Florida to pay $11.5 million for cutting citrus trees
The jury verdict comes in the first of five lawsuits seeking compensation for backyard trees destroyed in disease-prevention efforts.
(Page 2 of 2)
Fort Lauderdale resident John Haire has played a major role in fighting the state's canker eradication program. He took his battle to save his 10 backyard citrus trees to Florida's Supreme Court and won a decision that set the stage for the Fort Lauderdale trial.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Mr. Haire says that despite warnings by the state's scientific experts, his 10 trees were not destroyed. His trees survived the six-year eradication program canker-free, even though they were within a designated canker eradication zone.
Haire says he believes the jurors were confused about the proper standard to award full compensation. He says the government "got off very light."
"I feel they need to be punished," Haire said of the state Department of Agriculture. "They need to be shown a lesson that they can't do this."
Aside from the potential payout from the state treasury, the case is important legally because it is defining the scope of the so-called takings clause of Florida's constitution. The clause mandates that private property shall not be taken for a public purpose unless full compensation is paid.
The clause echoes a similar provision in the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment. The underlying principle is that the government can't force a few residents to shoulder the burden of a policy designed to benefit the public.
Tuesday's jury verdict came after a three-week trial to determine the amount of full compensation for residents who lost their trees.
In February, Circuit Judge Ronald Rothschild ruled that the state's backyard citrus eradication program was an attempt by Florida officials to sacrifice home-grown citrus trees to protect Florida's citrus industry. At the time there were an estimated 65 million citrus trees in Florida's commercial groves.
"The Department acted in good faith under a mistaken belief that eradication would save the commercial citrus industry," Judge Rothschild wrote in his February decision.
But he said the action amounted to a "compensable taking" under the Florida constitution because most of the destroyed backyard trees were perfectly healthy.
Citrus canker can form blotches on fruit and leaves, but it does not destroy the food or juice value of the fruit, experts say. State and industry experts say the disease could reduce the value of Florida's commercial citrus crop and shorten the productive life of its groves.
In earlier outbreaks during the 1990s, the state imposed a 125-foot eradication zone around any citrus tree found to contain the canker bacteria. But in 2000, state officials increased the size of the zone to 1,900 feet.
All citrus trees found within the expanded zone were branded as "exposed" and slated for destruction, even though the vast majority of them showed no evidence of the canker.
Florida agriculture officials had justified the eradication program by saying that they were working under the state's police powers to fight a public nuisance. The state also argued that repeated court injunctions halting the eradication program hindered state efforts and allowed the disease to spread.
Judge Rothschild rejected both arguments, saying the backyard trees did not pose a threat to public health and did not qualify as a nuisance. He added that the eradication program would not have succeeded irrespective of any injunction.