Constitution of Iowa, 1857. (Enhanced version)

A constitutional convention convened in Iowa City on January 19, 1857 ending on March 5, 1857. The convention drafted and approved the Constitution of Iowa. This constitution is the still in use today by the State of Iowa. It has been amended many times from 1868 thru 2010. NOTE: This version of the Constitution of Iowa has been enhanced to darken the handwritten text and the covers and blank pages have been omitted. Only the handwritten text is included.

Water planning law and government.

Water planning efforts typically identify problems and needs. But simply calling attention to issues is usually not enough to spur action; the end result of many well-intentioned planning efforts is a report that ends up gathering dust on a shelf. Vague recommendations like “Water conservation measures should be implemented” usually accomplish little by themselves as they don’t assign responsibility to anyone. Success is more likely when an implementation strategy — who can and should do what — is developed as part of the planning process. The more detailed and specific the implementation strategy, the greater the chance that something will actually be done. The question then becomes who has the legal authority or responsibility to do what? Are new laws and programs needed or can existing ones be used to implement the recommendations? ... This document is divided into four main parts. The first, “Carrots and Sticks” looks at two basic approaches — regulatory and non-regulatory — that can be, and are, used to carry out water policy. Both have advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered. The second, “The powers of federal, state and local governments…,” looks at the constitutional powers the federal government and state and local governments have to carry out water policy. An initial look at the U. S. Constitution might suggest the federal government’s regulatory authority over water is limited but, in fact, its powers are very substantial. States have considerable authority to do a number of things but have to be mindful of any federal efforts that might conflict with those state efforts. And local governments can only do those things the state constitution or state legislature says they can do and must conform to any requirements or limitations on those powers that are contained in the enabling acts. Parts three and four examine in more detail the main programs and agencies at the federal level as well as Iowa’s state and local levels and the roles they play in national and state water policy.

Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Five-Year Strategic Plan, July 1, 2013-June 30, 2018

The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.

Impact of Left-Turn Phasing on Older and Younger Drivers at High-Speed Signalized Intersections, 2004

Several recent studies have demonstrated differences in safety between different types of left-turn phasing—protected, permitted, and protected/permitted phasing. The issue in question is whether older and younger drivers are more affected by a particular type of left-turn phasing at high-speed signalized intersections and whether they are more likely to contribute to a left-turn related crash under a specific type of left-turn phasing. This study evaluated the impact of different types of left-turn phasing on older and younger drivers at high-speed signalized intersections in Iowa. High-speed signalized intersections were of interest since oncoming speeds and appropriate gaps may be more difficult to judge for older drivers and those with less experience. A total of 101 intersections from various urban locations in Iowa with at least one intersecting roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 mph or higher were evaluated. Left-turn related crashes from 2001 to 2003 were evaluated. Left-turn crash rate and severity for young drivers (14- to 24-year-old), middle-age drivers (25- to 64-year-old), and older drivers (65 years and older) were calculated. Poisson regression was used to analyze left-turn crash rates by age group and type of phasing. Overall, left-turn crash rates indicated that protected phasing is much safer than protected/permitted and permitted phasing. Protected/permitted phasing had the highest left-turn crash rates overall.