (Irvine, 187).
When the political wrangling resumed in 1969, battle lines over a revised wine bill, House Bill 100, were clearly drawn. On one side, supporting the California wine industry, were lawyers Syd Abrams, a wine broker for E&J Gallo Winery, and Tom Owens, a lobbyist for the California Wine Institute. Part of their strategy was to convince state lawmakers that Washington was fully capable of producing quality wines that could compete with wines from California. "They argued forcefully that there was no longer any justification for barriers, that barriers were part of the past. They argued the quality issue. The relatively recent, and drier, California table wines were clearly superior, and a very vocal minority of wine drinkers who wanted access to these exciting new table wines were beginning to be heard" (Irvine, 189).
On the other side stood Ivan Kearns, executive secretary of the Washington Wine and Grape Growers Council, a powerful lobbying group, and Victor Allison, general manager of American Wine Growers. Kearns was an experienced back-room operator who by 1968 had "convinced growers, who sold to wineries, to pay the Wine Council a dollar per ton of harvested grapes. Much of these funds were distributed to legislators in both houses who were allies of the Washington wine industry. Foremost was Senator Robert Greive (1919-2004), Seattle Democrat and Senate Majority Leader. Greive was the point man and distributed money to various supporters" (Irvine, 189).
According to Irvine, Kearns believed that he could stop HB 100 in committee hearings. But Kearns "had misjudged the mood of the legislators" and was "so sure that he could kill the bill in committee, (he) lost sight of the issues" (Irvine 189). Wrote Irvine:
"House Bill 100 was a political and economic war. The battle was tough, nasty, and divisive, and sometimes comical, a struggle that went far beyond the issue of competitive fairness in the marketplace. The final vote mirrored a dramatic shift in the persona of Washington voters, a population torn between its frontier beginnings and its urbane future. The Senate and the House voted to dismantle the barriers of the past and to adopt the credo of the future: open markets without tariffs and special interests …
"There are two remarkable stories here. Besides the story of wine production and the change in consumer taste toward dry table wines, there is another, equally fascinating story about the changing legislative climate. In a sense, the California Wine Bill helped usher in a new openness in the legislative process by changing the political landscape" (Irvine, 175).
Testimony and a Vote
Before the 1969 legislative session, a House and Senate joint committee chaired by Grieve held public meetings on House Bill 100. At a hearing in Yakima, Dr. Walter Clore, chief horticulturist at Washington State University's research center in Prosser, testified that "we can compete very favorably in producing top table and varietal wines with any other region in the United States, and we can do it with California, and we can do it with other parts of the world" (Irvine, 193). Dr. Charles Nagel, a food scientist at WSU in Pullman, echoed Clore.
Ivan Kearns also testified, urging the committee, including his crony Grieve, to keep trade restrictions in place while Washington winemakers pivoted slowly to the production of vinifera wines. But many of the committee members weren't buying what Kearns was selling. On March 24, 1969, the Washington State Senate voted 36 to 24 to approve House Bill 100, and on April 2, Governor Dan Evans signed the bill into law. The final vote, according to Irvine, "represented a dramatic power shift in the legislature, as Greive's grip on power was overturned by the young new upstarts. The battle of House Bill 100 left plenty of spilled blood (and wine). And Washington's wine industry was turned upside down" (Irvine, 198).
Aftermath
The California Wine Bill rewarded consumers and kick-started the Washington wine industry, but there were immediate growing pains:
"As expected, many wineries went out of business, and it took a few years for the industry to recover. Yet it re-emerged in the 1970s. AV (which later became Columbia Winery) and Ste. Michelle led the way, and important vineyards were planted. Sagemoor Farms north of Pasco was planted in the early 1970s, as was Mercer Ranch Vineyards (now Champoux Vineyards) in the Horse Heaven Hills. Preston Wine Cellars and Hinzerling Winery opened in 1976, followed by Leonetti in 1977 and Quilceda Creek in 1978" ("Washington's Date With Destiny").
The California Wine Bill, wrote Gregutt, "eliminated the trade barriers that had propped up the Washington wine industry since Repeal and, for the first time, legalized retail wine sales off-premises. The Washington wine industry had finally entered the twentieth century" (Gregutt, 6).
