should be interpreted to mean that the mitigation must “fully offset” the adverse impacts created by IMC’s mining activities and that IMC did not establish that its proposed mitigation would fully offset the adverse impacts. This argument fails for two reasons. First, this court is not permitted to add words to a statute that were not placed there by the legislature. See Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999) (“We are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.”); see also Bay Holdings, Inc. v. 2000 Island Boulevard Condo. Ass’n, 895 So.2d 1197, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power. Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So.2d 1146, 1150-51 (Fla.2000); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Am. Bankers Life
holding that we are to apply the legislative intent underlying a statute and to construe the statute in such a way as to prevent absurdity holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results holding that courts are without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend modify or limit its express terms recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms