In Florida, a revolt against the citrus police

"The science is pretty clear that this is an unimportant disease," says Jack Whiteside, a retired citrus researcher. "It can be very easily controlled by some of the spray measures that we are already conducting for some of the other blemishing diseases."

Liz Compton, an agriculture department spokesperson, says most citrus scientists support the state's eradication program. "Letting the disease spread is not an option, there is too much at stake," she says.

State officials say the most effective way to eliminate the disease is to cut down and destroy every citrus tree within a certain radius of a discovered diseased tree. In addition to the 603,000 backyard trees, some 1.5 million commercial grove trees have been destroyed.

What has many Florida residents questioning the state's program is the large number of healthy citrus trees being destroyed. For many years during prior canker outbreaks, state regulations required the destruction of all citrus trees within 125 feet of a known diseased tree. In 2000, the destruction zone was expanded to 1,900 feet, vastly increasing the number of apparently healthy trees to be destroyed during eradication campaigns.

The zone was expanded after a study showed that 95 percent of transmissions from a diseased tree to a healthy tree occur within 1,900 feet of the diseased tree. But when the 1,900-foot rule failed to quickly bring the south Florida outbreak under control, some residents began to object to the state's strategy.

Many are also demanding that the state pay fair compensation for the healthy backyard citrus trees being destroyed. They cite provisions in both the US and Florida Constitutions requiring that just compensation be paid whenever private property is taken for public use.

The Florida Supreme Court has agreed to decide the issue, but no date has yet been set for oral argument.

In 1990, Florida's highest court ruled that the owners of healthy citrus trees within the 125-foot zone were not entitled to compensation for their destroyed trees. But the high court ordered compensation for trees the state destroyed outside the 125-foot zone.

Florida officials say that no compensation is owed to backyard citrus tree owners because the state is under an agricultural emergency. The just compensation clauses of both constitutions do not apply when the state destroys private property to protect the public from imminent danger during an emergency.

A key issue in the case will be to what extent healthy citrus trees slated for destruction within the 1,900-foot zone may be reasonably characterized as a source of "imminent public danger."

There is no doubt that a diseased citrus tree would qualify as a source of imminent public danger. If the court rules some of the healthy trees within the 1,900-foot zone do not pose such a danger, the state may face compensation claims for some 330,000 healthy backyard trees that have been destroyed.

On the other hand, if the court sides with state agriculture officials, it will likely mean the end of backyard-fresh grapefruit breakfasts in these parts for many years to come.

Page: 1 | 2