HARPERSFIELD TOWNSHIP —  The new year is looking as bright as a new copper still for Gene Sigel, thanks to passage of Ohio H.B. 243.

Sigel, owner of South River Vineyard, has invested $300,000 thus far into his Red Eagle Distillery, an operation that would have been illegal in Ashtabula County without H.B. 243, co-authored by Rep. Casey Kozlowski, R-Pierpont, and Rep. Ron Young, R-LeRoy Township.

“(Kozlowksi) took on the bureaucracy in its worst form,” Sigel said. “Our county (without the law change) wouldn’t have this license.”

Prior to H.B. 243, only Ohio counties with 800,000 in population could have a micro-distillery, and only one permit could be issued per county. Thus, an industry with great tourism potential was seriously restricted to three businesses far removed from the grain fields, vineyards and orchards where distilled spirits originate.

Sigel said Ashtabula County, like many rural areas of Ohio, has a heritage of producing liquor. The 1878 Williams Brothers’ “History of Ashtabula County” describes a thriving distillery business that ran out of Ashtabula Harbor in the 1830s. The business spurred shipbuilding and gave farmers a market for their excess grain by converting it into whiskey.

Prohibition shut down the nation’s stills, breweries and wineries. Sigel said it took more than four decades for the wine industry to be re-introduced to the state, and another couple of decades for micro-breweries to make a comeback.

“Distilled spirits have been the last part of the industry to recover from Prohibition,” Sigel said. Nationwide, there are about only 600 permits for distilled spirits producers, versus some 8,000 for wineries. Yet distilled spirits, in terms of dollars, account for one-third of the U.S. alcoholic-beverage market, while wine is just 17 percent.

Restraints on industry growth have included burdensome regulations at both the  state  and fed-

eral levels. Sigel said lawmakers have avoided tackling alcohol legislation because of the industry’s negative side, and he gives a big kudos to Kozlowski for addressing what was an obvious inequality in state law.

“At a time when businesses in Ohio are struggling to grow, this legislation allows for the expansion of micro-distillers and boosts tourism,” Kozlowski said last week.

Young said the legislation was brought to him and Kozlowski by winery owners in Lake and Ashtabula counties.

“These local wineries are noted for creating family-friendly environments that are a benefit to the local farming economy and promote tourism throughout our region,” Young stated in a press release earlier this year. “With the addition of micro-distilleries to the winery’s operations, they will become even more robust economic assets to our region.”

“I think it’s exciting, it’s value-added agriculture,” said Mark Winchell, executive director of the Ashtabula County Convention and Visitor’s Bureau.

He said wineries and micro-distilleries are just the tip of the iceburg for taking basic agricultural products produced in Ashtabula County to the next level.

Sigel predicts interest in the A-3a permit won’t be limited to just winery owners; he feels there will be  distillery-only operations, as well. To his knowledge, he is the only winery owner in the region in the construction phase of a distillery, but he said there are wine producers who will be watching the success of his venture very closely.

He sees distilling as a way for Ohio farmers to get their grains and fruits into the national marketplace while generating tourism through tours and tasting.

“I felt like this makes sense because we have this large amount of tourism coming into Ashtabula County ... and the distillery seemed like a natural extension of that,” he said.

Under the A-3a permit, distilleries will be limited to selling two fifths of product per day per customer and have a limit on tastings. While Sigel would have liked a higher limit on the amount that can be sold, he said it is still a huge benefit to be able to sell the product at the point of production. Otherwise, the distillery would have to point the customer to a State Liquor Store.

Nevertheless, when Sigel sells his product, it will, in a sense, be a second-hand sale. By law, he must sell the product to the state, then buy it back for sale to his customers. In Ohio, it’s a paper transaction, but in California, the product must actually leave the point of production, be transported to a state facility, then returned to the point of production for sale.

Those kinds of goofy regulations are what can hurt economic development in a state, and Sigel said he’s happy to see lawmakers in Ohio willing to challenge them.

“I think Kozlowski took an interest in this and stepped in and dealt with a law that made no sense,” Sigel said.