The Plight Of Bumblebees

As most of you know, I’m the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District. Our District belongs to a number of state and national organizations that represent and offer different services, including legal and political services.

Since I have a degree in Political Science and have worked in around government my entire career, I’ve never really used these organizations and their services and expertise. I’ve always developed our own political and legal plans, strategies, and policies.

One of the water utility organizations we belong to is the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). This week ACWA sent me a report on a court case dealing with bumblebees and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

ACWA is pretty upset with the appellate court ruling, me not so much. My wife Susan was the daughter of Minnesota beekeepers. Her family earned their living by selling their honey all over the Midwest. It was the best honey this Irishman ever had in his whole life — and naturally organic, thanks to those bees.

According to most experts, the American bumblebee was once common in open prairies, grasslands and urban areas across most of the United States but has experienced a rapid and severe decline. Over the past 20 years, it has disappeared or become very rare in 16 states; overall, observations of the bee have declined by nearly 90 percent.

Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the American bumblebee “whose populations have plummeted by nearly 90 percent,” may warrant Endangered Species Act protection. That announcement kicked off a one-year status assessment of the species.

“This is an important first step in preventing the extinction of this fuzzy black-and-yellow beauty that was once a familiar sight,” said Jess Tyler, a Center for Biological Diversity scientist. “To survive unchecked threats of disease, habitat loss and pesticide poisoning, American bumblebees need the full protection of the Endangered Species Act right now.”

According to the Center, “American bumblebees were first described before the United States won its independence and are known by their distinctive black-and-yellow color pattern. They’re social insects who live in colonies that can number in the hundreds, with workers and a single queen. They make their nests in pre-existing cavities like rodent burrows and rotten logs or on the surface of the ground in large grass bunches. The decline of the American bumblebee is part of a troubling downward trend in many of the 46 species of bumblebees and approximately 3,600 species of native bees in the United States that are needed to pollinate the full spectrum of wild plants.”

OK, that’s my story, now here is what ACWA has to say.

The California Supreme Court last week declined to review a controversial appellate court decision that extended protections under the state’s endangered species law to bumblebees and other insects. By allowing the ruling to stand, this case opens the door to listing any invertebrate under the CESA and may ultimately result in increased regulatory requirements and compliance costs for ACWA’s member agencies.

The case, Almond Alliance of California v. Fish and Game Commission, has hinged on whether bees and other terrestrial invertebrates should be defined as fish for purposes of CESA. Fish are eligible for listing under CESA. Section 45 of the Fish and Game Code, which predates CESA but has been applied to the Act, defines fish as “a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals”). While the court acknowledged that the statutory definition was ambiguous and that the fish classification is commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, it ultimately reached the conclusion that the Legislature intended the definition to encompass any invertebrate, including terrestrial insects, such as bumblebees. The court then concluded that Section 45’s definition of fish applied to CESA.

The plaintiffs in the case — comprised of a coalition of farming groups — requested the California Supreme Court review the appellate court decision. ACWA filed a letter with the high court in support of the petition for review. In seeking California Supreme Court review, ACWA argued that the lower court’s decision “upends the wide-held, decades-old understanding that CESA does not apply to terrestrial invertebrates, including insects.” ACWA noted the broad implications that case would have for its members as it greatly expands the number of species that may be listed as endangered or threatened.

Water agencies and their water users would be required to seek certain permits for infrastructure, agricultural and conservation activities that will include strict measures to address potential adverse impacts. ACWA noted that this will add time and expense to efforts to remain in compliance with CESA, and increase the likelihood of projects and activities being curtailed or prohibited altogether.

In June 2019, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) accepted petitions to list four subspecies of native California bees for protection under CESA. This decision resulted in the bumblebee subspecies being designated a candidate species, thereby receiving full protection under CESA, while the Commission determined whether to permanently list the subspecies’ as endangered or threatened.

A group of agricultural trade associations challenged that in a Sacramento Superior Court, arguing that CESA does not authorize the Commission to designate insects, such as bumblebees, as endangered, threatened, or candidate species.

While the trial court sided with the agricultural interests and ordered the Commission to rescind its decision, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, finding that insects can be listed as an endangered, threatened, or candidate species under CESA.

The agricultural interests argued that even if Section 45 applied to CESA, the term invertebrate only covers aquatic invertebrates and not terrestrial invertebrates, given that fish are connected to aquatic environments. The court rejected this argument, as well, noting that CESA’s legislative history supported a liberal interpretation of the term.

So now you’ve read two sides of the bumblebee story.

Which one do you think will have the better ending?

Historically, the Shields family made our living by owning farmland and operating a grain elevator that farmers brought their harvest of corn, soybeans, wheat, and oats to either be stored for later sale, or sold immediately on the commodities market. It was a profitable business.

So our roots are firmly in the soil, and probably even more so because we’re Irish. Culturally, a lot of us believe that we share the land with its other inhabitants, including those who buzz around pollinating what the soil nurtures.

Doesn’t seem to make much sense to be doing things that eliminates the lives of creatures that provide life-sustaining assistance to those who claim to be stewards of the land.

The California Supreme Court made the right decision allowing the appellate ruling to stand, thus protecting a truly threatened species, the bumblebee whose ranks have been decimated by 90 percent. ACWA says the decision may lead to increased regulations and costs, and they’re probably correct.

Just think of it as the cost of doing “buzziness.”

(Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, observer@pacific.net, the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at 12 noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org.)