“Sustainability” has essentially become the bureaucratic equivalent of a blank check, invoked to justify new fees and new layers of government management.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
“Sustainability” once had a real meaning: using resources responsibly, reducing unnecessary waste, and protecting the environment in balance with the needs of mankind.
That is not what it always means now.
Increasingly, sustainability is used as a feel-good justification for government agencies to expand their authority and funnel taxpayer dollars into a growing ecosystem of regulators, consultants, grant administrators, and politically favored contractors.
The real-world consequences of this new kind of “sustainability” include more permits, more paperwork, higher costs, delayed projects, and another set of rules that businesses must somehow finance and navigate.
It will also mean less delicious California wine.
At the end of last year, the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NCGSA) Board of Directors adopted a resolution that authorized the agency to impose groundwater-sustainability fees on users within the Napa Valley Subbasin.
The fee applies only to groundwater using parcels inside the Napa Valley Subbasin. The fees will be used to fund the NCGSA’s implementation of the approved Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) under the state-mandated Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014.
The NCGSA was created by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in December 2019 to serve as the GSA for the Napa Valley Subbasin, as required by SGMA. The NCGSA submitted its GSP in January 2022 and received approval from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in January 2023. The GSA has been working to implement the plan to achieve sustainability by 2042. Since the GSA’s inception, the annual cost of the program has been funded entirely by the County’s general fund with about $2.8 million in grant funding from the DWR.
This “sustainability” fee could mean vineyards face a $25,000 annual bill, at a time when they are trying to trim costs and navigate a changing market.
“Right now we’re looking at these extra costs at a time where all of our clients are asking for price reductions and less fruit due to the downturn in the market,” General Manager Jim Lincoln told The California Post.
His company supplies grapes to about 120 wineries producing Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Sauvignon Blanc.
“We’re not making a profit right now. Labor’s going up and every client that we have has asked us for a price cut. Costs are going up, prices are going down… see where this ends,” he said.
Napa bosses slap water fees on struggling wineries to achieve lefty ‘green’ goals https://t.co/wGbQqCdH5L pic.twitter.com/pvumnr8lJS
— California Post (@californiapost) August 11, 2026
The outrage over the “sustainability” consequences was so strong that the board went back to reduce the fees…temporarily.
Fees for pumping groundwater on the Napa Valley floor this fiscal year should be less than half the maximum amounts that some grape growers feared might become reality.
The Board of Supervisors decided in June to lower the inaugural year groundwater fees. But the county had yet to crunch the numbers to come up with the amounts.
A new county report describes the proposed amounts for the 2026-27 fiscal year that runs from July 1 through June 30. The Board of Supervisors could adopt the fees during its 2 p.m. session Tuesday in the county administration building, at 1195 Third St. in downtown Napa.
Despite this reduction, industry experts indicate that it will make producing wine in this region less sustainable.
And while the rates are less than half the maximum amounts initially feared, wine industry leaders have warned that any new expense comes at a brutal time for the region’s wineries and growers.
“To have this fee come now is very difficult for our members and our industry to weather,” Napa Valley Vintners’ Michelle Novi told supervisors in June.
The county has been spending about $2 million a year in general fund cash on the groundwater agency but has slashed that contribution to $500,000 this fiscal year.
The rest of the agency’s operating budget will be covered through the new fees and its savings.
Rural homeowners and businesses that rely on wells in the area are also being charged. These potential impacts are such that fee waivers are being offered.
To help alleviate financial burden for residents, Napa County is offering fee waivers for households whose income does not exceed 80% of the area median income. Individuals interested in a waiver can contact the county by July 10.
“Sustainability” has essentially become the bureaucratic equivalent of a blank check, invoked to justify new fees and new layers of government management.
Napa’s growers, wineries, rural homeowners, and small businesses are now expected to absorb the costs of a program whose definition of environmental stewardship apparently excludes keeping local agriculture viable.
If California policymakers truly want sustainable communities, they might begin by ensuring that the people who grow the grapes and make the wine can still afford to remain in business.
I will simply point out that wine grapes can be grown in Texas.
