Fighting Back Against Wine's Eco Vandals

Usually we are powerless. But in the wake of one of the largest environmental fines ever levied on a US winery, I have a suggestion for fighting back.

When you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you become accustomed to tech companies ruining – excuse me, "disrupting" – whatever they choose. This is how we ended up with rental scooters littering every sidewalk, so many that the firms creating them don't bother to pick them up when they're impounded.

A key to "disruption" is ignoring local laws. Often this pays off in a big way: look at Air BnB, Uber and Lyft, for example, all of which got started by offering services that were not initially permitted.

Now that tech disruption philosophy has come to the wine industry. I suppose it was inevitable: people who make billions have the money to try the world's best wines, and it's only natural they would be entranced. And Silicon Valley is within easy driving distance of some of the best wine regions in North America.

I'm sad, though, to see that a love of wine and a fascination with terroir does not translate into respect for the environment.

This week, Rhys Vineyards – owned by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Kevin Harvey – agreed to pay $3.76 million in penalties for egregious environmental violations.

Rhys bought a 4591-acre property in Mendocino County and wanted to plant 20 acres of it. With 4591 acres to choose from, you'd think Rhys could have found some dry land. But no.

The winery decided that the best possible 20 acres of terroir in this remote, rugged area went through wetlands. So they bulldozed a stream bed, filled it with dirt and planted over it. And now that stream is gone forever.

Here's how the California Water Boards described it: "A multi-agency inspection team discovered a series of illegal activities on the 20-acre vineyard, including the permanent fill and loss of a half-acre of wetlands and 2148 feet of a stream channel buried beneath the property. The development also involved the improper construction of roads and stream crossings – causing irreparable harm to already fragile wetlands – and was conducted without the required permits or authorization from state agencies."

That is obnoxiously illegal. Does someone like Kevin Harvey, who invested in a number of companies that had successful IPOs, and was listed as the 27th richest tech investor on Forbes' Midas List in 2011, care about $3.76 million? That's the equivalent to him of loose change found in his couch. (I was going to say he might tip his manicurist that much, but I don't know if he gets manicures – or leaves tips.)

In pro sports terms, this would be like giving an NBA player a $100 fine. Sure, it's mildly irritating, like a Slack chat that runs long. But it's not even embarrassing in the tech world. His buddies will look at that tiny little $3.76 million and say: "Good going, bro."

I could (and will later) give you the statement his lawyer released to the media, which sounds like a GOP Senator's thoughts and prayers after a school shooting. But first, let's look at what Harvey told Tim Simmers of the San Mateo County Times in 2010 about his winery:

“We're staying high-end. That's what interests me," Harvey told Simmers. "I'm not attracted to this as a business — we're trying to push the envelope of quality."

We're not attracted to this as a business. Right.

Did I mention the scooters? Bird, which treats its electric scooters as disposably as the tech industry treats every human being but programmers, has raised more than $700 million and lost more than $100 million in just the first three months of 2019. Some of those losses are from fines, but that's just how Silicon Valley does business. Fines are just operating costs along the way to dominating the market.

OK, here's Rhys' attorney's statement: "Rhys Vineyards, LLC deeply regrets the mistakes made. They want to thank the agencies involved for their diligence in working with them to resolve this matter and reaching an agreement. Rhys Vineyards is committed to conserving and protecting the remainder of the ranch and is in discussions with conservation-oriented entities to accomplish this."

Translation: "We own it, so we won't set the rest of it on fire – unless we might clear some better terroir that way. How much would that cost? Asking for a friend."

I don't want to suggest that people stop buying Rhys Vineyards wines, but you can buy a Pinot Noir made with more environmental sensitivity from LITERALLY ANY OTHER WINERY IN CALIFORNIA.

Who I really want to reach out to is the wine critics who have raved about Rhys wines.

You don't have to review them.

This is the only thing that might get Harvey's attention. You can't level a big enough fine on a guy who doesn't look at his winery as a business. But he does care about reviews.

In 2008, Amanda Berne of the San Francisco Chronicle did a Q&A with Harvey, who was just starting out. Here is the first question and answer:

"Q:How was your first vintage?

A: It went great. We got really high scores from Burghound.com, and Robert Parker gave it another big score."

It would not be ethical for a critic to hold a winery owner's behavior against him when judging a wine, and I would never suggest that someone do so; in fact, I would argue strongly against doing so.

But there are thousands of wines released every year that never get reviewed. Consider, wine critics, writing about some of them instead of Rhys. California's fragile ecosystem would thank you.