State House Changes Bill to Allow More Distilleries

The state House of Representatives trimmed back a bill Wednesday to let small distilleries be set up in many Tennessee counties.

Instead of authorizing distilleries in any county that already allowed liquor by the drink, the new version would require voters to OK such a manufacturer of whiskey. The county commission would be able to call the referendum.

The Senate has already passed the bill without those requirements, but sponsor Bill Ketron says he can go along with the changes.

Ketron and other supporters say the old-fashioned, small distilleries add to a state’s tourism appeal and business strength. They compare the effort to local-crafted beers and wineries which have become widespread in the last decade.

“This will be a good tourism bill. It’ll be a good agriculture bill. It’ll be a good revenue bill. Many states are developing these, just like touring wineries, in many states.”

WEB EXTRA

The bill is SB 1955 Ketron/HB 1720 Carr.

Currently the state law (TCA 57-2-103) says a county commission can call a referendum election on the question of whether to permit and legalize the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. But it would require first the filing of a petition with 10 percent or more of the qualified voters of the county – 10 percent of the voters in the last presidential election in the county.

Originally Ketron’s bill would have simply allowed any county that had already approved liquor-by-the-drink to allow a distillery to be built.

As amended, the county commission can still call a referendum on the question of whether to allow a distillery to be built – but the requirement for a voters’ petition is removed.

Representative Matthew Hill filed another resolution to take his county, Washington, out of the effect of the bill by population reference., i.e., Washington is the only county with at least 107,100 residents in the 2000 census and not more than 170,200.

Because the bill has been amended by the House, the altered language will return to the Senate for concurrence or non-concurrence. If the two houses disagree on the language that should be enacted, the bill would eventually go to a conference committee.

Senate sponsor Bill Ketron says the new version should be all right with the Senate, which already had passed the more permissive version.

“I don’t think that’s a major problem – don’t really have a problem with the county commission having some say-so about what comes into the county and what doesn’t.”

Nina Cardona contributed to this story.