Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Winery Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors remand Castello di Amorosa winery permit to planning commission after water-use discrepancies
Summary
The board voted unanimously to remand an appeal to the planning commission so staff and the commission can review an updated Water Availability Analysis and related groundwater and wastewater data after the discovery of discrepancies between reported and actual well use.
The Napa County Board of Supervisors on June 24 voted unanimously to remand an appeal relating to the Castello di Amorosa winery use‑permit modification back to the Planning Commission for an advisory report. The move follows staff identification of discrepancies between the winery’s Water Availability Analysis (WAA) and reported groundwater use.
The Planning Commission had approved a major modification on April 2 that would recognize additional hospitality areas, parking and a new well. After staff requested historic water‑use records, county planners found that the applicant’s WAA underestimated groundwater use. Staff reported the WAA estimated roughly 16 acre‑feet of groundwater demand while submitted records showed groundwater extraction near 39 acre‑feet in a referenced year.
Emily Hedge, project planner, told the board the discrepancy means staff cannot reliably evaluate potential groundwater impacts and recommended that the commission review an updated, corrected WAA and provide an advisory report. The applicant’s counsel said the project team would support a remand and that infrastructure and metering changes are underway to clarify future monitoring.
Appellant Water Audit California argued the board must grant the appeal and remand, raising concerns about prior disclosures, ongoing public‑trust and groundwater impacts and the adequacy of prior filings. The county’s representative said the remand is appropriate first so the board receives accurate technical information before hearing the appeal fully.
Why it matters: Staff said that well number 2—originally characterized as a backup—appears to have been used much more heavily in recent years, increasing the site’s groundwater footprint and changing the baseline the county used in environmental review. Supervisors expressed concern about transparency, public trust, and the need for a complete and peer‑reviewed water analysis before final action.
Ending: The board asked the Planning Commission to consider the corrected water analysis and any impacts on entitlements and conditions of approval, including groundwater and wastewater impacts, and to return an advisory report for a future board hearing. The motion to remand passed unanimously.
