Jump to content

Washington State licenses


Spirits by DZine

Recommended Posts

I have conditional approval for my craft license and am starting my application for a commercial distillery license. I've pretty much made it through the TTB process now waiting for final approval. I had to delay with the TTB until I fully understood and could coordinate our efforts between the state and federal regulations. I can now have a craft distillery license with tasting room and direct product sales benefits and a commercial license with non restrictive raw materials benefit under a single TTB license. No co-mingling of products however. Also it is possible under state law to get a food and spirits service license and sell drinks and food in a separate building on the distillery premises if one wants to go that direction. It is then possible to sell one's own spirits and also others whether manufactured by a Washington state commercial or craft distillery. One must follow standard state food and spirits service regulations.

Is anyone in Washington state interested working with the Legislature to revise laws on tasting room locations and perhaps softening the raw materials limitations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't already have a Washington Craft Distillers Association, you should rally the troops and create one. In my experience government doesn't want to speak to individuals but rather industry groups. Washington State has already made some good progress, and a healthy relationship between industry & government will further your aims.

Good luck, Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have conditional approval for my craft license and am starting my application for a commercial distillery license. I've pretty much made it through the TTB process now waiting for final approval. I had to delay with the TTB until I fully understood and could coordinate our efforts between the state and federal regulations. I can now have a craft distillery license with tasting room and direct product sales benefits and a commercial license with non restrictive raw materials benefit under a single TTB license. No co-mingling of products however. Also it is possible under state law to get a food and spirits service license and sell drinks and food in a separate building on the distillery premises if one wants to go that direction. It is then possible to sell one's own spirits and also others whether manufactured by a Washington state commercial or craft distillery. One must follow standard state food and spirits service regulations.

Is anyone in Washington state interested working with the Legislature to revise laws on tasting room locations and perhaps softening the raw materials limitations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have conditional approval for my craft license and am starting my application for a commercial distillery license. I've pretty much made it through the TTB process now waiting for final approval. I had to delay with the TTB until I fully understood and could coordinate our efforts between the state and federal regulations. I can now have a craft distillery license with tasting room and direct product sales benefits and a commercial license with non restrictive raw materials benefit under a single TTB license. No co-mingling of products however. Also it is possible under state law to get a food and spirits service license and sell drinks and food in a separate building on the distillery premises if one wants to go that direction. It is then possible to sell one's own spirits and also others whether manufactured by a Washington state commercial or craft distillery. One must follow standard state food and spirits service regulations.

Is anyone in Washington state interested working with the Legislature to revise laws on tasting room locations and perhaps softening the raw materials limitations?

Why soften the raw ingredient clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Liberty Bar - Seattle
If you don't already have a Washington Craft Distillers Association, you should rally the troops and create one.

Well, as luck would have it, we do have a Guild, the Washington Distiller's Guild, but oddly, the site's not up today. I'll have to ask Gwydion what the story is with that. Past that, we have around fifteen or more members of our guild, two of which are legally distilling and selling their spirits, the newest of which is Pacific Distillery from Woodenville, who makes his Voyager gin and Absinthe Pacifique.

Why soften the raw ingredient clause?

Ah, the long debate over our state's comparably and sometimes considered difficult raw ingredient clause. I am guessing that David is referring to the Craft Distillery clause of the 50% in-state ingredients, Don. Is that what you meant, David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why soften the raw ingredient clause?

Because it is to restrictive. Washington would have been better off mirroring the Oregon law that treats all distilleries the same. A less restrictive distillery law would be good for jobs, the economy, and small artisanal distillers such as myself who create a craft product, but don't want to follow DF's business plan. Who cares of Jim Beam/Jack Daniel's et al want to come to Washington and open a distillery? Having the field open to all would be good for jobs, the economy, and putting Washington State in the same leadership position Oregon now enjoys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is to restrictive. Washington would have been better off mirroring the Oregon law that treats all distilleries the same. A less restrictive distillery law would be good for jobs, the economy, and small artisanal distillers such as myself who create a craft product, but don't want to follow DF's business plan. Who cares of Jim Beam/Jack Daniel's et al want to come to Washington and open a distillery? Having the field open to all would be good for jobs, the economy, and putting Washington State in the same leadership position Oregon now enjoys.

Washington is not Oregon. The agricultural component (51%) is not unique to Washington. And given the importance of agriculture in our state, I think is is the right thing to do. I would oppose any change in that portion of the law, and am fairly confident that there are other groups that would oppose this as well. The reason the craft distillery bill passed in the first place was this provision. I know. I was there and with the process every step of the way. FYI - I'm tired of the "DF business plan" line. It's had nothing to do with our plan. It has everything to do with what we were told we would have to do to get a bill passed. Those who had minimal involvement in the process or discussions would have no knowledge of what it actually took to get the law changed. And that my friends is fact and not conjecture.

Go ahead and approach the senate and house. I'll see you at the hearings in 2010 0r 2011 if you can get it through committee.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington is not Oregon.
Let's not dwell on Washington's shortcomings.
The agricultural component (51%) is not unique to Washington.
Just because other states are also capable of being shortsighted doesn't mean Washington should follow suit.
And given the importance of agriculture in our state, I think is is the right thing to do. I would oppose any change in that portion of the law, and am fairly confident that there are other groups that would oppose this as well. The reason the craft distillery bill passed in the first place was this provision. I know. I was there and with the process every step of the way. FYI - I'm tired of the "DF business plan" line. It's had nothing to do with our plan. It has everything to do with what we were told we would have to do to get a bill passed. Those who had minimal involvement in the process or discussions would have no knowledge of what it actually took to get the law changed. And that my friends is fact and not conjecture.

Go ahead and approach the senate and house. I'll see you at the hearings in 2010 0r 2011 if you can get it through committee.

Don

Nothing to do with your plan? Different story here, in Forbes, 10/2007 issue:

In fact, marketing has a lot to do with this whole trend, and the corporate distillers themselves paved the way. "Fifteen years ago, you couldn't imagine anyone paying $35 for a bottle of vodka," says Don Poffenroth of Spokane, Washington's nascent Dry Fly Distilling. "The big guys created the super-premium images and price points that make it practical to do what we do at our scale and sell to the public."

Poffenroth and his business partner, Kent Fleischmann, both former marketing executives in the food services industry, "hit the corporate funk at the same time and came up with this bright idea." They invested about $600,000 in 401k savings and 18 months in run-up time. "We are taking a serious business approach, not the romantic approach you see with a lot of these guys," Poffenroth says. The eventual idea--Dry Fly's complex, German-made pot still was in transit "on the water" when we spoke in late August--is to produce between 3,000 and 5,000 cases a year to start, providing a potential revenue stream of about $700,000.

As marketing men, Poffenroth and Fleischmann's plans included "a lot of brand development." Dry Fly's backstory will emphasize the fact that its vodka, gin and whiskey are "tied tightly to individual farmers in eastern Washington. We've really hit the local ingredients; it is almost the 'appellation' approach of a winery."

Of course, if Dry Fly actually were a winery--the state now has more than 500 of them--Washington's licensing and regulatory process would have been routine. With a first-and-only distillery it was anything but, a common story for micro-distillers in most states. (Bluecoat's Auwerda reports the reaction of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board: "Hunh? You want to found a what?") Having navigated the shoals itself, Dry Fly has helped to write a bill that will be presented to the state legislature in January to define the state's stance on "craft distilling." It includes the provisions that such an operation must employ a pot still, cannot simply redistill neutral grain spirits produced elsewhere and--here's the Dry Fly touch--must source at least 50 percent of its ingredients from within the state. Shrugs Poffenroth: "The first guy in gets the privilege of setting the playing field."

Sure sounds like it was your business plan to me.

The clause is meaningless for anything other than enforcing your interpretation of who should be licensed as a "craft" distillery, which is by no means a majority opinion among craft distillers. It's obstructionistic and woefully inadequate to the proclaimed task of promoting the micro-distilling industry in WA.

Puget Sound Business Journal, 3/2008:

"I think it levels the playing field between us and craft breweries and wineries," said Don Poffenroth, co-owner of Spokane-based Dry Fly Distillery and one of the key lobbyists for the bill.

It does no such thing. It creates a new level with new and unique restrictions which are only of benefit to those who want to make scratch products with WA produce—i.e., your business plan and marketing angle—which is not the definition of "craft," but the definition of "local". There is no distinction in WA for "craft" breweries and wineries. Micro-breweries and wineries are not restricted to WA produce, and yet they have tastings and on-site sales.

I fail to see how this law will be of any great benefit to local agriculture if it's applied only to distilleries which are also, by this very definition, limited to small production. It will, however, be of great benefit to anyone who is poised and ready to open a large facility producing neutral spirits from Washington grain; maybe someone already connected to the grain and brewing in the state.

FYI, you know what line I'm getting tired of? "The first distillery in Washington since prohibition"

This does discredit to a man who's no longer able to defend against this false (or at best, misleading) claim, occasionally modified to read "first grain distillery."

Dr. Michael Manz, of Mountain Dome Winery, acquired permitting in 2004 and began operating the real first operating Washington distillery since prohibition—a craft distillery even by your own narrow definition. There are several hundred gallons of brandy still in barrels as I write—but sadly, Dr. Manz passed away Nov. 1st, 2006, just as his distilling operation was getting under way. He was already distilling, and building a new facility to expand into the last I spoke to him just a couple months before he passed.

I had initially asked him how difficult it was to get started and why no one had done it before now. All it took was someone willing to actually find out what was necessary, and do it. No laws to ramrod, no trails blazed, and no politicking. Just do a ton of paperwork, pony up the cash, persevere, and do it. He had a good attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah Mr. Stone,

I thought you were beyond this stage. Too bad. You are an angry person. I however am not going to play a game of selectively quoting media and dragging you through the mud. I see no reason to stoop to your level.

With your love of Oregon, maybe a move is in order. It is a wonderful state! I'll try not to shed any tears.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't selectively quote anything, I included the entire section. Nothing else in the article has anything to do with DF.

And I'm not dragging you through the mud. I'm saying that this law doesn't work as advertised: it doesn't promote or encourage a WA craft distilling industry, as is shown by the numerous would-be craft distillers who are frustrated by it. Yes, I'm obliged to relocate to Oregon, because my aspirations to be a craft distiller and open a destination distillery in Washington are no longer feasible thanks to this law, and I don't have the time to wait until it gets modified (and it will).

You know that the agricultural benefit of micro-distilling isn't going to make a blip on the state's economy, but it does make for a feel-good sound byte (the revenue to WSLCB is a different story). Out of the 130+ million bushels of wheat grown here annually, over 85% is exported to other countries; out of the remaining 15%, much is exported to other states.* How much is really going to end up in Washington liquor?

The bill was written in such a way as to force any craft distiller to use WA produced neutral spirits, but there are no producers of neutral spirits in the state. A clause was included specifically because it would allow spud farmers access to a federal benefit in order to operate rectification plants: "Distilling is an agricultural practice."

You would have done better to do a little outreach to your fellow aspiring distillers while planning the bill. A little fraternalism goes a long way, and this law could have been written in such a way as to benefit us all, and get the farmers what they needed. As it is, they're just now figuring out whether "20,000 gallons per year" means proof gallons or standard gallons, because it wasn't written into the bill.

You chose to take an adversarial position from the beginning ("The first guy in gets the privilege of setting the playing field") rather than a co-operative one.

You excluded the rest of us and publicly stated your antagonistic competitive intent, so until you're willing to make pro-active efforts to repair some relationships, don't expect anything but frank and honest criticism from me. This law is bullshit.

*Based on WSDA stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very significant and touchy subject for our left coast brethren. As someone splitting time between two states each without craft distillery law, I'm taking away a lot from the macro positions of both sides of the argument.

That said, may I ask that the talking points of a more personal nature head offline? We can leave it to the wine makers to publicly bicker in non-productive outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the law seems to state that at least half the raw materials used in production needs to be grown in Washington, not processed in Washington. Why don't you just call one of the smaller GNS producers (there's an outfit in Oregon that handles both grain and grapes), get their specs, source the Washington grain, ship it the GNS plant, and get your GNS that way? Problem solved. Heck, for all we know, there's already GNS plants out there making Washington GNS as I type this.

Everyone wins. You get the license, and the farmers in Wash. get paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know that the agricultural benefit of micro-distilling isn't going to make a blip on the state's economy, but that it does make for a feel-good sound byte (the revenue to WSLCB is a different story). Out of the 130+ million bushels of wheat grown here annually, over 85% is exported to other countries; out of the remaining 15%, much is exported to other states.* How much is really going to end up in Washington liquor?

One distillery may not make a huge impact on the state's economy, but several will. The more distilled spirits you have produced in-state equals less raw products exported to other states. Distilling from grain/fruit/etc. is a large monster to feed. It also can stimulate future crop planting instead of CRP land-(non)use. The tax dollars made on grain sold and distilled in the state is far greater than that of grain sold for out of state consumption/production. There are other states like Washington that prefer to have a native product produced and marketed. It's good business. Growers thoroughly enjoy seeing where their products end up and distilling is born from agricultural roots. Seems like a natural fit to me. I know my producers would rather sell to me than China.

It seems like what this boils down to is the purchase of NGS. Denver Distiller had a great plan. Of course, the alternative is just to make it yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small GNS (as well as a Grape Neutral Spirit...lots of Washington bulk wine sloshing around on the open market) shop could get some serious business because of this law, combined with all the blokes who want to open shop in Washington State. It's certainly worth a phone call or two, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all things that should have been discussed among all of the aspiring distillers in WA before going to the state. Seems logical to make sure the materials are available before writing a law which requires their use.

It seems like what this boils down to is the purchase of NGS. Denver Distiller had a great plan. Of course, the alternative is just to make it yourself.

Easily said. What if you really are a small craft distiller, bootstrapping it? No investors, family-owned. Why should I have to invest in a $120,000+ column/hybrid still when all I really need or want to make my product is a simple $5000 copper alembic? Producing neutral spirits in-house is an expense of both cash and time I don't need or want any more than a baker should have to think about sourcing wheat and buying a mill. Shall we pass a law saying that in order for a baker to qualify as "artisanal" they must source all their grain in-state? Should a "local" artist be required to make the paper or weave the canvas from WA fibers before he can draw or paint? Is "local coffee" really local? "Craft" isn't "local". Craft is in the head, hands and heart of the craftsman, who will always chose the best materials available, whether they're local or not. But that's probably too romantic a notion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the law seems to state that at least half the raw materials used in production needs to be grown in Washington, not processed in Washington. Why don't you just call one of the smaller GNS producers (there's an outfit in Oregon that handles both grain and grapes), get their specs, source the Washington grain, ship it the GNS plant, and get your GNS that way? Problem solved. Heck, for all we know, there's already GNS plants out there making Washington GNS as I type this.

Everyone wins. You get the license, and the farmers in Wash. get paid.

No one in WA yet, and the Oregon outfit was the first call I made. They're not equipped to handle the output for just my needs, let alone the other WA and OR distillers too. And the cost would be astronomical because they don't have the scale a full-sized plant does. I already pay over four times average GNS cost because I'm using grape spirit.

It doesn't just impact those who start with neutral spirit for their products. This law makes it impossible to produce a WA rum as a craft distillery and enjoy the tasting and on-site sales benefits thereof. Anyone who chooses to make a spirit from a commodity that doesn't happen to grow in WA is relegated to "ordinary" distillery status and penalized by exclusion from the same benefits that "craft" distilleries, micro-breweries and wineries all enjoy.

The notion of requiring local ingredients by law is unfairly restrictive of trade and anti-competitive. Other incentives could have been implemented to encourage using local: tax incentives, a special status mark on local labels a la "REAL" on milk products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small GNS (as well as a Grape Neutral Spirit...lots of Washington bulk wine sloshing around on the open market) shop could get some serious business because of this law, combined with all the blokes who want to open shop in Washington State. It's certainly worth a phone call or two, IMHO.

We at the Odyssey Beverage Group have considered the production of bulk NGS to be part of our business model from the start. For the past few months we've participated in these forums to help determine whether sufficient market demand exists for this product by "craft" distillers. What we've noticed is a considerable amount disagreement among distillers regarding the role of NGS in "artisan" operations ~ either centering around the definition of "craft" and/or the "purity" of spirits in terms of ingredient origin, farm to bottle marketability, etc. By reviewing the issues raised in these forums and the challenges we've seen faced by local artisan distillers we are confident we've hit upon an "game changing" solution we believe may help to evaporate dissension in the ranks.

Part of our vision will entail approaching the NGS production from the viewpoint of an artisan distiller, and in so doing designing our own brand of what we'd like to think of as "Artisan NGS" ~ a NGS product artisan distillers would happily and openly associate themselves with. We realize that "Artisan NGS" may sound like contradictory terminology. though we would like to believe our brand of NGS, when available, will be welcomed with such a description. We also believe, and we'd hope you agree, that craft distilleries have different needs and desires, and experience different challenges than the large distilleries and thus deserve a different approach.

Easily said. What if you really are a small craft distiller, bootstrapping it? No investors, family-owned. Producing neutral spirits in-house is an expense of both cash and time I don't need or want . . .

As GStone has aptly pointed out, producing bulk NGS is capital intensive and requires the ability to handle added logistics - most of which we believe to be in excess of what the majority of artisan distillers are interested in taking on.

While the current state of the financial markets is daunting and have created additional challenges in fundraising, we are confident we'll raise the capital we desire to commence operations sometime this year.

No one in WA yet, and the Oregon outfit was the first call I made. They're not equipped to handle the output for just my needs, let alone the other WA and OR distillers too. And the cost would be astronomical because they don't have the scale a full-sized plant does. I already pay over four times average GNS cost because I'm using grape spirit.

Yes, it is true there are currently no registered NGS producers in WA, though we fully expect that to change and we'd be naive to think others do not share our intentions. While actual NGS production is still a bit far off we believe our ability to differentiate from other NGS suppliers in serving the specific needs of the growing craft distillery industry will lie in our ability to foster an open conversation with all of you whom we would like to serve.

For those of you operating in the Pacific Northwest and perhaps beyond we'd like to help solve the NGS challenges you experience as a craft distiller, and so we'd like to ask for your help. If you currently buy NGS or have plans to so in the future we'd sincerely like to hear from you 'directly' regarding any pain or irritations you've experienced with your use of NGS (product and quantity availability, type & variety, timing, pricing and fees, etc.), your interactions with NGS suppliers (relationship, response time, support, etc.) and anything you can think of, that if done differently, would make for a significant positive difference in your experience of using NGS.

PLUS we'd also like to invite your criticism as well. Seriously ~ if you can think of any reason why what we are planning to do "will not work" ~ we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Enthusiastically,

Jeffrey Shilling

Chief Experience Officer

Odyssey Beverage Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why soften the raw ingredient clause?

I view the "raw ingredient" clause as:

A. a GREAT way to support locally produced ingredients.

I am totally in favor of doing everything appropriate to support the local economy, and the local producers. As a long time member of the Slow Foods organization, I feel that it is important for all of us to do our part in finding and supporting those in our community who are producing sustainable quality products.

B. totally irrelevant to CRAFT distilling.

By it's very title, I would expect a "craft distiller" to be somebody who is focused first and foremost on making the best possible product, using the best possible ingredients. To limit somebody by saying "as long as they are locally produced", I feel is setting a secondary agenda.

I would think it would be far better to create some sort of "Made In Washington" type of designation which could be applied on a product-by-product basis, instead of an umbrella requirement which would impact all ingredient choices made by the distiller for all the products they might make.

In the UK, where they have a similar climate as we, with similar capabilities of growing things, they make their gins using internationally sourced ingredients. A big part of the reason for this is that they want to be able to pick the best possible ingredients so that they can make the best possible product. I asked the master distiller of Beefeater Gin why they don't use locally produced ingredients, and he told me it was because they weren't good enough. I explained to him about our Craft Distillers licence and its regulations, and he laughed it off as being crazy.

Our craft distillers license prevents a distiller from getting the license if they:

- Want to make rum

- Want to make tequila (although I think that would be silly anyway)

- Want to make an orange liqueur (one of the most popular liqueur flavors)

- Want to make lemoncello

- Want to make Absinthe

- Want to make ...

It essentially only allows them to make certain types of brandy, whiskey, vodka, and a gin that doesn't quite follow standard recipes. Everything else is essentially off-limits if I read the regulations correctly.

I suspect that if you were to do a survey of people (who had no awareness of the current regulations) and asked them what they thought it might mean to be a "Craft Distiller", you would get statistically zero respondents who would say "use locally produced ingredients". Which would mean that not only is this definition not inherit in the label, but it also means that the consumer who sees that label won't realize that the distiller is supporting local producers, which makes it ineffective.

I applaud Dry Fly for being the first distillery to market since Prohibition, and I likewise applaud the approach they have taken in their "use local" manufacturing process for their vodka, gin, and whiskey. But I think trying to codefy their business practices into the regulations for a craft distillers license is trying to kill two birds with one stone, which usually ends up missing both.

Craft Distillers should be highly encouraged to "use local", and perhaps if a "Made In Washington" type of designation could be arrived at, there could even be a "fast track" process which would make it easier for a Craft Distiller to attain that designation than a non-Craft Distiller, which would promote and support the big picture in ways that the current license clearly isn't.

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

As always clearly thought out and concise remarks.

Rather than changing legislation that was widely supported, endorsed by numerous agricultural lobby groups (which assisted in it's passing), and quite frankly took a significant amount of effort and money on our behalf, why not create new legislation that addresses the needs of other small scale spirit producers? This new legislation could create a new classification that would include the activities of those who do NGS flavoring and distilling, as well as items that rely on things not grown in Washington. Maybe the new legislation would set an annual license fee higher than the current law, giving a small advantage to producers who do adopt a "Washington" approach. It could include tasting and retail sales provisions as well.

It's not hard to figure out. It will take both significant effort and some money. But then that's how we got done what we did in 2007. So instead of dwelling on the fact that the original legislation was not a free for all package (nor was it ever intended to be - GS feel free to quote this), why not put some money and effort towards creating something that addresses everyones needs. Want our support? Add provisions to the new law that remove the 20,000 PG ceiling (possibly adapting the 60,000 PG number used in some states) on production as we will eventually either need to address this in the current bill or could do so in a new bill.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for intruding in the discussion, but NY does something similar to what Don describes. It wasn't planned that way, but that's the way it worked out.

There was the original craft distiller legislation that Ralph Erenzo was instrumental in initiating and seeing through to completion. Craft distilling exists in NY because of him. He was also the one who introduced the farm distiller legislation and saw that to completion. For those who can do that, there are advantages in reduced fees, expedited licensing, as well as tasting and retail sales opportunities.

I don't see any reason why Washington state can't have both kind of licenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than changing legislation that was widely supported, endorsed by numerous agricultural lobby groups (which assisted in it's passing), and quite frankly took a significant amount of effort and money on our behalf, why not create new legislation that addresses the needs of other small scale spirit producers?

Just for my own personal clarification, why is making more legislation preferable to cleaning up existing? If somebody's in the process of getting their permits, wouldn't it simply add to the workload of both the applicant and the governing body? The general climate appears (at least to this outsider) that what is on the books is confusing enough to both sides. What makes adding more to sift through preferable to cleaning up what's already there...making it more efficient to both sides?

As I'm sure it shows, I know nothing of the process that has to be followed in WA, but I am genuinely interested. CA has plenty of red tape for me already, and I don't wish that upon anybody else.

Cheers,

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for my own personal clarification, why is making more legislation preferable to cleaning up existing? If somebody's in the process of getting their permits, wouldn't it simply add to the workload of both the applicant and the governing body? The general climate appears (at least to this outsider) that what is on the books is confusing enough to both sides. What makes adding more to sift through preferable to cleaning up what's already there...making it more efficient to both sides?

As I'm sure it shows, I know nothing of the process that has to be followed in WA, but I am genuinely interested. CA has plenty of red tape for me already, and I don't wish that upon anybody else.

Cheers,

Paul

Basically because I think that there should be an advantage to someone who uses Washington grown agriculture. And the farm lobby helped us get this passed. Without their support there is no way this legislation would have been heard, let alone passed in a short session. I am not about to turn my back on those who were instrumental in getting us this put in place. Loyalty is still important to me.

And what is currently on the books is not at all confusing to us or the 2-3 other producers licensed under this law currently.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

As always clearly thought out and concise remarks.

Rather than changing legislation that was widely supported, endorsed by numerous agricultural lobby groups (which assisted in it's passing), and quite frankly took a significant amount of effort and money on our behalf, why not create new legislation that addresses the needs of other small scale spirit producers? This new legislation could create a new classification that would include the activities of those who do NGS flavoring and distilling, as well as items that rely on things not grown in Washington. Maybe the new legislation would set an annual license fee higher than the current law, giving a small advantage to producers who do adopt a "Washington" approach. It could include tasting and retail sales provisions as well.

It's not hard to figure out. It will take both significant effort and some money. But then that's how we got done what we did in 2007. So instead of dwelling on the fact that the original legislation was not a free for all package (nor was it ever intended to be - GS feel free to quote this), why not put some money and effort towards creating something that addresses everyones needs. Want our support? Add provisions to the new law that remove the 20,000 PG ceiling (possibly adapting the 60,000 PG number used in some states) on production as we will eventually either need to address this in the current bill or could do so in a new bill.

Don

I completely agree with what you said above. Hopefully the WDG will be able to approach the legislature in 2010 for the adoption of a "micro-distillery" law that encompasses what you state above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...