C -5. \HS •« 7^ i.*'*^°''Co tATES 0« ' State and Local Government Special Studies No. 76 environmental quality control ,r5 9 q >^jiO Governmerital Finances and Employment: Fiscal Year 1973-74 U.S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS State and Local Government Special Studies No. 76 environmental quality control Governmental Finances and Employment: Fiscal Year 1973-74 Issued April 1976 ..<°'>. i> U.S. Department of Commerce Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary .of ra, ^% r^^ J BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Vincent P. Barabba, Director 9 ■D BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Vincent P. Barabba, Director Robert L. Hagan. Deputy Director Shirley Kaliek, Associate Director for Economic Fields GOVERNMENTS DIVISION Sherman Landau, Chief ACKNOWLEDGIVIENT— This report was prepared in the Governments Division by the Special Projects Branch, headed by William C. Fanning, under the general supervision of Alan Jones, Assistant Division Chief for Special Governmental Sta- tistics. John Curry directed the project and was assisted by Dennis E. Cosier and Betty Stark. Computer operations were directed by Jewel S. Dennis and carried out by the Computer Services Division. Helen D. Files of the Governments Division, Bureau of the Census, and the staff of the Publications Services Division provided advice and services in the preparation of copy for publication. For information regarding data contained in this report, contact John Curry, Governments Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233 [(301) 763-5094.] SUGGESTED CITATION U.S. Bureau of the Census, Environmental Quality Control, Governmental Finances and Employment: Fiscal Year 1973-74, GSS No. 76 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1976 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 20402, or any Department of Commerce district office. Price $> 15 CONTENTS Introduction 1 Federal Government 2 State Governments (tables 1-3) 2 Local Governments (tables 4-13) 4 Survey Methodology, Sources, and Limitations of Data 6 Definitions of Terms 7 Acknowledgment 8 Text Tables Table A. Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Years 1972-73 and 1973-74, and Full-Time Equivalent Employment: October 1974 1 B. Federal Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Years 1972 to 1974 3 C. State Government Expenditure for Environmental Quality Control: Fiscal Years 1972 to 1974 4 D. Selected Large Local Government Expenditure for Water Purification Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74 .. 4 E. Selected Large City Government Expenditure for Environmental Quality Control: Fiscal Years 1971-72 to 1973-74 5 . F. Selected Large County Government Expenditure for Environmental Quality Control: Fiscal Years 1971-72 to 1973-74 6 Detailed Tables Table 1. State Government Water Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1974, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 9 2. State Government Solid Waste Management Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1974, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 10 3. State Government Air Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1974, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 11 4. Selected Large City Government Water Quality Control Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 12 5. Selected Large City Government Solid Waste Management Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 13 6. Selected Large City Government Air Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employ- ment and Payrolls: October 1974 14 7. Selected Large County Government Water Quality Control Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 15 8. Selected Large County Government Solid Waste Management Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 16 9. Selected Large County Government Air Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employ- ment and Payrolls: October 1974 17 10. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, by Type of Government 18 1 1. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, by Type of Government 22 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas 26 13. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas 32 Appendix A 39 Appendix B 41 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS IVIembers and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/environmenOOunit INTRODUCTION During fiscal year 1973-74, Federal, State, and local governments spent approximately $7.0 billion on se- lected environmental quality control activities. Water quality control accounted for $4.6 billion, solid waste management $2.0 billion, and air quality control $297.4 million. Table A. Environmental Quality Control Exoenditure: Fiscal Years 1972-73 and 1973-74. and Full- rime Equivalent Employment: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) All selected environmental quality control activities Water quality control Level of government Expenditure Employ- ment (October 1974) Expenditure Employ- ment (October 1974) 1972-73 1973-74 1972-73 1973-74 Total ^6,004,218 1,366,299 728,987 5,481,143 1,578,940 2,252,337 368,258 314,730 332,538 634,340 ^6,957,655 2,388,405 788,836 6,250,926 1,800,346 2,467,421 422,989 404,309 343,149 812,712 225,562 2 6, 560 11,147 207,855 62,027 106,924 7,312 8,469 8,168 14,955 * 3, 972, 608 1,156,584 608,138 3,726,132 915,620 =«1,467,582 269,970 ^238, 527 ^210,741 ^623, 692 *4, 612, 757 2,106,647 636,046 4,276,355 1,065,455 ^1,584,383 318,159 ^297, 381 ^218,565 ^792,412 93,842 Federal State 4,499 6,901 Local 48 largest cities.. All other cities... 58 largest counties All other counties. 82,442 18,064 ^38,236 4,076 34,308 33,073 Special districts.. 3 14, 685 - Solid waste management Air quality control Expenditure Employ- ment (October 1974) Expenditure Employ- ment (October 1974) 1972-73 1973-74 1972-73 1973-74 Total Federal ^1,812,033 33,891 62,147 1,723,538 648,322 ^784,755 81,813 ^76,203 ^121,797 5 10, 648 ^2,047,455 50,459 81,152 1,936,354 716,161 ^883, 038 85,343 n06,928 ^124,584 5 20, 300 124,191 251 ^733 123,207 42,910 5 68, 688 2,083 ^4,161 ^5,095 ^270 ^219,577 175,824 58,702 31,473 14,998 (NA) 16,475 (NA) (NA) (NA) ^297,443 231,299 71,638 38,217 18,730 (NA) 19,487 (NA) (NA) (NA) 7,529 1,810 State 3,513 Local 2,206 48 largest cities.. All other cities... 58 largest counties All other counties. Townships, 1,053 (NA) 1,153 (NA) (NA) Special districts.. (NA) NA Not available. ^Intergovernmental expenditure has been eliminated from the totals. ^Employment data for the Energy Research and Development Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Coast Guard not available. 3 Only reflects sewerage activities. ^Excludes employment for litter removal activities. ^Only reflects sanitation other than sewerage activities. INTRODUCTION These same governments also employed the full-time equivalent of 225,562 persons in selected environmental quality control activities during October 1974. The full-time equivalent employment for water quality con- trol was 93,842, for solid waste management 124,191, and for air quality control 7,529.* FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Federal Government expended approximately $2.4 billion for selected environmental quality control activities in fiscal year 1974, an increase of 74.8 percent from the $1.4 bilUon expended in fiscal year 1973. Payments to State and local governments accounted for over four-fifths of tliis increase, rising to $1.9 billion from the $1.0 billion expended in fiscal year 1973. Table B shows Federal Government expenditure for water quality control, solid waste management, and air quality control activities for three fiscal years (1972- 1974). Data pertaining to the Environmental Protection Agency are displayed separately in this table because of the agency's major role in pollution abatement. The "Other agencies" category in the table includes agencies in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Nuclear Regula- tory Commission. Intergovernmental payments for the construction of sewage treatment facilities represented 76.5 percent of the total Federal expenditure in fiscal year 1974, up from the 70.1 percent reported in fiscal year 1973. These payments were made by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Economic Development Ad- ministration (Department of Commerce), the Farmers Home Administration (Department of Agriculture), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. STATE GOVERNMENTS (TABLES 1-3) State government expenditure increased for each selected environmental category between fiscal years 1973 and 1974. There was a 4.6 percent increase for water quality control, 30.6 percent for solid waste management, and 22.0 percent for air quality control. ' Local government air quality control data pertain only to the 48 cities with at least 300,000 inhabitants and 58 counties with at least 500,000 inhabitants in 1970. Intergovernmental expenditure for water quality control, which fell slightly in fiscal year 1974, remained the single largest component of State government spending for water quality control activities. Payments to local governments, mostly for the construction of sewage treatment facilities, comprised 75.8 percent of total expenditure in fiscal 1974. While most of the State government sohd waste management expenditure shown in table 2 represents the direct cost of litter removal. State governments, demonstrating a growing interest in solid waste management at the local level, expended $15.5 miUion in intergovernmental payments during fiscal year 1974. This marks an increase of over 200 percent from the $4.8 milUon reported in fiscal year 1973. As a component of total State solid waste management expenditures, intergovernmental expendi- tures rose to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1974 from 7.7 percent in fiscal year 1973. Due to data collection diffi- culties no employment data for litter removal opera- tions were included in Table 2. State government air quality control expenditure rose 22.0 percent to $71.6 million in fiscal year 1974. Intergovernmental {Payments to local governments fell slightly from $7.8 million in 1973 to $7.2 mUHon in fiscal 1974. As a component of total State government air quahty control expendi- ture, intergovernmental expenditure was 10.0 percent in fiscal year 1974, down from the 13.3 percent re- ported in fiscal year 1973. While most data presented in tables 1 to 3 reflect the cost of grant administration, regulation, planning, and other such activities, some State agencies do perform operations normally considered the responsibility of local governments, generally on a reimbursable basis. In Massachusetts, for example, the Metropolitan District Commission, a State agency responsible for constructing, maintaining, and operating sewage treatment facilities, spent over $13 million in fiscal year 1974 providing services to 43 cities and towns in the Greater Boston area. Another such State agency is the New York State Environmental FaciUties Corporation, which is actively involved in planning, financing, constructing, main- taining, and operating sewage treatment works, sewage collection systems, water management facilities, air pollution control facilities, storm water collection systems, and solid waste recovery and disposal facilities on behalf of and in assistance of municipalities and other State agencies. State government water quality control, sohd waste management, and air quality control expenditure for 3 fiscal years (1972-1974) are shown in table C. The table also presents a breakdown of expenditures by character and object for each selected environmental category. INTRODUCTION (^ CTi CD (Jl to (N 00 05 00 CO 00 in a a en H O [Q +-> (D (U -P en H rH ss INTRODUCTION Table C. State Government Expenditure for Environmental Quality Control: Fiscal Years 1972 to 1974 (Thousands of dollars) Water quality control Solid waste management Air quality control 1972 1973 1974 1972^ 1973^ 1974 1972 1973 1974 Total Current operation Capital outlay. . . Intergovernmental 537,868 60,392 39,924 437,552 608,138 74,331 45,738 488,069 636,046 116,692 37,487 481,867 55,833 51,601 1,996 2,236 62,147 52,825 4,517 4,805 81,152 60,861 4,742 15,549 42,004 36,828 3,924 1,252 58,702 46,720 4,150 7,832 71,638 59,012 5,399 7,227 Litter removal data for Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Nev/ Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia not available. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (TABLES 4-13) Total direct expenditure in fiscal year 1974 of all local governments for water quality control activities was $4.2 billion, an increase of 14.7 percent over fiscal year 1973. These same governments expended over $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1974 for solid waste manage- ment activities, an increase of 12.4 percent over the prior year. Air quality control expenditure of the 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties rose 21.4 per- cent to $38.2 million in fiscal year 1974. As noted earlier, air quality control data for other local govern- ments are not available. The reader should keep in mind that data presented throughout this report for the 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties include those regulatory, administrative, operational, and other activities described for each en- vironmental category in the definitions section (page 7) of this report. Data for all other local governments in- clude only sewage collection and treatment, trash col- lection and disposal, and street cleaning services. These activities, however, account for the major portion of water quality control and soMd waste management ex- penditure of all local governments, including the largest cities and counties. The tables containing water quality control data (tables 4, 7, 10 and 12) show large capital outlay ex- penditures which, for the most part, financed the con- struction of sewage treatment facilities. In fiscal year 1973-74, 61.8 percent of all local government direct expenditure for sewerage activities was for construction (see table 10). Table D shows that the 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties spent almost $96.4 million for water purification activities in fiscal year 1974. This amount comprises 7.0 percent of the total water quality control expenditure of these selected units. Table D. Selected Large Local Government Expenditure for Water Purification Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Type of government Total Current operation Capital outlay Percent of total water quality control expenditures for selected units Total 96,385 88,797 7,588 78,361 73,516 4,845 18,024 15,281 2,743 7.0 48 largest cities^.. 8.3 2.4 ita for Houston, Te.xas not available. INTRODUCTION Most of the data shown in the local government solid waste management tables (tables 5,8, 11 and 13) repre- sent refuse collection and disposal activities. Approxi- mately 87.0 percent of total direct expenditure for sanitation other than sewerage activities of local govern- ments was for current operations (see table 11). It should be noted that employment data for some indi- vidual units and types of government in these tables may appear to be low compared with the current opera- tion expenditure reported because in some governments, such as Los Angeles County, all or part of refuse collec- tion and disposal is performed on a contractual basis with private firms whose employees and payroll are not included in the employment data. Air quality control expenditure and employment data for large cities and counties are shown in tables 6 and 9. While 18 cities and 22 counties hsted in these tables did not report expenditure or employment data for air quality control in fiscal year 1973-74, these units may be receiving air quality services from some other local government. In the Atlanta and Pittsburgh metropolitan areas, for example, county governments have the responsibility for providing air quality services. Also, the involvement of the Bay Area PoUufion Control District in air quality control activities is not reflected in tables 6 and 9. This special district serves five large local governments included in the tables (Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco). Local government financial and employment data for sewerage and other sanitation activities are presented by State and by type of government in tables 10 and 1 1 . These tables show that in fiscal year 1974 over 61.1 percent of the total direct expenditure for sewerage activities was spent by city governments. The next largest contribution came from special district govern- ments which spent more than 19.3 percent of the total. For sanitation other than sewerage activities, cities contributed more than 82.6 percent of the total direct expenditure. Revenue from charges, also shown in these tables, equaled about 1 18.7 percent of local government current operation expenditure for sewerage activities and approximately 31.3 percent of current operation expenditure for sanitation other than sewerage. Financial and employment data for sewerage and other sanitation activities for county areas in the 74 major SMSA's (see appendix A for listing of SMSA's) are shown in tables 12 and 13.^ Certain intercounty governmental units (see appendix B) have been prorated to the county areas involved. For example, although most of the expenditure and employment data for Atlanta city was allocated to Fulton County, a portion of this city's activities was also prorated toDe Kalb County. Data for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission was prorated between Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Selected large city and county government environ- mental quality control expenditure for 3 fiscal years (1971-72 to 1973-74) are shown in tables E and F. These tables also provide a breakdown of expenditures by character and object for each selected environmental category. ^Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) consist of single county areas or groups of contiguous counties except in New England where such areas consist of groups of contiguous cities and towns. However, for this report, statistics were devel- oped for certain groups of entire counties that make up Connect- icut State Economic Areas A, B and C, Massachusetts State Economic Areas A, B and C, and Rhode Island State Economic Area A. Each area includes one central city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or a central city of at least 25,000 with urbanized areas (either incorporated or unincorporated) that together contain a minimum of 50,000 inhabitants. Table E. Selected Large City Government Expenditure for Environmental Quality Control: Fiscal Years 1971-72 to 1973-74 (Thousands of dollars' Water quality control 1971-72 1972-73 Solid waste management 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 Air quality control 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 Total. Current operation. . Capital out- lay Intergovern- mental 769,652 281,485 458,166 30,001 915,620 294,946 588,676 31,998 1,065,455 324,622 695,230 45,603 643,688 577,057 66,581 50 648,322 594,920 53,010 392 716,161 623,829 92,332 11,624 10,869 527 228 14,998 13,238 1,578 182 18,730 15,414 3,061 255 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. INTRODUCTION Table F. Selected Large County Government Expenditure for Environmental Quality Control: Fiscal Years 1971-72 to 1973-74 ( rhousands OT dollars; W^ter quality control 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 Solid waste management 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 Air quality control 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 Total , Current operation Capital outlay. . . Intergovernmental 283,282 54,094 209,779 19,409 269,970 61,765 188,128 20,077 318,159 87,015 212,650 18,494 73,306 65,474 7,416 416 81,813 69,516 11,764 533 85,343 75,066 10,213 64 13,868 568 15,491 984 19,487 17,788 1,508 191 Represents zero or rounds to zero. SURVEY METHODOLOGY, SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS OF DATA Survey Coverage and Data Collection Procedures Expenditure data for the Federal Government (table B), State governments (tables 1-3), and the large local governments shown individually in tables 4-9 were compiled from budgetary and financial documents at Census headquarters. Most employment data for local governments and a number of State agencies were ob- tained from the Census Bureau's annual employment survey. This compilation was supplemented by tele- phone inquiries and a maU canvass *f selected agencies. All responses were subject to intensive edit and review. Using these data collection procedures for the large governmental units, it was possible to aggregate water quality control, soUd waste management, and air quality control statistics according to the activities described in the definitions section (page 7) of this report. The local government aggregates for fiscal year 1 973- 74 (tables 10 to 13) were collected as part of the Bureau's annual surveys of governmental finances and employment, and reflect only the traditional govern- mental sanitation activities of sewage collection and treatment, street cleaning, and refiase collection and disposal.^ The Statewide local aggregates presented by type of government in tables 1 and 1 1 are estimates developed from a random sample of approximately 16,000 local ^Census Bureau 1974 annual reports which present statistics pertaining to sewerage and other sanitation activities include Public Employment in 1974 , City Employment in 1974 , Local Ciovcrnment Employment in Selected Metropolitan Areas and Large Counties: 1974 . Governmental Finances in 1973-74 , City Government Finances in 1973-74 . County Government Finances in 1973-74 , and Local Government Finances in Selected Metro- politan Areas and Large Counties: 1973-74 . governments. Using 1970 population as a base, the sample included all counties having 50,000 and all cities having 25,000 inhabitants or more. The sample also included governments whose relative importance in their State based on expenditure or debt was above a specified amount. A random selection of the remaining units was made from a compilation of all local govern- ments within an SMSA or balance of State, further grouped by type of unit and magnitude of expenditure. From this list a random sample was made using proba- bilities that were a function of the relative expenditure or indebtedness of the unit within its State. Data for the 74 major SMSA's (tables 12 and 13) are based on a sample of local govenmients within each of the selected SMSA's, stratified by component county areas and by type of local government within each county area (i.e., municipalities, townships, counties, and special districts) and within each type, by the magnitude of their annual expenditures and indebted- ness as reported in the 1972 Census of Governments. The Survey Period The State data presented in this report pertain to the respective State governments' fiscal years which ended June 30, 1974, except for three States."* However, some State government agencies operate on a different fiscal year basis than the parent government. In these cases, figures shown are for the agency's fiscal year which ended within the State's regular fiscal year. For local governments, the 1973-74 fiscal year is that which ended between July 1, 1973 and June 30, 1974. Limitations Readers should be cautious in comparing data for two or more governments since responsibilities for environmental quality control activities vary from State ''The fiscal year for New York State ends March 31; for Texas, Aug. 3 1 ; and for Alabama, September 30. INTRODUCTION to State and government to government. For example, the data presented for one city may indicate a relatively small expenditure for water quality control because the activity is primarily the responsibility of a county or special district government. The following limitations should also be taken into account: (1) Finance and employment data are shown only for selected environmental categories as defined in this report and no attempt was made to identify other environmental activities of the governments included in the survey. (2) Occasionally, it was necessary to prorate pollution abatement expenditure and employ- ment data for multifunctional agencies whose records did not provide sufficient detail. (3) The survey did not cover State institutions of higher education. Also, because of data collection problems, the related activi- ties of general purpose law enforcement agencies, such as State Attorneys General and local prosecution attorneys were excluded. (4) Statistics in this report based wholly or partly on sample data are subject to sampling error, i.e., the variations that would occur among estimates from different samples that would have been selected using the same sample design, and between these estimates and the results of a complete census. The statewide estimates for major categories of revenue and expenditure developed by the Census Bureau's annual survey of governmental finances have, in the past, been calculated to have a relative standard error of less than 2 percent. The estimates for sewerage and other sanitation activities have not been subjected to tests of sampling error but, because they relate to particular functions, are likely to have considerably greater variability. They should therefore be interpreted with caution. (5) All data are also subject to possible inaccuracies in classification, response, and processing which would occur if a complete census had been con- ducted under the same conditions as this survey. Every effort was made to keep such errors to a minimum through care in examining, editing, and tabulating the data submitted by government officials. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Fiscal year . A government's 12-month accounting period. Government Revenue and Expenditure Charges consist of revenue received from the pubUc for performance of specific services benefiting the person charged and from sales of commodities and services. They include fees, assessments, and other reimbursements for current services as well as rents and sales derived from commodities or services furnished incident to the performance of particular functions. Charges exclude amounts from other governments and interdepartmental charges and transfers. The revenue derived from charges for the provision of the environ- mental services included in this report may or may not be reserved solely for the financing of these services. Expenditure comprises all amounts of money paid out by a government (net of recoveries and other correcting transactions) other than for refirement of debt, investment in securities, extension of loans, or as agency transactions. Expenditure includes only external cash payments of a government and excludes any intragovemmental transfers and noncash transactions, Siiach as the provision of meals or housing of employees. It includes any payments financed from borrowing or fund balances as well as from intergovernmental revenue and other current revenue. Total expenditure (for a particular function) includes all amounts, direct and intergovernmental, spent pri- marily for a particular function. Intergovernmental expenditure comprises payments from one government to another, including grants-in- aid, shared revenues, payments in lieu of taxes, and amounts for services performed by one government for another on a reimbursable or cost-sharing basis. Direct expenditure comprises all expenditure other than that classed as intergovernmental. Clirrent operation represents all direct expenditure for compensation of own officers and employees and for supplies, materials, and contractual services, ex- clusive of any amounts for capital outlay. Excluded are' interest payments on debt and contribution to a government's own employee retirement system. Capital outlay consists of direct expenditure for construction, for purchase of equipment, and for purchase of land and existing structures. Government Employment Full-time equivalent employment is a computed statistic representing the number of full-time employees that could have been employed if all personnel were engaged on a full-time basis at the average monthly pay applying to full-time workers. It is calculated for a particular function of government by dividing the average monthly pay for full-time employees into the total pay for full- and part-time employees. Payroll represents total gross payroll before deductions including salaries, wages, fees, and commis- sions earned by employees during the month of October 1974. Government Functions Water quahty control consists of those regulatory, administrative, operational, and other activities directly related to the abatement of water pollution. Among those activities included under water quahty control are hcensing and inspection of industrial plants, waste treatment operations, animal feedlots, mines, and oil fields; registration of pesticides users and distributors; INTRODUCTION operation and construction of sewer systems and treat- ment plants; water purification activities performed by publicly owned utilities; monitoring of streams and lakes; establishing and enforcing policies, plans, stand- ards and regulations for water pollution abatement and all costs involved in processing grants received from other governments. Specifically excluded from this survey are water testing programs which relate only to water resource capacity, water supply distribution, soil and water conservation, and irrigation and drainage. Solid waste management consists of those regulatory, administrative, operational, and other activities directly" related to the collection and disposal of trash, garbage, and other forms of solid waste, including street cleaning. Activities included are licensing and inspection of facilities used in the processing of solid waste, the establishment and enforcement of poHcies and stand- ards, and grant administration. Also included in this category are functions related to informing the public about solid waste management programs, training per- sonnel in effective management operations, and research and development activities. Generally excluded because of data collection difficulties at the local government level are special litter removal activities such as debris pick up on pubUc lands and the maintenance of waste containers along highways and in parks, unless these are locally recorded under other activities classified as waste management. Air quahty control consists of those regulatory, administrative, operational, and other activities directly related to the abatement of air pollution. Activities included are the Hcensing and inspection of industrial facilities and other sources of potential air pollution; estabhshing and enforcing policies, standards, and regu- lations in the adoption and implementation of air quahty control plans; administration of air pollution control grants; and all functions related to air moni- toring services. Air quahty control also includes activi- ties that tend to keep the public informed about air pollution programs and activities designed to train personnel in effective air pollution abatement programs. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Grateful acknowledgment is made of the assistance of the numerous government officials who helpfully sup- plied information regarding the activities of their agen- cies. STATE GOVERNMENTS 9 Table 1. State Government Water Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1974, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Capital outlay Employment (October 1974 ) Total.. Alabama Alaska Arizona California. . . Colorado Connecticut . . Delaware Florida Georgia. . Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana . . Iowa Kansas... Kentucky Maine Maryland . . . . . Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi . . Missouri Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey — New Mexico . . . New York North Carolin North Dakota. Ohio , . . . Oklalioma Oregon Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolin South Dakota. Texas Utah . Vermont Virginia Washington . . . West Virginia Wisconsin. . . . Wyoming 636,046 1,156 6,426 538 1,249 43,825 2,604 32,269 4,004 18,218 3,934 2,636 2,554 25,332 6,297 5,558 25,322 32,983 37,724 10,332 4,261 6,690 3,386 3,504 276 7,454 27,274 2,609 1 972 14 196 26 966 3 848 9 116 334 2 312 6 567 738 2 800 8 ,469 5 507 1 ,550 19 ,812 300 1,000 330 523 635 15,926 623 879 517 i,755 L,924 761 L,064 588 6,863 3,008 185 5.181 1,872 1,475 6,420 1,426 1,467 332 1,571 6,515 5,499 2,170 1,441 2,188 273 1,799 31,390 3,453 14,057 1,432 626 1,928 20,335 4,749 4,528 15,480 33,806 8,290 3,400 5,623 12,706 20,410 220 7,500 Represents zer rounds to zero . 10 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 2. State Government Solid Waste Management Exoenditure: Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Fiscal Year 1974, and litter removal Employment (October 1974)' Alabama. . , Alaska Arizona. . . Arkansas . . California Kansas . . . . Kentucky . . Louisiana, Maine Maryland. . Massachusetts . Michigan Minnesota Mississippi... Missouri Montana Nebraska. ... Nevada New Hampshir New Jersey . . New Mexico.. New Yo rk . . . . North Caroli North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolin South Dakota Tennessee . . . Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington.. West Virgin! Wisconsin... Wyoming 8,350 1,012 896 264 1,854 4,544 649 2,256 865 364 4,609 548 307 1,866 613 8,054 ■■.,242 753 1,412 2,749 461 564 235 4,354 3,994 285 779 3,799 617 1,755 250 208 1,686 2,033 202 1,607 3,694 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Excludes employment for litter remo 'includes $927,000 in intergov 'Represents intergovernmental payments STATE GOVERNMENTS 11 Table 3. State Government Air Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1974, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Capital outlay Employment (October 1974) Colorado. . . . Connecticut , Delaware. . . . Florida Georgia Idaho — Illinois Indiana. Kansas . . . Kentucky . Louisiana Maryland. Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota — . Mississippi.. Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire. New Jersey New Mexico . . . . New York North Carolina North Dakota. , Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania. South Dakota Tennessee. . . Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington. . West Virgini Wisconsin. . . Wyoming 891 792 361 274 246 11,463 108 764 951 1,404 417 353 771 1,478 992 913 205 205 219 193 624 2,517 949 721 721 667 401 290 048 972 680 642 1,882 1,056 800 730 523 456 382 366 558 456 123 117 111 • 104 267 218 2,463 2,309 564 480 6,267 5,834 1,153 1,122 1,402 923 46 3,207 2 ,582 625 243 224 19 622 579 43 31 31 . 1,258 1 ,143 115 4,526 4 ,322 204 480 324 156 284 268 16 1,508 1 ,353 155 1,223 664 225 759 645 114 1,221 894 178 3,925 297 ounds to zer .12 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 4. Selected Large City Government Water Quality Control Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Revenue Expenditure Employment ( October 1974) from sewerage Total Current operation Capital outlay Intergov- ernmental Full-time equivalent Payroll charges Construction Other 348,383 1,065,455 324,622 676,369 18,861 45,603 18,064 17,864 11,438 27,248 7,760 19,206 282 691 586 8,372 18,961 10 838 7,579 544 367 478 _ 3,971 1,291 2,680 - 150 96 3,294 10,317 1,676 3,090 66 5,485 96 91 1,343 12,518 5,344 7,162 12 287 296 27 35,755 24,827 10,775 153 1,276 1,588 14,401 21,083 8,993 11,753 337 583 491 24,573 27,879 6,795 11,110 2,323 7,651 279 249 13,281 17,009 10,204 5,552 1,253 440 461 1,051 21,523 7,607 12,081 1,752 83 590 466 9,763 12,110 8,946 1,935 1,229 368 361 19,483 49,861 13,955 35,348 558 - 353 376 3,094 3,271 1,973 1,297 1 _ 94 64 2,649 5,997 2,885 3,026 86 - 214 148 245 15,936 5,347 10,350 239 - 377 361 5,727 23,714 8,304 13,632 1,323 455 328 421 3,492 10,387 6,159 4,186 42 241 181 6,455 11,554 5,403 6,011 140 337 263 7,267 13,660 6,305 7,116 239 267 223 - 1,814 1,675 134 5 - 83 113 1 304 32,123 13,530 18,299 294 - 544 786 12,480 35,103 4,783 29,321 377 622 408 336 7,539 12,582 2,525 9,113 262 682 193 128 - 3,004 531 2,473 - 39 34 1,476 15,626 3,887 5,670 727 5,342 202 196 7,591 13,671 2,767 2,987 34 7,883 153 166 8,174 27,032 3,017 23,942 73 - 286 165 2,147 3,682 1,243 293 67 2,079 98 77 6,171 16,084 9,713 6,371 - - 748 482 44,423 332,521 38,905 292,063 1,553 - 2,326 3,046 304 3,982 2,839 1,112 31 _ 200 131 1,804 1 639 704 933 2 - 43 47 3,192 4,699 2,915 1,723 61 - 195 127 5,003 10,787 3,979 6,121 687 - 215 193 28,904 30,755 18,181 12,021 553 - 800 898 376 11,253 4,559 6,422 272 - 228 210 . 2,604 2,296 306 2 _ 137 lis 9,277 14,377 6,178 7,119 1,080 - 460 509 _ 2,613 2,488 - - 125 149 127 5,965 10,417 2,013 2,751 80 5,573 109 133 4,892 8,719 2,753 5,560 406 - 249 174 7,476 13,618 .6,011 7,570 37 - 208 221 6,210 19,847 8,496 11,270 81 _ 333 446 7,612 9,592 3,666 5,795 119 12 124 138 13,165 24,700 3,663 11,386 40 9,611 160 184 9,846 12,558 8,125 4,307 126 - 322 372 2,292 8,630 1,575 6,862 193 - 148 141 14,805 38,669 16,993 20,556 1,120 - 866 966 Atlanta, Ga Baltimore, Md Birmingham, Ala.... Boston, Mass Buffalo, N.Y Chicago, 111 Cincinnati, Ohio... Cleveland, Ohio. Columbus, Ohio Dallas, Tex Denver, Colo Detroit, Mich El Paso, Tex Fort Worth, Tex. .. . Honolulu, Hawaii... Houston, Tex Indianapolis, Ind . . Jacksonville, Fla.. Kansas City, Mo. Long Beach, Calif.. Los Angeles, Calif. Louisville, Ky Memphis , Tenn Miami, Fla Milwaukee, Wis Minneapolis, Minn.. Nashville, Tenn.... Newark, N.J New Orleans, La. .. . New York, N.Y Norfolk, Va Oakland, Calif Oklahoma City, Ok la Omaha, Nebr Philadelphia, Pa... Phoenix, Ariz Pittsburgh, Pa Portland, Oreg St. Louis, Mo St. Paul, Minn San Antonio, Tex. .. San Diego, Calif... San Francisco, Call San Jose, Calif Seattle, Wash Toledo, Ohio Tulsa, Okla Washington, D.C.... Represents zero or rounds to zero . SELECTED CITY GOVERNMENTS Tahiti 5. Selected Large City Government Solid Waste Management Revenue ana Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) 13 Revenue from sanitation charges (October 1974) Atlanta, Ga Baltimore, Md . . . Birmingham, Ala. Buffalo, N.Y. Chicago, 111. Cln Ohi Cleveland, Ohic Columbus, Ohio. Dallas, Tex Denver, Colo... Detroit, Mich.. El Paso, Tex..... Fort Worth, Tex. . Honolulu, Hawaii. Houston, Tex Indianapolis, Inc Jacksonville, Fla Kansas City, Mo . . . . Long Beach, Calif.. Los Angeles, Calif. Louisville, Ky Memphis, Tenn Miami, Fla Milwaukee, Wis.. Minneapolis, Mln Nashville, Tenn. Newark, N.J New Orleans, La. New York, N.Y... Norfolk, Va Oakland, Calif Oklahoma City, Okla. Omaha, Nebr Philadelphia, Pa..., Phoenix, Ariz ., Pittsburgh, Pa... Portland, Oreg . . . St. Louis, Mo St. Paul, Minn. . . San Antonio, Tex. San Diego, Calif. San Francisco, Calif. San Jose, Calif Seattle, Wash Toledo, Ohio Tulsa, Okla Washington, D.C - Represents zero 2,461 12,576 9,601 27,057 3,739 11,484 8,302 66,187 6,844 12,676 6,381 7,793 12,180 6,376 4,311 7,310 6,607 227,281 4,368 41,851 13,339 2,076 5,025 2,631 6,684 12,429 5,880 11,370 6,222 10,488 4,478 5,497 30,324 5,424 12,716 11,859 6,376 3,627 1 923 4 760 2 491 6 055 6 245 3 889 722 7 203 5 404 2 209 540 508 9,945 574 684 609 1,070 57,703 165 461 255 4,587 735 270 1,957 227 L,233 466 L,499 677 694 726 12,126 572 1,032 224 336 467 3,306 394 667 461 490 253 16,092 443 129 279 197 14 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 6. Selected Large City Government Air Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Atlanta, Ga Baltimore, Md Birmingham, Ala Boston, Mass Buffalo, N.Y Chicago, 111 Cincinnati, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio Columbus, Ohio Dallas, Tex Denver, Colo Detroit, Mich El Paso, Tex Fort Worth, Tex Honolulu, Hawaii .... Houston, Tex Indianapolis, Ind . . . Jacksonvi lie, Fla . . . Kansas City, Mo Long Beach, Calif Ics Angeles, Calif. . Louisville, Ky Memphis , Tenn Miami, Fla Milwaukee, Wis Minneapolis, Minn — Nashville, Tenn Newark, N.J New Orleans, La New York, N.Y Norfolk, Va Oakland, Calif Oklahoma City, Okla. Omaha, Nebr Philadelphia, Pa Phoenix, Ariz Pittsburgh, Pa Portland, Oreg St. Louis, Mo St. Paul, Minn. . San Antonio, Tex.... San Diego, Calif.... San Francisco, Calif San Jose, Calif Seattle, Wash Toledo, Ohio Tulsa, Okla Washington, D.C ands Current Capital outlay 'Amounts recorded payments In total. 288 312 otal because of the (October 1974) )f intergovernmental SELECTED COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Table 7. Selected Large County Government Water Quality Control Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) 15 Capital outlay Total. Alameda, Calif Allegheny, Pa Baltimore, Md Bergen, N.J Bexar, Tex Broward, Fla Contra Costa, Calif. Cook, 111 Cuyahoga, Dade, Fla. Dallas, Te Delaware, Erie, N.Y. Essex, Mas Ohio Hennepin, Minn. Hudson, N.J. .. . Jackson, Mo.... Jefferson, Ky . Lake, Ind Los Angeles, Calif. Macomb, Mich Maricopa, Ariz Middlesex, Mass Middlesex, N.J Milwaukee, Wis Monroe, N.Y Montgomery, Md . . . Montgomery, Ohio. Montgomery, Pa... Multnomah, Oreg . . Nassau, N.Y Norfolk, Mass.... Oakland, Mich Oklahoma, Okla Orange, Calif Pinellas, Fla Prince Georges, Md . . . Sacramento, Calif.... St. Louis, Mo San Bernardino, Calil San Diego, Calif San Mateo, Calif Santa Clara, Calif. Shelby, Tenn. Suffolk, N.Y Summit, Ohio . . . . Tarrant, Tex.... Union, N.J Wayne, Mich Westchester, N.Y Worcester, Mass. 275 3,538 373 15,274 1,438 1,381 13,890 1,098 307 32,229 3,864 1,732 552 1,132 395 288 12,125 805 2,156 9,737 4,427 1,858 26 7,253 321 903 5,216 192 8,541 2,798 347 10,661 1,122 982 30,328 1,155 1,434 509 58,418 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Expenditure data are for fiscal year ^Employment data are for October 1973. 16 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 8. Selected Large County Government Solid Waste Management Revenue and Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Alameda^ Calif Allegheny, Pa. Baltimore, Md . Bergen, N.J... Bexar, Tex . . . . Cook, 111 Cuyahoga, Ohio... Dade, Fla Dallas, Tex Delaware, Pa Erie, N.Y Essex, Mass Essex, N.J Franklin, Ohio... Fulton, Ga Hamilton, Ohio... Harris, Tex Hennepin, Minn... Hudson, N.J Jackson, Mo Jefferson, Ala... Jefferson, Ky King, Wash Lake, Ind los Angeles, Call Macomb, Mich Maricopa, Ariz . . . Middlesex, Mass.. Middlesex, N.J... Milwaukee, Wis... Monroe, N.Y Montgomery, Md . . . Montgomery, Ohio. Montgomery, Pa... Multnomah, Oreg . . N.Y. Oklahoma, Okla Orange, Calif Pinellas, Fla Prince Georges, Md . Sacramento, Calif.. St. Louis, Mo San Bei-nardino, Cal San Diego, Calif... San Mateo, Calif. . . Santa Clara, Calif. Shelby, Tenn Suffolk, N.Y Summit, Ohio Tarrant, Tex Union, N.J Wayne, Mich Westchester, N.Y... Worcester, Mass . . . . - Itopresents zero or rounds to zero. ^Amounts recorded as current operation and capital outlay wi payments by Contra Costa Co., Calif, of $3,000 and by Maricopa 'Represent!? fees from rental of sanitary landfill. 'Employment data are for October 1973. ■•Expendituro data are for fiscal year 1973. 583 1,302 1,660 20,960 1,444 945 9,466 2,775 3,618 5,350 2,390 3,066 8,487 2,075 444 2,007 22,651 15 339 36 129 Capital outlay 3t add to total becaus Ariz, of $61,000 . Employment (October 1974) Intergovernmen SELECTED COUNTY GOVERNMENTS Table 9. Selected Large County Government Air Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Alameda^ Calll Allegheny J Pa. Baltimore, Md . Broward, Fla Contra Costa, Calif. Cook, 111 Cuyahoga, Ohio . Dade, Fla Dallas, Tex.... Delaware, Pa . , . Erie, N.Y. Essex, Mass . Essex, N.J Franklin, Ohio. Fulton, Ga Hamilton, Ohio. Harris, Tex Hennepin, Minn. Hudson, N.J.... Jackson, Mo Jefferson, Ala. Jefferson, Ky . . King, Wash Lake, Ind Los Antjeles, Calif. Macomb, Mich Maricopa, .Tnent (October 1974) New Hampshire, total Cities , Townships New Jersey, total Counties Cities . .. Townships , Special districts New Mexico,, total Counties Cities New York, total Counties Cities , Tov/nships North Carolina, total Counties Cities Special districts North Dakota, total Cities Ohio, total Counties Cities . Townshi ps Oklahoma, total Cities Special districts Oregon, total Counties Cities , Special districts Pennsylvania, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Rhode Island, total Cities Townships South Carolina, total Counties Cities Special districts South Dakota, total Cities Special districts Tennessee, total Counties CltieF Special districts Texas, total Counties Cities Special districts See footnotes at end of tab! 16,259 13,622 80,218 94,412 17,568 68,979 154,652 15,756 138,359 28,835 3,316 24,270 1,249 3,175 1,806 35,091 1,036 S7,276 2,172 15,317 11,564 3,753 147,759 1,992 37,124 22,941 85,702 11,763 358 11,405 673,361 202,657 410,638 60,066 68,642 4,316 6,203 204,303 48,644 154,940 23,327 23,067 55,357 8,574 43,322 62,554 19,487 97,812 17,101 5,219 4,007 7,876 2,889 1,262 1,627 206 25,473 11,672 25,837 3,106 172 2,934 113,542 32,583 61,387 19,572 27,514 1,519 25,160 1,877 L,877 7,929 7,887 19,751 3,120 15,840 790 44 595 14 699 41 615 10 254 3 536 738 5 980 1,894 1,865 12,396 10,299 2,097 553,799 169,259 345,438 39,102 33,921 2,778 31,107 97,646 29,955 67,539 219 33,879 5,337 25,910 2,632 73,813 414 16,864 4,470 52,065 2,263 2,170 2,100 316 592 243 243 6,020 1,204 445 1,022 1,692 3,738 956 2,009 •!6 1,839 5,454 1,020 4,338 1,955 413 2,296 1,396 47 1.335 1.250 34 1.143 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BY TYPE 21 Table 10. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, by Type of Government— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) state and type of government Utah, total. Cities.... Special di Vermont, total. Cities .'. Townships . Special districts.. Washington, total Counties Cities Special districts.. West Virginia, total. Cities Special districts,. Counties Cities Tovnships Special district Wyoming, total,... Counties Cities Special district Note: Because Revenue from sewerage 8,807 6,311 2,496 junding, detail 3,143 1,897 1,246 62,652 28, 506 25,743 8,403 59,210 147 37,601 21,461 12,147 11,373 773 Direct expenditi 8,708 4,578 4,131 6,531 3,875 2,657 95,202 36,058 48,151 10,994 78,092 3,120 46,441 28,531 85,197 2,414 41,597 5,020 3,459 1,561 31,786 9,101 19,579 3,106 24,418 674 16,831 6,913 9,005 26,904 1,471 Capital outlay sristruction 3,473 964 2,509 3,402 1,889 25,989 26,967 7,888 50,432 2,443 6,006 4,638 1,368 27,572 1,764 20 2,073 13 963 28 1,069 189 176 13 Employment (October 1974) -Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Type of government entries have been where no data were reported. )t add to totals. These data are estimates subject to sampli Ltted under States in which the type of government does not e 43 2,313 738 1,275 300 1,131 1 at ion; see text. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 11. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, by Type of Government (Dollar amounts in thousands) state and typ (October 1974) United States, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Alabama, total Counties Cities Alaska, total Boroughs Cities Arizona, total Counties Cities Arkansas, total Counties Cities California, total Counties Cities Special districts Colorado, total Counties Cities Connecticut , total Cities Townships Special districts Delaware, total Counties Cities District of Columbia, total Florida, total Cities Georgia, total Counties Cities Hawaii, total Counties Cities Idaho, total Counties Cities Illinois, total Counties Cities Townshi ps Indiana, total Ci'u.tles Cities Iowa, total Counties Cities See footnotes at end of table 526,290 87,023 419,015 15,926 4,326 7,858 4 932 31 4 901 7 288 24 7 264 91 620 30 672 60 489 459 3 153 657 2 496 2 391 1 781 607 12 986 49 181 27 359 7 337 20 023 1,211 622 589 7,226 333 6,893 932 365 190 754 596 727 124 584 20 300 26 984 3 691 23 293 2 881 833 2 048 9,032 332 8,700 170,096 48,690 120,798 11,971 1,384 10,587 31,278 20,893 10,359 92 249 15 281 76 969 50 052 10 215 39 837 9 561 949 106 881 1 007 105 761 113 25 035 2 874 ,680,982 149,676 ,413,584 2,774 795 1,979 26,650 735 25,915 7,816 219 7,597 152,453 43,718 108,311 425 10, 25,707 15,605 10,076 81,406 12,342 69,064 43,426 8,253 35,173 8,695 673 8,022 4,201 1,242 2,960 251,380 41,075 183,143 15,523 11,639 5,166 3,260 252 3,008 17,643 4,972 12,488 5,571 5,288 283 3,454 207 3,247 12,724 844 1 1 , 880 271 48 223 1,438 7,017 969 6,048 5,113 730 4,383 569 57 512 125 4,544 2 2,091 92 1,999 684 676 95,136 4,644 86,222 4,028 242 1,686 1,266 16 1,250 475 20 455 5,850 724 5,095 31 618 46 573 4,188 2,795 417 2,378 466 43 422 4,386 8 4,377 1,323 50 1,272 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BY TYPE 23 Table 11. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, by Type of Government— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) and type of gover Employment (October 1974) Kansas, total Counties Cities Kentucky, total Counties Cities Special districts Louisiana, total Parishes , Cities Counties Cities Townships Maryland, total Counties Cities Special districts Massachusetts, total Counties Cities Townships Michigan, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Minnesota, total Counties Cities Townships Mississippi, total Counties Cities Missouri, total Counties Cities Montana, total Counties Cities Special districts Nebraska, total Counties Cities Nevada, total Counties Cities Special districts New Hampshire, total Cities , Townships Special districts , New Jersey, total , Counties , Cities Townships Special districts , See footnotes at end of table, 7,862 5 7,857 7,807 20 7,770 8,977 464 8,513 14,945 13,348 1,598 13 425 515 9 761 513 2 636 6 923 589 6 334 1,952 4,819 3 4,816 3,619 35 3,298 3,187 1,302 1,032 11,325 508 10,817 18,302 660 17,495 33,489 5,633 27,857 35 377 21 713 88 848 748 72 297 2 054 13 749 12,733 747 11,986 69,872 1,486 48,150 16,709 3,528 16,224 588 15,565 71 29,381 5,035 24,346 42,672 20,124 22,527 17,526 1,150 16,220 11,305 688 10,617 6,958 555 6,402 65,731 1,466 45,078 15,700 3,486 2,078 72 1,930 4,108 598 3,511 14,810 4,354 10,456 14,280 40 3,663 4,141 19 3,071 1,682 6 3,458 196 3,262 189 122 2,404 509 1,895 796 7 2,118 134 1,984 1,017 2 1,015 326 24 290 12 24 ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITY CONTROL Table 11. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, by Type of Government— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousand?; ■> state and type of goverament from sanltati charges Capital outlay Employment (October 1974, New Mexico, total Counties Cities New York, total Co.jnties Cities Tovmships , North Carolina, total Counties Cities Special disti-icts North Dakota, total Counties Cities Ohio, total Coimtles . , Cities Townships Oklahoma, total , Counties Cities Oregon, total Counties Cities Pennsylvania, total. Counties Cities.. Townships Special districts Rhode Island, total CJ ties Townships South Carolina, total Counties Ci ties Special districts South Dakota, total Cities Tennessee, total Counties Special districts Texas, total Counties Cities Special districts Utah, total Counties Cities Vermont, total Cities Townships Virginia, total Counties Cities Soe footnotes ut end of table 8,755 262 8,493 22,061 493 13,384 3,042 561 2,481 3,520 3,520 21,018 4,174 16,490 355 17,643 17,643 1,388 205 1,182 812 11,265 4,259 2,885 1,092 1,784 63,867 202 63,632 3,107 545 2,562 7,050 3,852 3,198 9,833 347,650 7,526 286,696 53,428 52,287 10,073 5,087 1,464 3,623 97,693 4,345 79,776 12,351 1,222 41,482 3,967 37,350 6,003 2,263 3,740 41,593 11,980 29,614 71 845 4 670 24 138 43 037 43 185 5 200 37 974 11 3 131 3 130 74 019 3 573 70 081 4,613 1,247 3,365 88,799 2,705 73,451 12,056 588 89,028 759 88,192 4,795 1,423 3,372 1,605 324 1,282 36,734 10,042 26,692 75,804 2,856 62,557 10,391 9,102 4,873 4,229 5,040 1,383 3,657 3,118 1 3,116 6,325 294 634 4,800 3,021 1,760 256 256 5,520 135 5,376 9 2,207 2,207 275 30 245 5,897 164 2,645 270 2,350 3,787 92 3,695 3,711 639 3,072 21,483 105 19,611 4,333 115 4,210 1,178 250 27 223 5,684 140 5,063 1,983 48 1,934 2,127 463 1,665 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. BY TYPE 25 Table 11. Local Government Revenue ^nd Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974. by Type of Government— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Employment (October 1974) state and type of goveminent' Total Current operation Capital outlay Full-time equivalent Payroll 22,974 2,280 20,693 5,727 5,72 7 i,363 43 1,193 127 2,468 2,468 26,664 " 4,488 22,176 7,517 94 7,422 38,965 391 36,548 2,026 2,624 93 2,532 25,539 3,895 21,643 6,652 56 6,596 36,170 33,854 2,018 2,234 93 2,142 1,125 592 533 865 827 2,795 93 2,694 8 390 390 877 172 705 955 947 2,433 2,354 83 252 8 244 596 528 Wisconsin, total 2,059 46 15'^, Note; Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. These data are estimates subject to sampling variation; - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Type of government entries have been omitted under States in which the type of government does not exist as well where no data were reported. 26 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas (Dollar amounts in thousands) Employment (October 1974) 74 Selected SMSA's, total Birmingham, Ala. SMSA , Jefferson County , St. Clair County Shelby County Walker County Phoenix, Ariz. SMSA: Maricopa County (entire SMSA) , Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. SMSA: Orange County (entire SMSA) Los Angeles-long Beach, Calif. SMSA: los Angeles County (entire SMSA).. , Rlverslde-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. SMSA., Riverside County , San Bernardino County Sacramento, Calif . SMSA Placer County Sacramento County Yolo County San Diego, Calif. SMSA: San Diego County (entire SMSA) San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. SMSA , Alameda County^ Contra Costa County" , Harip County San Francisco County , San Mateo County , San Jose, Calif. SMSA: Santa Clara County (entire SMSA) , Denver-Boulder Colo . SMSA , Adams County , Arapahoe County" Boulder County Denver County" Gi Ipin County Jefferson County Connecticut State Economic Area A (Bridgeport): Fairfield County (entire SEA) Connecticut State Economic Area C (Hartford): Hartford County (entire SEA) Connecticut State Economic Area B (New Haven): New Haven County (entire SEA) Wilmington, Del .-N .J .-Md . SMSA New Castle County, Del Salem County, N.J Cecl 1 County , Md Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA Washington, D.C Charles County, Md Bontgomery County, Md." Prince Georges County , Md ." Arlington County, Va Fairfax County, Va Loudoun County, Va Prince William County, Va Alexandria city, Va Fairfax city, Va Falls Church city, Va Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla . SMSA: Broward County (entire SMSA) See footnotes at end of table. 10,658 6,351 928 6,210 29,515 66,034 20,474 15,856 2,238 18,333 16,288 29,942 4,602 5,100 2,391 14,468 133,541 34,923 1,840 32.035 686 2,052 1,685 12,966 27,277 14,487 3,267 11,220 3,890 413 3,159 19 104 I 540 24 110 25 103 6 949 11 ,935 2,619 1,233 3,357 89 3,216 SELECTED SMSA's 27- Table 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas — Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Employment (October 1974) Jacksonville, Fla. SMSA Baker County Clay County Duval County Nassau County'. St . Johns County Miami, Fla. SMSA: Dade County (entire SMSA) Orlando, Fla. SMSA Orange County Osceola County Sranlnole County Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. SMSA Hillsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County Atlanta, Ga . SMSA Butts County Cherokee County Clayton County Cobb County De Kalb County^ Doug las County Fayette County Forsyth County Fulton County^ Gwinnett County Henry County Newton County Paulding County Rockdale County Walton County Honolulu, Hawaii SMSA: Honolulu County (entire SMSA) Chicago, 111. SMSA Cook County Du Page County Kane County Lake County McHenry County Wi 11 County Gary-Hamraond-East Chicago, Ind . Lake County Porter County Indianapolis, Ind. SMSA Boone County Hami Iton County Hancock County Hendricks County Johnson County Marion County Morgan County Shelby County Ujulsvllle, Ky.-Ind. SMSA Bullitt County, Ky Jefferson County, Ky Oldham County, Ky Clark County, Ind Floyd County, Ind New Orleans, La. SMSA Jefferson Parish Orleans Parish St. Bernard Parish Parish 20,712 7,141 306 1,415 3,612 6,504 33,032 22,065 6,524 15,693 211,177 186,311 9,169 4,595 6,535 2,443 2,123 1,016 11,649 286 288 37,919 17 34,127 7,652 1,340 3,942 42,749 96,057 82,774 3,665 1,988 4,833 5,172 22 570 31,715 29,843 See footnotes end of able. 28 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure tor Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) SMSA and county Employment (October 1974 1 altimore, Md . SMSA. Anne Arundel Count Baltimore County. . Baltimore city Carroll County.... Harford County Howard County Essex County Middlesex County. Norfolk County. . . Suffolk County. .. 4rea A (Springfield). etroit, Mich. SMSA. Lapeer County Livingston County. Flint, Mich. SMSA Genesee County Shiawassee County Grand Rapids, Mich. SMSA.. Kent County Ottawa County Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn Anoka County, Minn.*.,.. Carver County, Minn Chisago County, Minn.... Dakota County, Minn.*... Hennepin County, Minn.*. Ramsey County, Minn.*... Scott County, Minn Washington County, Minn. Wright County, Minn St. Croix County, Wis... Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. SMS Cass County, Mo Clay County, Mo.* Jackson County, Mo,*.... Platte County, Mo Ray County, Mo Johnson County, Kans , . . . Wyandotte County Kans Louis, Mo. -111. SMSA. anklin County, Mo fferson County, Mo... . Charles County, Mo. . Louis County, Mo... . Louis city. Mo inton County, 111.... County, St. Clair County, 111. Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa SMSA.. Douglas County, Nebr.. Sarpy County, Nebr Pottawattamie County, 19,062 2,645 6,969 8,372 6,974 5,370 1,603 53,280 19,091 13,524 15,351 7,393 14,256 6,545 13,879 10,835 3,043 12,234 142,889 20,525 16,498 4,027 3,525 30,810 21,377 15,931 2,793 2,818 8,687 11,624 2,512 4,946 6,473 10,227 1,263 36,647 16,191 10,661 6,121 1,185 2,488 20,929 4,609 8,835 4,091 3,395 11,507 9,106 5,550 21,192 17,239 38,876 14,153 12,242 1,910 2,014 19,857 10,584 6,458 3 4,407 SELECTED SMSAs 29 Table 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Exoenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Employment (Oct Newark, N .J . StISA Essex County Morris County Somerset County Union County New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville, N.J. SMSA Middlesex County (entire SMSA) Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y. SMSA Albany County Montgomery County Rensselaer County Saratoga County Schenectady County Buffalo, N.Y. SMSA ; Erie County Niagara County Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y. SMSA Nassau County Suffolk County New York, N.Y. -N.J. SMSA New York City, N.Y..... Putnam County, N.Y Rockland County, N.Y Westchester County, N.Y Bergen County , N.J , Rochester, N .Y . SMSA Livingston County Monroe County Ontario County Orleans County Wayne County Syracuse, N.Y. SMSA Madison County , Onondaga County Oswego County Charlotte-Gastonia, N.C. SMSA Gaston County Mecklenburg County Union County Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, N.C. SMSA. Davidson County Forsyth County Gui If ord County Randolph County Stokes County Yadkin County Akron, Ohio SMSA Portage County Summi t County Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky .-Ind . SMSA Clermont County, Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio. Warren County, Ohio Boone County , Ky Campbe] 1 County, Ky lienton County, Ky Dearborn County, Ind Cleveland , Ohio SMSA Cuyahoga County Geauga County Lake County Medina Coimty . . . . Columbus, Ohio SMSA. Delaware County Fairfield County Franklin County Madison County . . Pickaway County 3,262 2,581 2,043 5,039 3,591 1,448 1,540 4,130 13,821 465 12,051 1,909 236 1,132 38,288 50,186 33,743 40,110 256 878 3,190 7,305 1,099 1,392 16,216 17,911 12,761 3,797 2,756 13,088 11,130 1,957 9,583 3,370 3,358 40,889 26,669 2,313 3,999 6,03.8 6,031 22,891 23,224 157 19,211 3,856 See fo 3tes at end of table. 30 ENVIROrNlVIENTAL QUALITY CONTROL - Table 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerase Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas — Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) SMSA and county area' from sewerage charges Employment (October 1974) Capital outlay Dayton, Ohio SMSA Greene County Miami County Montgomery County Preble County Toledo, Ohio-Mich. SMSA Fulton County, Ohio Lucas County, Ohio Ottawa County, Ohio.... Wood County , Ohio Monroe County, Mich Voungstown-Warren, Ohio SMSA Mahoning County Trumbull County Oklahoma City, Okla. SMSA Canadian County Cleveland County McClain County Oklahoma County Pottawatomie County Tulsa, Okla. SMSA Creek County Mayes County Osage County Rogers County Tulsa County Wagoner County Portland, Oreg.-Wash. SMSA Clackamas County, Oreg Multnomah County , Oreg . ." Washington County, Oreg Clark County , Wash Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa. -N.J. SMSA. Carbon County , Pa Lehigh County, Pa Northampton County , Pa Warren County, N.J Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Lackawanna County Uizeme County Monroe County Philadelphia, Pa. -N.J. SMSA Bucks County, Pa Chester County, Pa Delaware County , Pa Montgomery County, Pa.. Philadelphia County, Pa Burlington County, N.J Camden County , N.J Gloucester County, N.J Pittsburgh, Pa. SMSA Allegheny County Beaver County Washington County Westmoreland County Rhode Island State Economic Area A (Providence). Bris»' ; County Kent '^unty Providence County Memphis, Tenn.-Ark.-Hlss. SMSA Shelby County , Tenn Tipton County, Tenn Cri ttenden County , Ark DeSoto County, Miss 1,764 30,557 22,384 2,266 2,079 3,828 1,783 31,313 3,048 16,677 3,294 6,316 12,757 23,819 3,975 13,697 35,245 39,548 31,783 3,905 1,435 2,425 12,729 946 7,520 3,842 5,880 619 3,295 1,406 39,133 2 289 2,019 5,066 26,108 21,220 1,721 1,458 230 6,829 2,824 1 3,882 122 17,248 2,035 8,068 7,145 3,803 1,359 2,429 65,944 5,162 1,219 1,135 5,682 11,629 2,094 See footnote end of table. SELECTED SMSA's 31 Table 12. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Capital outlay Employment (October 1974) Nashville-Davidson, Tenn . SMSA Cheatham County Davidson County Dickson County Robertson County Rutherford County Sumner County Williamson County Wilson County Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas SMSA.. Collin County Dallas County Denton County Ellis County Hood County Johnson County Kaufman County Parker County Rockwall County Tarrant County Wise County Houston, Texas SMSA Brazoria County Fort Bend County Harris County '..,.. Li berty County Montgomery County Waller County San Antonio, Texas SMSA Bexar County Comal County Guadalupe County Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah SMSA Davis County Salt Lake County Tooele County Weber County Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Portsmouth, Va.-N.C. SMSA Chesapeake city, Va Norfolk city, Va Portsmouth city, Va Virginia Beach city, Va Currituck County, N.C Richmond, Va. SMSA Charles City County Chesterfield County Goochland County Hanover County Henrico County Powhatan County Richmond city Seattle-Everett, Wash. SMSA King County Snohomish County Milwaukee, Wis. SMSA Mi Iwaukee County Ozaukee County Washington County Waukesha County 6,117 1,926 2,965 11,974 1,629 47 2,920 7,377 41,075 37,870 3,204 37,131 1,852 25,048 5,782 2,424 2,011 12,955 705 5,926 18,712 2,585 27 2,473 13,626 44,948 41,598 3,349 12,715 430 7,986 50 22,270 15,592 103 1,063 1,569 30,988 523 14,359 851 8,855 13,623 2,140 1,268 10,214 29,038 27,941 1,096 Note: Because of rounding, detail may not add - Represents zero or rounds to zero. Z Payroll less than $500. 'See Appendix A for population and number ^Includes prorated lis . These data stlmates subject to sampling 3f local government 32 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Tabie 13. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, In Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas (Dollar amounts in thousands) (October 1974) 74 Selected SMSA's, total Blmingham, Ala . SMSA Jefferson County St . Clair County Shelby County H'alker County Phoenix, Ariz. SMSA: Maricopa Couiity (entire SMSA) Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. SMSA: Orange County (entire SMSA) Los Angeles-tong Beach, Calif. SMSA: U>s Angeles Coimty (entire SMSA) Rlirerside-San BernardiEO-Ontarlo, Calif. SMSA. Riverside 'Jounty Sen Bernardino County Sacramento, Calif. SMSA .' Placer Coiwty Sacranieiito County Yolo County Sar Diogo, Calif. SMSA; San Diego County (entire SMSA) San Fianclsco-Oakland, Calif. SMSA AlaQeda Coimty Contra Cos ta County Mai in County San Francisco County San Mateo County San Jose, Calif. SMSA: .Santa Clara County (entire SMSA) Oenver-Boulder Colo . SMSA ' Adejns County Arapahoe Coimty' Boulder County Gi Ipln County Jefferson County It© Economic Area A (Bridgeport) Did County (entire SEA) cut State Economic Area C (Hartford): Hartford County (entire SEA) Co mecticut State Kconomic Area h (New Haven): New Haven County (eiitire SEA) Wiijctngron, Del.-N.J.-Md. SMSA New Castle County, Del Salem County, N.J Cecil County, Md Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA Washington, D.C Charles Couj.ty , Md Montgomery County, Md prince Georges Coimty, Md /Tiington County, Va Fairfax County, Va Loudoun Couiity, Va * Prince William County, Vn Alnxandrla city, Va Fairfax city, Va i'alls Church city, Va Fort Lnuderdale-Hollywood, Fla. SMSA: Broward County (entire SMSA) Sctj lootnotcf at end of table. 6,110 8,339 331 326 320 6,696 6,093 5,492 295 172,716 1,274 SELECTED SMSA's '33 Table 13. Local Government Revenue and Direct Excenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Jloyment (October 1974) Jacksonville, Fla . SMSA Baker County Clay County , Duval County Nassau County St . Johns County Miami, Fla. SMSA: Dade County (entire SMSA) Orlando, Fla . SMSA Orange County ...,'' Osceola County Seminole County Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. SMSA. Hillsborough County Pasco County , . Pinellas County Atlanta, Ga. SMSA Butts County Cherokee County Clayton County . , Cobb County De Kalb County^ Douglas County Fayette County Forsyth County Fulton County^ Gwinnett County Henry County Newton County Paulding County Rockdale County Walton County Honolulu, Hawaii SMSA: Honolulu County (entire SMSA). Chicago, 111. SMSA Cook County Du Page County Kane County Lake County McHenry County Will County Gary-Hanniond-East Chicago, Ind. Lake County Porter County Indianapolis, Ind. SMSA Boone County Hamilton County Hancock County Hendricks County Johnson County Marion County Morgan County Shelby County Louisville, Ky.-Ind. SMSA Bullitt County, Ky Jefferson County. Ky Oldham County, Ky Clark County, Ind Floyd County, Ind New Orleans, La. SMSA Jefferson Parish Orleans Parish St . Bernard Parish St , Tammany Parish 5,274 4,959 315 See fc at end of able. 34 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 13. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Baltimore, Md . SMSA Anne Arundel County Baltimore County Baltimore city Carroll County Harford County Howard County Massachusetts State Economic Area C (Boston) Essex County Middlesex County Norfolk County Suffolk County Massachusetts State Economic Area A (Springfield) Hampden County Hampshire County Massachusetts State Economic Area B (Worcester): Worcester County (entire SEA) Detroit , Mich . SMSA lapeer County Livingston County Macomb County Oakland County St . Clair County Wayne County Flint, Mich. SMSA Genesee County Shiawassee County Grand Rapids, Mich. SMSA Kent County Ottawa County Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. -Wis. SMSA Anoka County , Minn Carver County, Minn Chisago County, Minn Dakota County, Minn Hennepin County , Minn Ramsey County, Minn Scott County, Minn Washington County, Minn Wright County, Minn St. Croix County, Wis Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. SMSA Cass County, Mo Clay County, Mo .* Jackson County, Mo.' Platte County , Mo Ray County, Mo Johnson County, Kans Wyandotte, Kans St. Louis, Mo. -111. SMSA Franklin County, Mo Jefferson County, Mo St. Charles County, Mo St. Louis County, Mo St. Louis city, Mo Clinton County, 111 Madison County, 111 Monroe County, 111 St. Clair County, 111 Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa SMSA Douglas County, Nebr Sarpy County , Nebr Pottawattamie County, Iowa Jersey City, N.J. SMSA: Hudson County (entire SMSA) Direct expenditure 38,657 3,322 6,887 26,160 40,564 5,633 15,313 7,180 12,437 ,416 886 38,515 5,488 13,990 6,611 12,424 4,208 3,700 507 2,049 144 1,322 Employment (October 197 .1 ) See footnote end of able. SELECTED SMSA's 35 Table 13. Local uovernment Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Cent in uea (Dollar amounts in thousands) SMSA and county Employment (Oct Newark, N.J. SMSA Essex County Morris County Somerset County Union County New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville, N.J Middlesex County (entire SMSA) Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y. SMSA Albany County Montgomery County Rensselaer County Saratoga County Schenectady County Buffalo, N.Y. SMSA Erie County Niagara County Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y. SMSA Nassau County Suffolk County New York, N.Y. -N.J. SMSA New York City, N.Y Putnam County, N.Y.... Rockland County, N.Y Westchester County, N.Y Bergen County, N.J Rochester, N.Y. SMSA Livingston County Monroe County Ontario County Orleans County Wajme County Syracuse, N.Y. SMSA Madison County Onondaga County Oswego County Charlotte-Gastonla, H.C. SMSA Gaston County Mecklenburg County Union County Greensboro-Winston-Salem-Hlgh Point, N.C. Davidson County Forsyth County Gul If ord County Randolph County Stokes County Yadkin County Akron, Ohio SMSA Portage County Summit County Cincinnati, Ohlo-Ky .-Ind. SMSA Clermont County, Ohio Hamilton County, Ohio Warren County, Ohio Boone County, Ky Campbell County, Ky Kenton County, Ky Dearborn County , Ind ' Cleveland, Ohio SMSA Cuyahoga County Geauga County Lake County Medina County Columbus, Ohio SMSA Delaware County Fairfield County Franklin County Madison County Pickaway County 448 394 1,328 15,034 14,290 12,221 11,729 2,813 2,560 46,344 36,646 35,438 27,226 10,906 9,420 258,933 198,244 226,500 168,797 337 319 3,176 2,551 17,653 16,680 3,701 11,485 2,120 1,640 480 See footnotes at of table. 36 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 13. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974, in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Direct expe Employment (October 1974) Dayton, Ohio SMSA Greene County Miami County Montgomery County Preble County Toledo, Ohio-Mich . SMSA Fulton County , Ohio Lucas County, Ohio Ottawa County, Ohio Wood County, Ohio . . . ^ Monroe County , Mich Youngstown-Warren, Ohio SMSA Mahoning County Trumbull County Oklahoma City, Okla. SMSA Canadian County Cleveland County McClain County Oklahoma County Pottawatomie County Tulsa, Okla . SMSA Creek County Mayes County Osage County Rogers County Tulsa County Wagoner County Portland, Oreg.-Wash. SMSA Clackamas County, Oreg Multnomah County, Oreg Washington County, Oreg Clark County , Wash Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa. -N.J. SMSA Carbon County, Pa Lehigh County , Pa Northampton County , Pa Warren County, N.J Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Lackawanna County Luzerne County Monroe County Philadelphia, Pa. -N.J. SMSA Bucks County , Pa Chester County, Pa Delaware County, Pa Montgomery County, Pa Philadelphia County, Pa Burlington County, N.J Camden County, N.J Gloucester County, N.J Pittsburgh, Pa. SMSA Allegheny Coiuity Beaver County Washington County Westmoreland County lihode Island State Economic Area A (Providence). Bristol County Kent County ' Providence County Memphis, Tenn. -Ark. -Miss. SMSA Shelby County, Tenn Tipton County, Tenn Crittenden (iiunty. Ark DcSoto County, Miss Seo footnotes at end of table. 7,054 354 1,032 883 1 ,196 7,675 862 645 5,941 226 8,426 ' SELECTED SMSA's 37 Table 13. Local Government Revenue and Direct Expenditure for Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1973-74, and Employment and Payrolls: October 1974. in Selected SMSA's and Their County Areas— Continued (Dollar amounts in thousands) Employment (October 1974) Nashville-Davidson, Tenn . SMSA Cheatham County Davidson County Dickson County Robertson County Rutherford County Sumner County Wi lliamson County Wilson County Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas SMSA Collin County Dallas County Denton County Ellis County Hood County . . . Johnson County Kaufman County Parker County Rockwall County Tarrant County Wise County Houston, Texas SMSA Brazoria County Fort Bend County Harris County Li berty County , Montgomery County Waller County San Antonio, Texas SMSA Bexar County Comal County Guadalupe County Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah SMSA Davis County Salt Lake County Tooele County Weber Coun ty Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Portsmouth, Va.-N.C. Chesapeake city, Va Norfolk city, Va Portsmouth city, Va Virginia Beach city, Va Currituck County, N.C Richmond, Va . SMSA Charles City County Cnesterf ield County Goochland County Hanover County Henrico County Powhatan County Richmond city Seattle-Everett, Wash. SMSA King County Snohomish County Milwaukee, Wis. SMSA Ml Iwaukee County Ozaukee County Washington County Waukesha County . ■ Note: Because of rounding, detail may not add to i - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 2 Payroll less than $500. *^See Appendix A for population and number of local governments 'includes prorated amounts for certain intercounty area units; ,186 7,269 ,862 6,888 210 179 113 201 ,650 4,568 455 477 8,000 1,046 2,755 1,758 24,668 395 17,861 659 These data APPENDIX A Population and Number of Local Governments in the 74 Selected SMSA's Popula- tion^ Local govern- ments^ Popula- tion^ Local govern- ments^ Total Birmingham^ Ala Phoenix, Ariz Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif Riverside-San Bernardino- Ontario, Calif Sacramento, Calif San Diego, Calif San Francisco-Oakland, Calif San Jose, Calif Denver- Boulder, Colo...... Bridgeport, Conn . ^ Hartford, Conn . * New Haven, Conn . ^ Wilmington, Del .-N.J .-Md. . Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. . . Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla \... Jacksonville, Fla Mi ami , Fla Orlando, Fla Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. Atlanta, Ga Honolulu, Hawaii Chicago, 111 Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind Indianapolis, Ind Louisville, Ky.-Ind New Orleans , La Baltimore, Md , Boston, Mass.® Springfield-Chicopee- Holyoke, Mass.'' Worcester, Mass.®...., Detroit, Mich , Flint, Mich , Grand Rapids, Mich..., Minneapolis-St . Paul, Minn. -Wis Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. 113,468,960 787,292 1,126,620 1,596,920 6,923,813 1,196,691 864,374 1.469.822 3,143,300 1,156,734 1,365,243 792,555 822,164 756,734 515,894 3,019,513 756,139 660,630 1,369,917 549,498 1,275,673 1,747,987 685,717 7,002,458 640,774 1,136,598 885,826 1,082,600 2,128,161 3,392,612 596,021 649,397 4,445,758 516,915 552,918 1,999,753 1,298,849 14,482 109 112 111 232 233 210 151 302 75 277 61 67 69 77 96 46 43 33 52 55 163 129 296 202 42 29 231 76 124 352 91 93 396 292 St. Louis, Mo. -Ill Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa Jersey City, N.J Newark, N.J... New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville, N.J.. Al bany- Schenec t ady-Troy , N.Y Buffalo, N.Y . . Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y New York, N.Y. -N.J Rochester, N.Y Syracuse, N.Y Charlotte-Gastonia, N.C.. Greensboro- Wins ton- Sal em- High Point, N.C Akron, Ohio Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky .-Ind. Cleveland, Ohio . . Columbus, Ohio . Dayton, Ohio Toledo, Ohio-Mich Youngstown-Warren, Ohio.. Oklahoma City, Okla Tulsa, Okla Portland, Oreg.-Wash Allentown-Bethlehem- Easton, Pa.-N.J.. Northeast Pennsylvania... Philadelphia, Pa Pittsburgh, Pa Providence-Warwick- Pawtucket, R.I.^ Memphis, Tenn.-Ark.-Miss . Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex Houston, Tex San Antonio, Tex Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah Norfolk-Virginia Beach- Portsmouth, Va.-N.C Richmond, Va Seattle-Everett, Wash Milwaukee, Wis 2,391,384 575,436 598,164 915,431 594,372 800,229 1,344,757 2,630,044 9,739,066 971,522 642,715 588,202 756,607 677,133 1,382,984 2,006,371 1,057,267 848,371 782,479 543,366 750,076 572,324 1,062,451 610,762 629,405 4,805,746 2,364,637 776,184 863,431 732,015 2,464,090 2,168,474 960,109 753,289 697,673 563,357 1,383,069 1.416.773 ^Estimated for July 1, 1973. ^Based on the 1972 Census of Governments. ^Connect- icut State Economic Area A. ^Connecticut State Economic Area C. ^Connecticut State Economic Area B. ^Massachusetts State Economic Area C. 'Massachusetts State Economic Area A. ^Massachusetts State Economic Area B. ^Rhode Island State Economic Area A. 39 APPENDIX B ADJUSTMENTS FOR INTERCOUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS As indicated by the introductory text, the following intercounty governmental units are prorated in tables 12 or 13 to the county areas involved. In each instance, the primary county area is indicated by an asterisk (*). Governmental units East Bay Municipal Utility District Metropolitan Denver Sewerage Disposal District 1 Aurora City Atlanta City Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Metropolitan Sewer Board Kansas City Table County areas 12 12 12,13 12,13 12 12 12,13 *Alanieda and Contra Costa Counties, California *Denver and Adams Counties, Colorado *Arapahoe and Adams Counties, Colorado *Fulton and De Kalb Counties, Georgia *Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, Maryland *Ramsey, Hennepin, Anoka, and Dakota Counties, Minnesota ^Jackson and Clay Counties, Missouri Census Data for Community Action shows how data from the 1970 census on such subjects as age, family size, education, and income are useful in locating problem areas, developing solutions, and pro- moting improvement programs. With emphasis on census tract and city block statistics. Census Data for Community Action introduces the reader to simple methods of applying census data to his own local community. At the community level for ex- ample, census data can be used in planning adult education programs, day -care centers, improving voter registration, and in estimating the impact of expressway construction through populated areas. 23 pp. at 50 cents Now available from the Subscriber Services Section (Publications), Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233. Census Data for Community Action, Issued by the Bureau of the Census, Instructs and Assists Concerned Citizens in Using Census Data for Analyzing Neigh borhood Problenns and Planning Action Progranns. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (please detach along this dotted line) ORDER FORM Please send me copies of MAIL ORDER FORM WITH PAYMENT TO Subscriber Services Section (Publications) Bureau of the Census Washington, D.C. 20233 MAKE CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS ? Nam. TOTAL AMOUNT $ Payment enclosed OR Charge to: (Mark one) Superintendent of n Check Documents Deposit D Money order Account Number O GPO coupons 1 -a . - City, State, and ZIP Code is U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976— 210-802/1096 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS Washington, D.C. 20402 / OFFICIAL BUSINESS SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ^-jOV.VJT/0^