Mondavi and others had improved their wines and their market posi-tion through learning from their own experiences, incorporating the university’s recommendations, and imitating certain European tech-niques, such as aging wine in small barrels. Borrowing from Europe again, they wanted their place—the Napa Valley—to be recognized by the nation-state, and consequently the world, as a distinctive viti-cultural region. The United States then lacked a regulatory scheme that distinguished premium wines or prohibited others from exploit-ing Napa’s success through deceptive labels. In the mid-1970s, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) contemplated changes both to protect purchasers and to influence American and international consumers into accepting U.S. products as equal to European ones. The BATF first suggested each individual state establish physical boundaries for wine districts. Napa’s vintners opposed this proposal, and instead sought continuing federal authority. The presidents of the NVVA and the Napa Valley Grape Growers Association testified that the BATF should retain control of wine labeling, arguing that the agency possessed the most knowl-edge and the greatest public authority to ensure that labels were uni-form, honest, and legible. Implicit in their testimony was the idea that bulk growers from other areas could influence inadequately pre-pared state agencies to create viticultural districts with little meaning that would, in turn, dilute the importance of the Napa Valley appel-lation. Capturing the flavor of the debate, critic Nathan Chroman wrote, “If I were a California wine grape, I would love to call the Napa Valley my home . . . After all, aren’t there plenty of cool breezes in the evening, sunshine during the day and nice people to tend to my every need? Throw in instant recognition and acclaim when I’m made into wine and life is truly beautiful.”44Soon there-after, the BATF amended its proposed regulations to maintain its jurisdiction. This new U.S. appellation system defined production
K . B r o s n a n 3 0
boundaries and was not intended to convey statements of quality.45 Nonetheless, in requesting federal jurisdiction, Napans recognized that the nation-state’s imprimatur imposed material and symbolic value. A federal system implied uniform standards and reinforced a presumed hierarchy of domestic wine producers, even if this was not the stated purpose.
Napa winemakers sought another regulatory innovation to enhance their market position. By 1979, the Wine Spectator observed, “The Napa Valley is the spiritual center of winegrowing in America. It is the first place that people think of when talk about wine in America.”46Proposed regulations initially called only for the con-tinued use of geopolitical borders as functional appellations, such as
“Napa County” or “Sonoma County.” Again mimicking the French, Napans wanted other districts that reflected viticultural uniqueness within the valley, or what people perhaps now call terroir.47 The BATF acceded. In addition to wines defined by political boundaries, the final regulations required that a minimum of 75 percent of grapes used in a wine must be grown in the region to earn an appellation of origin.48Grape growers from the valley floor and adjacent hills soon petitioned to establish “Napa Valley” as a federally approved American Viticultural Area (AVA), supposedly defined by the Napa River watershed. The petition caused controversy at the 1980 hear-ings because growers in eastern Napa County did not fall within the watershed.49The BATF had to decide whether to strictly define the
“valley” and exclude 2,000 acres of county vineyards. Recognizing their dependence on those vines outside the watershed, vintners tes-tified that the eastern portions should be included because they pro-duced grapes with similar traits and had been used historically in valley wines. More significantly, the exclusion of those areas from the appellation would decrease the supply of qualified grapes and limit production. In 1981, the BATF approved the broader designation, concluding, as historian James Lapsely observes, that the idea of Napa Valley superceded the reality of the watershed.50
Quickly finding this Napa Valley appellation too broad to express the distinct microclimates and terrains that imprinted identifiable characteristics on their grapes, some Napa growers and vintners peti-tioned the BATF for recognition of sub-appellations.51The petition submitted to establish the viticultural district of Stags Leap as the third sub-appellation within the Napa Valley appellation reveals other federal agencies central to identifying AVAs. Stags Leap was
“ V i n d’ E t at ” 3 1
the first AVA to be defined based on its natural conditions. The applicants for the proposed district of only 1,100 acres of vineyard land emphasized that it was set apart climatically from “the main Napa Valley floor because its unique configuration and orientation favor an inflow of cool air from San Pablo Bay during the growing season.” Geologically, Stags Leap is characterized by igneous soils, particularly bale loam. While the designation of the AVA did not impose strict restrictions on the choice of grape varieties (the U.S.
system remains less dictatorial than its European counterparts), the applicants emphasized the particular success enjoyed by Cabernet Sauvignon in the subregion.52A Cabernet from Stags Leap was one of the two winning Napa wines in Paris in 1976.
The Stags Leap Appellation Committee relied on federal agencies not immediately associated with viticulture for evidence to support the petition. The U.S. Geological Service (USGS) proved essential.
Congress had created the USGS in 1879 in what Henry Adams called America’s “first modern act of legislation” because it was based on the use of scientific data and encouraged economic enter-prise. Congress gave the USGS the task of mapping public lands and classifying their geological structures and mineral resources. Its ear-liest directors believed that this state institution had to protect the national domain for the general welfare, but the agency’s surveys have often fostered private, often inequitable development of the nation’s resources. The USGS applied scientific methods to create cadastral maps that abstracted the earth into grids and provided the state with greater legibility of the landscape. Such maps, James Scott contends, facilitated boundary definitions, taxation, and commodifi-cation of the land.53The maps also helped winegrowers seeking AVA recognition. First, they provided a shorthand that permitted the quick identification and universal acceptance of district boundaries.
Second, USGS surveys provided detailed information on rock for-mations and soil types. Stags Leap winegrowers used the A. H.
Laude’s Field Report on the Yountville Quadrangle in their applica-tion and drew on a 1978 report of the USGS Soil Conservaapplica-tion Service that disclosed different soil types in the proposed district.
Finally, data from the U.S. Weather Service supported claims about unique weather patterns.54
The 1994 application for the St. Helena AVA, the tenth subappel-lation within Napa Valley, reveals the presence of the associational state. Deborah Elliott-Fisk, a viticultural geographer at the University
K . B r o s n a n 3 2
of California–Davis, provided the “evidence relating the geographical features (climate, soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) that distin-guish the viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas,” as required under federal regulations. Elliott-Fisk, who had worked on two other subappellation applications, drew on her research and that of other scholars to define the district’s uniqueness:
“The proposed St. Helena viticultural area . . . is marked by a uni-form, steep gradient and significant river erosion. The bedrock geol-ogy is primarily volcanic, in contrast to the sedimentary soils to the south.”55 This research frequently utilized the reports of federal agencies. The state, through the BATF and in reliance on the expert-ise of these other state agents, sanctioned the new AVA.