Alabama and Bad Creeks
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Arkansas V. Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership Under the Clean Water Act Katheryn Kim Frierson [email protected]
University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 1997 | Issue 1 Article 16 Arkansas v. Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership under the Clean Water Act Katheryn Kim Frierson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Frierson, Katheryn Kim () "Arkansas v. Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership under the Clean Water Act," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1997: Iss. 1, Article 16. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1997/iss1/16 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Arkansas v Oklahoma: Restoring the Notion of Partnership Under the Clean Water Act Katheryn Kim Friersont The long history of interstate water pollution disputes traces the steady rise of federal regulatory power in the area of environ- mental policy, culminating in the passage of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972.1 Arkansas v Oklahoma2 is the third and latest Supreme Court decision involving interstate water pol- lution since the passage of the 1972 amendments. By all ac- counts, Arkansas is wholly consistent with the Court's prior decisions. In Milwaukee v Illinois3 and InternationalPaper Co. v Ouellette,4 the Court held that the Clean Water Act ("CWA") preempted all traditional common law and state law remedies. Consequently, states lost much of their traditional authority to direct water pollution policies. Despite the claim that the CWA intended "a regulatory 'partnership' between the Federal Govern- ment and the source State", Milwaukee and InternationalPaper placed states in a subordinate position to the federal govern- t B.A. -
John Lawrence of Saguache
COLORADO I : 'ACAS ~ A " '" ··:// ,,, : ' r •oun ~ r--R' -0 - 6'- A N-C -0 -_l___----, 0R A N 0 ) ••oc. ~~ GAR"<eo (S"M?-- The Town Boom in Las Animas and Baca Counties Morris F. Taylor was professor of history at Trinidad State Junior College until his death in 1979. Well known for his contribution to the historical scholarship of Colorado and New Mexico, he won two certificates of commendation for his writings from the American Asso ciation for State and Local History and the 1974 LeRoy R. Hafen Award for the best article in The Colorado Maga zine. His two major books are First Mail West: Stage Lines on the Santa Fe Trail (1971) and 0. P. McMains and the Maxwell Land Grant Conflict (1979). He held a mas ter's degree from Cornell University and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from the Univer sity of Colorado in 1969. 112 THE COLORADO MAGAZINE 55/2 and 3 1978 Las Animas and Baca Counties 113 In the late 1880s southeastern Colorado experienced boom condi Town Company. Probably named for Two Buttes, a prominent land tions that were short-Jived. Several years of unusually good rainfall mark in that flat country, the place was abandoned the next year, most over much of the Great Plains had aroused unquestioning hopes and of the people moving to a new town, Minneapolis, which had a more speculative greeds, bringing on land rushes and urban developments attractive site not far away.5 In November of that year the incorpora that were the first steps toward the dust bowls of the twentieth century .1 tion papers of the Clyde Land and Town Company, signed by men Similar to the many land development schemes in the West today that from Kansas and Rhode Island and Las Animas County in Colorado, are unplanned, quick-profit enterprises, land rushes and town promo were filed with the Las Animas County clerk. -
Immigrant Detention in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and the COVID-19 Pandemic
WEBINAR Immigrant Detention in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and the COVID-19 Pandemic May 6, 2020 2:30pm – 4pm EDT 1:30pm – 3pm CDT Featured Speakers DONALD KERWIN Executive Director Center for Migration Studies HIROKO KUSUDA Clinic Professor and Director of the Immigration Law Section Loyola University New Orleans College of Law AMELIA S. MCGOWAN Immigration Campaign Director Mississippi Center for Justice Adjunct Professor Mississippi College School of Law Immigration Clinic MARK DOW Author of American Gulag: Inside US Immigration Prisons US Immigrant Detention System ● Genesis of Webinar: A Whole of Community Response to Challenges Facing Immigrants, their Families, and Communities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama ● The US Immigrant Detention System: Size, Growth, “Civil” Detention Population, Privatization, and Diversity of Institutional Actors ● Immigrant detainees v. persons serving time. ● Louisiana has always been one of the states with the most immigrant detainees. ICE Detention Facility Locator: https://www.ice.gov/detention-facilities COVID-19 and US Immigrant Detention System ● “Confirmed” COVID-19 Cases: (1) March 27 (no “confirmed” cases among detainees), (2) April 20 (124 confirmed cases), (3) May 4 (606 confirmed cases in 37 facilities, and 39 cases among ICE detention staff). Source: https://www.ice.gov/coronavirus ● These figures do not count: (1) former detainees who have been deported, (2) ICE contractors (private, state and local, and others); and (3) non-ICE prisoners/detainees held with ICE detainees. ● ICE detention population: March 21 (38,058), April 25 (29,675). ● Social distancing is “nearly impossible in immigration detention.” As a result, ICE should “implement community-based alternatives to detention to alleviate the mass overcrowding in detention facilities.” Open letter to ICE Acting Director Matthew T. -
AILA New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas CHAPTER GRANT/FUNDING REQUEST CHECKLIST
AILA New Mexico/Oklahoma/Texas CHAPTER GRANT/FUNDING REQUEST CHECKLIST The AILA Texas/New Mexico/Oklahoma Chapter Grant/Funding Request Application process consists of the following components, which should be submitted in the order listed below. This checklist is provided to help ensure a complete proposal. It does not need to be submitted with the proposal. Section I: Cover Letter (one page) [Required] Include the purpose of the grant request and a brief description of how funds will be used by your organization. Section II: Grant/Funding Request Form [Required] Complete the 2-page template provided. Section III: Narrative [Optional] You may include a 2-page narrative regarding your organization, those being served & basis for funding request. To assist you in preparing your narrative, we are providing you with some topics to cover in your submission: Narrative Questions 1. Organization Background 2. Goals 3. Current Programs 4. Board/Governance: Number of Board Members 5. Staffing &Volunteers 6. Supervision & Planning Section IV: Attachments [Optional] In order to review your grant request, you may submit any or all of the following attachments: Financial Attachments 1. Organization budget 2. Year-end financial statements, audit and Sources of Income Table 3. Major contributors 4. In-kind contributions Other Attachments 1. Proof of IRS federal tax-exempt status, dated within the last five years 2. Annual Report or Independent Audit, if available; evaluation results (optional); the organization’s most recent evaluation results, relevant to this request. Timeline/Deadlines: A completed application must be received by the AILA Texas/New Mexico/Oklahoma Chapter Donations Committee Chair Jodi Goodwin at the address listed below by no later than February 1 for the year funding is requested. -
SAN Francisco and the 1911 BAJA CALIFORNIA REBELLION
THE DIVIDED CALIFORNIAS: SAN FRANcIsco AND THE 1911 BAJA CALIFORNIA REBELLION Jeffrey David Mitchell HE study of the 1911 Rebellion in Baja California del Norte, a Mexican Tpeninsula on the Pacific Coast best known to Americans for the region’s enclave ofexpatriates, locates an event from the early twentieth century that provides a glimpse into how a nation’s social, political, and economic patterns affect another nation. In this case, the rebellion reflects the dynamics of interdependence between Mexico and the United States. Concentrated attention reveals attempts by labor, busi ness, and political groups in both nations to form alliances, but who found themselves eventually ensnared by events in their own nation. The failure to close ranks with one another illuminates the true power of national ambitions and the fitful experiences of potential transnational alliances. With an eye on the larger picture, the rebellion stands as much more than a moment in time when American California was ascendant over Mexican California, or when disturbances in Mexico affected the United States. Through newspaper reports, the statements of labor organiza tions, and the general consensus of national politicians, a study of the 1911 Rebellion can attempt to give all of the above perspectives. An examination of these sources, read by people interested in a conflict far from their homes, presents a picture of how San Francisco’s labor organizations supported social change and justice. They did so in their home city, and throughout the state. In their fight against business leaders, they even addressed the collusion between capital and imperial ism in other countries, such as Mexico. -
SMEX03 ENVISAT ASAR Data, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Version 1 USER GUIDE
SMEX03 ENVISAT ASAR Data, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Version 1 USER GUIDE How to Cite These Data As a condition of using these data, you must include a citation: Jackson, T., R. Bindlish, and R. Van der Velde. 2009. SMEX03 ENVISAT ASAR Data, Alabama, Version 1. [Indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.5067/7ZGTHVZFAIDT. [Date Accessed]. Jackson, T., R. Bindlish, and R. Van der Velde. 2013. SMEX03 ENVISAT ASAR Data, Georgia, Version 1. [Indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.5067/M28ZA9EYPHQ5. [Date Accessed]. Jackson, T., R. Bindlish, and R. Van der Velde. 2013. SMEX03 ENVISAT ASAR Data, Oklahoma, Version 1. [Indicate subset used]. Boulder, Colorado USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. doi: https://doi.org/10.5067/YXYV5M9B6I1J. [Date Accessed]. FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE DATA, CONTACT [email protected] FOR CURRENT INFORMATION, VISIT https://nsidc.org/data/NSIDC-0357, https://nsidc.org/data/NSIDC-0576, https://nsidc.org/data/NSIDC-0577 USER GUIDE: SMEX03 ENVISAT ASAR Data, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Version 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 DETAILED DATA DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2 1.1 Format .................................................................................................................................................. -
List of Surrounding States *For Those Chapters That Are Made up of More Than One State We Will Submit Education to the States and Surround States of the Chapter
List of Surrounding States *For those Chapters that are made up of more than one state we will submit education to the states and surround states of the Chapter. Hawaii accepts credit for education if approved in state in which class is being held Accepts credit for education if approved in state in which class is being held Virginia will accept Continuing Education hours without prior approval. All Qualifying Education must be approved by them. Offering In Will submit to Alaska Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi South Carolina Texas Arkansas Kansas Louisiana Missouri Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Arizona California Colorado New Mexico Nevada Utah California Arizona Nevada Oregon Colorado Arizona Kansas Nebraska New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Utah Wyoming Connecticut Massachusetts New Jersey New York Rhode Island District of Columbia Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Delaware District of Columbia Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Florida Alabama Georgia Georgia Alabama Florida North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Hawaii Iowa Illinois Missouri Minnesota Nebraska South Dakota Wisconsin Idaho Montana Nevada Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming Illinois Illinois Indiana Kentucky Michigan Missouri Tennessee Wisconsin Indiana Illinois Kentucky Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Kansas Colorado Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Kentucky Illinois Indiana Missouri Ohio Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Louisiana Arkansas Mississippi Texas Massachusetts Connecticut Maine New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Vermont Maryland Delaware District of Columbia -
Take the Lead, Alabama
Take the Lead, Alabama Our children deserve the Too many high school graduates in Alabama best schools possible. are not prepared for college. That’s not happening today. Alabama is at the bottom of just about every education ranking being • Alabama students ranked No. 45 in College Readiness (U.S. News). published today, and that is hobbling our young people in a time when jobs require more education and • Only 18 percent of Alabama high school seniors are ready in all four ACT core subjects (PARCA). skill than ever before. • Nearly 30 percent of college freshmen in Alabama need remedial classes (PARCA). Ranking after ranking shows that Alabama is failing its school children. The leadership structure for Alabama schools just isn’t getting the job done for our schoolchildren. U.S. News & World Report (2019) • Alabama ranked No. 50 – dead last – in the publication’s latest education rankings. • Alabama is one of only six states with an elected school board that appoints a superintendent. • In Pre-K-12, Alabama ranked No. 49, ahead of only New Mexico. • States such as Florida and Virginia that earn top education rankings in study after study all have • Alabama students ranked next to last for math scores. Governor-appointed school boards. • All neighboring states have Governor-appointed boards. Education Week’s “Quality Counts” analysis (2018) • Alabama ranked 43rd among the states, with a C-minus grade. Here’s how the ‘Take the Lead’ initiative will improve • In the “Chance for Success” index, Alabama ranked No. 41 with a C-plus grade. • In the “K-12 Achievement” Index, Alabama ranked 43rd, with a D grade. -
Texas Iowa Kansas Ohio Illinois Nebraska Missouri Oklahoma
Sully Codington Chippewa Wright Anoka Presque Isle Meade Spink Lac qui Parle Kandiyohi Meeker Lincoln Cheboygan Taylor Langlade Menominee Charlevoix Clark Ramsey Hennepin St. Croix Marinette Hughes Hamlin Deuel Leelanau Stanley Chippewa Campbell Haakon Hyde Yellow Medicine McLeod Pennington Hand Carver Alpena Weston Renville Washington Dunn Menominee Otsego Montmorency Antrim Beadle Marathon Oconto Door Kingsbury Scott Dakota Pierce Leelanau Sibley Eau Claire Custer Brookings Lincoln Clark Shawano Jones Lyon Pepin Buffalo Redwood Oscoda Alcona Grand Traverse Kalkaska Crawford Jerauld Benzie Jackson Lyman Nicollet Le Sueur Goodhue Sanborn Rice Miner Brown Wood Kewaunee Portage Waupaca Converse Lake Buffalo Brown Moody Wabasha Outagamie Fall River South Dakota Pipestone Trempealeau Jackson Shannon Mellette Brule Murray Minnesota Iosco Niobrara Manistee Wexford Missaukee Roscommon Ogemaw Aurora Cottonwood Watonwan Blue Earth Davison Waseca Steele Hanson Dodge McCook Olmsted Waushara Bennett Manitowoc Minnehaha Winona Winnebago Calumet Tripp Rock Arenac Todd Nobles Monroe Jackson La Crosse Juneau Mason Lake Osceola Clare Gladwin Douglas Wisconsin Martin Adams Faribault Wyoming Freeborn Hutchinson Marquette Huron Dawes Gregory Mower Green Lake Charles Mix Fillmore Turner Lyon Houston Fond du Lac Sheboygan Lincoln Osceola Bay Sioux Dickinson Emmet Vernon Oceana Mecosta Isabella Midland Winnebago Keya Paha Worth Newaygo Platte Sheridan Bon Homme Mitchell Boyd Yankton Howard Columbia Sioux Sauk Tuscola Kossuth Richland Dodge Sanilac Cherry O'Brien -
Number of Medicare FFS Emergency Transport Claims by State and County Or Equivalent Entity, 2017
Number of Medicare FFS Emergency Transport Claims by State, 2017 STATE/TERRITORY CLAIM COUNT ALABAMA 171,482 ALASKA 14,631 ARIZONA 140,516 ARKANSAS 122,909 CALIFORNIA 788,350 COLORADO 105,617 CONNECTICUT 152,831 DELAWARE 47,239 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 25,593 FLORIDA 637,127 GEORGIA 289,687 GUAM 2,338 HAWAII 19,028 IDAHO 35,581 ILLINOIS 419,315 INDIANA 229,877 IOWA 104,965 KANSAS 92,760 KENTUCKY 184,636 LOUISIANA 163,083 MAINE 72,731 MARYLAND 194,231 MASSACHUSETTS 318,382 MICHIGAN 327,029 MINNESOTA 146,030 MISSISSIPPI 141,840 MISSOURI 222,075 MONTANA 26,943 NEBRASKA 49,449 NEVADA 75,571 NEW HAMPSHIRE 57,423 NEW JERSEY 315,471 NEW MEXICO 55,554 NEW YORK 493,291 NORTH CAROLINA 418,959 NORTH DAKOTA 21,502 NORTHERN MARIANAS 826 STATE/TERRITORY CLAIM COUNT OHIO 390,605 OKLAHOMA 150,046 OREGON 98,867 PENNSYLVANIA 391,482 PUERTO RICO 7,769 RHODE ISLAND 40,743 SOUTH CAROLINA 219,186 SOUTH DAKOTA 26,748 TENNESSEE 237,657 TEXAS 629,151 UTAH 32,309 VERMONT 29,689 VIRGIN ISLANDS 1,577 VIRGINIA 271,194 WASHINGTON 179,466 WEST VIRGINIA 93,968 WISCONSIN 158,239 WYOMING 17,357 Number of Medicare FFS Emergency Transport Claims by State and County or Equivalent Entity, 2017 STATE/TERRITORY COUNTY/EQUIVALENT CLAIM COUNT ALABAMA Autauga 1,326 ALABAMA Baldwin 7,050 ALABAMA Barbour 1,256 ALABAMA Bibb 429 ALABAMA Blount 1,372 ALABAMA Bullock 246 ALABAMA Butler 1,058 ALABAMA Calhoun 5,975 ALABAMA Chambers 1,811 ALABAMA Cherokee 885 ALABAMA Chilton 1,298 ALABAMA Choctaw 777 ALABAMA Clarke 980 ALABAMA Clay 491 ALABAMA Cleburne 628 ALABAMA Coffee 1,941 ALABAMA Colbert -
Florida-Alabama Tpo Mobility Profile
FLORIDA-ALABAMA TPO MOBILITY PROFILE produced by Florida Department of Transportation Forecasting and Trends Office published 2021 % Pedestrian Facility Average Coverage in Urban Areas Job Accessibility Forecasting Florida-Alabama by Automobile & Trends Office TPO Mobility Profile - 2019 Within 135.5 30 Minutes (thousands) Planning 1.73 Time 1.18 1.18 41.3% Index 94% 92% % Bicycle Average 94% Facility Coverage Job Accessibility by Transit On-Time Within Arrival 30 Minutes 3.0 (thousands) FREEWAYS NON-FREEWAY STRATEGIC 45.6% ( INTERSTATE) INTERMODAL SYSTEM Travel Time Reliability Daily Vehicle Percent Miles Daily Truck Miles Traveled Hours of Delay Heavily Congested Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled 4,500 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM 0.5M <1% 6.1M STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 9,000 STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 0.6M <1% 8.7M FREEWAYS 300 0.3M FREEWAYS <1% 2.4M NON-FREEWAYS 8,700 <1% 3.2M NON-FREEWAYS 6.2M NOTE: Please go to Page 3 for measure definitions. 1 FLORIDA-ALABAMA TPO MOBILITY TRENDS 2015-2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Travel Time Reliability 1.73 1.19 1.20 1.23 1.18 1.56 1.19 1.20 1.23 1.18 Planning 1.16 1.34 1.40 1.45 1.16 Time Index On-Time Arrival 93% 92% 90% 89% 94% >99% 98% 96% 94% 92% 93% 92% 90% 89% 94% INTERSTATE NON-FREEWAY STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM FREEWAYS Daily Vehicle Percent Miles Daily Truck Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Heavily Congested Miles Traveled Miles Traveled NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM FREEWAYS NATIONAL <1% 549.2K 6.1M HIGHWAY SYSTEM 7% 511.7K 6.0M 4,500 300 4% 454.2K 5.6M 3,600 <100 2% 450.0K 5.6M 433.0K 5.5M -
OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST Arkansas & Oklahoma Closed Unless Posted Closed Unless Posted – – Open Unless Posted Closed
OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL FORESTFOREST ArkansasArkansas && OklahomaOklahoma •• 1.81.8 MillionMillion AcresAcres inin twotwo statesstates (AR(AR && OK)OK) •• TwoTwo separateseparate andand distinctdistinct statestate OHVOHV lawslaws •• OneOne ofof threethree NationalNational ForestsForests inin ArkansasArkansas OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL FORESTFOREST ArkansasArkansas && OklahomaOklahoma •• ThreeThree NationalNational Forests,Forests, twotwo differentdifferent policies.policies. •• OuachitaOuachita –– openopen unlessunless postedposted closed.closed. •• OzarkOzark –– St.St. FrancisFrancis –– closedclosed unlessunless postedposted open.open. OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL FORESTFOREST ArkansasArkansas && OklahomaOklahoma •• AtAt oneone location,location, thethe ForestsForests areare separatedseparated byby onlyonly fivefive miles.miles OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL FORESTFOREST ArkansasArkansas && OklahomaOklahoma OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL FORESTFOREST ArkansasArkansas && OklahomaOklahoma OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL FORESTFOREST ArkansasArkansas && OklahomaOklahoma •• OHVOHV PlanningPlanning Constraints:Constraints: Time,Time, DistanceDistance && Communication.Communication. •• CommunicationsCommunications contractcontract optionoption explored.explored. •• ContractContract developed,developed, executedexecuted andand managedmanaged inin-- house.house. •• ContractContract workwork waswas completedcompleted concurrentconcurrent withwith planplan revisionrevision activities.activities. OUACHITAOUACHITA NATIONALNATIONAL