BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Version: April 11, 2016
Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Agriculture: bees: civil remedies
DESCRIPTION
This bill would provide for treble damages, as specified, plus
an amount in fair compensation for the time and money properly
expended by the plaintiff in recovering or replacing the bees,
in any civil action for: (1) the wrongful and willful taking,
possessing, harboring, or transporting of a beehive; (2) the
wrongful and willful removal of bees from their beehive; or (3)
the wrongful and willful killing or destroying of bees without
the consent of the owner or the person lawfully in possession of
those bees. This bill would include legislative intent language
to that end, and would set forth various legislative findings
and declarations relating to bees.
BACKGROUND
California law, the Apiary Protection Act, recognizes the
importance of a healthy and vibrant apiary industry to the
economy and welfare of the people of the State of California,
and declares that the protection and promotion of this important
industry is in the interest of this State. Accordingly, the Act
governs bee management and beekeepers, and in doing so
establishes various enforcement mechanisms and penalties for
violations of the Act. (See Food & Agr. Code Sec. 29000 et
seq.)
According to various reports, in recent years, thieves have been
stealing commercial beehives, disrupting operations for
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 2 of ?
beekeepers and almond growers (which rely on pollination). For
example, an article from February of this year detailed how one
California beekeeping family discovered that 280 of their
beehives were missing as they were about to be moved into nearby
almond orchards-a loss estimated at $100,000, which includes
both pollination income and the overall value of the hives. That
same article detailed that about 240 beehives were stolen from
two other bee yards in Glenn County in January, and another 210
were stolen from a beekeeper in Kern County. (See Souza,
AgAlert, Beehive Thefts Add to Pressures at Bloom Time (Feb. 10,
2016) [as of May 19,
2016].) According to another report:
The $6 billion California almond industry wouldn't exist if
honeybees weren't brought in from around the US. 90 percent of
all the commercial beehives colonized in the US are rented out
to the California almond industry each year. Commercial hives
are brought in from Michigan to Idaho. Some hives are trucked
in all the way from the East Coast. As the pollinators
continue to die off each year, it's becoming harder and more
expensive to sustain important crops such as the almonds.
To make matters worse, counties in California are now
reporting that mass beehive thefts are on the rise. Butte
County Sheriff's Detective, Jay Freeman, says the bee hive
thefts have been "picking up this year" which "could be due to
the increased prices and pollination fees and also a shortage
of bees coming into California as well." At least a half dozen
thefts have been reported in Glenn, Kern, Colusa and Sutter
counties. In Butte [C]ounty, the thefts have become a big
deal. According to the Butte County Sheriff's Office,
"information that over 500 beehives have been reported stolen
in two separate incidents which took place in two neighboring
counties over the last two weeks." (Devon, Natural News,
Honeybee Populations Are Collapsing So Rapidly That Bee Hive
Thefts Are Now on the Rise (Feb. 19, 2016)
[as of May 19, 2016].)
In 2008, AB 2849 (Evans, 2008) would have enacted a
substantially identical law as proposed by this bill to provide
for specified remedies that would be available in a civil action
involving the wrongful and willful taking, possessing,
harboring, or transporting of a beehive, for the wrongful and
willful removal of bees from their beehive, or for the wrongful
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 3 of ?
and willful killing or destroying of bees without the consent of
the owner or the person lawfully in possession of those bees.
Despite unanimous support throughout both houses, the bill was
ultimately vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger for reasons
unrelated to the underlying policy of the bill. (See Comment
3.)
Like AB 2849, this bill would allow a plaintiff to recover three
times the value of the bees at the time of the taking,
possessing, harboring, transporting, destroying, or vandalizing
of the bees, plus an amount in fair compensation for the time
and money properly expended by the plaintiff in recovering or
replacing the bees, for any wrongful and willful taking,
possessing, harboring, or transporting of a beehive, removal of
bees from their beehive, or killing or destroying of bees
without the consent of the owner or the person lawfully in
possession of those bees.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that for every wrong there is a remedy.
(Civ. Code. Sec. 3523.)
Existing law provides that every person is bound, without
contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of
another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. (Civ.
Code Sec. 1708.)
Existing law provides that one who obtains a thing without the
consent of its owner, or by a consent afterwards rescinded, or
by an unlawful exaction which the owner could not at the time
prudently refuse, must restore it to the person from whom it was
thus obtained, unless he has acquired a title thereto superior
to that of such other person, or unless the transaction was
corrupt and unlawful on both sides. (Civ. Code Sec. 1712.)
Existing law , the Apiary Protection Act, governs bee management
and beekeepers and establishes enforcement mechanisms and
specifies various penalties for violations of the Act. (Food &
Agr. Code Sec. 29000 et seq.) Existing law finds and declares
that a healthy and vibrant apiary industry is important to the
economy and welfare of the people of the State of California,
and that the protection and promotion of this important industry
is in the interest of the people of the State of California.
(Food & Agr. Code Sec. 29000.)
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 4 of ?
Existing law provides that every person who feloniously steals,
takes, carries, leads, or drives away the personal property of
another is guilty of theft, as specified. (Pen. Code Sec. 484.)
Existing law provides that "grand theft" is any theft where the
money, labor, or real or personal property taken, or when the
property is taken from the person of another is of a value
exceeding $950, except as specified. (Pen. Code Sec.
487(a)-(c).)
Existing law provides that theft in other cases is petty theft
and is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or
both. (Pen. Code Secs. 488, 490.)
This bill would provide that in any civil action for the
wrongful and willful taking, possessing, harboring, or
transporting of a beehive, for the wrongful and willful removal
of bees from their beehive, or for the wrongful and willful
killing or destroying of bees without the consent of the owner
or the person lawfully in possession of those bees, the damage
caused to the plaintiff shall be three times the value of the
bees at the time of the taking, possessing, harboring,
transporting, destroying, or vandalizing of the bees, plus an
amount in fair compensation for the time and money properly
expended by the plaintiff in recovering or replacing the bees.
This bill would set forth various findings and declarations,
including:
California has the largest beekeeping industry of any state in
the United States. Nearly 500,000 colonies of bees are
operated by 400 commercial and semicommercial beekeepers;
nearly three-fourths of the country's documented commercial
honeybee crop pollination is conducted in California;
drastic reductions in populations of native insect pollinators
have created a great need for honeybee pollination to ensure
reseeding and perpetuation of wild plants. These plants serve
as sources of fruits, nuts, and vegetation for consumption by
various birds and mammals; and
in recent months, there has been a significant reduction in
the honeybee population due to Colony Collapse Disorder and
other problems such as poor nutrition due to lack of available
"bee pasture," that is, pollen- and nectar-producing flowers.
This has created a serious threat to our food supply, and this
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 5 of ?
crisis threatens to wipe out production of crops dependent on
bees for pollination.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to create
specific civil remedies for wrongfully taking, possessing,
harboring, transporting, destroying, or vandalizing bees.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Bees pollinate some of California's most valuable crops, such
as almonds. Our farmers are struggling with a dwindling bee
population and increasing costs associated with crop
pollination. Beekeepers throughout the state are under a
tremendous amount of pressure to keep up with the demand for
pollination and to overcome many environmental circumstances
to maintain healthy bee hives. Bee hive thefts have been on
the rise this year, therefore now is the time to protect
beekeepers' property and to keep this segment of our
agricultural economy vibrant.
AB 2755 provides for civil damages of three times the value of
bees that are unlawfully taken, possessed, harbored, or
transported from their beehive. These civil damages [ . . . ]
will dis-incentivize the theft of bees and assist in restoring
the losses of bee keepers.
In sponsor of this bill, the California State Beekeepers
Association writes in support that "due to the increasing costs
and high demand for commercial hives, there has been a rash of
beehive thefts across the state. This problem has reached
epidemic levels. Since January 1, 2016, 1,734 hive thefts have
been reported to the California State Beekeepers Association.
The theft of 200 beehives might be a $36,000 loss up front, but
the damage is often three times worse, when growers factor in
what the bees could have made pollinating crops."
2. Treble damages
While the theft of bees already constitutes the criminal act of
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 6 of ?
petty or grand theft, this bill seeks to further deter such acts
by way of civil liability that allows for a victim to recover
three times the value of the bees at the time of the taking,
possessing, harboring, transporting, destroying, or vandalizing
of the bees, plus an amount in fair compensation for the time
and money properly expended by the plaintiff in recovering or
replacing the bees.
Generally, the authorization of treble damages permits a court
to triple the amount of the actual/compensatory damages to be
awarded to a prevailing plaintiff, in part to punish the losing
party for willful conduct. Notably, treble damages are a
multiple of, and not an addition to, actual damages. Thus, where
a person received an award of $100 for an injury, a court
applying treble damages would raise the award to $300. To this
end, staff notes that this bill's authorization for treble
damages appropriately applies only to the "wrongful and willful"
killing of bees. Additionally, while the bill also allows the
plaintiff to be awarded an additional amount to compensate for
the time and money expended in recovering or replacing the bees,
this bill limits that recovery to fair compensation and to the
time and money that was properly (i.e., reasonably) expended.
Arguably, under existing law, while criminal charges can be
accompanied by not only jail time, but also fines, such
consequences might not sufficiently outweigh the potential
profit to the thief. Additionally, even assuming that the thief
is caught and successfully prosecuted and punished, this does
not adequately compensate the victim beekeeper whose property
has been stolen and potentially irreparably damaged, and needs
to be replaced. These beekeepers suffer the loss of not only
the value of the hives, including the honey production that
would come from those hives, but also the investment put into
building and caring for those hives and those costs of replacing
those hives. Indeed, the sponsor of this bill, the California
State Beekeepers Association, asserts that the damage is often
three times worse than the loss up front, once the grower
factors in what the bees could have made pollinating crops.
(See Comment 1, above.)
In support of the bill, the California Farm Bureau Federation
(CFBF) writes about the importance of honeybees to California
crops, without which production levels would be significantly
diminished. "Unfortunately," CFPF writes, "the importance of
pollination services has not gone without notice by criminals
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 7 of ?
looking for financial gain. Just this year, more than 1,700
hives have been reported stolen. This theft impacts not only
the beekeepers who owned them, but the farmers depending on
their pollination." Furthermore, CFPF also notes that the
bill's approach to this problem by allowing for treble damages
"is not without precedent in California law. Food and
Agriculture Code Section 21855 provides cattle owners with
damages in the amount of four times the value of their cattle in
addition to money expended in pursuit of the cattle. Livestock
owners are eligible to receive twice the value of livestock
killed by dogs from the dog's owner, pursuant to Food and
Agriculture Code Section 31501."
3. Governor's veto message of AB 2849
As noted in the Background, this bill is substantially identical
to AB 2849 (Evans, 2008) which was ultimately vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger. In vetoing AB 2849, Governor Schwarzenegger
stated that he was forced to prioritize the bills sent for his
consideration because of the "historic delay in passing the
2008-2009 State Budget":
Given the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest
priority for California. This bill does not meet that standard
and I cannot sign it at this time.
Support : California Citrus Mutual; California Farm Bureau
Federation; Community Alliance with Family Farmers; Sierra Club
California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : California State Beekeepers Association
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
AB 2755 (Gallagher)
Page 8 of ?
Assembly Agriculture Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************