vr MAF c^ ,<°: c VX! r/scoWV State and Local Government Special Studies No. 86 environmental quality control Governmental Finances: Fiscal Year 1975-76 U.S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS State and Local Government Special Studies No. 86 environmental quality control Governmental Finances: Fiscal Year 1975-76 Issued March 1978 Li u .'• ° 1 ^ i" * U.S. Department of Commerce Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary i.u- \ t X BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Manuel D. Plotkin, Director BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Manuel D. Plotkin, Director Robert L. Hagan, Deputy Director Shirley Kallek, Associate Director for Economic Fields GOVERNMENTS DIVISION Sherman Landau, Chief ACKNOWLEDGMENTS— 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 Statistics. John Curry directed the project and was assisted by Betty Stark and John R. Kennedy. Data were assembled by the Eastern Sector Branch headed by Howard S. Sales and the Western Sector Branch headed by Ulvey S. Harris under the direction of Kenneth E. Anderson, Assistant Division Chief for Survey Operations. Computer operations were directed by Jewel S. Dennis of the Governments Division's Computer Utilization staff and carried out by the Computer Services Division. Corrine W. Davis of the Governments Division and the staff of the Publications Services Division provided advice and services in the preparation of copy for publication. Grateful acknowledgment is made of the assistance of numerous government officials who helpfully supplied information regarding the activities of their agencies. For information regarding data contained in this report, contact William C. Fanning, 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: Fiscal Year 1975-76, GSS No. 86 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 20402, or any Department of Commerce district office. Stock No. 003-024-01552-8 CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Federal Government 2 State Governments 2 Local Governments 4 Special Presentation of Large Government Selected Environmental Quality Control Revenue and Debt (Appendix C) 6 Survey Methodology, Sources and Limitations of Data 6 Definitions of Terms 8 Text Tables Table A. Governmental Expenditure for Selected Environmental Quality Control Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76 1 B. State Government Expenditure for Water, Land and Air Quality Control Activities: Fiscal Years 1974 to 1976 3 C. Local Government Expenditure for Water, Land and Air Quality Control Activities: Fiscal Years 1973-74 to 1975-76 4 D. Selected Large Local Government Expenditure for Water Purification: Fiscal Year 1975-76 5 E. Relative Standard Errors for Local Government Fiscal Year 1 974-75 Estimates of Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Current Operation Expenditure, as a Percent of Estimated Totals 7 Detailed Tables Table 1. Federal Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976 and Transition Quarter July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976 11 2. State Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1976 12 3. State Government Water and Land Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1976 13 4. State Government Air and Other Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1976 14 5. Selected Large City Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 15 6. Selected Large City Government Water and Land Quality Control Expenditure and Revenue From Current Charges: Fiscal Year 1975-76 , 16 7. Selected Large City Government Air and Other Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 17 8. Selected Large County Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 18 9. Selected Large County Government Water and Land Quality Control Expenditure and Revenue From Current Charges: Fiscal Year 1975-76 19 10. Selected Large County Government Air and Other Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 ....... 20 1 1. Local Government Revenue From Current Chiirges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76 21 1 2. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76 25 Appendix A 31 Appendix B 33 Appendix C 35 Appendix D 37 Appendix E 39 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/environmentalquOOunit INTRODUCTION During fiscal year 1975-76, Federal, State, and local govern- ments spent approximately $10.2 billion on selected environ- mental quality control activities, an increase of 14.4 percent over the prior fiscal year. As shown in table A, water quality control accounted for $7.0 billion, land quality control $2.5 billion, air quality control $376.1 million, and other environmental quality control $280.6 million. 1 between the various types of local governments. These transfers are typically made as reimbursements for the performance of particular services. For the 48 large cities and 58 large counties shown individually in this report, transfers to other local governments amounted to 3.0 and 7.7 percent of their respective environmental quality control expenditures during fiscal 1975-76. Table A. Governmental Expenditure for Selected Environmental Quality Control Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Item All selected environmental quality control activities Water quality control Land quality control Air quality control Other environ- mental quality control Percent increase from 1974-75 1 Total 2 Federal State Local, total 2 . o ... . 48 largest cities Other cities 3 .... 58 largest counties . „ Other counties 3 ...... Townships 3 Special districts 3 ... 3,707,486 1,250,027 8,601,267 2,404,158 3,410,559 669,793 606,488 492,226 6,967,396 3,138,714 938,690 6,185.088 1 2.341.206 ,506,002 548,036 436,969 338,662 1.242.751 2,531,595 98,403 107,668 2,350,622 856,267 1,069,353 97,336 169,519 153,564 18.707 376,097 242,149 157,066 39,189 17,425 (NA) 22,517 (NA) (NA) (NA) 280,565 228,220 46,603 26,368 24,464 (NA) 1,904 (NA) (NA) (NA) 14.4 28.1 27.0 12 .1 7.8 9.9 23.7 15.9 23.8 22 .5 NA Not available. Represents percent increase in expenditure for all selected environmental quality control activities. ^Intergovernmental expenditures have been eliminated from the totals. 3 Data for water quality control represent only sewerage and for land quality control "sanitation other than sewerage" activities. The statistics in this report represent the cost to govern- ments—Federal, State, and local-to control, prevent, and abate pollution. In general, the data reflect the traditional roles of the three levels of government in environmental quality control. For local governments, expenditures relate primarily to direct services— sewage collection and treatment, rubbish and garbage collection and disposal, and public road and street cleaning. Sewerage construction alone accounted for 45 percent of local government environmental quality control expenditure. On the other hand, the Federal and State governments are primarily involved in environmental quality planning, regulation and enforcement, research and development, and technical and financial assistance. Of the total Federal expenditure of $3.7 billion, 75 percent represented payments to other governments. State expenditures amounted to $1.3 billion, of which 52 percent went to local governments as fiscal aid. In addition to the generally downward flow of financial assistance from one level of government to another, lateral transfers of funds also occur 1 Detailed data for the environmental quality control categories described on page 8 pertain only to the Federal and State governments, the 48 cities with at least 300,000 population and 58 counties with at least 500,000 population in 1970. Data for other local governments represent only sewerage (sanitary and storm sewers and sewage treatment) and "sanitation other than sewerage" (refuse collection and disposal and street cleaning). In interpreting the expenditure data presented in this report the reader must keep in mind the effect these intergovernmental transfers have on various totals. For example, Federal Govern- ment total expenditure necessarily includes the amounts trans- ferred to State and local governments. However, in developing a single expenditure total for all governments these transfers must be netted out to avoid duplicative counting of the same dollars by those governments, State or local, which finally receive and directly spend the money. In effect then, when aggregating different levels of government, only direct expenditures are summed because they reflect final spending from intergovern- mental receipts. The amounts involved are shown (in thousands of dollars) in the table below. Readers should also be aware when making comparisons between governments that responsibilities for environmental quality control services vary not only from State to State but also from government to government within the same State. For example, data for one city may indicate a relatively small expenditure for water quality control because that activity is a function of a county or special district government, or even a State agency. In some cases, State governments have been delegated the authority for implementing the administrative INTRODUCTION requirements of Federal pollution laws, such as the operation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which in another State remains the responsibility of the Federal Government. Item Total expenditure Direct expenditure Intergov- ernmental expenditure Thous ands of dollars Total. . . 1 10, 155, 653 10,155,653 ( x ) 3,707,486 948,455 2,759,031 1,250,027 1 8, 601, 267 605,931 8,601,267 644 096 Local, total.. (*) 48 largest cities ..... 2,404,158 2,332,706 71,452 Other cities 3,410,559 3,369,924 40,635 58 largest counties . . . 669,793 618,123 51,670 Other counties . . . 606,488 601,257 5,231 Townships . . . 492,226 477,661 14,565 Special districts . . 1,261,458 1,201,596 59,862 *Net of duplicative intergovernmental transfers. Overview of Data Presentation Table 1 in this report shows Federal environmental quality control expenditure for fiscal years 1975 and 1976 and, because of the change in the Federal fiscal year, includes a presentation of expenditure made during the transition quarter (July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976). State government environmental expen- ditures are presented in tables 2, 3, and 4 while tables 5 to 10 contain data for the 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties. Estimates of local government direct expenditure for sewerage and "sanitation other than sewerage" are summarized by State and type of government in table 1 1 and by county area in 74 large SMSA's in table 12. The appendices provide further information, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants, by State, for constructing sewage treatment facilities (appendix B); a special presentation of selected environmental quality control revenue and debt of the States and largest cities and counties (appendix C); a summary of local government sewerage and other sanitation employment (appendix D); and a summary table from the Census Bureau report, Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures: 1976 (appendix E). 2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Table 1 ) The Federal Government expended approximately $3.7 billion for selected environmental quality control activities in fiscal year 1976. Federal expenditures have climbed steadily over the last several years, mostly as a result of expansion in the Environ- mental Protection Agency's sewerage construction grant pro- gram. In comparing Federal data for fiscal 1976 with prior year 2 Other Census Bureau reports providing statistics related to sewerage and "sanitation other than sewerage" activities include Public Employment in 1976, City Employment in 1976, Local Government Employment in Selected Metropolitan Areas and Large Counties: 1976, Governmental Finances in 1975-76, City Government Finances in 1975-76, Local Government Finances in Selected Metropolitan Areas and Large Counties: 1975-76, and County Government Finances in 1975-76. data, the reader should bear in mind that data for 1976 were supplemented by a special compilation from source documents used by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for its special analysis of Federal environmental programs. In some instances, these reports provided data that were not available in the past. Data for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are shown separately in table 1 because of its role as the major Federal agency involved in pollution control. EPA's responsibili- ties include promulgating and enforcing standards, regulations and guidelines; providing technical and financial assistance to State and local governments; developing environmental plans; conducting research and development; monitoring and surveil- lance of pollution conditions; and disseminating information. EPA's activities, which are frequently cooperative efforts with State and local governments, are directed toward air and water pollution control, water supply protection, solid and toxic waste management, noise abatement, and pesticides regulation. A significant portion of its activities are carried out through grants, contracts and agreements with State and local governments, universities, private industry and commercial firms, non-profit organizations and other Federal agencies. In fiscal 1976, EPA grants for wastewater treatment facilities totaled $2.4 billion, accounting for 80 percent of EPA's outlays and 66 percent of Federal total expenditure. Other Federal agencies involved in providing financial assist- ance to local government sewerage construction projects include the Farmers Home Administration in the Department of Agricul- ture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce, and the Appalachian Regional Commission. Their grants totaled $164.2 million in fiscal 1976. The pollution abatement activities of other Federal agencies generally reflect their primary functions. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials into navigable waters; the U.S. Coast Guard is respon- sible for preventing and cleaning-up oil spills; and the Depart- ment of Commerce, through its National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration, operates an air pollution weather advisory service. Many Federal agencies conduct research into the sources, effects and prevention of pollution, including development of abatement processes and technology. The Energy Research and Development Administration, for instance, is examining the environmental effects of present and future energy development; the Agricultural Research Service in the Department of Agricul- ture and Bureau of Mines in the Department of the Interior are developing methods to abate pollution from agricultural and metallurgical processes and wastes; and both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration (Department of Transportation) are seeking ways to reduce aircraft noise and pollutant emissions. STATE GOVERNMENTS (Tables 2-4) The expenditures of the 50 State governments for environ- mental quality control totaled better than a billion dollars in fiscal 1976. Their expenditure of $1.3 billion marked a 27.0 percent increase over 1975. Over half (53 percent) of State expenditure was accounted for by five States-New York, Ohio, California, Illinois, and Maryland. A breakdown by character and object of State government expenditure for water, land and air quality control during the last three fiscal years (1974, 1975, and INTRODUCTION 1976) is presented in table B. The State of Ohio, because of the direct involvement of two State agencies-the Ohio Water Development Authority and Ohio Air Quality Development Authority-in constructing environmental facilities, accounted for more than three-fourths of total State government capital expenditure. These and other unique types of State agencies are described further on page 4 . Seventy-five percent of State government environmental ex- penditure in 1976 was directed toward water quality control activities. As shown in figure 1 , payments to local governments, mostly grants for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities, comprised almost two-thirds of State water quality spending. In some cases. States have utilized other funding methods to assist local governments. For instance, eight States extended a total of $1 17 million in loans to local governments in fiscal 1976 while the State government of Oregon, in addition to awarding grants and issuing loans, operates a program to purchase bonds issued by local governments to finance their sewerage construction projects. These financing programs (loans and purchase of securities) are not regarded as "expenditures" under the Census Bureau's classification scheme and are therefore not reflected in the expenditure figures presented for these States. The removal of litter from highways accounted for over 67 percent of State government direct expenditure for land quality control in fiscal year 1976. During this same period, States increased their financial assistance to local governments for land quality control activities by one-third. The $20.9 million recorded as intergovernmental expenditure supported such activi- ties as the disposal and recycling of abandoned vehicles; control of litter (in addition to grants made for highway litter removal); and planning, design and construction of solid waste facilities. State air quality control expenditures increased 64.6 percent, rising to $157.1 million in 1976. Much of this increase was due to the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority's involvement in constructing air pollution control facilities. State payments to local governments for air quality activities amounted to $9.5 million, most of which was accounted for by three States- California, Ohio, and Washington. In addition to expenditure for air quality control, table 4 shows State government expenditure for other environmental quality control activities, a category which includes multifunctional activities such as environmental planning, analysis and administration; environmental labora- tories; regional offices of State pollution agencies; and specific pollution abatement activities such as noise control. In general, the State government expenditures in tables 2,3, and 4 cover such activities as developing comprehensive environ- mental management plans; issuing permits (including those for Table B. State Government Expenditure for Water, Land and Air Quality Control Activities: Fiscal Years 1974 to 1976 ( Thousands of dolla rs ) Water quality control Land Quality control Air quality control Item 1974 1975 1976 1974 1975 1976 1974 1975 1976 Total 636,046 116,692 94,997 424,357 751,270 158,349 157,386 435,535 938,690 172,875 153,101 612,714 81,152 60,861 4,742 15,549 104,740 70,288 18,764 15,688 107,668 78,686 8 , 034 20,948 71,638 59,012 5,399 7,227 95,437 72,764 13,585 9,088 157 066 82,758 64,759 9,549 Figure 1. State Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: , x ' Fiscal Year 1976 §> / (Millions of dollars) / if Total. $1,250.0 o / *" / ro 1 3 1 Intergovernmental \\ Expenditure \ \ $612.7 \ aJ 1 5 \ Direct Expenditure $326.0 V -— — ^__$46.6 I \ Air quality jf \ control / \ $157.1 / $107.7 \ y — Other environ- mental quality control -X*^ Land qua j "** 1 *^ control ity INTRODUCTION constructing and improving sewage and solid waste disposal facilities); promulgating and enforcing standards and regulations; providing financial and technical assistance to local government pollution programs; monitoring pollution conditions; inspecting and investigating pollution sources and abatement facilities; training and certifying operators of environmental systems; and administering Federal and State wastewater treatment construc- tion grant programs. However, some State agencies do provide services generally considered to be local government responsi- bilities. For example, the Metropolitan District Commission in Massachusetts and the Blackstone Valley Sewer District in Rhode Island spent SI 3.0 million and SI. 7 million, respectively, in fiscal year 1976 for constructing, maintaining and operating sewage collection and treatment facilities. The New York State Environ- mental Facilities Corporation, the Maryland Environmental Service and the Ohio Water Development Authority are actively involved in the planning, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of sewage collection and treatment facilities and solid waste recovery and disposal systems. In many cases these services are performed with the assistance or support of local governments and other State agencies. A recent development has been the establishment of special State agencies, or authorities, such as the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority, and the Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority, that are directly involved in promoting and developing environmentally sound solid waste disposal facilities, primarily through application of recycling and resource recovery processes. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Tables 5-12) Local government expenditure for water quality control increased 12.9 percent to $6.2 billion in fiscal 1975-76, reflecting a 10.6 percent increase in local expenditure for sewerage construction. Land quality control expenditure of these same governments was over $2.4 billion, an increase of 9.9 percent. The 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties featured in this report also spent $39.2 million for air quality control and $26.4 million for other environmental quality control activities. Local government water, land, and air quality control expenditures for fiscal years 1973-74 to 1975-76 are presented, by type of government, in table C. The reader should keep in mind that the data presented in this report for the large cities and counties (tables 5-10) are the product of a detailed compilation covering those regulatory, operational, administrative and other activities described for each environmental function on page 8- Data for all other local governments are limited to only sewerage (sanitary and storm sewers and sewage treatment) and "sanitation other than sewerage" (refuse collection and disposal, and street cleaning) services. These activities, however, undoubtedly account for the major portion of water and land quality control expenditure of local governments. Indicative of their significance is that during fiscal year 1975-76, expenditure for sewerage activities com- prised over 90 percent of the water quality control expenditure of both the 48 largest cities (90.2 percent) and the 58 largest counties (93.9 percent). Similarly, expenditure for sanitation other than sewerage activities accounted for 99.0 percent of large city spending and 97.5 percent of large county spending for land . quality control. Most of the capital outlay for water quality control shown in tables 6, 9, 11 and 12 represent local government improvements and additions to sewage collection and treatment systems. In fiscal year 1975-76, 64.3 percent of local government direct expenditure for sewerage activities was for construction (see table 11). Figure 2 shows that expenditure for sewerage construction has increased 66.3 percent during the last 10 years. Another major activity in local government water quality control is purification of drinking water. As shown in table D, the 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties (the only governments for which these data are collected) spent over $156.9 million in fiscal year 1975-76 for water purification, one-third of which was for improvements or additions to treatment facilities. Table C. Local Government Expenditure for Water, Land and Air Quality Control Activities: Fiscal Years 1973-74 to 1975-76 (Thousands of dollars) Water quality control Land quality control Air qu ality control Item 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 Total 1 ... 4,212,258 5,476,923 6,185,088 1,936,290 2,138,129 2,350,622 37,771 40,753 39,189 48 largest Other cities 2, . . 1,065,455 1,610,187 1,396,012 2,123,986 1,506,002 2,341,206 716,161 891,804 798,510 978,189 856,267 1,069,353 18,730 (NA) 18,832 (NA) 17,425 (NA) 58 largest counties ...... Other counties 2. 318,159 302,295 439,526 379,953 548,036 436,969 85,343 107,345 77,912 143,436 97,336 169,519 19,487 (NA) 22,265 (NA) 22,517 (NA) Special districts 2 .... 225,421 801,309 263,009 1,011,858 338,662 1,242,751 125,380 20,602 134,638 18,263 153,564 18,707 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) NA Not available. 1 Intergovernmental expenditures have been eliminated from the totals. 2 Data for water quality control represents sewerage and for land quality control "sanitation other than sewerage" activities. INTRODUCTION Figure 2. ^^ Local Government Sewerage Expenditure: ^r Fiscal Years 1966-67 to 1975-76 . yr - ^__ Total : 'jf ■ — . — Construction X — — — Current Operation ^r " ^^^ .-•"' ^^^ s _ yS* / y/S y* — .— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Millions of dollars 7,000 — 6,000 — 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 66-67 67-68 68-69 69-70 70-71 71-72 72-73 73-74 74-75 75-76 Table D. Selected Large Local Government Expenditure for Water Purification: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Thousands of dolla rs ) I tern Total Current operation Capital outlay Construction Other 156,858 133,644 23,214 101,552 93,881 7,671 52,253 36,981 15,272 3 053 2 782 271 Local government expenditure for land quality control, also shown in tables 6, 9, 11 and 12, represents primarily the collection and disposal of refuse and street cleaning. In contrast to water quality control, most expenditures for this activity are for operational costs rather than capital outlay. This point is emphasized in table 11, which shows that current operations accounted for 90 percent of total local government direct expenditure for sanitation other than sewerage in fiscal year 1975-76. Data for the large local governments also include any environmental health programs that provide solid waste manage- ment services such as inspection and regulation of landfills, licensing of garbage trucks, prevention of littering and illegal dumping, solid waste management planning, investigation of complaints, and enforcement of local solid waste ordinances. Air and other environmental quality control expenditures of 48 large cities and 58 large counties are shown in tables 7 and 10. Although 17 cities and 20 counties listed in these tables did not report any data for air pollution control, the residents of these units may receive air quality services from other governments. For example, in the Atlanta and Buffalo metropolitan areas, the Fulton and Erie County governments have the responsibility for providing air quality control services while a special district government, the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, serves the residents of five large local governments shown individually in tables 7 and 10 (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and San Francisco). Local government expenditure data for sewerage and other sanitation activities are summarized by State and type of government in table 1 1. Tins table reveals that during fiscal year 1975-76, cities expended 60 percent of total local direct expenditure for sewerage activities, followed by special district INTRODUCTION governments which accounted for almost 20 percent of the total. Cities were responsible lor an even larger proportion of local government expenditures tor sanitation other than sewerage, accounting lor 8 1 .6 percent of the total. In table 12, data for sewerage and other sanitation activities are presented for county areas within 74 major SMSA's. 3 Local governments in these 74 areas accounted for over 65 percent of all local government direct expenditure for sewerage and other sanitation activities in fiscal 1975-76. In table 12 data for local governments which serve the residents of more than one county have been prorated to the county areas involved (see appendix A). For example, while most expenditure of Atlanta city, Georgia, were allocated to the Fulton County area, a portion was also allocated to the DeKalb County area. Similarly, data for the Metropolitan Sewer Board in Minnesota were prorated among Ramsey, Hennepin, Anoka, Dakota, and Scott County areas. SPECIAL PRESENTATION OF LARGE GOVERNMENT SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL REVENUE AND DEBT (APPENDIX C) As mentioned earlier, appendix C summarizes the results of a special compilation effort to identify revenue and debt pertaining to the environmental quality control activities of State govern- ments and the 48 large cities and 58 large counties shown in this report. Any interpretation of these data should observe the limitations imposed by both the data collection method and definitions applied. SURVEY METHODOLOGY, SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS OF DATA Survey Coverage and Data Collection Procedures Large Governments (Tables 1-10): Data for the Federal Government, the State governments, and the large counties and cities shown individually in this report were compiled from various financial documents available at Census headquarters. I he collection of expenditure data was supplemented by a mail canvass of selected agencies to obtain detail not available from in-house sources. All mail receipts were subjected to intensive review and, if necessary, I'ollowup procedures. Using these data collection methods for the large governmental units, it was possible to aggregate statistics according to the detailed cate- gories defined on page 8. As stated earlier, data collection for the Federal Government was supplemented by a review of source documents used by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for its special analysis of Federal environmental programs. In some instances, these docu- ments provided information not available in previous years. It is 3 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, tor this report, statistics were developed lor certain groups of entire counties that make up Connecticut Stale Economic Areas A, H, and C; Massachusetts Stale Economic Areas A, It, and ('; and Rhode Island Stale Economic Area A. Each area included one central city of 50,01)0 inhabitants or more, or a central city of at least 25,000 will) urbani/.cd areas (either incorporated or unincorporated) that together contain a minimum of 5 0,000 inhabitants. estimated that for 1976 this supplemental effort produced slightly more than $100 million in expenditures that would not have been otherwise identified. Any comparison between Census and OMB figures must take into consideration that the OMB's special analysis relates only to Federal expenditures while this report primarily concentrates on the activities of State and local governments. Moreover, each study operates under different definitions and concepts. For example, OMB recognizes three major environmental categories-pollution control and abatement; understanding, describing and predicting the environment; and environmental protection and enhancement. Only activities in the first category are covered in this report. Also, the Census Bureau's survey excludes activities of a government to abate pollution from its own facilities unless these are recorded as part of a general activity classified as pollution abatement (e.g., sewage collection and treatment, installation of air pollution equipment on incinerators, etc.). The OMB's special analysis of Federal expenditures, on the other hand, reflect the costs of the Federal Government to abate pollution from its own facilities. Such "remedial" activities made-up over one-fourth of the total 1976 Federal direct outlays found in OMB's "Pollution Control and Abatement" category. Total Local Governments (Tables 11 and 12): The local government aggregates for fiscal year 1975-76 were collected as part of the Census Bureau's annual survey of governmental finances and reflect only sewerage and sanitation other than sewerage activities. The local government estimates presented for each State in table 1 1 are partially based on a random sample of approxi- mately 16,000 local governments. Using 1970 population as a base, the sample included the government of all counties having 50,000 or more inhabitants and municipalities having 25,000 or more population; and other local governments whose relative importance in their State based on expenditure or debt was above a specified amount. Of the remaining units, a random selection was made from a compilation of all local governments within selected large SMSA's, other major counties, and all other governments in the balance of the State, with probability of selection based on the ratio of each government's annual expenditure or indebtedness to the State total. Usable replies were received from approximately 85 percent of the governments canvassed. For nonrespondents, prior year data were used. Data for the 74 major SMSA's are derived from a sample of all local governments within each of the SMSA's, stratified by component county areas and by type of government (i.e., cities, counties, townships, and special districts) within each county area; and within each type of government, by the magnitude of their annual expenditure and indebtedness as reported in the 1972 Census of Governments. The Survey Reference Period The Federal and State data presented in this report cover the fiscal period July I, 1975 to June 30, 1976, except for three States whose fiscal years end as follows: New York, March 31, 1976; Texas, August 31, 1976; and Alabama, September 30, 1976. Data for the Federal Government are also presented for the transition quarter from July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976. Although Michigan extended its 1976 fiscal year through September 30, the statistics in this report were computed for a 12 month period. For State agencies whose fiscal year differs from their parent government, data are for the agency's fiscal period that ended within the State's regular fiscal year. INTRODUCTION For local governments and dependent agencies whose fiscal periods differ from their parent government, data are for the fiscal year that ended anytime between July I, 1975 and June 30, 1976. wide aggregates of local government finances are based on summations of State figures and are generally more reliable, on a relative standard error basis, than individual State-area data. Similarly, relative standard errors tend to be, on the average, somewhat higher for the detail figures than for summary amounts. Limitations The reader should be aware that the primary objective of the sample from which the local government data in tables I I and 12 were collected is to provide summary estimates of major financial transactions of local governments rather than detail on their environmental activities. This particular sample is one of a large number of samples of the same size that could have been selected in a random manner using the same sample design. Fach of the possible samples would yield somewhat different results. The differences between the sample-based estimates of local govern- ment expenditures and the results that would be obtained from a complete census of local governments conducted using the same procedures are termed sampling error. While sampling error is not precisely measurable, a guide to the potential si/.e of the error is provided by the estimated relative standard error of the estimates. (The standard error is a measure of the variation among estimates from all possible samples. It is therefore a measure oi' the precision with which an estimate from a particular sample approximates the average result of all possible samples.) Table F shows for each State the relative standard error for fiscal year l°74-75 estimates of local government current expenditure for sewerage and other sanitation activities. Nation- Thc following limitations should also be taken into account: ( I ) Financial data are shown only for the environmental categories defined in this report. No attempt was made to identify or report data for other environmental activities of governments, such as the research or instructional activities of State and local government universities and colleges or the costs associated with the preparation of environmental impact studies. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, no effort was made to cover in-house, or remedial, activities of governments to abate or prevent pollution from their own facilities such as the installa- tion of air pollution control equipment on public electric power generating facilities or the operation of sewage systems at State prisons or parks except where they were an integral part of a general government activity classilied as pollution abatement. (2) Occasionally, it was necessary to prorate pollution abatement expenditure for multifunctional activities of agencies whose records and reports provided insufficient detail. This is especially true for the administrative activities of major environmental agencies included in this survey. (3) All data are also subject to possible inaccuracies in classification, response and processing. Fvery effort was made to keep such errors to a minimum through care in compiling, editing, examining, and tabulating the data. Table E. Relative Standard Errors for Local Government Fiscal Year 1974-75 Estimates ol S Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Current Operation Expenditure, as a Percent of Estimated Totals 4 .9 Oi' loss 5.0 to 9.9 Greater than 9.9 SEWERAGE SANITATION OTHER THAN SEWERAGE Alaska Hawaii Colorado Pennsylvania A la bama Montana Arizona Maine Indiana Sou Ih Dakota Ai'kansas Nebraska California . Maryland Kansas Tennessee Idaho New Hampshire Connecticut Massachuse lis Minnesota Texas Illinois Now Jersey Delaware Missouri Nevada Vermont Iowa Oregon District oi' New Mexico North Caro lina Washington Ken Lucky Sou Hi Carolina Columbia New York North Dakota West Virginia Louisiana Utah Florida Ohio Oklahoma Wisconsin Michigan Virginia Georgia Rhode Island Mississippi Wyoming Alaska Indiana Arizona New Jersey Alabama New Hampshire Call torn i a Maryland Ai'kansas New York Idaho North Carolina Connecticut Massachuset is Colo ratio Oklahoma Iowa North Dakota District ol Delaware Oregon Louisiana Ohio Columbia New Mexico Georgia Pennsylvania Maine Texas Florida Rhode Island Illinois Michigan Vermon I Hawaii Utah Kansas South Carolina Missouri West Virginia Kentucky South Dakota Mon tana Wyoming Minnesota Tennessee Mississippi Nebraska Nevada Virginia Washing Ion Wisconsin INTRODUCTION DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Expenditure Categories Expenditure. Amounts of money paid out by a government (adjusted for recoveries and other correcting transactions) other than for debt service (principal retirement and interest pay- ments), investment in securities, extension of loans, or payments in an agency capacity. Expenditure refers only to external cash transactions of a government (including employee salaries) and excludes any internal transfers and all payments "in kind". Includes payments financed from borrowing, fund balances, intergovernmental receipts and any other current revenue. Total expenditure. All amounts, direct and intergovernmental, spent for an environmental activity. Employer contributions to a government's own employee retirement system are excluded in the local government estimates shown in tables 1 1 and 12. Intergovernmental expenditure. Amounts paid to other govern- ments as fiscal aid in the form of shared revenues and grants-in-aid. payments in lieu of taxes, and as reimbursements for environmental services performed for the paying government. Excludes amounts paid to other governments for purchase of commodities, property, or utility services, any taxes imposed and paid as such, and employer contributions for social insurance systems administered by other governments. Direct expenditure. All expenditure other than that classified as intergovernmental. Current operation. Direct expenditure for compensation of own officers and employees and for supplies, materials, and contract- ual services, except amounts for capital outlay. included under this category are licensing and inspection of industrial plants, waste treatment operations, animal feedlots, mines, oil fields and other sources of water pollution; Federal and State government regulation of pesticide manufacturers, distributors, and applicators; operation, maintenance, and con- struction of sanitary and storm sewers and sewage treatment plants; water purification operations of publicly owned utilities; research and development activities related to the causes, effects and prevention of water pollution; monitoring water quality in streams, lakes, water supply systems, etc.; establishing, imple- menting and enforcing policies, plans, standards and regulations; training and certifying operators of water pollution control facilities; disseminating information to the public, providing technical and financial assistance; and all costs involved in processing grants received from other governments. Land quality control. Those regulatory, administrative, opera- tional and other activities directly related to the prevention, control, and abatement of land pollution caused by the improper disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Among the activities included under this category are the collection, disposal and recycling of trash, garbage and other forms of solid or hazardous waste; street cleaning; State government highway litter removal; licensing and inspection of facilities and equipment used in processing wastes; establishing, implementing and enforcing policies, plans, standards, and regulations; research and develop- ment activities related to methods of waste collection, disposal and recycling; providing technical and financial assistance; training and certifying operators of waste management facilities; disseminating information to the public; and all costs involved in processing grants received from other governments. Generally excluded because of data collection difficulties are special litter removal activities such as debris pickup on public lands and the maintenance of waste containers in parks, unless those are recorded under other activities classified as waste management. Capital outlay. Construction comprises production of fixed works and structures and additions, replacements, and major alterations, including planning and design, site improvement, and provision of equipment and facilities that are integral parts of a structure. Includes both contract and force-account construction. Other capital outlay comprises purchases of both equipment (apparatus, furnishings, motor vehicles, office machines, and the like, having an expected life span of more than 5 years) and land and existing structures (including rights-of-way and title search). Rental and repair of equipment are classified as current operation expenditure. Environmental functions As stated earlier, statistics in this report for the Federal and State governments, the 48 largest cities and 58 largest counties (tables 1-10) cover those regulatory, operational, administrative and other activities described for each environmental function below. Data for all other local governments include only sewerage (sanitary and storm sewers and sewage disposal) and sanitation other than sewerage (street cleaning and collection and disposal of garbage and other waste -also referred to as "other sanitation"). Water quality control. Those regulatory, administrative, opera- tional and other activities directly related to the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution. Among the activities Air quality control. Those regulatory, administrative, opera- tional, and other activities directly related to the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution. Among the activities included under this category are the licensing and inspection of industrial facilities and other sources of air pollution; estab- lishing, implementing and enforcing policies, plans, standards and regulations; research and development activities related to the causes, effects and prevention of air pollution; providing financial and technical assistance: air quality monitoring; training of personnel; disseminating information to the public; and all costs involved in processing grants received from other governments. Other environmental quality control. Those regulatory, adminis- trative, operational, and other activities related to the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution which cannot be reasonably classified in one of the above functions. Included under this category are multifunctional activities, such as the administration of a major pollution abatement agency and overall environmental planning and analysis; specific environmental quality control activities such as noise pollution control that do not fall within the definition of a major function; activities of environmental laboratories, advisory councils, review boards, regional offices of State pollution abatement agencies, legislative committees on the environment, etc., for which data cannot be obtained by the three major categories; and activities to inform the public about environmental quality control in general. INTRODUCTION Exclusions. Specifically excluded from this survey are water testing programs which relate only to water resource capacity; establishment of water rights; water supply distribution; soil and water conservation; irrigation and drainage; grants for the flouridation of water supply systems; coastal zone management (except its water quality component); strip mine reclamation, snow and ice removal; weather modification; general land use planning; activities related to the control of excess radiation from X-ray machines, microwave ovens, etc.; general health activities such as the inspection of restaurants, hotels, summer camps, food handlers, etc., frequently part of environmental health programs. State government payments for support of local environmental health programs when such grants are not identified with any specific program; any activity containing an insignificant amount of pollution abatement as defined above, such as environmental planning agencies whose focus is more the general social/ economic/physical environment of the community than the direct abatement of water, land, air or noise pollution; and remedial activities to prevent or abate pollution from a govern- ment's own facilities unless these are already included as an integral part of a general government activity classified in one of the above environmental functions. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE 11 Table 1. Federal Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976 and Transition Quarter July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976 (Thousands of dollars) Transition quarter 1 Inter- govern- mental 1976' govern- mental Inter- govern- mental All selected environmental activities, total 1,315,032 Environmental Protection Agency 1,, 106,502 Other agencies* 208, 530 Water quality control, total I 1,143,510 Environmental Protection Agency j 989,734 Other agencies 2 153,776 Land quality control, total 24,582 Environmental Protection Agency 4,446 Other agencies 2 20,136 Air quality control, total 66,839 Environmental Protection Agency j 42,922 Other agencies 2 23,917 Other environmental quality control, total 80,101 Environmental Protection Agency 69,400 Other agencies 2 10,701 291,109 138,159 152,950 142,797 43,901 98,896 23,742 4,006 19,736 56,846 33,229 23,617 67,724 57,023 10,701 1 , 023 , 923 968,343 55,580 1>000,713 945,833 54,880 840 H'i 400 9,993 9,693 500 12,377 12,377 3,707,486 3,044,979 662,507 3,138,714 2,676,724 461,990 98,403 18,543 79,860 242,149 162,983 79,166 228,220 186,729 41,491 948,455 459,162 4 89,293 456,332 164,056 292,276 94,253 17,093 77,160 189,391 111,025 78,366 208,479 166,988 41,491 759,031 585,817 173,214 682,382 512,668 169,714 4,150 1,450 2,700 52,758 51,958 800 19,741 19,741 3,036,524 2,522,952 513,572 2,552,439 2,158,845 393,594 62,157 16,487 45,670 212,893 162,957 49,936 r 209,035 r i84,663 24,372 820,199 r 504,925 315,274 377,371 179,475 197,896 55,283 12,213 43,070 178,510 128.574 49,936 809,035 184,663 24,372 2,216,325 2,018,027 198,298 2,175,068 1 ,979,370 195,698 6,874 4,274 2,600 34 , 383 34 , 383 Note: Public Law 93-344 changed the fiscal year for the United States Government from July 1 through June 30 to October 1 through September 30, effective for fiscal year 1976-77; the transition quarter shown in this table represents the conversion period bet-ween the 1976 and 1977 fiscal years. These data are not included in fiscal year 1976 totaLs. - Represents zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. r Revised. 1 See the introductory text for a description of slight changes m this year's data collection procedures which should be considered when making comparisons with prior year data. 2 "0ther agencies' 1 category includes agencies in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health, Education and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State and Transportation; and the Appalachian Regional Commission, Council on Environmental Quality, Energy Research and Devel- opment Administration, Federal Energy Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Commission on Water Quality, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority. 12 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 2. State Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1976 Total population, July.l, 1976 ( provisional estimates) 1 Expenditure (thousands of dollars) Current operation Capital outlay In tergov- ernmental Per capita expenditure Intergov- ernmenta 1 Total.. . Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California. . . . Colorado Connecticut . . . Delaware ••■••• Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts . Michigan Minnesota Mississippi . . . Missouri Mon tana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire* New Jersey .... New Mexico. . . . New York North Carolina North Dakota. . Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania . . Rhode Island.. South Carolina South Dakota . . Tennessee ■ • • . . Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington .... West Virginia. Wisconsin Wyoming 213,957,000 1.250.027 3,665 382 2,270 2,109 21,520 2,583 3,117 582 8,421 4,970 887 831 11,229 5,302 2,870 2,310 3,428 3,841 1,070 4,144 5,809 9,104 3,965 2,354 4,778 753 1,553 610 822 7,336 1,168 18,084 5,469 643 10,690 2,766 2,329 11,862 927 2,848 686 4,214 12,487 1,228 476 5,032 3,612 1,821 4,609 390 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ooo ooo 000 ooo ooo 000 000 000 000 000 ooo 000 ooo ooo 000 000 ooo 000 ooo 000 000 ooo 000 ooo 000 ooo 000 ooo 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 8 6 3 107 20 16 5 12 10 17 4 68 13 9 3 7 3 7 58 51 26 23 2 17 3 7 2 9 50 6 226 21 200 4 8 58 6 6 1 9 21 2 3 21 35 5 25 183 082 283 059 458 048 241 299 721 028 433 I 962 I 136 j 454 914 199 I 570 | 752 | 226 j 917 353 ! 899 j 645 678 j 203 550 431 600 549 506 051 777 | 569 I 894 842 004 028 430 097 203 426 382 680 008 261 393 255 890 000 458 379 ,000 5 ,147 3 ,162 5 ,482 2 260 51 944 4 199 6 062 1 813 11 765 7 187 2 193 2 000 21 165 6 205 3 130 3 087 7 311 3 587 2 559 13 082 16 184 7 831 9 177 2 461 3 197 2 312 1 598 1 476 2 973 12 062 3 554 22 905 8 703 869 14 156 3 516 6 346 24 790 3 157 5 652 1 002 6 972 20 491 1 925 1 816 9 323 8 129 4 225 7 482 1 376 26 53 140 170 1,455 147 1,147 629 28 200 15,240 21 431 173 202 112 259 165 198 3,581 5,144 202 291 215 157 66 46 170 1,098 231 31 11,444 241 25 173,503 102 331 7,190 386 171 15 225 449 83 27 66 154 241 168 82 644,096 10 4,867 661 629 54,059 15,702 9,032 2,857 928 2,641 2,941 46,540 7,076 6,582 4,469 42,254 30,025 18,866 14,177 2 13,849 1,172 5,787 954 5,478 38,213 2,466 192,428 12,625 13,183 386 1,351 26,450 2,554 380 409 2,185 740 1,418 12,004 26,972 1,424 17.350 5.84 1 .41 21.16 2.77 1.45 4.99 7.76 5.21 9.10 1.51 2.02 19.65 5.97 6.07 2.54 3.45 1.38 2.21 0.98 6.75 14.22 8.84 2.95 5.96 1.14 3.60 4.71 4.78 4.26 11.62 6.88 5.18 12.54 3.94 1.39 18.79 1.45 3.45 4.93 6.58 2.18 2.08 2.23 1.74 1.64 6.85 4.25 9.76 3.23 5.42 3.74 12 .74 0.29 0.30 2.51 6.08 2 .90 4.91 0.11 0.53 3.54 4.14 1.33 2.29 4.18 10.20 5.17 2.07 3.58 2.90 1.56 3.73 1.56 6.66 5.21 2.11 10.64 2.31 1.23 0.14 0.58 2.23 2.76 0.13 0.60 0.52 0.06 2.98 2.39 7.47 0.78 3.76 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 1 Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports , Series P-25, No. 642, December 1976. Excludes armed forces overseas and the District of Columbia. STATE GOVERNMENTS Table 3. State Government Water and Land Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1976 (Thousands ot dollars) 13 Water quality control Current operation Capital out lay Intergovern- mental Land quality control Highway litter removal Other activities Intergovern- men t a 1 Total..., Alabama Alaska , Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut. . . . Delaware Florida Georgia Hawai i Idaho , Illinois , Indiana I ova , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , 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. . Rhode Island. . South Carolina South Dakota. . Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia. ..... Washington. . . • West Virginia. Wisconsin Wyoming '938,690 '2,144 5,910 1,433 1,573 '72,459 16,608 10,307 3,742 '6,283 3,480 15,989 4,072 51,665 9,459 7,826 2,221 '2,514 1,635 6,206 50,174 46,398 22,647 17,185 '1,504 15,330 1,588 6,731 1,638 8,832 42,382 4,140 209,201 17,630 320 '127,299 2,384 '2,441 45,007 4,941 2,174 721 ' 2 , 804 '10,274 i 953 2,634 17,626 23,610 3,759 20,232 605 172,875 2,132 1,059 777 1,295 25,347 1,191 1,785 853 5,333 2,755 829 1,123 5,436 2,463 1,162 2,115 2,402 1,498 1,615 8,292 11,445 5,012 3,063 1,350 1,423 967 i 903 592 2,269 4,169 1,654 8,093 4,805 307 4,611 2,139 1,847 14,263 2,219 1,745 509 2,623 9,449 910 1,198 5,572 3,358 2,152 4,200 566 153,101 12 9 7 76 171 81 19 32 22 84 15,160 8 37 79 82 106 112 137 126 221 4,971 151 106 152 58 35 41 122 1,085 20 10,34 7 200 13 110,892 38 | 110 6,980 384 49 8 170 113 43 27 50 17 183 116 39 612,714 4,842 649 202 46,941 15,336 8,503 2,857 928 641 2,941 46,192 6,917 6,582 4,465 41,661 29,982 17,484 14,016 2 13,849 586 5,787 924 5,478 38,213 2,466 190,761 12,625 11,796 207 484 23 , 764 2,338 380 204 11 712 1,409 12,004 20,235 1,424 15,916 107,668 1,674 228 352 333 10,533 881 3,655 845 2,735 4,528 389 422 7,242 1,937 533 503 2,802 1,065 455 5,908 1,714 1,643 4,064 473 1,013 1,173 329 650 440 2,516 921 7,782 1,353 305 3,471 673 1,955 5,679 768 745 398 5,027 4,432 359 299 1,669 7,304 1,120 2,045 328 58,361 1,616 145 273 246 6,497 .700 668 206 2,311 1,833 254 347 6,030 1,586 289 389 2,148 1,034 370 826 1,308 515 3,443 354 816 259 177 556 409 2,050 687 4,165 1,124 81 1,012 577 633 1,728 464 356 119 2,512 3,748 286 190 1,500 832 393 8 291 58 R3 68 87 1,986 181 2,458 639 424 695 135 75 864 194 244 114 654 4 31 81 5,036 363 328 460 119 197 403 152 64 31 4fifi 234 2,361 229 224 2,459 94 589 1,265 88 389 74 341 656 73 100 169 957 727 603 37 20,948 11 z 2,050 529 2,000 348 3 157 4 4!. 43 3 800 161 511 '30 b 2 733 2,686 216 205 2,174 28 5,515 '1,434 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Excludes loans to local governments to assist in financing construction of water pollution control facilities, as follows: Alabama .amount not available'; California 14299,000); Florida '477,915,000); Kentucky ($2, 171,000 N ; Mississippi ($11,688,000); Ohio ($162,000); Oregon ($1,578,000); Tennessee 418,065,000'; and Texas ($5,152,000). In prior year reports, approximately half of Florida's loans and all of Mississippi's were clas- sified intergovernmental expenditure. 'includes 4987,000 in intergovernmental payments for highway litter removal activities. Represents intergovernmental payments for highway litter removal activities. 4 Data are for fiscal year 1974-75. 5 Includes 316,000 in intergovernmental payments for litter removal activities. 6 Includes 4l,000 in intergovernmental payments for highway litter removal activities. 14 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 4. State Government Air and Other Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1976 (Thousands of dollars) Air quality control Current operation Capital out lay Intergovern- mental Other environmental quality control Current operation Capital outlay Total.... Alabama. ....... Alaska. • . . Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut. • . . Delaware . Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho I llinois Indiana I owa Kansas Kentucky , louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts. Michigan Minnesota Mississippi ... Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire. New Jersey. . . . New Mex i co . . . . New Yo rk North Carolina North Dakota.. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania. . Rhode Island.. South Carolina South Dakota. . Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington. . . . West Virginia. Wisconsin Wyoming. ...... 157,066 843 160 4,049 464 23,174 2,228 1,908 473 1,092 1,451 318 412 3,183 1,614 709 338 1,859 2 652 371 1,872 3,091 2,175 1,027 701 652 526 218 285 277 3,671 687 5,078 1,772 228 63,677 648 2,951 4,838 311 958 95 1,298 6,936 I 514 246 1,952 2,253 886 1,561 384 82,758 832 134 3,970 407 16,847 1,796 1,865 469 1,091 1,389 318 401 3,116 1,572 661 332 1,720 629 323 1,301 2,918 1,542 913 638 575 424 214 274 264 3,671 680 4,653 1,748 218 | 1,650 | 407 2,603 4,715 309 934 89 1,243 6,621 481 246 1,936 923 839 1,513 344 64,759 1 1 78 57 1,259 66 43 4 1 62 11 67 40 48 6 139 23 48 71 173 51 114 63 77 27 4 11 13 7 425 24 10 60,640 64 ! 214 123 2 24 ] 6 55 315 33 16 108 47 48 40 9,549 10 25 1 5,068 1 , 387 177 134 '46,603 522 1,784 449 '689 1,292 331 371 239 2,611 569 737 56 6,046 444 846 137 395 400 194 '963 150 4 34 1,369 208 263 153 27 1 , 937 303 '4,716 814 41 3 6,395 299 681 2,906 77 2,326 212 253 38 182 82 146 2,088 125 1,162 141 44,681 509 1.741 449 260 1,272 331 370 220 2,606 520 737 56 5,734 444 792 137 392 395 194 909 150 434 1 , 303 186 261 152 27 1,758 300 4,303 797 41 6,394 299 675 2,819 77 2,259 211 253 38 176 82 146 2.059 114 1.161 138 1,037 13 43 2 20 1 19 5 49 312 54 66 22 3 2 17 6 87 67 1 29 11 1 3 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Amounts recorded as current operation and capital outlay vill not add to total because of the inclusion of intergovernmental payments in tota 2 Data are for fiscal year 1974-75. ^Certain multifunctional expenditure of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, such as operational support and district offices, that were included in the three major categories in the prior year report, are now classified Other Environmental Quality Control. SELECTED CITY GOVERNMENTS 15 Table 5. Selected Large City Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 Ending date of fiscal year Population , 1975 (estimated) Expenditure (thou sands of dollars) Per ci expend ipita Total Direct Intergov- ernmental L ture Total City Total Current operation Capital out lay Construction Other 38,819,590 436,057 851,698 276,273 636,725 407,160 3,099,391 412,564 638,793 535,610 812,797 484,531 1,335,085 385,691 358,364 705,381 1,326,809 714,878 535,030 472,529 335,602 2,727,399 335,954 661,319 365,082 665,796 378,112 423,426 339,568 559,770 7,481,613 286,694 330,651 365,916 371,455 1,815,808 664 , 72 1 458,651 356,732 524,964 279,535 773,248 773,996 664,520 555,707 487,091 367,650 331,726 711,518 2,404,158 38,550 94,914 7,505 30,342 56,386 122,915 48,430 42,928 36,498 50,120 28,830 111,896 10,332 19,547 41,251 82,276 23,804 71,974 32,255 8,626 80,513 47,009 53,425 18,562 30,881 23,249 40,778 12,009 37,264 522,620 8,403 3,522 14,723 33,162 104,736 34,427 13,528 22,484 9,460 17,556 23,328 38,384 38,872 18,559 34,527 26,486 15,164 121,148 2,332,706 38,550 94,914 7,505 24,361 56,386 122,915 47,829 24,088 35,019 50,082 23,266 111,896 10,332 19,547 41,251 81,609 23,804 71,974 32,255 8,626 80,513 46,789 53,185 18,562 25,439 15,586 40,778 8,770 37,264 522,620 8,403 3,522 14,723 33, 162 104,736 34,427 13,270 22,484 9,339 12,004 23,328 38,384 38,872 18,553 22,204 25,791 15,164 118,625 1,280,740 19,528 39,432 5,061 18,352 14,026 102,186 23,151 18,844 25,082 27,848 16,138 60,046 5,875 8,913 13,484 35,423 13,845 13,989 14,574 8,531 54,264 16,206 20,310 10,118 17,736 12,971 13,209 8,310 18,672 313,798 7,500 2,670 9,125 10,039 77,933 20,419 11,794 11,398 9,122 5,747 13,801 23,814 16,019 8,188 14,476 18,150 5,823 44,800 1,000,234 12,764 53,203 2,444 5,984 42,151 19,157 22,882 5,222 8,783 21,791 4,654 46,722 4,017 10,486 25,905 42,850 9,748 56,986 17,127 80 23,805 30,405 30,639 8,370 7,051 2,515 26,488 373 17,406 204,033 871 833 5,167 22,882 26,166 13,579 1,187 10,827 215 6,104 8,795 14,196 22,556 9,215 6,721 6,847 8,109 71,923 51,732 6,258 2,279 25 209 1,572 1,796 22 1,3 54 443 2,474 5,128 440 148 1,862 3,336 211 999 554 15 2,444 378 2,236 74 652 100 1,081 87 1,186 4,789 32 19 431 241 637 429 289 259 2 153 732 374 297 1,150 1,007 794 1,232 1,902 71,452 5,981 601 18,840 1,479 38 5,564 667 220 240 5,442 7,663 3,239 258 121 5,552 6 12,323 695 2,523 63 .93 88.41 111.44 27.17 47.65 138.49 39.66 117 .39 67.20 68.14 61.66 59.50 83.81 26.79 54 .55 58 .48 62 .01 33.30 134 .52 68.26 25.70 29.52 139.93 80.79 50.84 46.38 61 .49 96.30 35 .37 66.57 69.85 29.31 10.65 40.24 89.28 57.68 51.79 29.50 63 .03 18.02 62 .80 30.17 49.59 58.50 33.40 70.88 72 .04 45.71 170.27 60 .09 12/31 6/30 6/30 6/30 6/30 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 9/30 12/31 6/30 8/31 9/30 6/30 12/31 12/31 9/30 4/30 6/30 6/30 6/30 6/30 9/30 12/31 12/31 6/30 12/31 12/31 6/30 6/30 6/30 6/30 12/31 6/30 6/30 12/31 6/30 4/30 12/31 7/31 6/30 6/30 6/30 12/31 12/31 6/30 6/30 88 .41 111 .44 27.37 38 .26 138 .49 39.66 3 15.93 37 .73 65 .38 6 1 .62 48 .02 83 .81 26.79 54 .55 58.48 61 .51 33,30 134 .52 68.26 25.70 29.52 139.27 80 .42 50.84 38.21 41 .22 96.30 25.83 66 .57 69 .85 29.31 10.65 40 .24 89.28 57.68 51.79 28 ,93 63.03 17 .79 42 .94 30.17 49.59 58 .50 33 .39 45 .58 70.15 45.71 166.72 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 16 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 6. Selected Large City Government Water and Land Quality Control Expenditure and Revenue From Current Charges: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Thousands of dollars) City Water quality control Revenue from sewerage charges Expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Construc- tion Intergovern- mental Land quality control Revenue from sanitation charges Expenditure Current operation Capital outlay 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. Jacksonville, Fla. Kansas City, Mo.... Long Beach, Calif.. Los Angeles, Calif. Louisville, Ky Memphis, Tenn Miami , Fla Mi lwaukee. 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 438,843 10,529 10,978 3,536 4,036 72 14,113 32,077 15,149 10,918 12,549 33,195 3,786 5,275 263 26,539 3,373 6,772 8,635 6,937 13,507 7,837 957 8,488 9,568 1,845 11,578 44,114 310 1,795 3,584 6,465 28,609 480 9,711 6,719 7,616 8,576 6,211 9,872 18,271 11,826 2,556 9,616 1,506,002 22,401 65,482 3,876 14,367 49,026 42,984 37,860 31,446 24,781 34,204 19,580 76,399 7,023 14,897 32,160 66,617 17,405 2 65,049 25,506 2,747 39,139 38,759 34,304 8,713 15,740 15,507 34,411 5,148 29,297 237,517 4,410 1,845 10,259 27,585 51,348 19,863 4,111 19,980 3,341 14,988 14,699 27,881 32,741 16,541 24,515 14,611 11,339 93,600 452,489 10,153 14,840 1,541 2,427 6,778 30,426 14,049 7,362 15,867 12,062 8,622 27,1101 2,835 | 4,263 j 6,304 | 21,051 7,558 7,134 8,057 | 2,656 I 15,006 8,874 j 4,084 J 405 j 4,126| 5,235 6,977 1,508 | 12,081 46,328 3,715 993 4,722 4,581 25,191 6,255 2,653 8,923 3,018 3,259 5,2321 13,3621 9,937 I 6, 176 | 5,499 9,935 2,721 20,598 964,249 11,370 50,124 2,335 5,984 42,121 12,403 22,656 5,222 7,195 21,788 4,654 46,722 3,989 10,486 25,570 42,068 9,748 56,936 16,899 80 23,763 29,807 30,108 8,308 5,867 2,515 26,468 373 17,216 191,095 686 833 5,163 22,857 25,628 13,285 1,182 10,827 200 6,104 8,795 14,196 22,547 9,215 6,627 3,965 8,089 70,180 18,332 878 518 2 127 155 554 22 240 316 740 2,567 199 148 286 2,831 99 979 550 11 370 32 112 305 94 966 28 94 9 19 374 147 529 323 18 230 2 78 672 323 257 1,144 140 16 529 299 5,954 601 18,840 1,479 38 5,564 46 5,442 7,663 3,239 121 5,547 6 12,249 695 2,523 79,392 6,834 559 217 37 59 30 43 604 5,655 1,064 3,560 3,732 624 67 853 3,076 49 68 7,355 325 156 267 27 2,431 13,325 3 4,679 12 233 17 597 17 1,799 4,003 223 493 9,537 2,699 2,712 1,351 s 856,267 16,149 28,457 3,629 15,854 7,360 76,181 9,065 10,376 11,717 15,592 8,740 35,497 3,196 4,436 9,012 14,705 5,820 6,658 6,322 | 5,582 i 37,888 I 8,076 j '19,038 I 9,849J 15,125 | 7,685 I 6,115 I 6,717 7,918 269,400 I 3,990 1,576 4,434 5,099 51,830 14,428 9,285 2,088 5,601 *2,561 8,374 10,361 5,658 1,376 9,938 11,618 3,825 22,066 787,551 9,375 23,617 3,520 15,831 7,248 68,146 7,867 10,376 9,215 15,466 7,010 32,936 2,930 4,436 7,101 13,420 5,739 6,605 6,090 | 5,578 | 35,868 | 7,332 j 16,143 I 9,713 13,594 7,679 5,980 6,660 6,542 251,941 3,782 1,576 4,373 4,983 51,255 14,028 9,009 2,059 5,586 2,481 8,315 10,310 5,618 1,376 8,977 7,958 3,102 18,805 68,471 6,774 4,840 109 23 112 8,035 1,198 2,502 126 1,730 2,561 266 1,911 1,285 81 53 232 4 2,020 744 2,655 136 1,531 6 135 57 1,376 17,459 208 61 116 575 400 276 29 15 75 59 51 40 961 3,660 723 3,261 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Amounts recorded as current operation and capital outlay will not add to total because of the inclusion of intergovernmental payments in total, 2 Excludes purchases of combined water and sewer systems totalling $16,985,000. SELECTED CITY GOVERNMENTS 17 Table 7. Selected Large City Government Air and Other Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Thousands of dollars) City Air quality control Current operation Capital outlay Other environmental quality control Current operat ion Capital outlay 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. 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 Nor fo Ik , 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 To ledo , Ohio Tulsa, Okla Washington, D.C '17,425 390 '106 3,239 1,472 1,106 324 186 113 147 954 263 267 45 '174 57 156 99 42 ,744 '74 257 16,434 390 79 3,105 1,202 1,106 320 184 110 147 952 232 250 265 45 57 156 99 42 4,570 173 173 ,558 1,487 10 10 518 518 7 7 151 151 257 514 134 270 585 15 511 33 162 297 3,441 H3 24,266 :.k 15 509 33 162 297 3 . 34 5 x:s 96 96 45 43 7 1 0,959 10,959 101 101 30 30 305 302 136 136 132 132 406 406 104 103 142 142 470 461 642 636 - Represents zero or rounds to zero . 1 Amounts '-ecorded as current operation and capital outlay Will not add to total because of the inclusion of intergovernmental payments m total. 18 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 8. Selected Large County Government Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 County Ending date of fiscal year Population, 1975 (estimated ) Expenditure (thousands of dollars) Current operation Capital outlay Construction Intergov- ernmental Per capita total expenditure Total Alameda, Calif Allegheny, Pa Baltimore, Md Bergen , N.J Bexar, Tex Broward, Fla Contra Costa, Calif.. Cook, 111 Cuyahoga, Ohio Dade, Tla 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, 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, Calif San Diego, Calif San Mateo, Calif Santa Clara, Calif... Shelby, Term Suffolk, N.Y Summit, Ohio.... Tarrant, Tex Union, N.J Wayne , Mich Westchester, N.Y Worcester, Mass 63,865,474 6/30 12/31 6/30 12/31 12/31 9/30 6/30 11/30 12/31 9/30 12/31 12/31 12/31 6/30 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 9/30 6/30 12/31 12/31 6/30 12/31 6/30 6/30 12/31 12/31 12/31 6/30 12/31 12/31 6/30 12/31 6/30 12/31 6/30 6/30 9/30 6/30 6/30 12/31 6/30 6/30 6/30 6/30 6/30 12/31 12/31 12/31 12/31 11/30 12/31 6/30 1,090 1,517 637 879 912 848 584 5,369 1,592 1,439 1,388 591 1,089 631 882 858 5K0 900 1,944 915 577 634 644 696 1,142 546 6,986 669 1,221 1,398 592 1,012 708 571 587 634 530 1,403 619 966 537 1,699 643 677 687 960 696 1,584 580 1,174 736 1,253 534 728 520 2,517 879 648 353 996 114 845 934 190 047 328 613 481 615 671 327 1K'_' 487 239 600 2K1 •131 603 5 19 589 688 832 544 757 898 813 414 987 771 335 642 558 507 001 412 289 994 625 939 666 540 848 888 451 871 583 962 171 754 550 900 951 823 726 241 095 669,793 615 1,704 31,080 1,593 13,020 2,530 1,289 4,079 72,060 5 5,409 31,723 396 1,167 9,937 36,856 1,146 461 174 11,005 22,466 2,639 3,884 15 16,815 976 1,044 729 3,301 47,370 16,033 9,178 746 1,238 61,726 14,055 621 5,210 9,181 5,490 30,675 1,362 15,182 16,629 1,720 4,592 1,049 67,328 5,546 69 107 40,355 36.213 615 1,692 429 190 149 949 232 734 155 5 182 124 304 887 1,942 490 1,139 442 116 270 3,477 1,196 3,343 15 15,523 312 924 382 139 20,152 11,530 5,590 562 792 11,492 3,646 595 4,436 2,671 5,274 18,216 659 5,422 10,712 1,328 1,566 649 3,410 1,777 69 105 13,799 8,514 9 213 402 7 ,283 1 ,581 1 ,344 5 ,341 6,275 3,999 10,726 17,965 606 622 26,902 2,496 2,227 184 443 50.049 31 5 ,846 11 ,168 703 9 538 5 ,766 323 2 ,885 389 62 574 3 130 25 558 27 ,631 12 15 1 363 57 1 3,564 227 297 9 57 255 17 7 19 58 9 1,024 4 171 444 42 81 316 2,007 40 3 185 240 26 743 664 216 1,280 222 151 11 1,344 167 2 877 68 1,465 32.350 1,439 173 242 39 3.162 69 141 472 Represents zero or rounds to zero. SELECTED COUNTY GOVERNMENTS 19 Table 9. Selected Large County Government Water and Land Quality Control Expenditure and Revenue From Current Charges: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Thousands of dollars) Water quality control Revenue 1 rom sewerage charges Total . Alameda , Cain .... Allegheny , Pa Baltimore. Mel..... Bergen, N.J 1" •■-< r, K-x I'd , Hi ( om ra Costa, Call 1 Cook. Ill C in ahoga, Ohic Dade. Ha Dallas, Tex... Delaware, Pa.. Erie, X.Y :.- Essex. N.J Franklin, Ohic Fulton . Ga Hamilton, Ohio, Han i s . Tex Hennepin, Minn . Hudson , N . J . . . . Jackson, Mo Jell erson . Ala . Jel lerson, k\ . . King, Hash Lake, Ind Los Angeles, Calif, Macomb, Mich Maricopa, Ariz Middlesex, Mass..., Middlesex, N.J Milwaukee, Wis Monroe, N .V Montgomery, Md . . . Montgomery, Ohio. Montgomery, Pa... Multnomah, Oreg . . Nassau, N .V Norfolk, Mass Oakland, Mich.... Oklahoma, Okla Orange, Cain Pinellas, F la Prince Georges, Md . . . . Sacramento, Calii S t . Louis , Mo , San Bernardino, Calif. San Diego, Calif...... San Mateo, Cain Santa Clara, Shelby, Tenn Suffolk, N.Y.... Summit, Ohio.... Tarrant, Tex.... Union, N = J Wayne, Mich Westchester, N.Y Worcester, Mass. 111. ,.,ss 230 404 700 3 .038 3.731 Expendi ture Capital outlay operation Construc- tion 15,331 3,375 1,086 441 3,861 12,532 211 ,790 53 185 2 ,399 543,036 164 17,737 118 1 1,278 2.-131 1 .056 59,2X7 4 83 i ,s 8,694 36,742 367 _ 72 10 969 21 493 2 029 1 4,768 ssl 98 562 3,162 43,483 2,304 5,476 1,238 60,415 4,434 494 67,030 5,539 44 2 37,570 32 ,904 164 274 5,433 15 3.S16 850 678 766 | 442 j 366 44 243 ! 2,634 i 590 ! 117 4,529 | 217 98 ! 18,557 1,076 2,461 792 10,231 247 240 j 103 103 9,088 2 653 1 332 332 23,018 | 11 391 j 882 179 i 11,862 j 2 ™ 8,624 .". 076 j 1,285 1 893 ! 1,408 140 3,115 1,772 44 11,020 5,499 9,213 | 402 7,058 1 ,58" 1,344 44,227 6,274 3 , 999 10,72 6 17,965 24,614 i 1,228 j 1,684 I "I 443 j 50,049 i 5,846 10,489 703 9,538 3,525 323 2,885 354 62,574 3,130 25,558 27,341 Intergovern- mental .7 1 1 28 894 231 42 312 ! ! 10 3 135 240 7 I 589 i 1,138 ' 145 i 23 i 1,341 167 2 871 64 1,465 32,300 Land quality control 69 141 470 sani t a t ion charges 633 988 10,340 124 132 1,023 (NA) 33 K.. 1,892 33 in 117 ,900 67 ■Jin 4,015 6,097 1,937 1, 106 104 Expendi ture '97,336 4 50 335 '12,959 1, 147 1,488 99 ,409 19 313 209 412 461 102 34 601 3,399 4,725 5 '626 167 128 3,493 12,990 2,678 746 124 39 4,518 4,823 7,404 16 2,397 6,488 398 138 250 12 5 17 105 890 3, 111 Current . Ca pt t a 1 opera t ion j ou t L ay i 10 335 8,621 1, 147 1,096 99 23 11,397 1 5, 182 19 30 1 209 920 4 407 442 72 25 471 3,226 4, 118 506 164 128 1,205 9,715 2, 134 562 124 81 39 3,878 4,607 6,616 16 2,393 4,247 398 138 215 12 5 17 105 890 2,817 1 , 114 227 5 "i 30 9 130 I 73 607 81 3 2,288 3,275 544 184 216 788 4 2 ,241 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. 'Amounts recorded as current operation and capital outlay will not add to total because of the inclusion of intergovernmental payments in total. 20 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 10. Selected Large County Government Air and Other Environmental Quality Control Expenditure: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Thousands ot dollars) County Air quality control Current Capital operation outlaj Other envi rorutienta 1 quality control Current opera t ion Capital outlay Total. Alameda, Calil Allegheny, Pa Baltimore. Md Bergen, N .J Bexar, Tex Broward, Fla Contra Costa, Calil Cook, 111 Cuyahoga, Ohio. Dade, Fla Dallas, Tex. . . . Delaware, Pa... Erie, N.Y. Essex, Mass Essex, K . 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, Calif. Macomb, Mich Maricopa, Ariz Middlesex, Mass.... Middlesex, N.J Milwaukee, Wis..... Monroe, X .Y Mon tgomery , Md . . . Montgomery, Ohio. Montgomer}', Pa... Multnomah, Oreg.. Nassau, N.Y Norfolk, Mass.... Oakland , Mich 1,095 384 28 190 1 .289 "11 263 i 219 : 1,024 ! 1,083 375 175 1 ,232 261 219 995 i7 ! 257 2 56 1 '109 43 16 367 366 1 - 2 2 _ 372 372 - 560 557 3 '3 73 - - 15 15 - '7,322 6,876 20-1 90 90 - 320 320 - - ! 62 i 2 131 129 - 520 520 29 , - - Oklahoma , Okla Orange, Call i Pinellas, Fla Prince Georges, Md . . . . Sacramento, Calif .... , S t . Lou is, Mo • San Bernardino, Calif, San Diego, Calif San Mateo, Calif Santa Clara, Calif. Shelby, Tenn Suffolk, N.Y Summit, Ohio.. Tarrant, Tex Union, N . J i Wayne, Mich •• Westchester, N .Y<, . . Worcester, Mass •• • , 302 283 19 33 589 ! 455 ; 134 - 93 18 75 - 191 191 - 144 '239 j 195 | 33 14 428 428 j - 36 923 ! 850 j 73 - 1,517 | 1,389 i 128 - 284 182 '2 8 1,895 161 273 ' 180 8 I 1,889 I 161 11 2 20 21 104 20 21 103 - Represents zero or rounds to zero. 'Amounts recorded as current operation and capital outlay will not add to total because oi the inclusion of intergovernmental payments in total. 'Air quality activities previously performed by Milwaukee County have been assumed by the Wisconsin State Department of Natural Resources. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. BY TYPE 21 Table 11. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Thousands of dollars) State and type of government 1 Sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Total Current operation Capital outlay Construction Sanitation other than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation United States, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Alabama, total , Counties ■ . ■ • Cities Alaska, total 9 Boroughs Cities , Arizona, total 9 , Counties , Cities , Special districts Arkansas . total , Counties Cities , Special districts , California, total , Counties Cities , Special districts . . , Colorado, total Counties , Cities , Special districts , Connecticut, total 4 , Cities Townships , Special districts , Delaware, total , Counties Cities District of Columbia, total Florida, total. Counties , Cities Special districts Georgia, total Counties Cities Hawaii, total Counties Cities Idaho, total Counties CI ties , Special districts Illinois, total Counties CI ties Townships Special districts Indiana, total Counties Cities Special districts Iowa, total 9 Counties Cities Special districts See footnotes at end of table 2,226,874 181,803 1,614,642 89,567 340,862 21,072 3,731 17,341 4,902 4,902 11,383 2,139 9,202 (NA) 15,854 15,612 242 204,939 20,174 125,425 59,340 44,697 695 29,828 14,173 6,734 1,556 5,173 5 14,486 8,092 6,395 9,616 122,102 20,246 100,106 1,750 49,451 18,769 30,681 522 259 263 5,840 11 5,227 602 68,408 935 40,151 605 26,717 63,056 137 62,755 164 29,533 264 29,145 (NA) 6,008 906 3,592 326 1,183 46 2] 25 26 26 44 12 31 600 62 284 254 82 2 47 32 108 34 56 17 3-1 26 7 87 344 102 240 1 96 38 58 43 1 1 3 2 297 1 116 179 02 8 672 203 116 037 530 395 135 153 4 53 305 306 676 NA) 420 2H 283 109 5-17 198 131 218 561 076 490 995 308 065 734 509 22 3 408 815 535 202 289 883 030 77l> 133 6-13 176 149 027 140 128 737 2 75 999 446 2 55 840 458 122 447 328 347 381 101 034 (NA) 1,988,088 210,262 1,270,574 99,467 407,785 14,078 2,536 11,542 6,468 14,457 4,007 10,308 (NA) 9,121 28 8,994 99 192,646 27,091 103,925 61,631 31,092 794 19,684 10,614 30,159 11,898 8,933 9,329 10,246 6,709 3,537 17,056 88,312 15,895 72,237 180 32,342 10,464 21,878 7,285 1,114 6,171 4,270 114 3,882 273 161,015 858 49,782 151 110,223 60,815 398 60,118 299 23,933 50 23,749 (NA) 3,860 675 2,229 219 736 31 17 13 393 33 173 186 49 1 26 21 75 2 2 45 8 70 24 5 81 163 62 27 34 35 10 25 10 10 123 61 60 45 45 70 70 699 80 1 278 368 2 52 337 965 372 164 163 716 6 1 5 92 6 NA) 080 070 10 708 3 54 919 435 931 282 660 989 145 086 023 036 811 536 275 180 549 397 405 717 233 404 830 602 32 S 70 452 14 4 38 460 575 50 7 689 689 951 39 8 70 42 317 234 (NA) 159,241 20,609 92,351 7,281 39,000 1,115 894 221 822 822 2,131 683 1,442 (NA) 2 19 219 14,193 1,753 6,287 6,152 1,538 1,146 392 3,004 81 2,778 144 167 16 1 3 299 10,340 4,997 5,240 103 2,201 265 1,936 2 89 3 286 419 418 2 13,525 13 4,966 8,546 2,356 10 2,340 6 1,131 51 1,051 (NA) 640,248 90,325 521,825 19,426 8,672 11,538 1,266 10,272 3,129 3,129 8,396 58 8.338 10,662 49 10,613 86,049 11,869 73,628 552 3,938 1,028 2,910 2,866 2,124 739 (NA) 1,881 1,803 78 1,351 70,943 16,060 54,883 33,836 9,976 23,861 7 76 '.52 624 4,402 830 3,573 12,946 698 12,248 2,128 815 1,313 11,035 1,022 10,013 2,320 256 1,894 151 18 30 4 26 185 43 141 5 2 3 22 125 27 98 126 1 124 711 001 606 54 5 5 59 937 428 509 52 3 419 104 560 339 221 574 571 004 776 394 672 710 616 2 62 354 659 019 614 NA) 352 207 144 801 758 043 366 121 245 935 976 959 759 761 999 482 857 359 29,926 3,020 26,905 22,264 2,717 19,547 2,085,599 203,238 1,736,325 134,678 11,358 28,441 3,829 24,612 4,869 317 4,552 33,050 1,259 31,791 11,061 440 10,621 166,627 30,712 135,390 525 13,336 1,999 11,337 26,432 14,503 11,903 (NA) 5,242 2,207 3,036 18,805 110,325 20,281 90.044 56,069 13,482 42,587 7,981 933 7,048 6,021 2,393 3,629 114,919 1,414 113,190 315 28,255 2,880 25,375 17,475 1,778 15,697 22 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 11. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76— Continued (Thousands of dollars) State and type of government 1 Sewerage San ltatlon othe r than sewerage Direct ex pendlture Direct expendlt ure Revenue from charges Revenue from charges Total Current operation Capital autlay Total Current operation Capital Construction Other outlay 16,513 40,989 13,797 26,454 738 11,696 16,345 15,239 1,106 141 7,806 1,643 6,140 23 806 1,240 1,100 140 16,372 33,183 12,154 20,314 715 10,890 15,105 14,139 966 32,439 78,548 24,065 52,842 1,641 8,473 24,979 22,685 2,294 13 523 523 - - 59 1,119 908 . 211 27,642 62,370 17,143 44,750 476 8,397 23,713 21,706 2,007 4,784 15,655 6,399 8,092 1,165 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 23,832 65,162 26,757 37,619 787 10,126 42,538 37,800 4,738 1,551 4,892 3,880 897 115 593 8,806 8,322 484 21,902 60,002 22,651 36,680 671 9,533 33,733 29,478 4,255 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) - - - - 5,108 38,981 5,540 33,072 369 48 4,353 4,082 271 - - - - - - 16 16 - 1,799 8,365 2,164 6,064 137 7 1,996 1,884 112 1,384 6,467 1,891 4,543 33 41 2,341 2,183 159 1,925 24,149 1,484 22,466 199 - - - - 70,047 194,579 45,388 143,362 5,829 19,638 69,985 59,143 10,842 11,591 34,048 10,590 23,265 193 17,375 34,428 29,291 5,137 25,916 85,429 20,335 63,814 1,280 2,264 35,536 29,831 5,705 32,539 75,102 14,463 56,283 4,356 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 15,424 120,194 31,025 87,422 1,747 1,920 64,104 61,558 2,546 8,364 62,232 15,976 45,702 554 979 40,787 40,108 679 7,060 57,451 14,673 41,585 1,193 941 23,317 21,450 1,867 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) - - - - 153,003 329,127 130,874 192,360 5,893 19,414 91,220 80,883 10,337 13,213 80,647 23,157 56,294 1,195 869 1,832 1,747 84 124,993 227,096 95,654 127,268 4,175 11,054 74,819 70,195 4,624 13,218 12,799 11,005 1,474 320 1,625 3,839 3,802 37 1,579 8,585 1,058 7,324 203 5,866 10,730 5,139 5,592 48,388 173,695 50,465 121,976 1,254 9,438 22,388 20,888 1,500 23 38 38 - - 1,067 1,989 1,686 303 47,910 101,199 33,142 66,930 1,127 8,315 20,103 18,906 1,197 455 910 360 550 - 56 295 295 - - 71,548 16,925 54,496 127 - - - - 9,588 22,729 8,645 13,725 359 2,618 18,267 15,680 2,587 19 150 28 122 - 115 3,731 2,700 1,031 9,569 22,579 8,617 13,603 359 2,503 14,536 12,980 1,556 36,032 113,386 33,568 78,038 1,780 8,095 23,073 21,694 1,380 4 10,989 263 10,726 - 44 96 79 17 23,833 78,621 17,108 60,185 1,328 8,051 22,977 21,615 1,363 12,194 23,777 16,198 7,127 452 - - - - 5,285 12,133 4,073 7,900 161 4,124 5,980 5,388 592 18 721 717 - 4 42 862 829 33 5,260 11,384 3,327 7,900 157 3,796 4,828 4,401 427 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 14,416 43,074 10,875 31,504 695 1,877 9,036 8,533 502 _ - - - - 698 848 771 77 14,225 40,499 10,528 29,292 079 1,179 8,188 7,762 425 191 2,575 347 2,212. 16 - - - 7,294 19,910 6,356 13,417 136 1,388 2,050 2,050 . 145 176 138 32 6 93 151 151 - 6,772 7,228 4,991 2,133 104 1,101 1,730 1,730 - 376 12,506 1,227 11,252 27 194 168 168 - 2,984 29,148 4,530 24,544 74 90 4,584 4,338 247 - 292 - 292 - - - - - 1,193 16,859 2,357 14,476 26 38 2,793 2,720 73 1,769 11,985 2,171 9,766 48 52 1,785 1,612 173 22 12 2 10 - (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 95,641 224,893 84,012 136,203 4,679 2,577 82,444 76,171 6,271 14 1,325 142 1,174 9 988 1,610 1,515 94 21,169 45,715 31,926 11,366 2,423 818 55,332 51,902 3,429 14,008 24,963 12,565 12,263 136 771 21,613 18,911 2,701 60,449 152,890 39,379 111,400 2,112 - 3,889 3,843 47 Kansas, total Counties Cities Kentucky, total 4 Counties Cities Special districts Louisiana, total 9 Parishes Cities Special districts Maine, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Maryland, total 4 Counties* Cities Special districts Massachusetts, total 9 Cities Townships Special districts Michigan, total Counties . , Cities Townships Special districts Minnesota, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Mississippi, total Counties Cities Missouri, total Counties Cities Special districts Montana, total 3 4 Counties Cities Special districts Nebraska, total Counties Cities Special districts Nevada, total Counties Cities Special districts New Hampshire, total 4 Counties Cl ties Townships Special districts New Jersey, total Counties Cities Townshl ps Special districts See footnotes at end of table LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BY TYPE 23 Table 11. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76 — Continued (Thousands of dollars) State and type of government 1 Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay other than sewerage Revenue from charges Current operation Capital outlay New Mexico, total Counties Cities New York, total Counties Cities Townships North Carolina, total 4 .... Counties Cities Special districts North Dakota, total Counties Cities Townships » Ohio, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Oklahoma, total 3 Counties Cities Special districts Oregon, total Counties Cities Special districts Pennsylvania, total Counties Cities Townships Special districts Rhode island, total Cities Townships Special districts South Carolina, total Counties Cities Special districts South Dakota, total..... Counties . Cities Townshi ps Special districts Tennessee, total Counties Ci ties Special districts.............. Texas, total 4 Counties Cities Special districts Utah, total. Counties Cities Special districts . . Vermont, total Cities Townships Virginia, total. Counties Cities Special districts See footnotes at end of table. 7,589 305 7,284 112,184 19,430 76,946 15,808 52,508 508 50,358 1,643 3,505 3,505 189,011 24,213 164,079 719 18,253 18,253 (NA) 40,356 4,198 32,748 3,410 163,944 315 83,640 26,904 53,085 3,659 1,802 923 935 18,222 11,392 6,830 2,751 2,679 72 45,602 90 44,196 1,316 132,183 129,457 2,726 8,657 2,711 3,582 2,074 1,508 80,137 29,788 33,238 17,111 323 15,832 780,268 315,717 353,052 111,499 97,208 15,910 80,098 1,201 9,878 23 240,181 45,113 182,361 42,156 (NA) 51,515 17,862 220,574 661 85,940 26,651 107,322 33,694 13,094 11,535 9,066 46,681 213 21,589 24,880 5,557 10 5,435 112 104,175 581 98,767 4,827 266 2 .1 230 153 29 25,587 182 24,579 82 6 84,277 80,653 3,624 6,488 4,367 2,121 3,247 1,997 1,250 49,864 17,777 25,289 6,798 10,744 85 10,659 620,371 2 63,503 274,194 82,674 56,421 14,964 41,286 170 7,078 2 7,076 86,811 20,597 65,917 106 31 8 66 77,126 358 72 166 159 1.1 I 49 60 ,608 ,544 ,971 ,093 105 L05 13,781 700 13,080 1,765 (NA) 1,027 169 614 244 1,092 425 3,293 294 131 1" I 485 187 2 3u 226 1,301 122 11,215 3,981 153 150 8,074 6,124 1,793 157 10,761 308 10,453 27,034 3,610 13,335 10,088 4,664 921 3,743 (NA) 4,602 4,602 21,208 2,588 18,535 24,128 24,128 i ,:■; in 247 1,098 22,542 1,204 15,493 4,238 1,607 313 115 ,597 ,434 ,154 ,051 279 ,772 13,678 159 13,415 104 78,018 413 77,572 (NA) 3,826 235 3,591 195 128 67 11,041 6,573 4,468 675 12,212 412,715 13,268 335,204 64,243 57,971 11,724 46,236 (NA) 4,853 92,937 4,890 87,758 289 7,959 3,619 4,340 118,050 6,679 95,389 13,979 2,004 7,070 5,459 1,611 27,908 9,315 18,298 294 3,060 390 2,651 19 51,900 5,190 46,526 185 119,773 1,679 118,017 (NA) 7,541 2,454 5,087 2,229 389 1,840 55,844 17,192 38,653 11,459 589 10,871 372,631 7,314 311,547 53,770 50,898 8,930 41,957 (NA) 4,490 4,490 81,316 4,123 76,909 6,634 2,524 4,109 112,647 6,233 92,192 13,330 893 6,865 5,282 1,583 24,651 7,807 16,608 237 2,492 245 2,228 46,748 4,222 42,341 185 108,982 1,459 107,446 (NA) 6,807 2,268 4,539 2,156 330 1,827 50,829 15,483 35,346 1,341 40,083 5,954 23,656 10,473 7,073 2,794 4,279 (NA) 1 1 , 62 1 767 10, 849 1,918 1 1,916 1,325 1,094 230 5,403 446 3,197 648 1,111 206 178 28 3,257 1,509 1,691 58 568 145 423 5 ,152 968 4 , IS 10 792 221 10 ,571 (NA) 734 L86 548 5,016 1,709 3,307 24 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 11. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities: Fiscal Year 1975-76 — Continued (Thousands of dollars) State and type of government 1 Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Construction Sanitation other than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlav Washington, total.. Counties Cities Special districts 75,978 772 51,028 24,177 West Virginia, total. Counties Cities Special districts.. 13 Wisconsin, total... Counties Cities Townships Special districts Wyoming, total..... Counties Cities Special districts 198 102,756 13,007 62,829 26,920 16,185 41 14,140 2,004 ,009 228 37,420 1,231 27,476 8,663 9,790 1 9,479 311 38,806 539 19,349 1,730 19 1,640 61,305 11,211 32,532 17,562 6,188 40 4,487 1,661 48,229 1,116 25,232 7,223 151 4,030 515 2,821 695 206 174 32 17,849 11,794 33 6,022 152 147 30,854 3,679 27,174 6,683 6,683 3,022 300 2,198 524 3,285 3,285 37,967 10,775 27,192 9,194 298 8,895 49,695 1,507 44,786 3.402 33,222 7,514 25,707 8,770 263 8.507 43,768 1,063 39,311 3,394 ,084 118 .967 4,745 3,260 1,485 424 35 389 5,92 7 444 5,475 889 889 Note: Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. These data are estimates subject to the sampling variation described in the text. - Represents zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. 'Type of government entries have been omitted under States in which the type of government does not exist as well as in cases where no data w reported . 2 The city of Anchorage has been consolidated with Greater Anchorage Area Borough to form the Municipality of Anchorage, classified as a city ernment by the Census Bureau. 3 Special district government sewerage data for fiscal 1975-76 not available. However, because estimates of their activities (based on prior reports) are included in Statewide and National totals, the type of government detail will not add to the totals. 'Special district government other sanitation data for fiscal 1975-76 not available. However, because estimates of their activities (based o prior year reports) are included in Statewide and National totals, the type of government detail will not add to the totals. 5 Sewerage data for Howard County, Maryland not available. SELECTED SMSA's 25 Table 12. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76 (Dollar amounts, except per capita, in thousands) SMSA and county area Population, 1975 {estimated ) Sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Construc- tion Per capita, total direct expend- iture Sanitation other than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current aperation Capital outlay 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) Riverside-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 1 Contra Costa County 1 Marin County San Francisco County San Mateo County San Jose, Calif. SMSA: Santa Clara County (entire SMSA) Denver-Boulder, Colo. SMSA.... Adams County 1 Arapahoe County ] Boulder County Denver County 1 Doug las County Gilpin Count}' Jefferson County Connecticut State Economic Area A i Bridgeport ) : Fairfield County (entire SEA) Connecticut State Economic Area C (Hartford): Hartford County (entire SEA) 2 Connecticut State Economic Area B (New Haven ) : New Haven County (entire SEA) 3 Wilmington, Del .-N.J.-Md . SMSA New Castle County, Del Salem County, N.J Ceci 1 County , Md . . . Washington, D.C.-Md.-V'a . SMSA Washington, D .C Charles County, Md Montgomery County, Md . : Prince Georges County, Md . 1 Arlington County, Va Fairfax County, Va Loudoun County, Va Prince William County, Va Alexandria city, Va Fairfax city, Va..... Falls Church ci ty , Va Manassas city, Virginia 4 Manassas Park city, Virginia 4 Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla. SMSA: Broward County (entire SMSA) 114,412,919 791,073 644,688 33,529 48,289 64,567 6,986,898 1,225,945 529,074 696,871 880,001 90,912 687,888 101 ,201 1,584,583 3,140,306 1,090,353 584,047 220,424 664,520 580,962 1,174,171 1,413,318 215,460 216,744 165,071 484,531 15,693 1,855 313,964 760,336 517,846 399,354 62,489 56,005 3,021,801 711,518 60,546 571,558 677,848 155,518 512,915 48,828 123,376 105,220 21,858 10,360 13,041 9,215 1,353,377 ,007 ,731 22 223 4,203 6,680 21,201 2,017 17,907 1,278 18,152 39,680 15,925 8,680 997 .211 24,302 32,625 4,550 3,174 2,839 19,569 829 13,532 12,150 913 469 68,234 9,616 245 15,740 17J287 2,523 17,724 324 1,568 1,542 565 313 687 100 3,919,674 25,386 23,576 1,527 202 27,337 5,608 21,729 44,258 13,402 28,350 2,007 45,195 93,022 31,933 19,937 1,861 30,307 8,984 31,767 61,249 6,568 13,272 4,440 33,077 26,229 28,986 26,941 711 1,334 203,989 87,535 10,068 26,105 27,510 10,867 28,257 1,259 3,204 7,515 915 315 388 51 1 ,275,736 ,814 ,608 38,204 11,868 3,498 8,370 20,044 1,980 16,670 1,394 22,782 35,559 12,346 7,930 1,414 8,328 5,541 12,548 22,402 3,122 2,614 2,011 11,530 6,591 8,899 8,152 441 306 48,848 17,056 209 8,348 7,328 1,087 | 10,735 203 1,068 1,460 780 176 361 37 20,671 19,068 50,357 14,984 1,923 13,061 22,8 73 11,343 10,977 552 22,013 55,323 19,034 11,761 390 21,722 2,416 18,014 38,005 3,309 10,637 2,327 20,997 19,332 20,061 18,789 266 1,006 144,498 70,180 9,752 15,779 17,929 9,780 11,722 1,029 2,002 6,040 135 110 27 13 901 900 485 188 297 1,342 80 1,202 2,142 553 246 58 257 1,028 137 21 101 550 306 27 10,643 299 107 1,978 2,253 5,800 34.26 32.09 36.57 2 .42 31.64 3.13 22.30 10.60 31 .18 50.30 147.43 41.94 19.83 28.52 29.62 29.29 34.14 8.45 45.61 15.47 27 .05 43.34 30.48 61.23 26.89 68.2 7 0.54 34.50 55.97 67 .46 4 | 11.38 22 j 23.82 67 123 166 45 40 69 30. 29. 892 727 111 28 10,586 3,189 7,396 12,843 391 10,897 1,555 5,779 3,090 685 7,466 1,306 101 253 400 1,681 1,624 1 56 20,660 1,351 197 9,831 4,413 1,659 2.898 42 220 6,175 5,399 Hi I 309 12,369 5,114 7,255 14,727 424 12,267 2,036 17,304 13,082 4,016 879 106 5,432 2,649 7,660 11,472 840 483 413 8,740 33 5,061 4,139 359 564 54,651 22,066 316 13,484 6,805 3,251 5,622 205 391 1,758 375 187 183 8 1,460,873 5,817 5,097 62 369 68,143 11,497 4,625 6,872 13,306 369 11,404 1,532 12,406 3,999 848 106 5,392 2,061 7,492 9,494 705 442 413 7,010 22 902 6,233 4,773 4,078 337 358 46,564 18,805 235 10,180 6,464 3,249 4,812 205 317 1,648 320 187 I'll 12,421 302 35 873 489 383 1,421 54 863 503 2,341 676 40 588 1,978 135 8,089 3,261 3,305 341 1 in >5 1,481 See footnotes at end of table. 26 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 12. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76— Continued (Dollar amounts, except per capita, in thousands) SMSA and county area Population, 1975 (estimated ) Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Construc- tion Per capita, total direct expend- iture Dther than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Per capi ta, total direct expend- iture 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 Semino le County.. Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla. SMSA..... Hi llsborough County Pasco County Pinellas County Atlanta, Ga . SMSA Butts County Cherokee County Clayton County Cobb County De Kalb County 1 Douglas County Fayette County Forsyth County Fulton County 1 Gwinnett County Henry County ■ Newton County Paulding County Rockda le County Walton County ..................... Honolulu, Hawaii SMSA: Honolulu County (entire SMSA)..... Chicago, 111. SMSA Cook County Du Page County Kane County Lake County McHenry County Wl 11 County Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind. SMSA Lake Coun ty Porter County Indianapolis, Ind. SMSA Boone County Haml lton 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 S Jefferson Parish Orleans Parish St . Bernard Parish St. Tammany Parish Baltimore, Md . SMSA Anne Arundel County Baltimore County Baltimore city Carroll County Harford County Howard County 6 692,796 12,491 51,169 562,283 28,158 38,695 582,664 409,970 37,693 135,001 1,347,677 577,497 126,640 643,540 1,790,128 12,113 38,994 130,516 239,832 450,599 45,263 17,721 22,016 580,600 113,247 28,897 32,077 21,832 27,471 28,950 ,369 553 262 407 125 296 643 546 696 17 83 56 1,094 399 559 58 77 2,147 344 637 851 80 136 8,655 53 205 7,567 150 680 452 1,233 28,756 11,772 558 16,426 33,095 93 43 3,063 5,401 9,519 176 57 13,560 581 51 207 35 263 40,549 25,273 7,804 2,905 2,795 994 778 4,150 3,182 967 8,772 383 910 449 420 1,296 4,322 488 504 16,510 196 14,372 979 962 14,128 2,268 11,578 282 24,270 3,059 7,831 10,978 773 1,629 70,872 602 392 65,159 3,765 954 18,130 14,322 1,286 2,522 59,708 30,885 1,732 27,091 59,556 149 39 3,047 15,028 15,414 851 23,840 724 32,027 221,940 187,596 19,759 5,144 7,637 1,001 803 16,093 15,063 1,029 28,191 350 6,836 577 409 778 18,390 493 358 34,319 268 32,127 931 993 32,903 5,882 26,359 662 100,967 16,065 13,977 62,324 2,841 5,760 259 ,005 228 721 ,791 ,358 367 ,066 16,721 5,623 782 10,316 18,009 149 39 2,215 3,680 4,525 79 28 6,868 61 54 110 25 60 1 is 6,171 136,873 123,498 6,6 76 3,183 2,185 540 791 9,082 8,204 878 11,711 338 888 286 342 753 8,465 319 321 9,217 88 7,592 768 769 13,593 3,994 9,349 249 24,038 4,812 4,760 12,017 504 1,945 61,146 514 57,100 3,532 53,252 10,954 8,695 837 1,422 41,933 25,174 899 15,861 40,467 804 11,285 10,827 687 16,166 663 21 75,82 5 55,618 12,513 1,893 5,363 438 ,846 ,695 151 ,948 286 9,755 173 24,624 178 24,102 161 183 19,099 1,708 17,010 381 76,431 11,066 9,213 50,020 2,321 3,811 1,426 133 1,055 5 233 3,564 384 270 52 914 9,242 8,480 570 164 164 211 179 498 187 102 .30 48.11 7.66 115.88 133.71 24.65 47.94 31 .11 34.94 34.09 18.67 44.30 53.48 13.68 42.10 33.27 12.30 1.00 23.35 62.66 34.21 18.78 1.58 41.06 6.39 2.63 3.83 1.15 2.18 5.28 45.40 31.64 34.94 35.69 19.58 18.75 7.95 2.71 25.02 27.55 10.68 24.76 10.76 100.15 14.34 6.67 11.62 23.51 10.15 9.23 38.65 7.98 46.10 11.20 17.49 30.06 14.74 47.09 8.55 47.01 46.69 21.94 73.18 35.25 42 .23 1,845 29 192 1,347 67 210 15,810 5,009 4,096 204 709 16,371 5,727 232 10,412 22,140 59 69 632 1,522 9,254 151 ,316 333 73 2 78 171 193 624 8,720 6,549 1,248 335 454 56 78 611 63 548 3,195 708 2,431 ,162 ,815 633 559 19 136 301 260 060 6.891 407 309 497 359 7,354 6,110 305 939 22 , 702 8,311 255 14,136 34,086 128 114 914 1,874 11,071 119 49 122 17,084 398 1,013 438 43 255 464 8,959 106,263 97,788 2,282 1,980 2,428 85 1,700 6,682 5,958 724 48 47 50 130 5,984 130 120 9,849 466 603 13,417 5,290 7,418 412 297 41,691 3,469 8,478 27,177 329 792 1,446 6,780 5,745 263 773 18,643 7,740 216 10,687 2 5,383 128 89 833 1,543 10,231 117 34 33 10,818 350 132 410 43 236 386 7,048 97,040 88,876 2,229 1,933 2,272 85 1,644 6,324 5,606 718 130 ,917 130 410 563 11,914 5,240 6,042 412 219 36,570 3,417 8,477 22,337 320 636 1,383 574 365 4,059 571 8,703 331 840 89 ,266 9,223 8,912 46 156 358 352 67 29 873 776 I 56 40 1,503 49 1,376 4,840 9 156 12 .07 7.53 5.88 12.56 14.49 12 .84 23.07 12.62 14.91 8.09 6.96 16.85 14.39 2.01 21.97 19.04 10.57 2 .92 7.00 7.81 24.57 2.63 2 .77 5.54 29.42 3.51 35.06 13.65 1.97 9.32 16.03 15.15 18.21 4.12 10.39 10.90 5.77 1.99 0.70 7.65 2.68 3.09 11.09 0.90 12 .56 12.26 13.26 13.25 7.08 3.82 19.41 10.09 13.31 31.91 4.08 5.81 14.77 See footnotes at end of table. SELECTED SMSA's 27 Table 12. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76 — Continued (Dollar amounts, except per capita, in thousands) SMSA and county area Population, 1975 (estimated ) Revenue Iron charges Direct expenditure Current operatior Capital outlay Construc- Por capita, total direct expend- iture Sanitation other than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital out lay Massachusetts State Economic Area c (Boston) Essex County Middlesex County Norfolk County Suffolk County Massachusetts State Economic Area A (Springfield) 8 Hampden County Hampshire County Massachusetts State Economic Area B (Worcester ) : Worcester County (entire SEA)... Detroit, Mich. SMSA 9 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 . 1 Hennepin County , Minn . 1 ■ Ramsey County, Minn. 1 Scott County, Minn. 1 Washington County, Minn.. Wright County, Minn St. Croix County, Wis Kansas City, Mo.-Kans. SMSA Cass County, Mo Clay County, Mo. 1 Jackson County, Mo . 2 Platte County, Mo Ray County , Mo Johnson County , Kans Wyandotte County, 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. 1 .... Monroe County, 111 St. Clair County, 111. 1 ... Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa SMSA Douglas County, Nebr.... Sarpy County, Nebr Pottawattamie County, Iowa Jersey City, N.J. SMSA: Hudson County (entire SMSA). Newark, N .J . SMSA Essex County Morris County Somerset County Union County New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreveille, N.J. SMSA: Middlesex County (entire SMSA)... Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y. SMSA Albany County Montgomery County Rensselaer County Saratoga County Schenectady County 3,372,957 631,182 1,398,987 619,994 722,794 597,404 463,804 133,600 648,095 4,424,382 61,610 77,859 669,813 966,625 130,749 2,517,726 518,824 449,606 69,218 564,157 423,601 140,556 2,010,841 186,328 33,609 22,074 166,754 915,603 456,006 39,604 104,145 47,852 :tH,Mhi 1,290,110 47,767 133,198 634,589 39,333 19,327 238,326 177,570 2,366, 542 64,199 121,769 115,994 960,451 524,964 29,557 249,685 18,977 280,946 573,294 411,878 75,121 86,295 577,519 ,999,025 882,487 393,624 202,091 520,823 592,771 798,014 287,580 55,729 153,377 143,980 157,348 9,103 1,588 2,583 1,397 3,536 1,970 1,262 708 10,214 13,764 2,053 59,707 9,714 9,383 331 8,133 5,692 2,441 34,057 2,306 308 85 2,529 17,243 9,193 551 1,339 227 " 1 , 15,974 272 2,065 10,532 68 101 901 2,035 19,490 164 130 591 4,818 9,976 3,343 2,788 2,396 1 ,448 5,293 1,529 731 113 ,047 69,293 36,505 12,512 11,263 9,013 15,897 12,294 3,603 10,957 178,206 596 465 17,096 34,411 3,650 121,988 26,810 26,433 377 16,166 12,510 3,656 125,309 7,348 501 1,933 7,051 59,227 35,985 9,660 2,470 619 517 59 36,966 60,595 21,729 3,143 16,014 13,836 5,873 14,751 2,856 4,921 4,314 2,663 2,424 1,668 755 4,125 69,436 199 437 7,714 13,814 1,786 45,486 7,373 7,058 314 7,870 5,934 1,936 34,869 2,474 315 135 2,362 17,057 9,025 1,886 1,071 200 343 12,564 216 1,244 7,035 57 95 2,256 1,661 21,438 130 115 801 170 16,182 122 2,254 143 1,521 5,939 4,708 424 801 5,277 18,702 4,547 4,101 3,694 6,359 ,406 ,933 842 729 411 ,490 54,022 33,647 7,249 6,806 6,320 13,137 10,312 2 ,825 104,704 350 18 9,269 20,200 1,809 73,058 19,359 19,300 8,154 6,535 1,619 89,877 4,868 180 1,601 4,671 42,048 26,824 7,769 1,380 416 121 46,103 550 2,837 29,961 1,777 5,602 5,376 25,031 17 96 818 4,642 7,327 148 1,996 75 9,913 24,070 22,938 2 76 856 6,734 3,438 1,251 288 1,756 2,809 7,479 2,271 3,264 3,419 J, 376 342 144 337 314 23 113 397 122 136 637 18 161 149 10 625 6 3 383 318 30 20.54 57.84 8.94 18.17 12.47 26.61 26.51 26.97 16.91 40.28 9.67 5.97 25.52 35.60 27.92 48.45 51.67 58.79 :'m .1,1, 29.53 26.01 62 .32 39.44 14.94 87.52 42.28 64.69 78.91 243.92 23.72 12.94 13.30 46.36 16.04 31.20 59.52 46.63 4.92 34.18 39.65 19.90 2.57 1.73 14.90 5.02 45.64 9.20 17.09 11.59 40.80 52.63 67.48 9.45 19.29 15.18 19.73 15.59 62.36 75 .93 75.56 56.40 104.41 96.10 37.32 798 546 247 206 31 ,053 ,926 153 ,522 KM, 4,053 601 110 647 2,045 241 22] 72 2,865 262 lL'f, 299 1,488 17 1,311 570 517 223 534 234 13 47 51 l.i'i 47,308 8,248 15,094 6,925 17,041 4,408 3,871 537 70,210 34 107 7,354 13,137 74 7 48,831 3,873 3,810 1,548 1,449 13,712 593 ,'I 10 215 9,000 2,874 114 , il 120 183 9,083 19 966 5,760 48 31 532 1,726 13,361 261 314 330 4,179 5,451 18 2,075 99 634 6,997 5,651 429 917 9,611 25,138 15,026 2,982 868 6,263 45,567 8,065 14,509 6,082 16,911 4,396 3,869 32 95 7,192 12,310 717 44,398 3,873 3,810 62 1,497 1,399 13,461 593 In 174 8,994 2,798 85 [82 120 133 H.,,., I 502 1,721 13,102 261 232 330 4,099 5,436 18 2,031 9,466 23,834 13,941 2,879 789 6,225 ,741 is ( 84 > 130 12 162 82 7 30 4,433 50 l'.";9 557 440 , ;5 116 352 77 670 247 145 1,305 1,086 102 79 38 934 4,833 1,102 263 6,528 735 494 2,980 514 607 522 85 813 779 34 567 536 31 782 1 711 71 See footnotes at end of table. 28 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 12. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76— Continued (Dollar amounts, except per capita, in thousands) SMSA and county area Population, 1975 (estimated ) Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current aperation Capital outlay- Construc- tion Per capita, total direct expend- iture Sanitation other than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditur Current operation Capital outlay Per capita, total direct expend- 1 ture Buffalo, N.Y. SMSA. Erie County Niagara County Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y. SMSA Nassau County Suf f o Ik 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 Guilford County Randolph County Stokes County Yadkin County Akron, Ohio SMSA Portage County Summit County Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky .-Ind. SMSA Clermont County , Ohio , Hamilton County, Ohio Warren County, Ohio . Boone County, Ky . . . , Campbell County, Ky Ken ton Coun ty , Ky Dearborn County , Ind Cleveland, Ohio SMSA Cuyahoga County Geauga County Lake County ■ Medina County la Columbus, Ohio SMSA Delaware County Fairfield County Franklin County ■ Madison County ■ Pickaway County Dayton, Ohio SMSA Greene Coun ty 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 Trumbu 11 County 1,326, 848 1,089,327 237,521 2,656,839 1,403,289 1,253,550 9,561,089 7,481,613 69,276 251,114 879,241 879,845 971,465 56,892 708,642 85,060 38,328 82,543 647,828 65,469 4 72,708 109,651 592,706 156,529 373,925 62,252 764 100 226 299 82 28 667 132 534 ,381 108 900 ,966 ,592 206 99 1,068 50 100 127 548 307 241 9,714 6,983 2,731 3,225 2,930 294 51,380 44,114 61 2,145 1,047 4,012 19,466 801 17,125 780 73 2,920 421 1,914 585 7,806 480 6,838 488 10,920 900 4,209 13,115 1,848 11,267 24,796 3,838 15,533 797 222 54 3,881 4 72 50,538 42,912 1,248 5,181 1,196 18,970 510 769 17,045 220 42 6 11,169 1,921 1,268 7,657 323 18,008 624 13,468 400 1,448 2,068 5,187 2,449 2,737 155,079 110,659 44,420 137,153 67,905 69,248 310,684 232,638 2 76 8,379 38,643 30,748 66,378 1,4 79 57,006 1,830 593 5,4 70 44,930 306 40,442 4,182 18,754 5,427 12,232 1,094 10,697 808 3,766 4,494 1,578 51 20,410 4,471 15,939 54,671 3,195 38,161 960 2,608 102 9,413 233 49,537 40,173 1,272 6, 747 1,345 21,540 2 77 829 18,876 289 1,269 13,876 2,061 2,443 8,275 1,097 23,184 680 15,683 565 4,707 1,549 8,704 5,144 3,560 20,057 17,592 2,465 17,610 13,902 3,708 65,824 42,046 132 4,908 8,516 10,222 22,677 524 20,836 811 91 415 10,349 304 9,570 475 5,447 1,205 4,097 145 ,644 689 ,215 ,259 434 10,996 1J567 9,430 17,518 939 13,909 700 187 88 1,464 2 30 33,678 28,466 923 3,628 661 14,123 269 556 12,909 150 240 8,862 1,718 79 7 5,954 393 13,721 493 10,185 434 1,247 1,361 6,458 3,228 3,230 133,231 91,979 117 53 244 190 1,790 1,087 703 1,761 137 1,624 856 49 2 70 466 1,198 20 1,133 685 194 491 ,184 856 10 279 38 580 234 293 257 126 131 116.88 101.58 187.02 51 .62 48.39 55.24 32.49 31.09 3.97 33.37 43.95 34.95 68.33 26.00 80.44 21 .51 15.50 66.27 69.35 4.67 85.55 38.14 31.64 34.67 32.71 17.57 14 .00 8.01 16.64 15.00 19.11 30.59 33.81 29.80 39.58 29.34 42.39 10.82 69.79 1 .20 72.51 7.47 25.19 25.22 18.65 32.61 13.57 20.16 5.45 9.80 21.99 9.23 29.13 16.60 16.52 27.99 14.08 30.38 29.77 19.12 32.90 14.55 46.75 12.19 15.87 16.73 14.76 1,128 544 584 7,075 4,926 2,149 17,525 13,325 11 346 2,842 1 ,000 333 30 908 192 12 522 1,418 1,418 1,543 143 364 225 262 548 3 1,520 524 361 636 2,837 261 588 1,851 137 3,166 905 492 1,536 234 3,173 116 2,787 16,352 13,507 2,845 52,606 40,827 11,779 303,849 269,400 844 2,542 19,669 11,394 17,839 136 16,364 640 148 551 10,366 181 6,635 3,550 9,336 1,891 6,771 674 9,319 858 3,479 4,392 406 66 118 5,614 21 5,593 14,507 132 11,610 216 10 737 1,595 207 24,743 22,860 1 1,334 548 14,691 20] 4 74 13,763 251 2 9,218 853 730 7,389 245 13,491 152 12,137 75 712 415 2,065 1,151 914 15,901 13,123 2,778 42,909 31,779 11,130 284,040 251,941 529 2,444 18,523 10,603 14,220 136 12,881 597 148 457 5,495 181 4,482 832 8,496 1,722 6,301 473 8,615 770 3,320 3,962 394 58 111 5,284 21 5,263 13,041 132 10,251 211 10 676 1,567 194 24,063 22,198 1 1,320 544 11,501 182 374 10,695 248 2 8,030 791 688 6,310 241 9,661 119 8,395 70 662 415 2,057 1,150 907 451 384 67 9,697 9,048 649 19,808 17,459 314 98 1,146 791 3,620 3,483 43 ,153 ,718 840 169 470 201 158 430 12 8 8 331 331 1,467 1,359 13 I 680 663 3,190 19 100 3,068 3 12.32 12 .40 11.98 19.80 29.09 9.40 31 .78 36.01 12.18 10.12 22.37 12.95 18.36 2.39 23.09 7.51 3.86 16.00 2.76 14.04 32.38 15.75 12.08 18.11 10.83 12 .19 8.51 15.37 14.66 4.92 2.33 4.47 8.42 0.16 10.46 10.50 1.21 12.90 8.68 12.29 6.64 12.58 14.35 0.01 13.75 3.95 5.60 16.04 8.02 0.05 11.03 6.84 8.36 12.58 6.78 17.32 25 46 1 .93 7 .08 3 .27 3 .76 3 .75 3 79 See footnotes at end of table. SELECTED SMSA's 29 Table 12. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76— Continued (Dollar amounts, except per capita, in thousands) SMSA and county area Population, 1975 (estimated ) Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Construc- tion Per capita, total direct expend- iture Sanitation other Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Oklahoma City, Ok la. SMSA Canadian County , Cleveland County , McClaln 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 13 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 ) Bristol County Kent County Providence County Memphis, Tenn . -Ark . -Ml ss . SMSA" Shelby County, Tenn Tipton County, Tenn Crittenden County, Ark De Soto County, Miss... Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. SMSA 15 , Cheatham County Davidson County Dickson County Robertson County Rutherford County Sumner county Wl lllamson 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 , 537 50 33 416 ,082 206 530 191 154 263 224 82 634 234 345 54 ,807 460 292 591 634 ,815 345 476 189 ,322 ,517 209 214 380 460 128 597 939 199 682 291 213 390 671 892 225 757 014 412 741 590 628 289 566 883 890 635 771 645 219 1)01 978 774 671 001 808 696 511 562 224 996 128 611 289 770,403 45,415 148,286 576,702 866,864 736,754 29,917 51,074 49,119 748,483 16,428 446,941 26,283 32,015 67,091 70,447 44,672 44,606 2,527,224 94,613 1,388,615 97,410 51,872 10,308 55,564 36,209 33,629 9,150 728,951 20,903 7,688 284 1,599 65 5,497 242 3,501 175 243 ,95] 23,396 2,107 13,765 5,898 1,626 10,128 640 5,713 3,022 753 10,108 6,281 3,532 295 84,297 5,776 4,733 5,593 12,879 28,609 4,514 18,725 3,468 34,595 25,509 2,493 2,354 4,239 288 1 ,740 8,818 8,127 585 12 41 10,158 150 200 963 653 347 4 78 32,953 1,225 19,125 663 515 38 408 424 216 30 10,214 15,574 181 554 59 14,616 164 13,093 63 155 12,736 40 50,804 3,788 24,597 20,797 1,622 11,035 583 6,549 3,142 761 15,921 8,265 7,477 180 94,485 5,929 6,934 7,3 70 16,317 40,433 3,165 10,803 3,534 42,652 32,207 4,757 1,651 4,036 13,813 830 3,503 9,480 34,748 34,172 185 367 24 32,170 233 888 596 625 612 76,956 2,555 55,787 581 1,235 82 183 365 153 50 ,440 107 155 ,218 20,823 2,220 13,108 4,186 1,309 6,902 465 3,559 2,211 668 4,593 2,254 2,165 175 50,095 3,353 2,968 4,610 10,273 15,460 2,308 8,785 2,338 24,967 19,135 1,948 1,331 2,552 4,204 136 492 3,576 ,986 ,545 346 24 140 825 349 210 316 19,660 743 12,74 7 508 233 51 173 244 10,750 82 249 10,419 1 9,994 29,438 1,494 11,270 16,430 244 3,887 101 2,803 897 11,205 5,935 5,266 5 43,009 2,506 3,798 2,719 5,660 24,466 704 1,971 1,185 16,597 12,256 2 , 690 293 1,358 9,380 623 3,005 5,752 30,506 30,506 233 413 297 56,120 1,785 42,308 818 5 757 534 2 219 181 187 35 123 76 384 507 L53 120 115 20 20.87 4.47 5.59 3.17 27.17 3.27 22.36 1.28 1.03 2.26 4.60 30.55 1 .47 46.92 18.39 46.37 108,46 10.49 17.69 11 .17 24.85 13.98 9.18 25.09 35.20 21 .63 3.32 19.66 12.86 23.68 12 .46 25.74 22.27 9.16 22 .67 18.64 18.37 21.22 22.73 7.69 10.61 17.93 18.28 23.62 16.44 40.08 46.38 6.18 7.17 0.49 42 .98 2.80 65.24 0.46 7.28 13.24 8.45 13.99 13.74 30.45 27.00 40.17 5.96 23.81 7.95 3.29 10.08 4.52 5.46 21.81 3.16 9,554 450 1,741 59 6,951 353 3,922 319 150 L04 150 3,108 92 1,307 220 473 ,518 12 ,369 ,306 6 ,844 979 233 ,377 ,144 209 139 103 ,891 ,386 61 431 22,794 526 14,355 812 393 53 216 240 206 73 5,838 80 8,672 394 1,101 86 6,760 332 4,595 293 197 61 157 3,807 80 3,615 143 2,072 160 1,240 3,346 317 1,987 775 2 66 4,553 1,724 2,722 106 79,820 2,457 572 9,878 5,828 51,830 3,578 4,395 1,282 19,591 16,531 966 610 1 ,484 6,175 241 709 5,226 20,595 19,538 2 42 455 360 9,294 73 5,988 366 341 463 851 358 853 35,926 796 26,238 716 412 51 187 716 154 59 6,515 8,462 342 1,093 86 6,619 322 3,802 277 1 4H 60 153 3,084 80 3,444 141 2,043 21 1,240 3,208 287 1,898 75 7 266 4,018 1,724 2,204 90 77,810 2,455 572 9,574 5,099 51,255 3,394 4,330 1,131 19,177 16,255 945 610 1,367 5,971 241 696 5,035 17,530 16,715 128 405 282 8,642 73 5,853 257 232 425 781 337 685 32,664 741 23,819 709 385 51 187 232 153 59 6,246 210 52 535 519 2,009 2 303 729 575 184 ■114 2 76 ,065 ,824 114 135 110 110 38 70 21 168 3,262 55 2,419 See footnotes at end of table. 30 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL Table 12. Local Government Revenue From Current Charges and Direct Expenditure for Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities in 74 Major SMSA's and Their County Areas: Fiscal Year 1975-76 — Continued (Dollar amounts, except per capita, in thousands) nd county area Population, 1975 ; estimated J Sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital outlay Construc- tion Per capita, total direct expend- iture Sanitation other than sewerage Revenue from charges Direct expenditure Current operation Capital out lay Per capita, total direct expend- iture Houston, Texas SMSA Brazoria County Fort Bend County Harris County Liberty County Montgomery County Waller County San Antonio, Texas SMSA Bexar County Comal County Guada lupe County Salt Lake Clty-Ogden, Utah SMSA 16 Davis County Salt Lake County Tooele County Weber County Norlolk-Vlrglnla Beach-Portsmouth, Va.-N.C. SMSA Chesapeake city, Va Norfolk city, Va Portsmouth city, Va Suffolk city, Va Virginia Beach city, Va Currituck County, N.C . Richmond, Va . SMSA".... Charles City County Chesterfield County Goochland County Hanover County Henrico County New Kent County 18 Powhatan County Richmond city Seattle-Everett, Wash. SMSA King County Snohomish County Milwaukee, Wis. SMSA Ml lwaukee County Ozaukee County Washing ton County Waukesha County ,286,247 124,380 76,245 ,944,431 38,441 87,213 15,537 981,566 912,934 29,478 39,154 782,845 114,652 512,130 22,936 133,127 772,932 104,459 286,694 108,674 49,210 213,954 9,941 585,203 6,752 ^03,240 11,050 47,397 167,728 7,351 9,033 232,652 1,406,746 1,142,544 264,202 1,409,048 1,012,335 64,519 76,415 255,779 33,069 1,156 588 30,751 192 340 41 260 392 7,439 2,171 3,593 202 1,472 22,226 1,325 17,372 2,700 213 616 15,238 1,812 82 3,906 50,856 47,502 3,354 9,335 5,848 768 511 2,209 70,736 1,421 1,344 66,485 257 1,191 38 15,411 14,916 269 226 6,817 2,015 3,403 226 1,173 48,136 2,434 33,395 2,151 1,018 8,723 415 28,305 11,462 63 6,379 44,854 42,959 1,895 51,568 44,649 1,088 1,406 4,425 25,567 621 547 23,357 160 843 38 5,706 5,349 137 220 4,628 963 2,418 197 1,050 10,692 462 7,998 1,061 247 924 8,499 798 63 3,222 19,747 17,966 1,781 23,546 19,906 84 7 498 2.294 38,920 731 790 37,008 74 318 9,001 8,890 111 1,984 998 857 36,959 1,937 25,231 1,090 666 7,620 415 19,723 10,652 24,234 24,201 34 22,195 19,020 154 903 2,119 705 678 483 34 166 105 178 872 793 79 5,828 5,722 30.94 11.42 17.63 34.19 6.69 13.66 2 .45 15.70 16.34 9.13 5.77 8.71 17.57 6.65 9.85 8.81 62 .28 23.29 116.48 19.79 20.69 40.77 41.75 48.37 111.02 1 .33 38.03 31 .88 37.60 7.17 36.60 44.10 16.88 18.40 17.30 3,652 942 293 1,929 217 251 21 4,417 4,003 226 188 1,773 534 486 158 596 1,463 33 107 2 58 654 13,669 12,950 719 303 245 21,416 1,324 292 19,025 272 468 35 9,299 8,774 333 192 5,051 523 3,243 128 1.156 11,224 1,507 3,917 1,898 511 3,362 29 6,532 13 239 24 109 975 16,053 14,310 1,743 21,871 19,541 472 561 1,297 19,710 1,221 2 70 17,607 197 388 28 9,102 8,664 264 174 4,788 494 3,141 128 1,025 10, 115 1,142 3,709 1,898 511 2,826 29 6,302 13 208 23 102 941 14,276 13,228 1,048 19,829 17,513 471 559 1,284 1,706 104 197 110 69 263 30 103 131 1,109 365 208 1,778 1,082 696 2,044 2,028 7.08 5.37 2.25 9.61 11 .33 4.57 6.33 14.52 14.43 13.66 17.47 10.38 15.71 2.92 11 .16 1 .93 2.31 2.17 2.30 5.81 5.58 5.20 21.85 11 .41 12.52 15.52 19.30 Note: Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. These data are estimates subject to the sampling variation described in the text. - Represents zero or rounds to zero. includes prorated amounts for certain intercounty local governments; see text and Appendix A. ■Connecticut State Economic Area C (Hartford) totals include prior year data for Hartford city. 'Connecticut State Economic Area B (New Haven) totals include prior year data for Waterbury and West Haven cities (New Haven County area). Effective for fiscal year 1974-75, Manassas and Manassas Park cities, Va . became Independent cities and are no longer Included in Prince William County area totals. 5 New Orleans, La. SMSA totals include prior year data for St. Bernard Parish government. G Sewerage data for Howard County, Md . government not available. 'Massachusetts State Economic Area C (Boston) totals include prior year data for Lynn city (Essex County area), Arlington town and Maiden city (Middlesex County ea), and Brookline town and Qulncy city (Norfolk County area). Massachusetts State Economic Area A (Springfield) totals Include prior year data for Chicopee city (Hampden County area). 9 Detrolt, Mich. SMSA totals Include prior year data for Livingston County government. 'Schenectady County, N.Y. area construction expenditure total includes prior year data for Schenectady city. 'Rochester, N.i. SMSA totals include prior year data for Rochester city (Monroe County area). 'Cleveland, Ohio SMSA totals Include prior year data for Medina County government. 'Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J. SMSA totals Include prior year data for Upper Darby Township (Delaware County area). 'Memphis, Tenn .-Ark .-Miss . SMSA totals include prior year data for Tipton County government. 'Nashville-Davidson, Tenn. SMSA totals Include prior year data for Dickson and Wilson County gove J Salt Lake Clty-Ogden, Utah SMSA totals Include prior year data for Davis County government. 'Richmond, Va . SMSA totals include prior year data for Chesterfield County government. 'Effective for fiscal year 1975-76, New Kent County area Is a component of the Richmond, Va . SMSA APPENDIX A Adjustments for Intercounty Local Governments As described in the introductory text, data for the following intercounty local governments are prorated in table 12 to the county areas involved. The primary county area of each intercounty local government is indicated with an asterisk (*). Intercounty local government County areas involved East Bay Municipal Utility District 1 *Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California Metropolitan Denver Sewerage Disposal District 1 *Denver and Adams Counties, Colorado Atlanta city 2 •Arapahoe and Adams Counties, Colorado *Fulton and DeKalb Counties, Georgia *St. Clair and Madison Counties, Illinois East Side Levee Sanitary District 1 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 1 *Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, Maryland *Ramsey, Hennepin, Anoka, Scott, and Dakota Counties, Minnesota ""Jackson and Clay Counties, Missouri Metropolitan Sewer Board 1 Kansas City 2 . 'Sewerage data prorated. 2 Both sewerage and sanitation other than sewerage data prorated. APPENDIX B United States Environmental Protection Agency Outlays for Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction Grants, by State: Fiscal Years 1974 to 1976 and Transition Quarter July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976 (Thousands of dollars) Transition quarter Total, . — Alabama Alaska Arizona ■ * Arkansas < California < Colorado «... Connecticut ■ De la aare District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawai i Idaho I llinois Indiana ,, Ioia, , I Kansas > . Kentucky * Loui s i ana ..... . . Maine Mary land . < Massachusetts ■ Michigan . 1 Minnesota J Mississippi I Missouri . . . < Mod tana • j Nebraska i Nevada , ,. , ; New Hampshi re. j i New Jersey | New Mexico ; New York North Carolina ■ North Dakota ! Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania , ... Rhode Island . South Carolina , South Dakota Tennessee Texas , Utah , . ... Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming , Other 1 18 247 8 228 5 902 7 496 93, 250 11 960 71 816 7 325 6 678 41 112 53 784 2 100 5 617 75 081 19, 625 16 694 8 889 23 912 11 196 18 851 30 121 36 294 95 659 38 982 15 135 23 855 6 967 8 077 6 570 12 032 55 087 6 466 277 574 27 971 3 ,617 69 ,561 10 ,797 21 843 70 ,987 1 ,265 18 ,092 1 ,908 25 ,084 69 ,752 4 ,817 3 ,408 22 ,814 29 ,682 3 ,723 36 ,644 1 ,572 8 ,367 937, 575 13, 476 9 590 11 085 11 131 161, 835 19 390 51 400 7 666 16 631 47 956 34, 945 10 569 10 735 100 922 43, 666 26 836 9 82 5 26 034 25 602 25 835 43 720 65 686 106 963 32 239 17 032 32 348 8 505 9 693 7 617 13 257 94 396 4 418 252 914 29 070 3 539 97 753 14 977 36 ,261 84 ,881 7 ,835 19 ,896 3 ,515 28 ,560 86 ,804 8 ,063 4 ,178 69 ,875 36 ,397 7 ,860 32 ,251 1 ,533 10 ,412 428, 569 28 125 10 645 13 791 20 528 224, 867 18 961 22 682 10 614 ! 20 896 97, 624 34 599 20 029 12 205 108 758 50 952 39 1 556 15 494 27 411 31 177 17 309 77 709 60 496 123 812 57 415 12 681 59 085 8 680 j 19 299 10 791 | 28 989 168 969 8 294 278 640 32 ,113 3 594 104 ,867 21 ,644 31 ,633 111 ,435 9 ,889 17 ,392 2 ,335 25 ,153 89 ,468 7 ,747 5 ,221 100 ,117 44 ,837 13 ,099 41 ,732 2 ,837 22 ,375 919, 463 12 302 1 801 4 979 4 445 81 475 7 94 6 2 492 8 854 8 239 59, 493 5 902 8 174 1 510 45 620 30 404 13 094 6 181 10 396 8 716 4 227 40 944 18 386 50 416 22 021 8 061 21 814 754 10 931 1 822 5 665 58 160 2 166 98 923 11 393 985 22 710 3 652 6 ,121 50 ,908 7 783 8 ,002 1 ,079 18 ,341 30 ,569 4 ,690 2 ,867 34 ,591 13 ,878 4 ,706 22 ,552 769 5 ,554 Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Federal Aid to States {U.S. Department of the Treasury) 'Includes American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Trust Territory of the Pacific. 33 APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL SELECTED REVENUE AND INDEBTEDNESS: FISCAL YEAR 1975-76 Selected Environmental Quality Control Revenue Item Total Intergov- ernmental Local government current charges Taxes Other 229,068 1,017,184 377,701 238,250 519,196 124,218 (x) 427,472 161,638 40,890 37,338 54,202 19 928 33 178 37 643 X Not applicable, Selected Environmental Quality Control Indebtedness and Related Debt Transactions Item Outstanding at end of fiscal year Long-term debt issued Long-term debt retired Interest on debt Total State 48 largest cities.. 58 largest counties 6,802,989 2,962,847 2,493,939 1,346,203 729,707 419,930 148,184 161,593 339,359 112,899 173,768 52,692 323,805 134,795 123,412 65,598 Limitations of Revenue and Indebtedness Data These data were obtained solely through a review of financial documents at Census Bureau headquarters. Since these reports vary widely in both content and detail, it is reasonable to expect that data obtained through direct contact with public officials would be more comprehensive and in some cases more accurate. Further, only those revenue and debt transactions which were identified as directly related to pollution control activities were included. Definitions of Revenue and Debt Revenue: Considered as environmental quality control reve- nues were funds received by a government (1) to finance the performance of pollution control activities— e.g., specific taxes, charges, reimbursements, special assessments and grants; and (2) amounts resulting from governmental regulation or enforcement activities related to environmental quality control— e.g., licenses, permits, fines, fees, etc. Amounts shown represent cash receipts adjusted for refunds and other correcting transactions. Excluded are any noncash transactions (such as receipts "in kind"), inter- departmental charges and transfers, amounts resulting from borrowings and sale of investments, and interest earnings. Inter- governmental revenue excludes amounts not restricted to the performance of pollution abatement services, such as Federal general revenue sharing funds. Indebtedness: Considered for inclusion were debt issues identi- fied as being exclusively related to financing environmental activities. As such, composite debt obligations, such as local gov- ernment combined water and sewer bonds, were not included. Indebtedness covers all interest bearing obligations of a govern- ment, including short-term (repayable within one year of issue) and long-term debt whether backed by the government's full faith and credit or nonguaranteed. Long-term debt amounts are expressed at par value. 35 APPENDIX D Employment and Payrolls for Local Government Sewerage and Sanitation Other Than Sewerage Activities, by Type of Government: October 1976 Item Employees Payroll ( thousands of dollars) Sewerage, total, Counties Cities Townships Special districts Sanitation other than sewerage, total, Counties Cities Townships Special districts, 86,790 8,033 57,900 3,673 17,184 126,899 9,456 110,380 6,404 659 76,990 7,583 50,544 105,575 7,636 92,368 4,974 597 Note: These statistics are estimates based on a sample survey and are subject to sampling variations similar to those described in the text for estimates of local government sewerage and other sanitation expenditure . Source: Public Employment in 1976 (Bureau of the Census, Governments Division) 37 APPENDIX E Manufactures Pollution Abatement Capital Expenditures and Operating Costs, by Form of Abatement and Major Industry Group: 1976, 1975. 1974 and 1973 (In millions of dollars, except percent) SIC Code Selected data from The Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) Total new capital ex- penditures Pollution Abatement Capital Expenditures (PACE) Solid waste Pollution Abatement Cross Annual Costs (GAC), including payments to government units Solid waste Percent change 1 estimates (percent) AH Industries, Total 2 . Food and kindred products. Tobacco products. Textile mill products. Lumber and wood products. Furniture and fixtures. Paper and allied products Printing and publishing. Chemicals and allied products. Petroleum and coal products. Rubber, Miscellaneous plastics products. Leather and leather products. Stone, clay, glass products Primary metal industries. Fabricated metal products. Machinery, except electrical. Electric, electronic equipment. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. .1976. 1975. 1974. 1973. (NA) 1,041,210.6 1,017,873.4 875,243.5 (NA) 172,510.4 162,104.2 35,582.5 (NA) 8,113.4 7,139.9 6,340.7 (NA) 31,273.7 32,892.2 31,072.7 (NA) 25,193.7 26,852.6 27,980.6 (NA) 12,420.7 13,197.3 12,609.5 (NA) 41,743.1 41,665.3 32,752.4 (NA) 38,135.3 35,822.4 32,854.7 (NA) 89,847.8 83,801.0 65,008.0 (NA) 68,969.2 58,875.8 34,899.0 (NA) 27,316.5 27,902.2 24,383.6 (NA) 6,333.4 6,176.5 6,022.5 (NA) 27,595.1 26,260.1 23,861.7 (NA) 81,315.3 95,618.0 72,727.2 (NA) 68,823.6 67,569.9 58,556.3 (NA) 96,400.3 92,487.2 78,092.7 (NA) 64,197.9 65,804.1 60,864.8 (NA) 37,348.5 35,546.1 26,972.9 (NA) 3,399.4 3,006.1 2,412.0 (NA) 148.4 185.4 180.4 (NA) 1,002.0 1,169.9 1,120.9 (NA) 1,281.6 1,357.2 953.3 (NA) 255.0 350.9 343.8 (NA) 2,718.3 2,208.3 1,529.6 (NA) 1,184.4 1,140.9 1,083.5 (NA) 6,382.4 4,957.2 3,186.2 (NA) 2,328.4 1,845.1 1,107.0 (NA) 1,152.5 1,457.0 1,305.0 (NA) 78.4 76.1 80.9 (NA) 1,601.6 1,583.6 1,391.4 (NA> 4,187.4 3,751.8 2,334.2 (NA) 2,077.7 1,981.2 1,734.7 (NA) 3,369.4 3,312.2 2,320.7 (NA) 1,865.8 2,426.3 1,996.1 3,531.7 3,637.6 3,101.1 2,353.7 207.5 180.9 199.2 196.7 8.1 12.2 10.8 5.4 53.3 43.0 32.0 29.2 51.1 75.1 81.1 62.7 27.9 24.2 28.5 19.6 486.6 605.3 476.9 339.6 4.4 14.3 27.4 7.2 942.0 780.2 539.2 395.9 441.4 555.7 462.3 321.8 37.4 31.9 37.9 24.2 17.4 7.0 3.2 4.3 104.7 173.5 208.8 150.7 833.7 833.5 646.8 498.6 72.9 77.5 90.5 63.7 69.4 60.5 67.7 56.3 58.4 52.3 55.6 52.7 1,797.8 2,235.7 1,947.5 1,417.5 102.5 75.6 73.4 77.6 7.8 (D) (D) 4.7 19.7 12.7 10.3 29.5 46.4 58.4 41.5 24.5 22.6 23.7 16.9 180.6 323.0 270.8 166.4 2.6 12.8 10.3 5.0 319.8 359.5 250.6 164.4 236.5 398.2 341.3 222.5 24.2 22.2 22.2 13.5 7.3 (D) 1.8 32.2 152.7 185.8 131.6 632.5 640.6 501.5 397.2 35.5 46.9 56.4 39.6 44.8 37.5 41.9 36.6 23.0 22.7 24.6 27.0 1,599.2 1,280.1 1,008.8 827.8 97.6 93.9 111.7 104.8 (Z) (Z) 42.6 22.2 17.7 17.7 9.2 7.7 •7.6 1.2 278.6 266.0 193.2 161.0 1.1 .9 3.7 1.1 577.4 385.7 264.4 214.6 199.8 155.7 119.7 96.1 10.0 6.6 13.5 7.3 9.6 5.1 1.8 1.9 18.9 16.7 13.1 14.4 197.8 187.5 132.7 84.7 34.1 29.0 28.2 21.5 21.8 20.8 17.6 15.6 31.3 26.2 28.0 22.2 134.8 121.8 144.7 108.2 7.4 11.4 14.3 14.3 1.6 1 .1 1.7 1.2 12.5 21.0 15.0 9.6 1.1 1.2 2.9 1.5 27.3 16.3 12.9 12.1 .7 .6 13.4 1.1 5.2 1.7 1.3 3.2 2.2 3.3 .5 (D) ID) .6 3.6 4.1 10.0 4.7 3.3 5.4 12.5 16.8 3.4 1.7 5.9 2.7 2.9 2.3 4.1 3.3 3.1 3.5 4,539.2 3,673.1 3,102.8 2,445.2 345.9 294.2 268.9 203.1 11.4 9.3 8.1 5.9 65.3 50.7 54.0 38.8 81.3 70.5 64.2 61.6 21.6 19.5 19.1 13.2 430.3 344.0 289.0 220.5 27.5 23.5 26.3 18.3 983.5 r 807.4 643.3 502.3 774.8 563.1 420.1 337.8 80.3 64.8 58.8 42.6 11.0 9.3 8.1 6.1 192.1 171.8 152 117 895.8 715 590.2 466.8 124.3 109.5 110.1 84.8 117.9 98. 91. 72. 109. 97. 1 , 508 . 1 1,210.7 960.5 57.7 53.2 48.8 39.1 5.4 4.7 4.1 2.6 9.2 9.4 9.4 6.3 26.6 22.7 19.5 14.9 8.2 6.9 6.5 5.0 123.9 100 81.2 59.2 7.5 7.0 5.9 5.2 295.6 r 249.9 203.8 174.1 466.1 339.4 238.3 192.5 22.3 20.7 15.7 122.8 109.7 98.7 73.7 575.7 429.9 339 264.7 35.4 32 34.5 27.0 30.8 28.4 24.3 19.7 26.8 27.6 22.7 20.2 1,824.0 1,496.6 1,261.4 993.3 187.5 153.7 143.5 110.4 3.0 2.3 2.1 1.7 41.8 29.4 31.3 23.5 21.1 19.6 14.0 18.5 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.5 239.1 185.5 152.0 118.1 6.6 5.0 7.4 4.1 514.7 430.9 335.6 247.6 263.3 192.1 153.3 125.4 24.0 18.4 15.1 10.1 6.7 28.3 24.7 16.4 229.5 209.4 181.2 148.3 52.7 45.7 44.9 35.7 37.7 33.7 29.1 23.0 50.8 43.1 39.8 38.9 827.1 r 669.7 630.7 491.7 100.5 87.7 76.8 53.6 3.1 2.2 2.0 1.6 14.3 12.0 13.3 9.0 33.6 28.3 30.8 28.2 10.1 9.5 9.6 5.7 67.3 57.5 55.7 43.2 13.3 11.5 13.0 9.1 173.2 r 126.7 104.0 80.2 45.3 31.7 28.5 19.9 34.0 25.7 28.2 20.4 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.3 39.0 33.8 29.4 27.0 90.7 75.9 69.5 53.8 36.1 31.3 30.7 22.2 26.2 2B.1 -11 20 9 32 (X) 23 15 37 (X) See footnotes at end of table. 39 40 APPENDIX E— Continued Manufactures Pollution Abatement Capital Expenditures and Operating Costs, by Form of Abatement and Major Industry Group- 1976. 1975, 1974 and 1973— Continued (In millions of dollars, except percent) SIC Code Transportation equipment 1976. . 1975.. 1974.. 1973.. Instruments, related products 1976.. 1975.. 1974.. 1973.. Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 1976.. 1975.. 1974.. 1973.. Selected dats from The Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) Total value of shipments (NA) 113,218.3 108,245.2 110,710.7 (NA) 22,071.8 20,864.8 17,793.7 (NA) 14,647.2 14,043.7 13,046.1 Total new capital ex- penditures (NA) 2,794.3 3,176.1 2,528.9 (NA) 756.7 808.0 635.6 (NA) 348.6 362.3 341.2 Pollution Abatement Capital Expenditures (PACE) 78.5 75.4 103.4 101.2 32.3 29.6 15.7 11.8 4.9 5.6 14.1 12.1 21.1 32.1 52.7 52.6 10.9 11.2 7.3 5.3 53.6 36.4 41.5 41.7 12.2 17.3 6.7 5.6 1.4 1.7 5.8 Solid waste 6.8 9.2 6.9 9.3 1.1 5.5 3.2 .2 1.5 1.0 2.0 Pollution Abatement Gross Annual Cost (GAC), Including payments to government units 197.9 168.3 154.8 129.8 45.7 38.5 34.1 21.9 22.4 r 18.2 20.7 15.2 56.9 52.2 44.8 35.2 8.7 5.9 4.9 2.0 7.8 5.7 7.3 6.0 83.5 66.4 59.5 51.1 22.3 19.5 15.0 6.3 5.5 5 3.9 Solid waste 57.6 49.7 50.5 43.4 14.8 13.2 14.3 8.6 8.3 r 7.0 7.8 S.4 Percent change 1 4 -27 2 (X) 9 89 33 (X) -13 -60 17 (X) ' Standard error of estimates (percent) Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. These statistics are estimates based on a probability sample of 19,000 manufacturing establishments and are subject to sampling variation. A description of their limitations are found in the Census Bureau report pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures: 1976 MA-200 (76)-2. "Revised. (D) Withheld to avoid disclosing operations of individual companies. (NA) Not avollable. (X) Not applicable. (Z) Represents less than $50,000. 'The calculation of the percent change is based on the change from the previous year to the subsequent year (i.e., 1973 to 1974, 1974 to 1975, and 1975 to 1976). 2 Ma)or Industry Group 23, Apparel and Other Textile Products is excluded from all but the U.S. totals of the first two columns. U-U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1978-261-239/1014 Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402 Official Business Postage and Fees Paid U.S. Department of Commerce Special Fourth-Class TfffiilT AQ0Q0701bl?75 J