Chapter I
Background
In 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed an act into law exempting a specific amount of home produced beer from the Federal Excise tax. This exemption once again enabled Americans to engage in a hobby that had been illegal since prohibition, which for much of recorded history prior to the American prohibition was practiced less as a hobby and more as a daily way of life for a safe source of hydration and a way to preserve a harvest during a more agrarian time. As the true power to regulate alcohol production and sale rests with the individual states, it was fortuitous that many states quickly followed suit enacting their own licensing and tax exemptions for their citizens to engage in the home production of beer.Background
Over the next thirty years home brewing beer would grow to be a hobby practiced across the country. The American Homebrewers Association which was founded by Charlie Papazian in 1978 has seen membership in the organization swell to 17,500 out of a conservatively estimated 500,000 home brewers nationwide (defined as a person who brews at least one five gallon batch a year). The success of the hobby has been credited with much of the success of the country's microbrewery movement, as many of America's most successful and creative breweries were founded by homebrewers. Jim Koch, founder of the Boston Beer Company, maker of Samuel Adams, was himself a homebrewer and now holds an annual Long Shot competition, in which homebrewers from across the country can submit their own beers for judging, the best of which are brewed at the Boston Beer Company's brewery and packaged into special six packs for limited distribution.
By 2008 forty-five states had enacted legislation to clearly permit the hobby in their state. And while homebrewers across the country were celebrating the 30th anniversary of their hobby, the work was just beginning in one of the remaining five states looking to pass homebrewing legislation.
While there was no express prohibition of the hobby under Utah law, it appears as though that under the current laws a homebrewer in Utah would be subject to the same hefty licensing, bond, and taxation requirements that a full scale brewery operating as a business would be subject to in the state. None the less as many as five home brew supply shops obtained business licenses from their respective cities throughout the state and the hobby has experienced reasonable, if not somewhat underground, success. While leaving well enough alone seemed to work for some time, such ambiguity in the law proved risky when in 2005 the City of South Sale Lake took steps to clarify such ambiguity by pursuing an ordinance that would have specifically prohibited the hobby within the city's boarders. The local homebrewing community rallied against the effort and it was ultimately defeated. A few years later an ambitious law student decided he would prefer it if his new found hobby didn't require him to operate in a gray area of the law, particularly given his aspirations of being a member of the Bar and an officer of the court. He turned to a member of the Utah Legislature for help.
Representative Christine Johnson of the Utah Legislature responded to the plea of that constituent and took up the cause of Utah Homebrewers. While her efforts and the efforts of homebrewers throughout the state were valiant, and were met with much success, the clock ran out on Utah's first attempt in ten years at passing homebrewing legislation. The bill passed the House of Representatives but expired when the relatively short Utah Legislative session ended before the bill received an up or down vote in the Utah Senate.
Undaunted and reelected the much revered Representative Christine Johnson has elected to sponsor the "Exemption for Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing License" once again. However this time the efforts have begun well before the 2009 Legislative Session of the Utah Legislature will begin.
Representative Christine Johnson will present the bill at an interim committee meeting of the Utah Legislature in the hopes of giving the bill new life. Success in such a meeting would be very advantageous and would hopefully bode well for the bills overall success when the legislative session does begin in early 2009.
The homebrewing bill is seventh on the agenda for the Business and Labor Interim Committee which is scheduled to meet Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. in Room W025 House Building at the Capitol.
I have also been working with Jamie Burnham at The Beer Nut (Salt Lake City's legally operating Homebrew Supply Shop) and Gary Glass of the American Homebrewers Association (who spoke before the House Government Operations Committee during the 2008 Legislative Session, where we received a unanimous favorable recommendation). They are working to spread the word and rally support from the Utah homebrewing community.
We need the support of Utah homebrewers and all those who feel this legislative measure is appropriate, not only at the upcoming meeting but throughout the 2009 legislative session, as we strive to ensure the bill's success at each step in the process. We appreciate the time of anyone who can come before a committee meeting to speak in support of the bill, as well as the efforts of everyone who takes the time to contact their local legislators this year.
Chapter II
The November 19, 2008 meeting of the Business and Labor Interim Committee
The November 19, 2008 meeting of the Business and Labor Interim Committee
It was a sunny day in Salt Lake City, and the air quality was visibly compromised as I drove up the steeper blocks of State Street approaching the Capitol building. A helicopter was circling the Capitol building complex against a smoggy version of a sky blue backdrop. It was 1:45 p.m. and the scene reminded me that the Senate confirmation hearing that ultimately resulted in a rejection of Judge Robert Hilder for the Court of Appeals was likely wrapping up and that parking would be a particular challenge today. Surprisingly enough parking was easy to find for those not afraid to walk a little bit.
On my way to the gravel walkway that arches along the eastern half of the complex, I crossed paths with Jamie Burnham, the manager of The Beer Nut (Salt Lake City’s premier home brew supply shop). She had brought a new employee along with her, whose name I regret I don't recall. Together we walked to the lower level of the House building where we met with Mark Alston, the owner of The Beer Nut and The Bayou, Nicole Salazar-Hall, a 2L and fellow home brewing advocate, and Jennifer Talley, one of two brewmasters at Squatters brewpub. We exchanged pleasantries and introductions as a gentleman from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“DABC”) approached us as he overheard the content of our conversation. He explained he had worked with Representative Johnson on some language modifications to the bill and inquired about the history of the bill from the 2008 legislative session. He seemed receptive to the purpose of the bill as he learned the bills failure in the last session turned on a lack of time and not of support. As the conversation was winding down Representative Johnson arrived and greeted us. She carried the bill in hand and showed us the new language, explaining that its purpose was to clarify that the exemption would pertain only to beer and wine, importantly excluding distilling beverages at home. While we all agreed the language is redundant because Federal law explicitly outlaws home distillation, it made someone at the DABC feel better, so it was included.
The committee meeting was held in Room W025 and a half hour before the meeting was to begin the room was already packed and uncomfortably warm. None the less a room full of well dressed individuals, mostly still wearing their sport coats, endured the muggy atmosphere to see a bill or a report that was important to them. Those who came in support of “Exemption for Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing License” were willing to endure no less.
When the meeting was called to order, more or less on time, the committee dove right in to the rather ambitious agenda for a three hour meeting. The Exemption for Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing License bill was seventh on the agenda, so I settled in as best I could while I mentally ran through the strong points of my oral arguments for a motion for summary judgment, which would be held later that same afternoon at 4 p.m. at the S. J. Quinney College of Law’s moot court room across town. The committee seemed to crawl through the agenda as item number two was titled “Required Reports” and listed five individuals who would be presenting material. The substance of the reports seemed to be less than engaging for the majority of the audience as yawns moved through the room like “the wave” at a football game. The committee eventually seemed to agree with popular opinion and announced that they would skip the last couple of reports to dive into the meat of the agenda.
While I attended this particular meeting in support of Representative Johnson’s bill, I found a couple of items on the agenda to be of interest to me. My prior employment as a Financial Representative for Fidelity Investments still prompts me to pay attention to changes in securities laws. Items four and five on the agenda were titled similarly as “Utah Uniform Securities Act.” Each had its own sponsor who advocated their own as the better of the two, while simultaneously conceding that theirs was largely identical to the other. As the committee pressed through those two bills and the rest of the agenda, they finally arrived at item number seven, but before allowing Representative Johnson to present her bill, the committee acknowledged that Representative Dunnigan had a bill that was ninth on the agenda, but simultaneously had to be elsewhere to present other legislation. Representative Johnson, in the spirit of comity, graciously allowed Representative Dunnigan to present his bill next, so that he might be able to make the other meeting.
By now the committee meeting had gone on for some time and I had run out of time if I wanted to make it to the moot courtroom to deliver my oral arguments. I notified Representative Johnson via text message that I had to leave, but would listen to the bill’s presentation online. I then proceeded to jog to my car as best I could in a suit and made it to campus with minimal traffic violations in time to deliver my arguments. As I left the courtroom I received the text message I was hoping to get. The 1.8 inch viewable screen of my cell phone displayed the words “It passed with only one dissenting vote,” as relayed by Ms. Salazar-Hall. I hurried home to pour myself a drink and hear the details of what I missed via an MP3 download from the Utah Legislature website.
In listening to the audio recording of the meeting I learned that after Representative Johnson presented the bill, Mark Alston spoke as a member of the public on behalf of the bill. He competently articulated the strengths of the hobby as a skill and a craft, and that nature of the process requires patience for spans of time ranging from two month to ten years. Both he and Representative Johnson rightly asserted that for those looking for a quick “buzz” a trip to the liquor store would prove more advantageous than home brewing and that the craft of home brewing was reserved for the patient and responsible. One very interesting comment of note came from Senator Hickman of the committee. He inquired if this bill, in addition for allowing for transport of homebrew for the purpose of taking it to competition, would permit for the sale of that product. I imagine most of the observers took that as a hostile question, to see if there were some holes to be poked in the legislation. Representative Johnson responded in the negative, to which Senator Hickman noted that he would support some sort of addition to the bill that would allow for the limited sale of an award winning home brew product after it had gone to competition. While he simultaneously acknowledged that such an amendment would likely fail, it was surprising to hear such a progressive attitude towards home brewed products and was perhaps a positive sign for the future of the hobby in the State of Utah. The one dissenting vote was cast by Senator Niederhauser. Ultimately, Representative Johnson’s bill was forwarded with a favorable recommendation as a “committee bill,” which thanks to an explanation earlier in the meeting, means the bill will be noted as such in the long title and then numbered in sequence as a committee bill and therefore given a lower bill number and presumably a better “spot in line” with the beginning of the 2009 General Session of the Utah Legislature. The bill will move on to the House of Representatives for a vote and hopefully will experience success in both the House and the Senate. The somewhat clandestine organization Utah Law Homebrewing Theorists Association (“ULHTA”) through its members will continue its lobbying efforts as it did for the 2008 legislative session. The organization works to study the existing laws of Utah with respect to homebrewing, seeks change where necessary, and hopes to experience success with its core mission this year so it will be able to reorganize away from being a lobbying group to a homebrew club, and then focus its efforts on winning a bid, in cooperation with the sales team of the Grand and Little America Hotels, to host the National Homebrewers Conference in June of 2010.
On my way to the gravel walkway that arches along the eastern half of the complex, I crossed paths with Jamie Burnham, the manager of The Beer Nut (Salt Lake City’s premier home brew supply shop). She had brought a new employee along with her, whose name I regret I don't recall. Together we walked to the lower level of the House building where we met with Mark Alston, the owner of The Beer Nut and The Bayou, Nicole Salazar-Hall, a 2L and fellow home brewing advocate, and Jennifer Talley, one of two brewmasters at Squatters brewpub. We exchanged pleasantries and introductions as a gentleman from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“DABC”) approached us as he overheard the content of our conversation. He explained he had worked with Representative Johnson on some language modifications to the bill and inquired about the history of the bill from the 2008 legislative session. He seemed receptive to the purpose of the bill as he learned the bills failure in the last session turned on a lack of time and not of support. As the conversation was winding down Representative Johnson arrived and greeted us. She carried the bill in hand and showed us the new language, explaining that its purpose was to clarify that the exemption would pertain only to beer and wine, importantly excluding distilling beverages at home. While we all agreed the language is redundant because Federal law explicitly outlaws home distillation, it made someone at the DABC feel better, so it was included.
The committee meeting was held in Room W025 and a half hour before the meeting was to begin the room was already packed and uncomfortably warm. None the less a room full of well dressed individuals, mostly still wearing their sport coats, endured the muggy atmosphere to see a bill or a report that was important to them. Those who came in support of “Exemption for Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing License” were willing to endure no less.
When the meeting was called to order, more or less on time, the committee dove right in to the rather ambitious agenda for a three hour meeting. The Exemption for Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing License bill was seventh on the agenda, so I settled in as best I could while I mentally ran through the strong points of my oral arguments for a motion for summary judgment, which would be held later that same afternoon at 4 p.m. at the S. J. Quinney College of Law’s moot court room across town. The committee seemed to crawl through the agenda as item number two was titled “Required Reports” and listed five individuals who would be presenting material. The substance of the reports seemed to be less than engaging for the majority of the audience as yawns moved through the room like “the wave” at a football game. The committee eventually seemed to agree with popular opinion and announced that they would skip the last couple of reports to dive into the meat of the agenda.
While I attended this particular meeting in support of Representative Johnson’s bill, I found a couple of items on the agenda to be of interest to me. My prior employment as a Financial Representative for Fidelity Investments still prompts me to pay attention to changes in securities laws. Items four and five on the agenda were titled similarly as “Utah Uniform Securities Act.” Each had its own sponsor who advocated their own as the better of the two, while simultaneously conceding that theirs was largely identical to the other. As the committee pressed through those two bills and the rest of the agenda, they finally arrived at item number seven, but before allowing Representative Johnson to present her bill, the committee acknowledged that Representative Dunnigan had a bill that was ninth on the agenda, but simultaneously had to be elsewhere to present other legislation. Representative Johnson, in the spirit of comity, graciously allowed Representative Dunnigan to present his bill next, so that he might be able to make the other meeting.
By now the committee meeting had gone on for some time and I had run out of time if I wanted to make it to the moot courtroom to deliver my oral arguments. I notified Representative Johnson via text message that I had to leave, but would listen to the bill’s presentation online. I then proceeded to jog to my car as best I could in a suit and made it to campus with minimal traffic violations in time to deliver my arguments. As I left the courtroom I received the text message I was hoping to get. The 1.8 inch viewable screen of my cell phone displayed the words “It passed with only one dissenting vote,” as relayed by Ms. Salazar-Hall. I hurried home to pour myself a drink and hear the details of what I missed via an MP3 download from the Utah Legislature website.
In listening to the audio recording of the meeting I learned that after Representative Johnson presented the bill, Mark Alston spoke as a member of the public on behalf of the bill. He competently articulated the strengths of the hobby as a skill and a craft, and that nature of the process requires patience for spans of time ranging from two month to ten years. Both he and Representative Johnson rightly asserted that for those looking for a quick “buzz” a trip to the liquor store would prove more advantageous than home brewing and that the craft of home brewing was reserved for the patient and responsible. One very interesting comment of note came from Senator Hickman of the committee. He inquired if this bill, in addition for allowing for transport of homebrew for the purpose of taking it to competition, would permit for the sale of that product. I imagine most of the observers took that as a hostile question, to see if there were some holes to be poked in the legislation. Representative Johnson responded in the negative, to which Senator Hickman noted that he would support some sort of addition to the bill that would allow for the limited sale of an award winning home brew product after it had gone to competition. While he simultaneously acknowledged that such an amendment would likely fail, it was surprising to hear such a progressive attitude towards home brewed products and was perhaps a positive sign for the future of the hobby in the State of Utah. The one dissenting vote was cast by Senator Niederhauser. Ultimately, Representative Johnson’s bill was forwarded with a favorable recommendation as a “committee bill,” which thanks to an explanation earlier in the meeting, means the bill will be noted as such in the long title and then numbered in sequence as a committee bill and therefore given a lower bill number and presumably a better “spot in line” with the beginning of the 2009 General Session of the Utah Legislature. The bill will move on to the House of Representatives for a vote and hopefully will experience success in both the House and the Senate. The somewhat clandestine organization Utah Law Homebrewing Theorists Association (“ULHTA”) through its members will continue its lobbying efforts as it did for the 2008 legislative session. The organization works to study the existing laws of Utah with respect to homebrewing, seeks change where necessary, and hopes to experience success with its core mission this year so it will be able to reorganize away from being a lobbying group to a homebrew club, and then focus its efforts on winning a bid, in cooperation with the sales team of the Grand and Little America Hotels, to host the National Homebrewers Conference in June of 2010.
Posts
