Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

South Branch, Upper Carmack Sub-Basin Management Study: Final Report

ContributorsShand, Robert L. (Author) / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Publisher)
Created1992-07-24
Description

This report presents the results of both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the drainage problems associated with the South Branch, Upper Carmack watershed. Also included is an economic assessment of the damage potential associated with three distinct storm events.

Annual Report (Arizona Superior Court of Pima County)

ContributorsArizona. Superior Court (Pima County) (Contributor)
Created2002 to 2005
Description

The Arizona Superior Court in Pima County is the second largest superior court in the state. By statute, the court is entitled to the appointment of one judicial officer for each 30,000 persons living within the jurisdiction of the court.

Annual Impact Report

ContributorsPima County (Ariz.). Community Development and Neighborhood Conservation Department. Outside Agency Program (Author)
Created2010 to 2016
Description

The Pima County Outside Agency program provides funding to non‐profit entities to serve economically and socially disadvantaged populations through social service programs. The Pima County Board of Supervisors establishes funding limits for the program and grants are awarded to agencies through a public committee process.

42699-Thumbnail Image.jpg

Endangered Species Act and the Constitution

ContributorsBosselman, Fred P. (Author) / Pima County (Ariz.). County Administrator's Office (Publisher)
Created1999
Description
When we talk about Constitutional issues in relation to the Act, we are really asking is there a likelihood that it is unconstitutional in part or as applied to particular situations? The first risk is that some parts of it will be held to have been beyond the power of…

When we talk about Constitutional issues in relation to the Act, we are really asking is there a likelihood that it is unconstitutional in part or as applied to particular situations? The first risk is that some parts of it will be held to have been beyond the power of Congress to enact because they are not permissible exercises of the Interstate Commerce power. The second issue is the application of the Act to certain tracts of private property in a manner that would deprive that property of all beneficial use and constitute a taking of property. The third is that the mitigation demanded by the government as a condition for being allowed to take endangered species will exceed the power of government to demand because of a lack of a nexus in rough proportionality-- two tests that the Supreme Court has come up with in recent years.