111 resultados para Environmental enforcement
em Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States
Resumo:
Annual Report
Resumo:
Annual Report for the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy.
Resumo:
State Agency Audit Report
Resumo:
Annual Report of Law Enforcement Training Programs
Resumo:
FY 2003 Annual Report
Resumo:
State Agency Audit Report
Resumo:
Investigative report produced by Iowa Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman
Resumo:
Annual Report of the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy for FY 2004
Resumo:
State Agency Audit Report
Resumo:
The United States has invested large sums of resources in multiple conservation programs for agriculture over the past century. In this paper we focus on the impacts of program interactions. Specifically, using an integrated economic and bio-physical modeling framework, we consider the impacts of the presence of working land programs on a land retirement for an important agricultural region—the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB). Compared to a land retirement only program, we find that the presence of a working land program for conservation tillage results in significantly lower predicted signups for land retirement at a given rental rate. We also find that the presence of both a large working land and land retirement program can result in more environmental benefits and income transfers than a land retirement only program can achieve.
Resumo:
Agency Performance Report
Resumo:
State Audit Reports
Resumo:
FY 2006 Annual report for the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy as directed by the Director E.A. "Penny" Westfall
Resumo:
FY 2005 Annual Report Per Director Westfall
Resumo:
Case File 0603634 On September 13, 2006, Kelly Wilslef submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman about the Maquoketa City Council (Council). Ms. Wilslef stated a Maquoketa police officer served her an abatement notice for violating the city ordinance preventing owners from keeping pit bull terrier dogs in the city. The Council subsequently determined her dog was a pit bull mix, and ordered her to remove the dog from the city. Ms. Wilslef claimed the Council unreasonably relied on non-expert testimony supporting the city’s position her dog was a pit bull mix. She further claimed that if her dog was in fact a pit bull mix, the city ordinance did not apply to mixed-breed pit bulls; therefore, the Council acted contrary to law when it concluded she violated the city ordinance and ordered her to remove her dog from the city.