Palm Beach FL and Privacy Lawyers | Douglas Harold MacLaugh -- eLawyers

Douglas Harold MacLaughlin

Visitors: 79

561-982-7114

Bar #251054(FL) License for 47 years; Member in Good Standing

Boca Raton FL

Are you Douglas Harold MacLaughlin? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

CFR: 40 CFR 131.44

Florida Laws: 120.52, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.60, 120.68, 163.3164, 171.211, 258.36, 258.39, 26.012, 267.061, 335.065, 373.042, 373.0421, 373.079, 373.083, 373.114, 373.175, 373.223, 373.246, 373.406, 373.413, 373.4131, 373.414, 373.416, 373.421, 373.4592, 403.031, 403.412, 403.52, 403.521, 403.526, 403.527, 403.5271, 403.529, 403.5365, 403.537, 403.813, 403.9328, 6.02, 63.132, 7.43, 7.52, 7.58, 8.031, 90.702

Florida Administrative Code: 40E-4.091, 40E-4.301, 40E-4.302, 40E-41.263, 40E-63.011, 40E-63.091, 40E-63.101, 40E-63.130, 40E-63.143, 40E-63.145, 62-302.300, 62-330.051, 62-340.750, 62-345.100, 62-4.242, 62-814.450

19-002517RP RAINBOW RIVER CONSERVATION, INC.; MICHELLE BLASINGAME; GRETCHEN MARTIN; SENATOR DENNIS JONES; GORDON HART; AND WILLIAM VIBBERT vs SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 14, 2019

Whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D- 8.041(22), which establishes a minimum flow level for the Rainbow River System, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Petitioners proved that portions of Proposed Rule 40D-8.041(22) contravened the provisions of section 373.0421(2), and therefore, those portions of the Proposed Rule are invalid. The remaining provisions of Proposed Rule 40D-8.041(22) are valid.

16-001861 CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH vs PALM BEACH COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2016

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Respondents, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) and Palm Beach County (also referred to as “the Applicants”), are entitled to the issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) to construct an extension of State Road 7 (“SR 7”) and its associated surface water management system in Palm Beach County.Petitioner failed to prove that the applicants were not entitled to the environmental resource permit to build the SR 7 extension and associated surface water management system.

13-004859 WILLIAM B. SWAIM vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 16, 2013

The issues are whether Petitioner has proved that he is entitled to two exemptions from statewide environmental resource permitting: the mosquito control activities exemption set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-340.750 and the seawall construction exemption set forth in section 403.813(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2013).Petitioner not entitled to mosquito control activities exemption or seawall construction exemption to SWERP due to, among other reasons, previous wetlands on property

12-002811 FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY vs SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA, UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, SUGAR FARMS CO-OP, AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 17, 2012

The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondents, United States Sugar Corporation (“USSC”), Sugar Farms Co-op (“SFC”), and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (“SCGC”) (collectively “the Applicants”) are entitled to the Everglades Works of the District permits (“WOD Permits”), issued to them by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”).Petitioner failed to prove that the Applicants are not entitled to the Works of the District permits in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

10-010443 DUKE'S STEAKHOUSE FT. MYERS, INC. vs G5 PROPERTIES, LLC AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 30, 2010

The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for the redevelopment of property owned by G5 Properties, LLC (G5).Project did not meet ERP criteria in BOR on water quality. ERP denied although project better than existing project permitted under old rules.

07-004834 HIGHPOINT TOWER TECHNOLOGY, INC. vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 23, 2007

The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida.Petitioner failed to prove that it was entitled to an environmental resource permit and submerged/lands lease for proposed marinas.

10-000635 SPOTS, INC. vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND DANIEL BORISLOW, LLC (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 10, 2010

The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should grant the application of Daniel Borislow, LLC, for an after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and issue ERP 50-09272-P.Applicant did not prove entitlement to after-the-fact permit because of flooding and floodplain compensation.

08-003823 PROTECT KEY WEST AND THE FLORIDA KEYS, INC., D/B/A LAST STAND vs MONROE COUNTY AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 05, 2008

The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, Monroe County (County), to modify its Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44-00149-S (Permit) to authorize the construction and operation of Runway Safety Area (RSA) improvements for the existing 9/27 runway and associated wetland mitigation work at Key West International Airport (Airport).Monroe County gave reasonable assurances that no adverse impacts would occur by virtue of making safety improvements at Key West Airport; modification of ERP approved.

03-002872RP MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION COMMISSION (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 07, 2003

Whether Proposed Rule 62-302.540, as formally noticed for adoption by the Department of Environmental Protection on July 18, 2003, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?Respondent`s proposed rule, "water quality standards for phosphorus within the Everglades Protection Area," is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

03-002873RP FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION COMMISSION (2003)