Court Opinion

ID: 52486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 01:16:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.715205
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the particular arguments asserted by appellants on appeal do not persuade us that the Department’s interpretation of the relevant statute is unreasonable. The South Florida Water Management District owns the land and the trees, and suffered the loss when the trees were destroyed. Appellants do not seem to assert that they suffered the loss; and in light of the fact that their year-to-year lease renewals are subject to termination on written notice, they clearly have failed to prove that they suffered the loss. We agree with the district court that the statutory term “grower” is sufficiently ambiguous so that the Department’s interpretation of it to include the owner of the trees is not unreasonable under the circumstances of this case.
 

  AFFIRMED.