Chapter 6

TWO DEADLY “P” WORDS

Phylloxera and Prohibition

The first of the two noxious words is “phylloxera,” which came about for the first time in California’s vineyards during the mid- to late 1800s. This grapevine pest is a root louse insect that attacks the root system; this slowly kills the vines, thus killing the grapes and any potential wine. It’s very likely that the pest was there earlier, but it had yet to be identified as phylloxera. It was detected in Sonoma during the 1870s by the Buena Vista Vinicultural Society, which had already lost some one hundred acres of vines.

The San Francisco Bulletin printed a story about phylloxera on June 17, 1873, stating, “The insect which has been so destructive to the vineyards of Europe, has been known in the United States for some time. We learn from vinticulturists of long experience that it has been found in various parts of California, it having come in, as is supposed, with grape cuttings. It is very destructive when once it has possession of a vineyard.” It also reprinted a letter that well-known winemakers Charles Kohler and John Frohling wrote to the Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. They asked that imported vines be restricted, similar to what the German government did to stop the importation of vines from Los Angeles and Sonoma. Commissioner Frederick Watts replied, “[W]hile this insect has been known to exist in the United States for many years, its ravages have not been of a character to seriously alarm grape growers.”

Because of reports like those, many thought that phylloxera would not affect California vineyards like it had done in France and other European countries in the late 1880s. However, the widespread infestation became unmistakable in the 1880s. Gulian Rixford was a member of the California State Horticultural Society in San Francisco, and in 1880, he sent samples of his vines from the Fresno area, which was thought to be infected with “Grapevine Krat.” The California State Horticultural Society asked Justin P. Moore to make a presentation at its May 1880 meeting. Moore described it as a “disease…[that] attacks the roots as well as the young shoots.” It sounds like they were describing phylloxera but did not know it. It was first believed that the bugs were from vines imported from France, but it was later discovered that the disease actually originated in the United States.

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Napa Valley was a thriving viticultural community with nearly 140 wineries. However, in the late 1890s, phylloxera brought wine production in Napa and other areas to a standstill. The solution to the phylloxera problem was, and still is, to first plant resistant rootstocks and then graft grape varietals to the roots. Records of using this approach in California were documented as early as 1896. Sacramento’s Record-Union ran a story on December 4, 1896, on recent findings from the University of California’s Agricultural Experiment Station. It reported:

Following is the full text of Bulletin No. 12 just issued by E.J. Wickson, Associate Professor of Agriculture…SELECTED RESISTANT VINES. It has been known for years that American wild wines are characterized by very marked differences in degrees of resistance to phylloxera and especially in adaptability to soils…of the few varieties which have this demonstrated particular excellence in France we have obtained stock of four varieties which promise best under California conditions. First, for dry soils—that is, soils likely to become somewhat dry in summer—the Rupestris “St. George.” It must be understood that the vines do not grow edible grapes; they are merely intended for roots on which to graft the desirable table and wine varieties.

They went on to state that they would distribute their vines and cuttings equally between any applicants desiring them. They asked applicants to describe their soil and vineyards and send along twenty-five cents for postage and packaging so that they could best determine which vines to send. However, vineyardists had already begun using rootstock like Lenoir in the 1880s.

Phylloxera finished gorging itself on more than 100,000 acres of California vineyards, Rupestris St. George was grafted and wine production began once again. Flourishing for about forty years, California produced some promising wines, and California winemakers were optimistic about the future of their wines. After growers and winemakers soon recovered with replanted vines, they were hit with another setback. Prohibition was ratified in 1919 and went into effect in 1920, and once again California’s wine industry suffered—as did the nation.

Enter the second deadly “p” word. On January 16, 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and one year later, alcohol was illegal. The Volstead Act was required legislation that enabled the government to enforce the amendment and was formally known as the National Prohibition Act. The term “prohibition” was all encompassing in the Eighteenth Amendment and its supporting legislation. Pioneer J.A. Graves recalled, “Just when this industry was at the peak of its importance, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed, and while it is by no means enforced under the Volstead Act, it has certainly crippled an industry that brought great wealth and an excellent reputation to the Golden State.”

The Eighteenth Amendment began: “Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” While the Eighteenth Amendment established prohibition, it was the Volstead Act (passed on October 28, 1919) that clarified the law.

Title I, Section 1 of the Volstead Act stated, “The words beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors in the War Prohibition Act shall be hereafter construed to mean any such beverages which contain one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcoholic beverages by volume.” It seems that even some of the Volstead Act writers didn’t approve of the act because it contained loopholes. For example, Title II, Section 3 addressed the use of alcohol for religious reasons: “Liquor for non-beverage purposes and wine for sacramental purposes may be manufactured, purchased, sold, bartered, transported, imported, exported, delivered furnished and possessed, but only as herein provided, and the commissioner may, upon application, issue permits therefor.”

Section 6 addressed using alcohol for medicinal reasons: “[E]xcept that a person may, without a permit, purchase and use liquor for medicinal purposes when prescribed by a physician as herein provided, and except that any person who in the opinion of the commissioner is conducting a bona fide hospital or sanatorium engaged in the treatment of persons suffering from alcoholism, may, under such rules, regulations, and conditions as the commissioner shall prescribe, purchase and use, in accordance with the methods in use in such institution, liquor, to be administered to the patients of such institution under the direction of a duly qualified physician employed by such institution.”

Section 29 of the Act stated, “The penalties provided in this Act against the manufacture of liquor without a permit shall not apply to a person for manufacturing non-intoxicating cider and fruit juices exclusively for use in his home, but such cider and fruit juices shall not be sold or delivered except to persons having permits to manufacture vinegar.” Title II, Section I defined what exactly was considered illegal: “[T]he word ‘liquor’ or the phrase ‘intoxicating liquor’ shall be construed to include alcohol, brandy, whisky, rum, gin, beer, ale, porter, and wine, and in addition thereto any spirituous, vinous, malt, or fermented liquor, liquids, and compounds, whether medicated, proprietary, patented, or not, and by whatever name called, containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume which are fit for use for beverage purposes.”

Despite some loopholes, the National Prohibition Act nearly ended California’s wine industry, and many winemakers and grape growers didn’t survive the thirteen-year dry spell. Others did manage to make it and survived by growing their grapes under Section 3 by manufacturing, purchasing and selling “non-beverage wine,” or sacramental wines. Only a handful of wineries were allowed to sell sacramental wine; there were hundreds of thousands of religious conversions all across America. Some also turned their Zinfandel, mission, Riesling and Burgundy grapes into grape juice.

Products like concentrated grape juice and concentrated grape bricks were other ways that desperate winemakers and grape growers got around prohibition under Section 29. It allowed them to legally ship unfermented grape juice in products called Virginia Dare Tonic, Vine-Glo and Vino Sano. Grape growers included a packet of yeast and advised buyers to be wary of adding it and letting the bottle sit at a certain temperature…or it would turn to alcohol. Vino Sano advertised, “A juice compound to produce the following flavors: grape, orange, lemon, Port, Sherry, Burgundy, Tokay, Champagne, Muscatel, Rhine. Do not consume within 5 days. Caution: This juice may ferment and make wine.” One has to wonder how many people “accidentally” made wine.

Louis J. Foppiano of Foppiano Vineyards recalled the Alicante grape and prohibition in a 1996 interview: “We had some. We planted in when Prohibition came in because that was the grape that the New York people wanted to buy because it had color. They’d ferment it, draw the wine off it, and then they’d put sugar and water back in and ferment it again and make more wine…It wasn’t good wine, but they drank it and sold it. These families would sell it to their neighbors or some speakeasy.”

Harvesting sacramental and medicinal grapes during prohibition in 1923. Courtesy of Library of Congress.

On December 5, 1933, Utah became the final state needed for a three-quarter majority and ratified the Twenty-first Amendment. While the amendment still allowed for state and local levels of prohibition, by 1966 there were no state laws banning alcohol.

The 1933 repeal found California’s wine industry decimated. Production had fallen more than 90 percent, and fewer than two hundred of California’s original seven hundred wineries were still in existence. The resiliency of California winemakers was evident as pioneers and newcomers alike began rebuilding their businesses. Today, California has a thriving wine industry due to the pioneering spirit of both old and new winemakers and grape growers.