As reflected in the parties' prehearing stipulation filed on August 28, 1991, the issue in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) should approve South Brevard Water Authority's (SBWA) consumptive use permit (CUP) application. The SBWA is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of 18.8 million gallons (mgd) and a maximum daily rate of 21.4 mgd. The District proposes to grant the permit with specified conditions. Petitioners challenge the issuance of the permit, alleging that applicable requirements of Chapter 373, F.S. and Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C. and other applicable law are not met. The standing of Petitioners, other than Osceola County, is at issue. Also at issue is whether the relevant criteria include consideration of the adequacy of existing sources of water, and the consideration of costs of utilizing existing sources versus the cost of the proposed new source of water.Cumsumptive Use Permit permit denied to regional water authority when existing sources are adequate and proposed use will adversely affect wetlands.

Whether the construction required to elevate Petitioner's outdoor advertising sign from ten to sixteen feet from the ground and filling in formerly unused air space at the top of the sign is such an alteration that caused the sign to lose its "nonconforming" status permitted by Section 479.23, Florida Statutes, and therefore requires a new sign application and permit under Section 479.07(1). Whether the new construction of Petitioner is "customary maintenance or repair of a sign structure". Whether the construction of Petitioner's sign was "an incident to the change of advertising message".Nonconforming status of sign was lost when the height of sign was raised. The sign must be removed. Raising sign is more than normal repair and maintenance.

Brevard County's application for dredge permit should be denied. County failed to demonstrate public benefit.

Whether Petitioner's application for a permit to construct pollution sources should be granted, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. A prehearing conference was held before Alexander M. Siegel, Hearing Examiner for the Department of Pollution Control, at Orlando, Florida, on May 7, 1975. Subsequently, Mr. Siegel disassociated himself from the case and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Another prehearing conference was held before this Hearing Officer on July 29, 1975, at Tallahassee, Florida. An order resulting from that conference reaffirmed the ruling of the Hearing Examiner at the prior prehearing conference, based upon stipulation of the parties at that time, that subparagraphs 4(b), (d), (e) and (f) of the Petition would not be considered in the instant proceedings because matters raised in those portions of the Petition were not appropriate for administrative determination. It was also determined that because the agency proceeding had begun prior to the effective date of Chapter 743.10 Florida Statutes (Administrative Procedure Act), and due to absence of consent of all parties and the agency to conduct further proceedings under the new statute, the provisions of Florida Statutes, 1973, specifically section 403.061(7)(9), and section 403.087(2), as implemented by Chapter 17-1, Florida Administrative Code, would govern the conduct of future proceedings. Rule 1-7-1.25(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a review of the denial of a permit shall be limited to the information in the possession of the Department at the time of making the said determination. Accordingly, the hearing was restricted to consideration of information in the actual or constructive possession of the Respondent as of November 6, 1974, the date of its letter to Petitioner denying the permit application. This included evidence as to the interpretation of such information. A final prehearing conference was held immediately prior to the hearing. Representatives of intervening parties Florida Audubon Society and Volusia County Environmental Task Force, although entering appearances, did not actively participate in the final hearing. Pursuant to Rule 17-1.11(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, individuals not parties were permitted to testify under oath at the hearing, subject to cross-examination by all parties.Grant permission to operate pollution sources subject to conditions set out in the order.