Indian School at Carson City, Nevada

Indian School at Carson City, Nevada. [2821] Appropriation for maintenance

Fish aid: The Lake Mead fertilization project

Sport fishing at Lake Mead in Nevada and Arizona is a resource valued at nearly $100 million per year to southern Nevada. During the past two decades, salmonids, mostly trout, have disappeared entirely, the largemouth bass catch has drastically declined despite greater fishing pressure, and the condition factors for striped bass have steadily deteriorated. It appears that a major reduction in phosphorus loading caused by the upstream impoundment of the Colorado River to form Lake Powell in 1963 and advanced wastewater treatment removal of phosphorus from domestic wastewater inflows in 1981 are the principal factors responsible for decreased production at all levels of the food chain. The Lake Mead Fertilization Project is an attempt to reverse these declining fisheries. The first large-scale test of fertilization occurred on May 30, 1987. More than 300 boats and 1,000 volunteers helped spread 20,000 gallons (75.7 m3) of liquid ammonium polyphosphate over 19,000 acres (7700 ha) of lake surface. Highlights of the history of the project and initial results, which indicate that the test was extremely successful, are discussed

The Marshall Court and the Originalist\u27s Dilemma

In response to Anti-Federalist complaints that the Constitution was dangerous because it was ambiguous, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued that judges would construe the Constitution in the same manner that they construed statutes, and in the process would fix the meaning of ambiguous constitutional provisions. In other words, the original understanding was that constitutional ambiguities would be resolved, among other means, through adjudication. During his lengthy tenure, Chief Justice John Marshall had ample occasion to fix constitutional meaning, and he presided over a Court that resolved many constitutional ambiguities according to a nationalistic view of the relationship between the states and the federal government. A majority of the current Supreme Court has consistently advanced an account of the original understanding that is substantially more solicitous of state autonomy. The Marshall Court\u27s nationalistic interpretations of the Constitution pose a dilemma for these originalists: either discount the significance of Marshall Court decisions in order to declare an original understanding that values state autonomy, thus risking infidelity to the original understanding of how constitutional ambiguities would be resolved, or accept the nationalistic implications of Marshall Court decisions and risk undervaluing state autonomy in the quest to define the original understanding. This article presents the results of a study of the Court\u27s treatment in federalism cases since 1970 of Marshall Court decisions. The study demonstrates that the Justices in the federalism majority are substantially more likely to discount the nationalistic implications of Marshall Court decisions - or to ignore them altogether - than are the Justices in the dissent, who are significantly more likely to urge fidelity to the spirit of Marshall Court decisions. The study suggests that the Justices, while professing fidelity to the principles of originalism, have not robustly, or at least consistently, adhered to the original understanding of how constitutional ambiguities would be resolved. More important, the study suggests that one of the principal justifications for originalism - that it will constrain the discretion of judges to impose their own views in the course of decision-making - is overstated. In choosing when to treat a constitutional ambiguity as definitively resolved by a decision of the Marshall Court, a Justice can ignore (or accept) pronouncements of that Court according to how well they correspond not only to the Justice\u27s own conception of the original understanding, but also to the Justice\u27s instrumentalist goals

The Marshall Court and the Originalist\u27s Dilemma

In response to Anti-Federalist complaints that the Constitution was dangerous because it was ambiguous, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued that judges would construe the Constitution in the same manner that they construed statutes, and in the process would fix the meaning of ambiguous constitutional provisions. In other words, the original understanding was that constitutional ambiguities would be resolved, among other means, through adjudication. During his lengthy tenure, Chief Justice John Marshall had ample occasion to fix constitutional meaning, and he presided over a Court that resolved many constitutional ambiguities according to a nationalistic view of the relationship between the states and the federal government. A majority of the current Supreme Court has consistently advanced an account of the original understanding that is substantially more solicitous of state autonomy. The Marshall Court\u27s nationalistic interpretations of the Constitution pose a dilemma for these originalists: either discount the significance of Marshall Court decisions in order to declare an original understanding that values state autonomy, thus risking infidelity to the original understanding of how constitutional ambiguities would be resolved, or accept the nationalistic implications of Marshall Court decisions and risk undervaluing state autonomy in the quest to define the original understanding. This article presents the results of a study of the Court\u27s treatment in federalism cases since 1970 of Marshall Court decisions. The study demonstrates that the Justices in the federalism majority are substantially more likely to discount the nationalistic implications of Marshall Court decisions - or to ignore them altogether - than are the Justices in the dissent, who are significantly more likely to urge fidelity to the spirit of Marshall Court decisions. The study suggests that the Justices, while professing fidelity to the principles of originalism, have not robustly, or at least consistently, adhered to the original understanding of how constitutional ambiguities would be resolved. More important, the study suggests that one of the principal justifications for originalism - that it will constrain the discretion of judges to impose their own views in the course of decision-making - is overstated. In choosing when to treat a constitutional ambiguity as definitively resolved by a decision of the Marshall Court, a Justice can ignore (or accept) pronouncements of that Court according to how well they correspond not only to the Justice\u27s own conception of the original understanding, but also to the Justice\u27s instrumentalist goals

Change in the size of Walker Lake during the past 5000 years

In 1984, a 12-m sediment core (WLC84-8) was taken from the deepest part of Walker Lake. Samples of the core were analysed for diatoms, pollen, carbonate mineralogy, magnesium content, [delta]18O and [delta]13C values of the total inorganic fractin, [delta]18O and [delta]13C values of Limnocythere ceriotuberosa, [delta]13C values of the total organic fraction, grain size, and magnetic susceptibility. The data indicate that Walker Lake became shallow and probably desiccated between [ges]5300-4800 and 2700-2100 yr B.P.. Each of the organic and inorganic proxy indicators of lake size discussed in this paper was useful in determining the presence of the shallow-lake intervals. However, none of the indicators was useful in determining the cause of the shallow-lake intervals. Instead, the types of fish living in Walker Lake prior to 1940 were used to demonstrate that shallow-lake intervals resulted from diversion of the Walker River and not from climatic aridity. Major changes in mineralogy and magnesium content of carbonates and major changes in diatom populations with time were found to be a function of the chemical evolution of Walker Lake combined with changing lake size. The stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon were found to be good indicators of lake volume changes. A lake-level record for Walker Lake constructed from stable-isotope data was found to be similar to a lake-level record constructed using tufa and tree-stump data. Both records indicate relatively high lake levels between 4800-2700 yr B.P., at 1250 yr B.P., and within the last 300 yr. Substantial declines in lake level occurred ~2000 and ~1000 yr B.P.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29575/1/0000663.pd

Rationing Retaliation Claims

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rising number of workplace retaliation claims is a problem, one warranting more stringent requirements for employees to successfully bring claims. The Court’s principal justification for this restrictive approach is a fear of “opening the floodgates” of litigation. This Article critically assesses the Court’s fear of opening the floodgates of retaliation claims, evaluates the Court’s evidence, and argues that such concerns are overstated and misplaced. Rather than a cause for concern, the rise in retaliation claims reflects rising intra-organizational conflict. Social scientists have demonstrated that, as the American workforce becomes more diverse, intra-organizational conflict increases, and the propensity for civil rights violations grows. In other words, claims are on the rise because retaliation is on the rise. Employment discrimination and other related statutes are aimed at mitigating the harms of this expected rise in intra-organizational conflict. The Article further argues that considerations of judicial economy are particularly misplaced in workplace retaliation cases. Retaliation protections are crucial to the private enforcement scheme Congress developed for civil rights laws generally and employment discrimination laws in particular. Attempting to limit judicial caseloads through restrictive interpretations of anti-retaliation laws eviscerates private enforcement, producing under- enforcement of these core civil rights protections. To remedy the Supreme Court’s wrong turn on retaliation, Congress should act. This Article proposes that Congress adopt a rule of construction mandating broad interpretation of all workplace anti-retaliation statutory provisions. This provision would strengthen critical civil rights safeguards for employees by restoring the optimal and essential function of retaliation provisions

Rationing Retaliation Claims

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rising number of workplace retaliation claims is a problem, one warranting more stringent requirements for employees to successfully bring claims. The Court’s principal justification for this restrictive approach is a fear of “opening the floodgates” of litigation. This Article critically assesses the Court’s fear of opening the floodgates of retaliation claims, evaluates the Court’s evidence, and argues that such concerns are overstated and misplaced. Rather than a cause for concern, the rise in retaliation claims reflects rising intra-organizational conflict. Social scientists have demonstrated that, as the American workforce becomes more diverse, intra-organizational conflict increases, and the propensity for civil rights violations grows. In other words, claims are on the rise because retaliation is on the rise. Employment discrimination and other related statutes are aimed at mitigating the harms of this expected rise in intra-organizational conflict. The Article further argues that considerations of judicial economy are particularly misplaced in workplace retaliation cases. Retaliation protections are crucial to the private enforcement scheme Congress developed for civil rights laws generally and employment discrimination laws in particular. Attempting to limit judicial caseloads through restrictive interpretations of anti-retaliation laws eviscerates private enforcement, producing under- enforcement of these core civil rights protections. To remedy the Supreme Court’s wrong turn on retaliation, Congress should act. This Article proposes that Congress adopt a rule of construction mandating broad interpretation of all workplace anti-retaliation statutory provisions. This provision would strengthen critical civil rights safeguards for employees by restoring the optimal and essential function of retaliation provisions

Board of Directors Meeting Minutes (November 13, 2023)

This file contains the minutes from the Des Moines Area Community College Board meeting held on November 13, 2023