On September 2, 1988, the Surveyors caused to be published notice of rulemaking within Chapter 21HH-6, Florida Administrative Code, which included amendments to Rule 21HH-6.002 and the addition of proposed rule 6.0052. This rulemaking addresses standards utilized in surveys done to establish the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), also referred to as ordinary high water line (OHWL), and prompted the challenge. Briefly stated, the challengers question the validity of the Surveyor's actions based on these allegations: (a) the Surveyors have materially failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes; (b) the Surveyors have exceeded the grant of rulemaking authority; (c) the proposed rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented; (d) the proposed riles are vague, fail to establish adequate standards for agency decisions or vest unbridled discretion in the agency; (e) the rules are arbitrary and capricious; and (f) the rules violate Article II, Section 7, and Article X, Section 11, Florida Constitution (1968). More specifically, the Trustees contend that they, rather than the Surveyors, have exclusive or primary rulemaking authority to establish the means by which an OHWM is determined, subject to court review. The Trustees also contend that the economic impact statement is insufficient, and that the rules under attack do not constitute minimum technical standards as advertised, but are instead an attempt to establish statements of legal principles pertaining to the location of an OHWM in a circumstance where this issue is unsettled in the courts, the forum ultimately responsible for resolving disputes related to the proper location of an OHWM.Rules of the board of Land Surveyors which attempt to establish legal principles for determining location of ordinary high water mark stricken.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an "in lieu" payment under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4622) as implemented by I. M. 80-1-71 and amended by P. M. 81-1.2.Petitioner is not entitled to in lieu payment, but is entitled to relocation expenses.