4 Public Protection

THE STATES AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

local problems of law enforcement; (2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING authorize grants to states and units of lo­ ESPONDING TO a growing concern of cal government in order to improve and the American public with rising strengthen law enforcement; and (3) en­ R•• crime, Congress authorized modest courage research and development of new federal assistance to the States under the methods for the prevention and reduction Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965. of crime and the detection and apprehen­ Under the auspices of the Department of sion of criminals."! Justice, the program had a relatively The act established the Law Enforce­ small budget to fund research and demon­ ment Assistance Administration (LEAA) stration projects. As a categorical funding within the Department of Justice and program, grants were given by the federal charged it with administration of the act government directly to state and local at the federal level. At the state level, the units of government or implementing act was to be administered by State Crim­ agencies in accordance with predeter­ inal Justice Planning Agencies (SCJPAs). mined, federally defined categories of Congress has amended the original act projects. The act also authorized funds twice, and these changes have added to for the States to establish criminal justice and clarified the responsibilities of LEAA planning agencies, a novel concept at that and SCJPAs. time. The most recent amendment to the act Three years later Congress enacted the was made in 1973 when the act was re­ Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets newed for the second time. In the 1973 Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-351). This act renewal of the act, comprehensive plan provided for block grants to the States. requirements were made more specific. Objectives of the new block grant pro­ The amended act also required that local gram were "to: (1) encourage states and and regional planning boards be com­ units of general local government to pre­ posed of a majority of locally elected offi­ pare and adopt comprehensive plans cials, and that procedures be established based upon their evaluation of state and whereby political subdivisions of 250,000 or more inhabitants could submit com­ *This article was prepared by the States' Crimi­ prehensive plans, to SCJPAs rather than nal Justice and Information Assistance Project of the Council of State Governments, with financial submit applications on a project-by- support provided by the Law Enforcement As­ project basis. Regional planning units sistance Administration. Individual sections were were allowed up to 100 percent federal prepared, respectively, by Jack D. Foster, Project funding, and planning grants to iriter- Director; Michael Kannensohn; Joseph L. White, a project member from the Academy for Contem­ porary Problems; Stewart Werner; and Thomas ^Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act A. Henderson. , of 1968, Title 1, Declarations and Purpose. 402 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 403 state metropolitan or regional planning criminal justice studies, and in some cases boards were authorized. are active in legislative programming and systemwide criminal justice budget re­ The SCJPA Planning Process view. As required by LEAA, each SCJPA goes Funding for local and regional plan­ through an annual planning process. This ning comes primarily from federal funds. process is expected to take maximum ad­ In some States, local planning is done vantage of input from SCJPA supervisory either by single-jurisdiction coordinating boards, local and regional planning units, councils, or by combinations of local and other criminal justice and local offi­ units of government, generally called re­ cials throughout the State. The initial gional planning units. The regional plan­ phase involves a substantial data collec­ ning units are established as multi- tion effort aimed at identifying key crim­ jurisdictional planning organizations in inal justice and law enforcement prob­ accordance with the provisions of the lems across the State. Once the data is Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of collected, it is analyzed in reviews by 1968, which supports interstate and inter­ SCJPA and regional staffs, and by indi­ jurisdictional coordination of compre­ vidual units of local government. In the hensive and functional planning activ­ next major phase, key elements of the ities. In addition, cities and counties with comprehensive ' plan—problem descrip­ populations in excess of 250,000 may sub­ tions, setting of goals and priorities, and mit annual plans for crime reduction and design of action programs—receive review criminal justice system improvement in and comment from SCJPA staff and re­ their jurisdictions for SCJPA considera­ gional planners, and policy direction tion. from the SCJPA supervisory board. Com­ pleting the cycle, programs are imple­ Comprehensive Planning mented, monitored, and evaluated. In recent years, largely through LEAA and its state planning agency structure, Organization of SCJPAs there has been an attempt at systemwide There is a wide variation in the loca­ planning. In practice, this has meant get­ tion of SCJPAs in state government. Some ting police, prosecution, courts, and cor­ are part of the Governor's office, some are rectional interests integrated into a com­ independent agencies, while others are prehensive plan. These comprehensive components of preexisting state planning plans have essentially been programs for or administrative agencies. All SCJPAs, the distribution of federal funds. Until re­ however, regardless of their location on cently, they generally have not functioned the state government organization chart, as a vehicle which state and local govern­ are responsible by statute to Governors, ments can use to plan the expenditure of and all have certain common responsi­ their own funds. bilities. The Omnibus Crime Control Act Significant differences exist between stipulates that each SCJPA must have a planning for the distribution of LEAA full-time administrator and staff, and a dollars and planning for all criminal jus­ supervisory board with responsibility for tice policies, programs, and expenditures. reviewing and approving the State's com­ One of the,major features of the LEAA prehensive plan. The composition of the planning process is the fact that SCJPA supervisory board must include a repre­ has centralized decision-making authority sentative cross section of a State's criminal over the development and execution of justice agency, of local government, and programs funded by federal money. There the public at large. is no parallel for this in state and local All SCJPAs are required, by statute, to governments. In normal operations, crim­ perform a variety of functions beyond the inal justice agencies are not supported development of comprehensive plans. from a common treasury, nor is there cen­ They must also monitor grants, evaluate tralized political or administrative con­ projects, and audit expenditures. In addi­ trol over them. tion, many SCJPAs are involved in special Criminal justice is primarily a state and 404 THE BOOK OF THE STATES local government responsibility. The po­ of six reports which contained over 500 lice, prosecution, court, and correctional recommended standards and goals. LEAA functions are fragmented within a State. has since offered funds to individual Each unit of genieral purpose government States to establish standards and goals may develop its own police, prosecutorial, that will reflect their own priorities and and correctional agencies. This situation goals, using the NAG reports as a guide. presents an imposing obstacle to compre­ During 1974 and 1975, States have estab­ hensive planning. lished their own task forces or commis­ sions to develop standards and goals for > The recent trend tow ard unification of state court systems represents a significant criminal justice. Presumably, future plan­ event that will enable judicial policies ning decisions will be guided by these and programs to be developed and im­ standards and goals. plemented on a statewide basis. The cen­ tralization of responsibility for court LEGISLATIVE ACTION management in the office of a State's Legislation enacted during 1974 and highest court will provide the necessary 1975 reflects the continuing interest of leverage to impose systemwide changes in State Legislatures in criminal justice re­ policy and resource allocation. form. The subjects of primary concern The agencies involved in crime control will be covered in this section. present a much different situation. Police service is largely a municipal or county Criminal and Penal Code Revision function, as is the office of the prosecutor. State penal and criminal codes con­ On the other hand, correctional services tinue to be revised in many States. Prior are primarily state operated, with the ex­ to revision, these codes were an accumula­ ception of probation services and jails. tion of antiquated, often overlapping and To further complicate the situation, po­ inconsistent statutes dating back to the lice and most correctional services are turn of the century. Seven States enacted under the administration of the execu­ penal law revision in 1974 and 1975 tive branch of state or local government, (Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, but sheri£Es and prosecutors are generally Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah), elected officials serving outside or inde­ bringing to 21 the total number of States pendent of either branch of government. with revised codes. Gomprehensive crim­ The elected officials are, obviously, not inal code revision was accomplished in subject to the same kind of hierarchical six States (Florida, Kentucky, Maine, controls as the appointed officials. All of Montana, New Mexico, and North Da­ this makes the development and imple­ kota). A number of other States have mentation of systemwide policies and pro­ completed the laborious process of draft­ grams for crime control difficult to ac­ ing penal and/or criminal codes but have complish except through legislation. not enacted them as yet. The challenge to planning is to devise In some criminal code revision, offenses an effective way of bringing about the commonly characterized as "victimless type of systemwide policy coordination crimes" have been decriminalized. In that is needed to make this organization­ other States, decriminalization of victim­ ally fragmented system function as a true less crimes has been accomplished system. through separate legislation. For exam- )le, in 11 States public intoxication is no Standards and Goals fonger considered a crime (Gonnecticut, In October 1971, the Law Enforcement Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Assistance Administration created a Na­ Indiana, Michigan, Montana, New York, tional Advisory Gommission on Griminal and Wisconsin), which now makes 20 Justice Standards and Goals (NAG) to States which have taken such action. Four develop a clear statement of priorities, States (Alaska, Galifornia, Golorado and goals, and standards to help set a national Maine) have joined Oregon in decrimi­ strategy to reduce crime. The commission nalizing possession of small amounts of subsequently published, in 1973, a series marijuana and have instituted civil fines MAJOR STATE SERVICES 405 in place of criminal sanctions. Penalties ing the 1973 session. The constitutional­ for homosexual and aberrant sexual be­ ity of the more narrowly drawn death havior were eliminated by California and penalty statutes still remains to be tested New Mexico, while California and Mon­ when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on tana repealed statutes which had made Fowler v. North Carolina. adultery a criminal offense. Vagrancy and loitering were also decriminalized by Sentencing Montana and New Mexico. As another expression of concern over the rising crime rate, sentences were re­ Handgun Control vised upward to deal more stringently A significant number of handgun con­ with repeat, violent, and drug offenders. trol statutes were enacted by Legislatures New Hampshire provided for stiffer, man­ since 1974. Legislation in previous years datory penalties, while Louisiana pre­ dealt primarily with registration and li­ cluded time off for good behavior for censing of handguns, but the trend in habitual offenders. Those committing 1974 and 1975 was on stiffer sentences, in­ violent offenses will be punished more cluding mandatory incarcerations, for severely in Florida, which set three-year felonies committed with a handgun. Eight mandatory minimums for repeat offend­ States passed such legislation (Arkansas, ers using firearms or destructive devices; Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, in North Ca:rolina, which stiffened pen­ New York, North Dakota, South Caro­ alties for armed robbery; and in Tennes­ lina, and Virginia). Massachusetts also see, which increased sentences to a man­ passed a law providing for mandatory datory minimum of 10 years for rape of one-year sentences for persons found pos­ anyone over 12 years old and the death sessing unregistered handguns. "Saturday penalty for the rape of a child under 12. night specials" were outlawed in New Drug abuse penalties were changed by ersey. An even broader approach to increasing sentences for drug pushers in iandgun control was taken by South Georgia (mandatory life sentence for sec­ Carolina which passed a gun regulation ond conviction of pushing hard drugs), law establishing stringent licensing pro­ Indiana (20 years to life for second convic­ cedures for retail gun dealers, tightening tion), New Jersey (life sentence and $25,- identification procedures for gun pur­ 000 fine for any large-volume drug chases, curbing multiple handgun sales, pusher), and Connecticut. and making it a felony to sell handguns to ex-felons and out-of-state residents. Crime Victim Compensation The concern about the effect of violent Capital Punishment crime has also prompted legislative initia­ State legislators have also attempted to tives on behalf of victims of those crimes. deter violent crime by enacting legisla­ In the past, the emphasis of the criminal tion which reinstitutes the death penalty. justice system has been on efforts to ap­ In its somewhat ambiguous Furman v. prehend and punish offenders. State legis­ Georgia decision in 1972, the U.S. Su­ lative efforts in recent years have reflected preme Court ruled, essentially, that exist­ this shifting orientation; and with legis­ ing state capital punishment legislation lation passed in Delaware, North Dakota, was unconstitutional because it was ap­ and Minnesota, 14 States now have stat­ plied in a capricious, discriminatory, and utes providing compensation for victims arbitrary manner. To comply with the of violent crime. Court's decision, while still retaining the authority to apply capital punishment, Court Reform many States enacted statutes that pre­ The courts, as the most visible compel scribed the death penalty for specifically nent of the criminal justice system in the defined offenses. During the 1974 and processing of offenders, have become a 1975 legislative sessions, 12 States passed major target for change. Legislative in­ death penalty legislation which added to terest in court reform has been particu­ the 21 States enacting such measures dur­ larly significant in the past two legislative 406 THE BOOK OF THE STATES sessions. Five States (Connecticut, Flor­ stipulates law officer training and Penn­ ida, and West Virginia in 1974, Maine sylvania agreed to fund local police train­ and Mississippi in 1975) have enacted ing. Improvements in correctional stan­ statutes unifying their court systems un­ dards, however, have not been limited der the rule-making and management to training requirements. Other efforts authority of their State Supreme Courts. have included improving community Hawaii and Maine joined 10 other States correctional programs and facilities. Utah with state-financed court systems. Ari­ and Colorado brought to 12 the number zona, Hawaii, Indiana, and Maine ap­ of States establishing operational and proved legislation to enable the State management standards for such programs Supreme Court to transfer and assign and facilities. Those two States, along state and local judges. As a result, those with Montana, also adopted licensing state court systems will be able to relieve standards for community corrections pro­ courts which have overloaded case dock­ grams and facilities. ets. Rhode Island created an administra­ tive traffic court which will relieve con­ Criminal Justice Information Systems gestion in courts of general jurisdiction. One of the more recent and topical In other actions directed toward expedit­ criminal justice issues revolves around the ing offender processing, Connecticut es­ accumulation, storage, and distribution tablished a division of public defender; of criminal justice information. Proposed Mississippi established a uniform jury federal legislation and the promulgation selection process; North Carolina ap­ of LEAA guidelines are forcing States to proved a code of pretrial criminal proce­ reexamine their policies toward the se­ dure; prosecution by information was curity and privacy of sophisticated, often authorized by Illinois, Pennsylvania, and computerized, criminal information sys­ Rhode Island; and Illinois passed a tems. speedy trial bill establishing a 120-day During the 1974 and 1975 sessions. limit on bringing a case to trial. States demonstrated a responsiveness to There were also a number of enact­ the problems raised by criminal informa­ ments designed to improve the quality of tion systems. Privacy and security restric­ judicial personnel. Arizona, Kansas, and tions upon the accumulation, collection, Tennessee statutes now provide for ap­ maintenance, and dissemination of crim­ pointment of judges by the Governor inal records were adopted in California, from a list nominated by a judicial quali­ New Jersey, and New Mexico, bringing to fication commission. Louisiana increased 20 the total number of States with such judicial salaries through a standardized regulations. Connecticut and New Mex­ statewide salary system which abolished ico are the most recent additions to a list local supplements. To exert some control of 20 States which have passed legislation over judicial performance and integrity, limiting access to criminal offender five States (Connecticut, Nebraska, New records. Arkansas and New Mexico en­ York, North Dakota, and Rhode Island) acted statutes similar to those in eight passed legislation establishing such re­ other States which permit an individual view, along with disciplinary procedures to have access to his criminal file to verify for those judges found to be incompetent its accuracy. New Mexico also allowed or unethical. the individual to correct records deter­ mined to be inaccurate or incomplete by Correctional and Law Enforcement a designated review board. Expungement Training of records at a certain point after an of­ In addition to the attention given to fender completes his sentence was ac­ improving the quality of judges, stan­ complished in Arkansas and California dards for correctional and law en­ for both adult and juvenile offenders. forcement personnel were upgraded Nevada passed an expungement measure through legislative action. Colorado and for juvenile offenders, which added to its Oklahoma now require state training of existing statute providing for expunge­ correctional personnel, while Virginia ment of adult records. Presently, there are MAJOR STATE SERVICES 407 23 States with juvenile expungement mental issues have arisen which deal, in statutes; however, only 12 have enacted one way or another, with the jurisdiction adult expungement measures. of juvenile courts over children in trou­ ble. Bills have been introduced or passed JUVENILE DELINQUENCY in State Legislatures which address as­ In every state juvenile code there is an pects of due process in connection with offense which is identified as delinquency, juvenile detention, hearings, and disposi­ the violation of which can subject both tions; the separation of status from child and parent to the judicial process. criminal-type offenders; and the degree However, there are no degrees of delin­ to which dangerous juvenile offenders quency, so that the violation of the most shall be treated as adults. minor misdemeanor is indistinguishable The federal Juvenile Justice and Delin­ from major felonies. In about one half of quency Prevention Act of 1974 has high­ the States, delinquency is the violation lighted these issues, since States applying of a prohibited act within the adult crim­ for grants under the act must remove inal code by a juvenile or is a violation status offenders from detention and cor­ of a previous order of the juvenile court. rectional facilities, and must prepare a In these States, a delinquent child may comprehensive juvenile plan as a condi­ have committed homicide or may have tion for funding. As it now stands, ade­ failed to attend school, as previously or­ quate appropriations to accomplish the dered by the court. In the remainder of Juvenile Justice Act's stated objectives the States, delinquency is defined to in­ have not been provided and are not likely clude not only the type of offenses de­ to be available in the near future. How­ scribed above, but also a number of ever, the anticipation of future funding offenses (now referred to as status offenses) has instigated substantial state and local which, if committed by adults, would not activity for improved juvenile services. be crimes. Status offenses encompass such The identification of the most significant acts as truancy, ungovernability, violation areas of recent activity will be discussed of smoking or drinking laws, or attempt­ here. ing to get married under the legal age without parental consent. Status Offenders In the past two years, several funda­ Increasingly, the types of children his-

Statutory Classification of Status Offenders*

Status offenses Status offenses in separate included under "nondelinquency" "delinquency" Mixed (a) category (b)

•* ' •" Alabama Michigan Arizona Alaska New York Arkansas Minnesota Georgia California North Carolina Ck)nnecticut Mississippi Idaho Colorado North Dakota Delaware Missouri Kansas Florida Ohio Indiana New Hampshire New Jersey Hawaii Oklahoma Iowa Oregon Pennsylvania Illinois Tennessee Kentucky South Carolina Rhode Island Louisiana Texas Maine Virginia South Dakota Maryland Utah West Virginia Massachusetts Vermont Montana Washington Nebraska Wisconsin Nevada Wyoming New Mexico District of Columbia

* Source: John Dineen, Juvenile Court Organization (b) The titles of the nondelinquency category vary and. Status Offenses: A Statutory Profile (Pittsburgh, from State to State. The most common, "Child in Need Penn.: National Center for Juvenile Justice, December of Supervision" or "Person in Need of Supervision," 1974), pp. 34-42. usually shortened to the acronyms CINS and PINS. (a) States are included in this category if some status "Wayward," "incorrigible," and "unruly child" are also offenses are included in delinquency and some are placed used. in a separate category. 408 THE BOOK OF THE STATES torically identified as juvenile delin­ tion over such juveniles to adult criminal quents are being subdivided into three courts, or have vested original jurisdic­ categories: status offenders, juvenile de­ tion in adult courts with either the option linquents, and dangerous juvenile of­ to transfer such cases to juvenile courts fenders. Two trends have clearly emerged or to juvenile correctional institutions. in handling the first category of children However, recently there has been a —status offenders. The first trend is a marked propensity to treat such juveniles movement toward abolition of juvenile as adults instead of as children. court jurisdiction over children com­ The trend toward transferring jurisdic­ mitting truancy and other noncriminal tion of dangerous juvenile offenders from acts of incorrigibility, on the theory that juvenile to adult courts has led to a re­ their constitutional rights of due process examination of the intended purposes of have been violated by involuntarily sub­ juvenile courts. Clearly, the traditional jecting them to judicial control. In States techniques of juvenile courts and their where such legislation has been enacted related services appear inadequate to deal or is being contemplated, the abolition of with the rise in violent crime by juveniles. court jurisdiction is presumably coupled Yet, the juvenile court movement was with the expectation that services such as predicated upon the desire to protect ju­ counseling, educational alternatives, crisis veniles from the vicissitudes of the adult intervention, and shelter care will be penal system, regardless of their crimes. provided on a voluntary basis by either Like the issue involving the propriety of existing or newly created agencies con­ status offenders in juvenile court, the centrating on family counseling and re­ question of appropriate services for dan­ lated services. gerous juvenile offenders is likely to be Less drastic has been the trend toward keenly debated well into the end of this separation of status offenders from juve­ decade. niles charged with offenses which, if com­ mitted by adults, would have been crimes. Due Process for Juveniles Such separation is specifically required as Interestingly enough, little concern has a condition for receiving federal funds been shown recently over what becomes under the Juvenile Justice Act, and many of those youth who commit nondangerous States have begun to take steps that will criminal acts, even though they far out­ ultimately result in the removal of status number the others. The due process and offenders from detention and correctional programmatic questions relating to status facilities. This separation does not mean and dangerous juvenile offenders have that status offenders will either be exempt captured both public and professional in­ from confinement in other types of facil­ terest at the moment, thereby meriting ities or from juvenile court jurisdiction serious debate over how to handle other itself; however, it does signify an impor­ juvenile offenders. tant step in ameliorating some of the An equally curious phenomenon has more pernicious effects of mixing occurred in the field of delinquency pre­ younger, less experienced children who vention. In the early 1970s, much atten­ have committed no crimes, with older, tion was paid to the prevention of juve­ more sophisticated delinquent youth. nile delinquency as a logical step toward the prevention of subsequent serious Dangerous Juvenile Offenders criminal activity. The whole approach of At the other end of the spectrum are delinqency prevention program develop­ those delinquent youth who have been ment was based on the assumption that involved in crimes of a particularly brutal we knew what caused juveniles to commit nature. The number of juveniles being criminal acts: poor education, substan­ charged with crimes involving murder, dard living conditions and, most im­ rape, armed robbery, extortion, and ag­ portant, the lack of opportunities for gravated assault is steadily increasing. employment, recreation, and accomplish­ Over the years, state laws have either per­ ment. Whether these assumptions were mitted juvenile courts to waive jurisdic­ false, or whether they were never fully MAJOR STATE SERVICES 409 tested, the answer may now be som'ewhat cials, as well as the news media and the academic. In the mid-1970s, delinquency general public. In addition, correction prevention activity has declined sharply administrators have had to deal with the from the efforts of several years ago. effects of shifts in sentencing structure, Similarly, less importance has been the emergence of unions among their em­ placed, in public dialogue and in official ployees, fiscal crises, and burgeoning legislation, upon the concept of parens prison populations. These pressures have patriae (the State as being the legal guard­ resulted in changes in programs and serv­ ian of its people), which has for decades ices available to inmates, ushered in an been the legal basis for justifying juvenile era of humanization for the incarcerated court intervention in the life of troubled offender, and challenged many of the children. In the past, debate continuously traditional practices in prison administra­ centered around the adequacy of service tion. delivery. Were the courts doing enough? Were they giving the best service avail­ Humanization able? In the mid-1970s, there has been a It was to be expected that the civil decided shift to a point where questions rights movement of the 1960s would spill now are centered upon the propriety of over into prisons. The resulting "pris­ service delivery. By what right do the oners' rights" activity helped to spawn courts intervene? How voluntary are the the humanization movement in correc­ options available to the affected child? tions administration. Humanization as­ Carried to its logical conclusion, one must sumes that the dignity of the individual ultimately question the need for a special and his rights as a person are intrinsic children's court. If due process requires, characteristics which transcend the prison as many would argue, the erasure of the wall. The definition of these rights has differences in levels of proof, informed come through court decisions, prisoner consent, the specificity of charges, and activities, and shifts in the approaches of judicial discretion, then a trier of the fact prison administrators. and applier of the law could just as easily In the wake of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 be an adult court judge as a juvenile one. U.S. 471 (1972), and In re Gault, 387 U.S. The fusion of adult and juvenile courts 1, 70 (1967), litigation has been a major would in no way require the commingling vehicle in establishing the rights of pris­ of delinquents and adult criminals in cor­ oners. Practically every area impinging rectional facilities. upon the daily life of the incarcerated in­ The proponents for retaining present dividual—religion, grooming, discipline, juvenile court jurisdiction and the con­ food, medical care, working conditions, cept of parens patriae argue that remov­ wages, correspondence, and visitation- ing status offenders from the jurisdiction has been subjected to judicial scrutiny. of juvenile courts will ultimately result In 1973, Supreme Court decisions dealt in the complete destruction of the separa­ with the loss of prisoners' good time, stan­ tion of juveniles from adults within the dards for censorship and inspection of judicial system. Their fear is that concern their mail, their access to the media, legis­ for providing the due process guarantees lative criteria for who may receive pref­ to juveniles will result in a highly rigid erential rehabilitative treatment, and as­ and formalized series of alternative dis­ sistance for prisoners filing civil rights positions, thereby abandoning the 75- actions. In each case the Court ruled that year-old notion of surrogate, paternal these were not simply a matter of admin­ control. istration prerogatives but involved the rights of the prisoner as well. ADULT CORRECTIONS The primary initiators of this litigation State correctional programs are under­ have been individual inmates and pris­ going massive, often contradictory, oners' rights organizations. Many times changes. In the past 10 years, corrections petitions have been considered by the has been subject to a high level of scrutiny courts to be either excessive or frivolous, by the courts, legislators, and public offi­ but nevertheless litigation has continued 410 THE BOOK OF THE STATES to be an avenue through which the in­ According to a survey by Corrections carcerated offender has found relief from Magazine of May/June 1975, corrections substandard and abusive practices. administrators overwhelmingly reject the In addition to litigation, some inmates premise upon which this shift in philos­ have recently turned to prisoners' unions ophy is based. Sixty-three percent of the to promote their interests. Prevailing administrators stated some rehabilitation goals of the unions appears to be the abo­ programs are successful. An additional 15 lition of the indeterminate sentence sys­ percent suggested more evidence is tem and all its ramifications; the estab­ needed before failure can be declared. lishment of workers' rights for prisoners, Despite these opinions of prison officials, including the right to collectively orga­ the justice model is receiving widespread nize and bargain; and the restoration of attention by state legislators and Gover­ civil and human rights for the prisoners. nors and is likely to have a continuing efr The major organization is a California- feet on corrections procedures. based "Prisoners' Union." Approximately 25,000 inmates representing every region Consolidation of the country have pledged their support. States continue to unify their correc­ However, organization and growth of the tions services under varying organiza­ prisoner movement in the U.S. have been tional patterns, guided by their particular hampered by internal conflict of goals, needs and the motivations for reorganiza­ the efficacy of "inside" or "outside" lead­ tion. In some instances, corrections serv­ ership, and the opposition of corrections ices have been placed in a department of officials to this union. human resources, which includes health Many prison administrators have and welfare services as well. Where it adopted the humanization approach to has been located in an umbrella health- corrections and introduced appropriate welfare agency, corrections has sometimes changes in procedures. Eliminated in moved to gain, or to regain, its separate many state systems are the time-worn identity as an independent department. rituals of mail censorship, strict clothing Examples of these efforts are the reorga­ codes, visiting through barricades, and nization efforts in Florida and Delaware, prohibitions restricting access by the in which adult corrections was separated media and the general public. from the human resources agencies.^ Adult parole boards and court-directed proba­ Justice Model tion programs have resisted the trend The justice model is a recently sug­ toward unification and, in most cases, gested approach to corrections policy that have successfully retained control over attempts to meet criticisms that prisons their respective field service units. are not accomplishing their intended mis­ sion or that rehabilitation programs (as Overcrowding they exist in prisons) are a myth. The Another significant trend affecting state model states, in effect, that prisons are es­ prisons is the increasing number of pris­ sentially designed to punish rather than oners. Between 1970 and 1975, the prison reform. Rehabilitation programs are con­ population increased 75 percent in New tinued, under this approach, but access York and 70 percent in Texas. Federal is limited to those who volunteer and par­ courts, in 1975, ordered Alabama, Louisi­ ticipation does not influence release from ana, and Mississippi to halt commitments prison. to prisons until conditions were im­ The change in rationale includes a proved. Corrections officials in Florida shift in sentencing structure from indeter­ imposed their own restriction on accept­ minate to determinate. Advocates recom­ ing commitments from the courts due to mend flat-time sentencing and abolition overcrowding of state prisons, and Geor- of the parole function. Early release from an institution is based on satisfactory "Human Resources Agencies: Adult Corrections in State Organizational Structure (Lexington, service of an offender's sentence rather Kentucky: the Council of State Governments), than his presumed rehabilitation. October 1975. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 411 gia began releasing prisoners on early area of responsibility in corrections man­ parole in October 1975 to relieve over­ agement. This is particularly true in the crowding. There are no clear indicators larger, industrialized States. Personnel as to the reason for the general upswing in units at the department levels are devel­ inmate population. Rather than an in­ oping a necessary capacity and expertise crease in crime, it could reflect tougher to deal with staff grievances, and partici­ sentencing practices on the part of the pate in contract negotiations as part of courts, stiffening of penalties, or more their personnel service. stringent parole release criteria. Community Programs Fiscal and Personnel Problems Community corrections is now an es­ Economic trends in the Nation affect tablished extension of the corrections all state government administration, but process. It moves the offender, with re­ for those departments providing residen­ duced external controls, from the walled tial care, there is a multiplying factor. In­ or fenced institution to a series of com­ flationary rates are more pronounced in munity program options varying in levels institutions which must be staffed with of security, as well as varying in levels of personnel 24 hours per day. This results programs. Concomitantly, the offender in ballooning costs of care and custody. must exercise varying levels of self-control In those States engaged in collective bar- and self-determination. Such community gaiuiing with organized labor, budgets programs may include temporary home are further strained by an accelerated furloughs, work release, educational re­ cost of manpower. lease, or placement in community treat­ Labor relations is emerging as a new ment centers. The offender may previ- Degree of Unification of State Correctional Services into a Single Parent Agency"

Degree of unificatic Juvenile & ' Institutions & Institutions &• Parole & All Adult (a) Vnijied (b) Parole Probation Probation separate (c) Unified Alaska Illinois New Mexico Montana Hawaii Arizona Indiana Oregon South Dakota Nebraska Colorado New Hampshire North Dakota Delaware Iowa Maine Minnesota New Jersey Rhode Island Tennessee

Vermont •' Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin Separate Georgia California Idaho Florida Alabama Kentucky Connecticut Maryland Arkansas Michigan New York Mississippi Kansas Utah Ohio Nevada Massachusetts Pennsylvania Missouri South Carolina North Carolina Oklahoma Texas Washington

* Source: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental (b) States in this category have assigned responsibil­ Relations, State-Local Relations in the Criminal Justice ity for all three services—institutions, parole, and pro­ System (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, bation—to a single agency. Three States—Alaska, Rhode 1971), pp. 282-86. Updated by the Council of State Gov­ Island, and Vermont—have unified state and local serv­ ernments. ices as well. (a) Indicates whether States have combined juvenile (c) States in this category maintain an independent and adult correctional services into a single agency or agency for each ,of the three services. maintained the traditional separation. 412 THE BOOK OF THE STATES ously have been incarcerated in a state "bad case" results. Programs in Delaware, prison or county jail. For him, the com­ Maryland, and New Jersey came under munity program serves as a decompres­ fire in this way, as did those in Illinois, sion process together with whatever as­ Ohio, and Pennsylvania. sistance and support he may receive from In spite of this somewhat sporadic but the community. Others are committed di­ widespread reaction, community correc­ rectly into these community programs tions continued to be an important part from the court. of state correctional policy as of 1975. The number of community correc­ Forty-one States had statutes allowing for tional centers continues to increase. As work release of their inmates; 32 States of January 1975, there were 158 such com­ had legislation allowing educational re­ munity centers in the U.S.^ At that time, lease; and legislation permitted furlough- these centers accommodated 5 percent of ingin 31 States. the total inmate population in state cor­ rectional facilities. North Carolina had LOOKING AHEAD the largest number of such centers (29) As the section on planning makes clear, and the largest number of inmates. Ver­ the criminal justice system is not a uni­ mont had the highest proportion of in­ fied structure for service delivery; rather, mates housed in community centers (65 it is a collection of independent institu­ percent), followed by North Carolina (25 tions and agencies carrying out a variety percent) and Maine (21 percent). Thir­ of services and programs. It is not sur­ teen States, as of 1974, had no separate prising, therefore, that there are several state-operated community centers. Edu­ different dynamics for change taking cational work-release centers have con­ place in the States, some of them mutually tinued to flourish along with community compatible and others in conflict. treatment centers. One of the most important changes tak­ While an independent public opinion ing place is the move to make the impo­ poll showed public acceptance of com­ sition of criminal sanctions more certain munity corrections, this same public dem­ and fair. Sentencing disparities and the onstrated extreme wariness at the pros­ arbitrary nature of parole decisions are pect of such programs being set up in seen by many as unjust and as contribut­ their own neighborhoods.^ At this time, ing to inmate tension within prisons. In it appears that resistance to the estab­ response, States may adopt, in increas­ lishment of such facilities in neighbor­ ing numbers, a comprehensive change in hoods is increasing. Resistance to the ad­ sentence structure in which indefinite sen­ vance of community corrections has taken tences (e.g., 1- to 5- or 2- to 15-year sen­ several forms, including public protest, tences) are replaced by determinate or and court litigation and complaints uniform sentences. In the long run, if lodged with local officials alleging local determinate sentencing becomes the dom­ zoning, inspection, or licensing violations. inant pattern, the discretionary powers of Several statewide furlough, work, and ed­ parole boards may be greatly modified or ucation-release programs have been at­ parole may be abolished and postincar- tacked recently and, in some cases, even ceration services shifted to an administra­ closed down. In most instances, the criti­ tive agency. cism was not a product of program fail­ The change in sentencing structure and ures, but rather the result of legislative philosophy could produce a dramatic in­ or executive reactions to some singularly crease in the prison population, if there are no adjustments in the criminal justice ^Census of State Correctional Facilities 1974 Ad­ vance Report, National Prisoner Statistics, No. process. Because of the high cost of insti­ 50-NPS-SR, July 1975. tutions, alternatives to incarceration will '"Report on a Public Awareness and Attitude have to be found. Community corrections, Survey" prepared for the Department of Justice, therefore, may be increasingly popular, Bureau of Correction, Commonwealth of Pennsyl­ but with major revisions. Violent and re­ vania. Adams, Gaffney and Associates, Inc., 4318 Montgomery Road, Cincinnati, Ohio, January peat offenders will likely be excluded 1973. from these programs. This policy will MAJOR STATE SERVICES 413 probably increase the control problems of been significantly expanded by the courts prison officials as the proportion of insti­ in recent years and that trend could pro­ tutionalized offenders convicted of vio­ duce some major changes in prison ad­ lent crimes increases. ministration. Unions among inmates may A second major dynamic for change is increase. Grievance procedures may un­ a continued concern for the rights of in­ dergo major revisions to ensure they meet dividuals who come into contact with the needs of the prisoners instead of the criminal justice agencies. Traditional control needs of the prison officials. In rights of due process have been extended some cases this may require legislative to juveniles, thereby increasing the simi­ action as well as alterations in admin­ larity of juvenile courts to adult courts. istrative procedures. In addition to this change, there has been In spite of the attention given to crime an increasing concern over the comminr control over the past few years, the rate gling of juveniles charged with status of­ of crimes reported to police continues to fenses (those offenses which, if committed climb. One effect of this trend may be by an adult, would not be crimes) and that attention will be given to relieving juveniles charged with criminal type of­ the effects of crime as well as trying to fenses. To deal with this problem States prevent an offense occurring. Legislatures may either remove such offenders from may continue to enact compensatory pro­ the jurisdiction of the courts or, more grams for the victims of crime. These pro­ likely, clearly separate them procedurally grams may be expanded to provide for or institutionally from criminal-type of­ restitution to victims by offenders, first fenders. Among the ways separation may for property crimes and, in the future, be achieved without relinquishing all against persons. judicial responsibility are: (1) preventing Attempts to control crime in advance status offenders from being held in de­ will not be abandoned. Gun control will tention and correctional facilities; (2) probably continue to be the subject of eliminating status offenses as offenses, and debate, and some legislation no doubt treating such children as neglected youth; will be adopted. This may take the form or (3) providing specific diversionary serv­ of outlawing the manufacture, assembly, ices. Concomitantly, this could bring legis­ sale, and possession of "Saturday night lation which will result in more juveniles specials"; restrictions on sales of hand­ being handled as adults through a reduc­ guns to out-of-state residents and to ex- tion in the prosecutor's or judge's dis­ felons; and a continuation of the trend cretion to select the proper forum. toward mandatory minimum sentences The rights of adult prisoners have also for crimes committed with a firearm. 414 THE BOOK OF THE STATES STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND LOCAL JAILS State correctional facilities* Local Jallst / Classification or All facilities medical centers Community centers Prisons Inmates Inmates per per i"dumber Number Number Number Number Number Number Number 100,000 Number 100,000 State or of in- of of in- of of in- of of in­ of popula­ of popula­ other jurisdiction. titutions inmates stitutions inmates stitutions inmates stitutions inmates tion (a) inmates tion (b) 20 3,995 1 503 2 64 17 3,428 113 2,972 84.4 8 466 1 16 7 450 141 87 26.8 6 1.756 4 208 2 1.548 85 1,754 89.4 3 1,755 3 1.7S5 86 941 46.9 35 22,927 2 604 "4 160 29 22.163 111 25,348 124.2 7 2,070 3 83 4 1.987 85 1,427 60.4 Connecticut... 12 2,731 1 20 11 2,711 89 (c) 4 683 1 26 3 657 119 (c) Florida 46 10.334 i 1,025 19 895 26 8,414 135 8,104 110.3 Georgla(d) 30 7.593 2 1,027 3 137 25 6,429 159 6,243 131.9 5 303 3 46 2 257 36 124 15.2 1 489 1 489 64 411 54.4 Illinois 15 5.843 2 470 6 133 7 5.240 52 4,894 43.5 10 4.071 1 133 2 78 7 3.860 77 2.017 38.2 9 1.462 1 93 4 140 4 1.229 50 537 18.6 7 1.446 1 114 6 1.332 63 870 38.4 8 2,886 8 2,886 86 1.896 57.4 7 4,063 "3 299 4 3,764 108 3.340 89.4 6 465 3 97 3 368 45 247 24.1 12 6,489 i 462 4 749 7 5,278 149 2.218 54.8 Massachusetts. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 1,847 31.9 Michigan 21 8,104 1 987 3 314 17 6.803 90 4.148 46.0 6 1,401 1 14 5 1.387 36 1.071 27.6 Mississippi. . . . 1 1,736 1 1.736 76 1,498 66.4 9 3,449 i 174 i 32 7 3.243 73 2,246 47.3 1 336 1 336 47 281 39.2 4 1.010 'i 34 3 976 65 742 48.6 1 790 1 790 144 656 123.1 New Hampshire 2 279 "i 8 1 271 35 283 36.6 New Jersey.... 13 5.655 2 74 11 5,581 77 3,517 47.9 New Mexico.... 2 775 2 775 70 899 83.6 23 14,311 "4 1,595 i 32 18 12,684 78 15,190 82.7 North Carolina. 76 11,809 5 1,041 29 . 2.986 42 7.782 224 2,455 47.0 North Dakota.. 2 176 2 176 27 125 19.7 Ohio 11 7,873 201 9 7.672 73 4,804 44.8 11 3,175 4 191 7 2.984 119 1,808 68.7 12 1,686 7 139 5 1.547 76 1,185 54.2 Pennsylvania. . 22 6,065 i 122 13 434 8 5.509 51 6,274 52.7 Rhode Island.. 1 569 1 569 58 (c) (c) South Carolina 17 3,615 2 237 6 411 9 2.967 133 2,424 90.2 South Dakota.. 1 233 1 233 34 295 43.4 10 3.504 i 202 '4 354 5 2.948 85 3,372 82.8 14 17.136 1 493 13 16.643 145 9,802 84.5 Utah 3 599 "2 40 1 559 52 475 42.1 7 368 1 43 5 240 1 85 79 4 0.9 Virginia 38 5.394 1 48 3 234 34 5.112 112 3,119 65.5 Washington. . . 14 2.592 1 192 8 182 5 2,218 76 2,410 70.5 West Virginia.. 4 1.051 1 17 3 1,034 59 1,054 58.7 12 2.183 2 73 10 2,110 48 1.767 39.0 3 281 1 15 2 266 80 192 55.5 District of Columbia (e). .. 4.215 560.5 592 187.982 33 9,766 158 8.975 401 169,241 90 141.588 68.0 *Source: Census of State Correctional Facilities, 1974: Advance (a) Based ,'on U.S. Bureau of the Census population esti­ Report, U.S. Department of Justice, LEAA. National Criminal mates as of July 1973. Justice Information and Statistics Service, July 1975. (b) Based on U.S. Bureau of the Census population estimates ^Source: The Nation's Jails: A Report on the Census of Jails as of July 1972. from the 1072 Survey of Inmates of Local Jails, U.S. Department (c) No locally operated jails. of Justice, LEAA, National Criminal Justice Information and (d) State correctional facilities figures exclude two institu­ Statistics Service, May 1975. tions which did not submit data. N.A.—Not available. (e) Correctional facilities are considered local institutions. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 415 EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES FOR JUVENILES, BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE AND PER CAPITA OPERATING EXPENDITURES, 1971 AND 1973* (In thousands, except per capita)

Capital Operating Per capita operat­ All expenditures expenditures expenditures ing expenditures Stale or other , ^ , jurisdiction 1971 1973 1971 1973 1971 1973 1971 1973

United States $456,474 $483,942 $47,365 $30,127 $409,109 $453,815 $ 6.989 $ 9.582

Alabama 2,956 2,590 660 124 2.296 2,466 4,064 5.213 Alaska 3,110 3,479 732 1.800 2,378 1,679 17.486 19.992 Arizona 3,562 6,929 241 1.850 3,321 5,080 5.288 7.174 Arkansas 1,939 2,172 225 154 1,714 2,017 3,258 4.100 CaliforniaCa, b) 88,427 95,881 4.469 3.292 83,958 92,589 7,660 9.255 Colorado 3,971 5,669 180 54 3.791 5,615 8.313 13,211 Connecticut 3,568 3,776 47 38 3.521 3,738 15.511 19,368 Delaware 1,817 3,370 30 1.352 1.787 2,017 4.326 8.694 Florida 14,790 19,204 1.608 1.424 13,182 17,781 5.098 8.141 Georgia 7.818 12,224 374 2.534 7,444 9,690 4,949 6.965 Hawaii 1.342 1,190 19 5 1,323 1,185 13.495 10.214 Idaho 1,177 1,283 209 69 968 1.215 5.658 10.941 lUinois 27,466 27,229 1.063 196 26,403 27,033 9.721 15,438 Indiana 6,435 6,507 2.045 1,511 4.391 4,996 4.119 6.048 Iowa 6,071 4,934 467 113 5.605 4,821 10.476 11,903 Kansas 3,558 4,500 580 468 2.977 4,032 7,140 10,232 Kentucky 4,359 4.080 270 78 4.089 4,002 4.143 8.776 Louisiana 6,047 6,727 918 154 5,129 6,573 3.571 5,482 Maine 2.717 3,297 205 311 2,512 2,986 9.775 13,634 Maryland 10,395 12,061 547 364 9,848 11,697 7.461 8,145 Massachusetts 7.732 ' 2.597 393 13 7,339 2,584 9.632 12,420 Michigan 21,958 17.912 1.993 103 19.965 17,809 9.239 11,556 Minnesota 9,277 10,835 589 718 8.689 10.117 9.752 14,249 Mississippi 2,111 2,537 331 189 1.780 2.347 3.248 3.798 Mlssouri(c) 6,358 9.356 287 1.648 6.071 7.707 5,706 7.461 Montana.. 1.873 2.026 152 44 1.720 1.982 7,750 9.093 Nebraska 1.866 1,951 7 16 1.860 1.935 6,913 8.919 Nevada 3,682 3.594 890 34 2.792 3,560 5,733 11.483 New Hampshire 1.000 1,771 21 127 979 1,644 5.126 8.018 New Jersey(a) 14,120 17,707 1.249 2.324 12.871 15,384 7.384 9,681 New Mexico 2,143 2,807 41 126 2,103 2.681 5.793 8,734 New York ' 35,507 36,988 5,792 3.821 29,716 33.168 11.014 17,410 North Carolina 9,506 9,970 2.087 560 7,419 9.409 3.866 7.432 North Dakota 785 878 20 64 765 814 6.072 8.945 Ohio 25.571 27.539 1.934 566 23,637 26,973 6.495 9.588 Oklahoma 3.330 3.948 927 633 2,403 3,314 5.948 8.044 Oregon 6.018 6.154 41 128 5,976 6,026 10.112 11.435 Pennsylvania (a) 22.968 19.526 2.605 133 20,364 19,393 9.235 15.222 Rhode Island 1,299 2.086 11 238 1.288 1,848 7,076 13.015 South Carolina 4,024 3,666 1 511 4.025 3.154 5.154 5.420 South Dakota 922 998 26 71 896 927 5.119 9.083 Tennessee 5,844 7,090 182 107 5.661 6.983 4.276 5.586 Texas 13,623 14,898 1.861 242 11.762 14.656 3.975 6.306 Utah 2,107 2,679 33 91 2.075 2,589 6.287 10.192 Vermont 1.331 1.436 53 1.331 1,382 8.319 10.797 Virginia 8.076 8.850 907 393 7.169 8,458 4.689 6.461 Washington 19.900 14,791 6.319 102 13,581 14,689 10.016 12,806 West Virginia 1,822 2,916 62 895 1.759 2,021 4.355 5,945 Wisconsin 13,362 11,383 3.688 87 9.675 11.295 8.546 14.537 Wyoming 1,058 1.182 22 14 1,036 1.168 7.049 10.067 District of Columbia(d) 5.773 6.770 184 5.766 6.586 7.469 11.995 *Source: Children in Custody: Advance Report on the Juvenile understated because capital expenditures were not available for Detention and Correctional Facility Census 1972-73, U.S. Depart­ IS state facilities. For 1973, total and capital expenditures are ment of Justice, LEAA, National Criminal Justice Information understated because capital expenditures reported for IS state and Statistics Service, May 1975. facilities include outlays for equipment only. (a) These state facilities held an unspecified number of adults (c) For 1973. "other operating expenditures" (exclusive o f or "youthful offenders" included in the calculations for the salaries and wages) and capital expenditures of five Missouri average end-of-auarter populations. One New Jersey facility— facilities were not available. Therefore, all Missouri expenditure 1971 and 1973; one Pennsylvania facility—1971; and 15 Cali­ data for 1973 is understated. fornia facilities, for which "youthful offenders" totaled 2,023 on (d) For 1971, total and operating expenditures for training June 30, 1971, and 1,869 on June 30, 1973. Per capita operating schools in the District of Columbia are understated because expenditures are thus affected. data on "other operating expenditures" (exclusive of salaries and (b) For 1971, total and capital expenditures for California are wages) was not available. 416 THE BOOK OF THE STATES NUMBER OF JUVENILES IN PUBLIC DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES FOR JUVENILES, BY TYPE OF FACILITY, BY STATE, JUNE 30, 1973*

Reception 6* Ranches, State or In all Detention diagnostic Training camps, 6* Halfway Group centers Shelters centers schools farms houses homes other jurisdiction , facilities 10.782 190 1.734 26.427 4.959 713 889 United States 45,694 57 356 Alabama 413 5 76 Alaska 81 146 421 77 34 Arizona 678 16 15 18 444 4 Arkansas 497 3.782 236 2,135 2.247 14 31 CaUfornla 8,445 Colorado 427 138 190 93 6 Connecticut 189 31 158 Delaware 234 26 200 8 Florida 2,126 484 12 1.316 35 221 58 Georgia 1,482 414 1,040 28 Hawaii 108 27 81 Idaho 151 17 134 lUlnols 1,711 392 164 944 191 20 Indiana 888 256 573 45 14 Iowa 344 35 195 92 5 17 Kansas 392 128 258 6 Kentucky 494 58 12 70 96 234 24 Louisiana. 1,257 137 83 1.026 11 Maine 172 172 Maryland 1,472 34 111 1.088 172 57 10 Massachusetts 217 135 26 56 Michigan 1,603 809 30 50 446 114 98 56 Minnesota 701 96 551 34 9 11 Mississippi 624 48 565 5 6 Missouri 1,020 187 533 176 4 120 Montana 210 2 178 30 Nebraska 236 46 190 Nevada 318 61 216 41 New Hampshire 197 192 "s New JerseyCa) 1,200 475 625 75 25 New Mezlco(b) 340 54 286 New York 1,922 290 1.046 282 5 299 North Carolina. 1,334 63 1.266 5 North Dakota(c) 86 69 5 ii Ohio 2,868 524 17 375 1.724 216 12 Oklahoma 443 28 19 396 Oregon 554 162 336 56 Pennsylvania 1,343 403 780 160 Rhode Island 130 ii 119 South Carolina 530 7 160 358 ... 5 South Dakota 115 14 78 23 Tennessee 1,325 118 125 956 96 30 Texas 2,098 305 1.739 14 40 Utah. 243 62 159 22 Vermont. 94 94 Virginia 1.406 278 181 779 124 38 6 Washington 1,157 282 150 410 264 51 West Virginia 365. 19 16 214 116 Wisconsin 781 115 11 640 15 Wyoming 127 127 District of Columbia 546 16 58 452 20 *Source: Children in Custody: Advance Report on the Juvenile percentage of adults in 1973, only the number of juveniles it held Detention and Correctional Facility Census of 1972-73, U.S. De­ Is included. partment of Justice, LEAA, National Criminal Justice Informa­ (b) New Mexico has two state camps that were reix>rted com­ tion and Statistics Service, May 1975. bined with a state training school as one facility. (a) Althoush a New Jersey state training school held a large (c) North Dakota has three state group homes that were re- ix>rted combined with a state training school as one facility. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 417 CRIMINAL JUSTICE EXPENDITURES, TOTAL AND BY CATEGORY, AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STATE GENERAL EXPENDITURE—FISCAL YEAR 1974* (In thousands of dollars)

Percent of total state Total Le^al general criminal sermces expenditures State or other justice Police and • Indigent for criminal jurisdiction system protection • Judicial prosecution defense. Corrections Other justice United States.. ... $12,992,327 $7,290,166 $1,662,018 $652,964 $152,964 $3,025,867 $208,350 8.8 Alabama.... 128,041 76.054 18,745 5.205 1,161 25,573 1.304 6.8 Alaska 48,551 19.329 9,483 4,352 1,026 13.827 534 5.8 Arizona 154.930 92.497 18.590 7,765 2.337 32,766 976 12.0 Arkansas 54.319 31.273 6.132 2.457 301 13.730 426 6.1 California 1,950.509 1.007.459 224.943 118.099 33.090 550.947 15.972 12.2 Colorado 146,739 79,027 22,092 8,380 2,650 33.639 950 9.4 Connecticut 182.629 109,064 23.324 7.559 1.621 39,775 1,285 6.4 Delaware 38.496 18,591 7,502 1.529 430 9.662 783 8.8 Florida 508.125 262,388 75,159 28,982 8.608 125.058 7,930 12.4 Georgia 242,509 117,455 31.507 9,251 1.964 80.421 1.911 9.7 Hawaii 55.829 34.072 7.813 5.133, 750 7.520 541 4.9 Idaho 34,273 16.949 4.940 1.961 598 9.617 209 7.8 lUinois 717,012 468.340 82,115 31.460 5,695 115,008 14.395 10.8 Indiana 195,493 117.932 20.781 9.353 2.270 42.421 2.735 7.8 Iowa 107.564 57.697 15.969 5.707 1.184 25.818 1.189 6.7 Kansas 100.819 48.781 12.761 6,417 1.294 29.925 1.640 7.8 Kentucky 125,093 74,207 14,499 5.525- 960 25.966 3.936 7.1 Louisiana 193.642 120.637 26.186 9.499 l.llS 35,138 1.066 9.0 Maine 41.106 22.292 5,376 1.657 378 10.677 727 5.5 Maryland 301.339 162.994 32.743 10,985 4.972 82.532' 7.112 7.3 Massachusetts 395,637 235.084 49.178 13.373 2.615 86,753 8,635 6.6 Michigan 600.138 353.714 85.702 29.466 8.101 117.698 5.457 9.4 Minnesota 177.674 98.175 24,034 9.728' 1.457 41,554 2.726 6.5 Mississippi 73.364 45.372 9.083 2.910 599 13.855 1.546 5.9 Missouri 238.252 146.147 30.987 9.606 1.741 46.179 3.592 10.8 Montana 31.794 16.364 3.735 2.040 273 8.663 715 7.0 Nebraska.... 62.115 34,063 9.576 3.876 689 12.700 1.211 7.1 Nevada 57.338 30.963 S.477 4,406. 899 14,910 683 12.1 New Hampshire 32.665 20.237 3.826 1.259 213 5,655 1.475 6.7 New Jersey 547.853 321.773 63.551 36.219 8,992 110.659 6.659 10.3 New Mexico 54.197 32.922 5.437 2.875 1,318 10,454 1.190 8.0 New York 1.853,580 1.077.706 247,661 84,407 20,021 373.619 50.166 8.5 North Carolina 240.789 125,012 29.822 6.595 4.786 71,131 3.442 6.7 North Dakota 20.372 10.673 3,430 1.588 161 4.097 423 4.9 Ohio 524.480 278.660 73.799 25.175 . 3.245 135.338 8.263 9.5 Oklahoma.... 99.057 57.822 12.479 5.591 651 20,693 1.821 6.3 Oregon 136.934 69.586 16.407 12.016 1.826 34.662 2.436 9.6 Pennsylvania 666.820 377.767 102.833 26.880 6.852 146.698 5.790 9.7 Rhode Island 50,005 29.416 7,362 1.825 399 10.343 660 6.1 South CaroUna 115.208 57.244 13.246 2.539 697 39.247 2.235 7.8 South Dakota ' 24.038 12.765 3.231 2,365 292 5.049 337 5.6 Tennessee 170,114 91.486 23.244 6.185 1.136 46.232 1,832 5.9 Texas 491.798 290.193 64.173 26,854 2.999 88.399 19.180 9.0 Utah 46.020 25.620 5.197 2.778 378 .11.350 699 7.0 Vermont... 25,059 11.761 3.272 1.323 536 7.833 334 6.8 Virginia 236.771 130.154 28,784 8.972 3.191 63.345 2,325 6.0 Washington 202.793 105,385 22.596 12,417 2.186 58,502 1,707 8.6 West Virginia 53.634 28,596 6,738 3.174 72 14.488 564 5.1 Wisconsin 241.590 141.475 26.609 12.504 2.177 53.965 4.859 7.0 Wyoming 16.977 8.988 2.155 1.415 152 4.047 220 6.6 District of Columbia. 178.246 88.002 17.734 11.328 1,902 57.730 1.550 14.4 *Source: U.S. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration ment Data for the Criminal Justice System: 1974, Washington, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Expenditure and Employ- D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. STATE POLICE AND HIGHWAY PATROLS

BY NORMAN DARWICK*

EPARTMENTS OF State policc, highway then be possible to more accurately de­ patrol, public safety, and law en­ termine not only who performs what D forcement are some of the terms function but also the numbers of their identifying state-level law enforcement. In personnel and the costs of law enforce­ addition to legislative mandates requiring ment at the state level. that these state agencies provide support At the present time, the Division of services to local-level police agencies, we State and Provincial Police of the Inter­ are seeing organizational consolidation national Association of Chiefs of Police which gives them responsibilities which is defining state-level law enforcement traditionally have been those of other agencies as follows:^ disciplines in the criminal justice system. 1. Highway patrol—a state law en­ For example, some responsibility for fire forcement agency which: protection services, conservation services, • operates a uniformed field patrol force correctional services, and prosecution and concentrates its police services on and special investigatory services have traffic, vehicle, and highway-related ac­ been assigned to these agencies. tivities. Under other reorganizations there is 2. State police—a state law enforce­ little doubt that law enforcement is the ment agency which: only objective of the newly created agen­ • operates a uniformed field patrol force cies. However, in many cases the ques­ and nonuniformed investigative units; tion has become that of deciding how • conducts criminal law investigations these agencies should be classified. The generally rather than concentrating on a number of departments of public safety specialized category of offenses or spe­ has been increasing, and it is common cifically assigned sensitive cases; to include within such departments the • is responsible for providing general po­ uniformed force and those specialized lice services and activities. investigative and support units which 3. Department of law enforcement— were formerly located elsewhere. Also, a state law enforcement investigative intelligence units, organized crime in­ agency which: vestigation and coordinating responsibili­ • does not employ uniformed sworn per­ ties, state crime laboratories, and other sonnel; specialized units have been added to high­ • is responsible for criminal investiga­ way patrols in some States. Such broaden­ tions generally rather than concentrating ing of responsibilities has made their on a specialized category of offenses or functions similar to that of state police specifically assigned sensitive cases. and departments of public safety. There­ 4. Law enforcement unit—a state law fore, what shall be the definitions by enforcement investigative agency which: which state police, highway patrols, de­ • does not employ uniformed sworn per­ partments of public safety, and other sonnel; state law enforcement agencies are classi­ • is responsible only for investigations of fied? specialized categories of offenses or spe­ When this question is answered, it will cifically assigned sensitive cases. The location of state police and high- *Mr. Darwick is the Director of the Police Management and Operations Divisions and Di­ rector of the Division of State and Provincial Po­ ^Division inembership includes Canadian pro­ lice of the International Association of Chiefs vincial police and state agencies as defined by the of Police, Inc. first three categories. 418 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 419 Number of Personnel, 1968 and 1974

1968 1974 Per- Sworn Civilian Total Sworn Civilian Total increase Highway patrol 15,936 7.811 23,747 21.438 10,051 ' 31,489 32.6 State police 18,058 4,938 22,996 23,477 7.188 30,665 . 33.3 Total 33,994 12,749 . 46,743 44,915 17,239 62,154 33.0 way patrols within state governments' or- sworn personnel, 825 (range 93 to 5,555), ganizational structures are shown in the and civilian employees, 387 (range 17 to following table, 1,929); and state police—sworn personnel, ^ 1,020 (range 172 to 3,935), and civilian employees, 313 (range 10 to 763). The „. . . , , c* * >, ;• ' Department of Criminal Law Enforce- Hxghway patrols State police r ,,K, rr- ^ A a A , * s, * N ment employed 151 sworn oincers and 434 Num- Per- Num- Per- civilians. Agency within ber cent ber cent - The numbei r ro f personneTl employe-I I d Department of ^Y State police and highway patrols has public safety 11 42 11 48 shown a steady increase between 1968 Transportation/ and 1974, as indicated by the table above. highway dept 9 35 1(a) 4 Department of TiME EXPENDITURES justice/Attorney General 14 2 9 The time expenditures of State police Agency head reports agencies indicate their broader responsi- directly to bilities for general law enforcement while (sepaSt? agency) .. 5 19 9 39 highway patrols' duties are more traffic •PQj^j 26" Too 2F loo related. These difiEerences notwithstand- ing, the traffic enforcement and control Wcf; Division of State and Provincial Police of th^ responsibilities of State police affcncies International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., 1974 .,\ . r i i ir Comparative Data Report, p. 38. Total is for 49 States Still require an average ot nearly One halt smce^Hawaii does not have a state police or highway Q£ JJ^^-J. personnel's manhourS. The 1974 (a) This state police agency was withjn a larger agency Comparative Data Report listS State entitled "Transportation and Public Safety." agenc^y tim. e expenditure,. s^ as show, n m. th, e .^ table below. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PERSONNEL INCREASE COSTS FOR POLICE SERVICES In the latter part of 1974, the state As previously indicated, the total costs police, highway patrols, and the one De- for law enforcement services at the state partment of Criminal Law Enforcement level cannot be accurately determined (Florida) reported their total number of until all organizations providing such employees as 62,739. Average depart- services can be ascertained, but the state mental strengths were: highway patrols— police and highway patrols reported the Average Time Expenditure of Total Agency Personnel, in Percentages Admin- Special . Traffic Crime istration services Other Highway patrol 67 4 15 " 7 17 Range 39 to 98 . .4 to 13 2 to 48 .7 to 16 2 to 37 State police 47 16 19 11 15 Range 10 to 77 .2 to 37 5 to 37 .5 to 29 7 to 27 Florida Department of Criminal Law ^ Enforcement 0 26 5 0 69 420 THE BOOK OF THE STATES following relative to 1^4 as shown in the next few years will be changed to require table below. state law enforcement departments to of­ Departments with a minority group fer sworn positions to both sexes. recruitment program nearly doubled be­ tween 1972 and 1974. During that period TENURE AND PROMOTION the percent of highway patrols with mi­ Only three agency heads, all in high­ nority programs rose from 46 to 88, and way patrols, have tenure. Most hold "ex­ among state police the percent climbed empt" positions, that is they are ap­ from 41 to 74. The percentage of mi­ pointed and can be removed without nority sworn personnel is rising among cause at the pleasure of the. appointing state police and highway patrols. The de­ authority. Of the 39 state police and partments report average percentages of highway patrols which have provided in­ minority officers for the years indicated formation on exempt positions, in 36 per^ as follows: during 1972, 2.8 percent; in cent of the agencies only the chief execu­ 1974, 3.5 percent; and estimated by 1976, tive officer holds exempt rank, in 23 8.8 percent. percent the top two positions are exempt, The minimum age at which entrance- and in 15 percent the highest three ranks level personnel will be accepted as sworn are exempt. Therefore, in approximately personnel has been lowered by many de­ 75 percent of the state departments, the partments. By 1974, 54 percent of the exempt positions do not extend beyond highway patrols and 43 percent of the the top three ranks. state police agencies were accepting Only two highway patrols and two state troopers at less than 21 years of age. police agencies utilize evaluation by per­ The controversial subject of height sonnel of equal rank during the promo­ standards has resulted in some significant tional procedures for any of their ranks. differences between requirements for ap­ Only one highway patrol and one state plicants in 1972 and 1974. Twenty de­ police department include evaluation by partments do not now have a set height subordinates within their promotional minimum, whereas only four did not in processes for any of their ranks. 1972, although 22 of the highway patrols" Only one highway patrol and one state and state police have retained minimum police department utilize a single pro­ height standards of either 5'8'' or 5'9". cedure to select first-line supervisors, and Although 12 agencies—four highway pa­ in each case the method chosen is an eval­ trols and eight state police—have em­ uation by superiors. ployed female officers, administrators of the departments are not yet certain EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION whether women can be denied employ­ The increases in employee organiza­ ment as sworn personnel because of their tions and collective bargaining among sex. Only three highway patrols and five highway patrols and state police have con­ state police agencies have reported that tinued, as indicated by the following fig­ they assign female troopers to regular ures: road patrol duties. The issue must still 1. States permitting employee organi­ be decided in the Legislatures and courts, zations have increased from 41 (1970), to but it is probable that the laws over the 43 (1972), to 46 (1974).

Annual Average Budget and Selected Expenditures, in Percentages Annual average Average percent of budget for 1 Budget Per All (mil­ capita per­ Sworn Trans­ Train­ Information lions) cost sonnel personnel portation ing systems Highway patrol 1570.4 $5.31 69.7 54.2 15.3 2.0 4.6 State police $566 J2 $5.64 69.1 56.8 12.3 2.5 4.6 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 421 Systems for Control and Use of Data Processing Equipment Data processing equipment Data processing equipment is controlled by is acquired oy

, ; • * ^ , : A , Responding Central data agency processing unit Lease Purchase Highway patrol 8 (30.7%) 9 (34.6%) 17 (65.3%) 7 (26.9%) State police 9(39.1%) 7(30.4%) 16 (69.57o) 7(30.4%) Department of Criminal Law Enforcement Yes ... Yes Yes

2. States permitting labor union affili­ time or the hiring of additional person­ ation are up from 27 (1970), to 31 (1972), nel. to 35 (1974). 3. Collective bargaining by employee DATA PROCESSING AND organizations has grown from nine (1970), INFORMATION SYSTEMS to 11 (1972), to 13 (1974). Only three highway patrols and two 4. States in which employees are mem­ state police departments do not utilize bers of some type of organization have ex­ data processing equipment and proce­ panded from 27 (1970), to 33 (1972), to dures. The table above indicates the sys­ 34 (1974). tems in use for control and acquisition Of special concern to administrators of data processing equipment. of state police and highway patrols is the The district stations of the one State involvement of their agencies in provid­ Department of Criminal Law Enforce­ ing law enforcement services to local jur­ ment, 62 percent of the highway patrols, isdictions when such services are inter­ and 74 percent of the state police agencies rupted during strikes and walkouts of have terminal connections into their or­ the local police. The budgetary drain on ganization's information system. The ta­ the state law enforcement agencies can ble below indicates the types of manage­ be critical, and decisions and plans must ment data which are computerized by the be made to prepare for the appropriate agencies. apportioning of costs for police services In recent years there has been consider­ provided to local jurisdictions by the able growth of and agitation for legisla­ State during such crisis situations. tive and judicial restrictions on the col­ Although federal fair labor standards lection and dissemination, of criminal as they apply to state law enforcement history information.^ Law enforcement personnel are presently not being en­ forced as enacted, due to litigation, should ""Criminal history information" includes: rec­ their provisions concerning payment of ords of an individual's formal transactions with the criminal justice system and data concerning overtime and minimum workweek be­ his identification; and intelligence and investiga­ come operational, the budgets of the state tive information collected through investigations agencies must be significantly increased aimed at determining possible criminal activity to compensate for either payment of over­ or a potential for such involvement.

Computerized Management Data Man- Obli- Fleet Per­ power gated, un- accident Pro­ sonnel deploy- obligated main- Inven­ Bud­ gram records ment ttme tenance tory get evaluation Highway patrol 16 (61.5%) 7 (26.9%) 5 (19.2%) U (42.3%) 17 (65.3%) 13 (50%) 10 (38.4%) State police 10 (43.4%) 8 (34.7%) 3(13%) 11(47.8%) 7(30.4%) 4(17.3%) 3(13%) Department of Criminal Law Enforcement .. Yes ...... Yes Yes Yes 422 THE BOOK OF THE STATES administrators, especially those at the speed enforcement,* and/or change the state level in jurisdictions in which state allocation of taxes on motor vehicle fuel police and highway patrols are charged from construction to law enforcement ef­ with intelligence-gathering responsibili­ forts to enforce the 55 mph limit. ties, are concerned with the possibility that overreaction to the security and ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL AGENCIES privacy issues may seriously limit the abil­ Although the state enforcement agen­ ity of the police to apprehend and deter cies have been providing various services professional criminals and detect criminal to local law enforcement departments for conspiracies. The validity of this concern many years, such services can be expected about overreaction was borne out when to increase. Because most local police one jurisdiction's legislation was so com­ agencies have few personnel, the possibil­ prehensive that the police were even pro­ ity of having among them persons of ad­ hibited from informing family members vanced technical skills is accordingly re­ of an arrested person that he was in- duced. Therefore, state law enforcement carcerated.3 Issues which must be resolved organizations are looked to for providing include the regulation of information dis­ training, research, technical expertise, semination; the right of individuals to and coordination of law enforcement ef­ inspect and challenge records through ad­ forts.^ For example, alcohol has been sus­ ministrative and judicial review; the pected as being heavily involved in the purging and sealing of records and in­ commission of many types of crimes, but formation; the existence, composition, the data base of a local agency which and authority of privacy and security might wish to explore such involvement councils to oversee criminal justice infor­ often would be too limited to produce a mation; and the civil or criminal sanc­ statistically valid study. It is then neces­ tions appropriate for violation of security sary for the state police or highway patrol and privacy regulations. of the jurisdiction to conduct or at least coordinate such research efforts. MANPOWER TO ENFORCE THE 55 MPH SPEED LIMIT THE FUTURE The federally mandated 55 mph speed Some of the factors already discernible limit to conserve energy and the attend­ as affecting state police and highway pa­ ant reporting requirements by the States trols, and which can be expected to con­ to the federal government have initiated tinue Or accelerate, are: actions to gain federal funding for the • Consolidation into departments of support of such efforts. The traditional public safety or integration of efforts. assignment of police resources in propor­ • Assistance to and coordination tion to the traffic accident experience on among local law enforcement agencies. various highways is at variance with the • Minority recruitment, including fe­ enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit. males, as sworn personnel. Highways on which speeds significantly • Legislative and administrative re­ in excess of the federal limit can be ex­ strictions on information acquired for or pected are those limited access facilities disseminated from law enforcement rec­ with low accident and severity experience ords systems. not requiring heavy manpower assign­ • Federal funding to support the ad­ ment for collision reduction. ditional state police and highway patrol States can be expected to divert more expenditures aimed at enforcement of the resources to low-accident but high-speed 55 mph federally mandated speed limit. highways, utilize equipment such as auto­ matic violation recording devices for *For example, radar or sensor-connected instru­ ments which photograph speeding drivers and their vehicles without requiring the immediate *The problem was corrected immediately after presence of or contact by an enforcement officer. the statute became effective. The Governor called ^An excellent coordination effort is that of the the Legislature back into special session to change California Highway Patrol in the field of auto the statute, and it was modified appropriately. theft. CONSUMER PROTECTION

BY BETTY BAY*

TATE, COUNTY, AND CITY governments protection philosophy. Variations in the substantially increased their con­ pace of action among States, counties, and S sumer protection activities in 1974- cities were not surprising. 75, continuing and intensifying a trend It must be noted, however, that in a which began approximately a decade ago. number of States and local jurisdictions As a result, state and local governments proposals and programs important to have established themselves in the mid- consumers were killed outright, politi­ 1970s as innovative, vital, and growing cally juggled, or restricted by inadequate forces in consumer protection. Even with budget appropriations or enforcement a decrease in the next few years in the powers. In a number of cases key con­ number of new laws enacted and pro­ sumer-impact issues have not yet been grams instituted—a decrease that is likely brought forth for consideration. Never­ since actions now being taken are laying theless, the overwhelming direction in the basic protection framework—commit­ state and local governments is toward ments already made should enable state consumer consideration. and local governments to continue as a strong consumer protection force in the EMERGING TRENDS future. While state and local governments Among trends emerging and intensify­ are still debating parameters and imple­ ing in 1974-75, and expected to continue, mentation procedures, they clearly have are the following (summarized here and acknowledged their responsibility to con­ later amplified): sumers and have bid for a major role in Broadening and Shifting of Issues consumer protection in the federal sys­ Addressed tem. —Broadening of the scope of questions Most visible evidences of state and lo­ considered as specifically "consumer is^ cal governments' growing commitment in sues." 1974 and 1975 were: —Increased focus and action on exist­ —Enactment, in a record number of ing laws or policies which permit fixed jurisdictions, of laws, rules, and regula­ prices, foster increased prices, restrict tions with the force of law, plus the initia­ price advertising, impose barriers to com­ tion or expansion of consumer programs. petition, or limit consumer choices. —Establishment, by law or administra­ —Attention to and strengthening of tive directive, of additional consumer state antitrust laws, and their enforce­ offices, or consumer divisions within exist­ ment. ing offices. —Increased recognition of the impact —Creation of more standing legislative on consumers of other legislation, as well committees on consumer affairs. as increased awareness of the importance There were some perceptible shifts in of administrative policies. emphasis in 1974-75. This was a reflec­ —Broadened definition of "consumer tion of several factors, including the exis­ rights," including stronger requirements tence of previously enacted consumer for disclosure of information to con­ legislation, emergence of new problems sumers. affecting consumers, shifts in pressure points, and the development of a general Increased Consumer Representation —Creation of consumer offices, ombuds­ *Mrs. Bay is former Director, State and Local Programs, Ofifice of Consumer Affairs, U.S. De­ men, consumer advocates, and the addi­ partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. tion or assumption of consumer advocacy 423 424 THE BOOK OF THE STATES functions within existing offices to pro­ sumer Affairs, U.S. Department of vide representation of consumer interests Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), before state government regulatory and the 1974 complaint ranking, in descend­ administrative offices. ing order, was: 1, automobiles; 2, home —Addition of consumer members to repairs; 3, credit; 4, mobile homes; 5, policy-making and regulatory boards mail orders; 6, housing and real estate; whose actions impact on consumers, in­ 7, furniture; 8, miscellaneous; 9, TV and cluding licensing boards. radio; 10, appliances; 11, business prac­ tices; 12, retail; 13, utilities; 14, insur­ Greater Emphasis on Consumer Redress ance; 15, defective products; 16, landlord- and Restitution tenant; 17, food and drugs; 18, services; —Heightened efforts by consumer of­ 19, land sales; and 20, medical. fices to secure individual restitution. —Laws and courts increasingly provid­ ANTITRUST LAWS ing for restitution. Since an unfair and deceptive trade —Arbitration mechanisnis established practice law is widely held as providing and a flurry of activity to increase effec­ the backbone of consumer protection, it tiveness of small claims courts. is significant that by late 1975 a total of 48 States had enacted some form of an More Forces Involved in Consumer unfair and deceptive trade practice act. Affairs and Growing Communication Three States (Mississippi, Nebraska, and Links West Virginia) enacted such laws in some —Courts becoming more important as a form in 1974, and Georgia in 1975 en­ force in consumer protection. acted a Fair Business Practices Act. This —Marked increase in county prosecu­ leaves only Alabama and Tennessee with­ tors' involvement in consumer fraud en­ out such a statute. Additionally, a num­ forcement actions, including the coopera­ ber of States strengthened their laws by tive development of a national priority expanding the enforcement authority of focus and technique communication sys­ the Attorney General or other enforce­ tem. ment officials and broadened the lan­ —Increased attention to consumer is­ guage to cover a wider spectrum of trade sues by national organizations of state practices. and local government officials. A significant trend in 1974-75, and one —First National Conference of State expected to intensify, was increased state and Local Government Consumer Office attention to effective antitrust laws and Administrators and continuing follow-up their enforcement, indicating an in­ activity toward formation of a permanent creased awareness of the economic cost organization of state and local consumer of price fixing. Four States (Arizona, Mis­ officials. souri, Nebraska, and Virginia) reported —Creation of several statewide and re­ enactment of antitrust laws in 1974. gional communication linkages among Three other States (Alaska, Nevada, and consumer offices. Oregon) codified antitrust laws in 1975. —Increased communication among fed­ This leaves eight jurisdictions (Delaware, eral, state, and local government officials Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, involved in consumer affairs. Vermont, West Virginia, American Sa­ A 50-state review clearly suggests a de­ moa, and Guam) generally considered to veloping philosophy that consumerism is have either no antitrust laws, limited a legitimate area of state and local gov­ laws, or provisions which do not meet the ernment concern. generally recognized definition of anti­ State and local consumer protection ac­ trust laws. Antitrust action may be tion parallels fairly closely the list of the brought under common law power in Top 20 Consumer Complaint Categories some States without specific statutory for 1974. As reported by state, county, authority. and city consumer offices to the State and Several States have created a revolving Local Programs Division, Office of Con­ fund, consisting of a percentage of all re- MAJOR STATE SERVICES 425 coveries obtained in antitrust actions. ditional decreasing block price rate de­ The funds are used to provide a reason­ sign; the freezing of utility rates; changes able means of financing the State's high in the rate design in favor of flat rates, cost for investigation and prosecution. At peak-load pricing, and day and night rates least eight States reported creation of for large industrial users; the review of such funds (Arizona, Maryland, Missouri, factors in rate base determination, in­ New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, cluding treatment of utility advertising and Washington). A 1974 Delaware law and other operational policies affecting authorized the State Attorney General to rates; "bills of rights" for consumers con­ sue in state or federal court as parens cerning utility service practices; and cre­ patriae J also likely to be an emerging ation of offices of consumer advocates as trend. The Antitrust Committee of the well as increased intervention by Attor­ National Association of Attorneys Gen­ neys General as consumer advocates be­ eral supports such authority. Special at­ fore state utility and other regulatory tention by the States also is likely to be agencies, including insurance depart­ given to increasing penalties for antitrust ments. violation and providing recovery of treble Action to repeal fair trade laws was on damages in civil actions in an effort to the upswing in 1975. Fifteen States re­ increase the deterrent effect of antitrust pealed their laws (Arkansas, California, laws. Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mex­ UTILITY PRICING ico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rapidly rising prices in 1974 brought Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington). attention not only to business and utility The Federal Consumer Goods Pricing Act advertising and pricing practices but also of 1975 repealed the federal antitrust to the economic effect on consumers of amendments supportive of fair trade laws. many state and local laws and policies. There was growing activity toward re­ DRUG PRICING view and repeal of state laws and regula­ State pharmacy board regulations pro­ tions which permit fixed prices, foster hibiting prescription drug price adver­ increased prices, restrict price advertising, tising were partially or completely over­ impose barriers to competition, or limit turned by court action in five States in consumer choices. These competitive re­ 1974 (Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, strictions include fair trade laws, licensing Virginia, and Wisconsin). In 1975, a U.S. laws restricting entry and limiting com­ District Court in California ruled that petition, prohibitions against advertising state laws prohibiting prescription drug prescription drug prices,^ prohibitions price advertising are unconstitutional. against substituting generically equiva­ The court held that such advertising can­ lent drugs for higher-priced brand-name not be classified as "promotional" or drugs, funeral/burial laws and practices, "commercial" advertising seeking to cre­ restrictions against advertising eyeglass ate a demand for a product, but that it is prices, state milk regulatory policies, and important information sought by con­ others. sumers and as such enjoys full freedom With zooming utility rates spurring of speech rights (Terry v. California State consumer protests, dominant issues in the Board of Pharmacy). States in 1974-75 became rate structures Laws in Michigan and the Virgin Is­ and design, energy conservation, utility lands in 1974 required the posting of operations and service practices, and the prices of the 100 most frequently pre­ provision for public hearings as well as scribed drugs. In Vermont, the court up­ increased consumer representation before held a state law.requiring the posting of state public service commissions. They drug prices. can be expected to remain areas of heavy Similarly, momentum to permit ge­ action. Some trends emerging are initi­ neric substitution for a brand name pre­ ation of legislative and public utility scription drug is building. Florida and commission studies of alternatives for tra­ Michigan in 1974 and California and 426 THE BOOK OF THE STATES Oregon in 1975 enacted laws permitting States established review boards for mal­ the pharmacist to substitute generic for practice claims, such as Nevada, New brand name prescription drugs unless the York, and Tennessee; others, such as Cali­ prescribing physician has prohibited such fornia, Illinois, and Idaho, limited the action. Four States (Connecticut, Ken­ amount of damages which can be re­ tucky, Massachusetts, and New Hamp­ covered. shire) have enacted laws providing that The imminent widespread use of Uni­ multisource drugs listed in a state formu­ versal Product Coding saw a parallel rise lary may be substituted unless otherwise during 1975 in hearings, proposals for directed by the prescribing physician. legislation, and enactment of some laws to make individual item pricing manda­ LICENSING tory. By late summer at least four States State Legislatures continued in 1974- had enacted such laws (California, Con­ 75 to devote considerable attention to necticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Is­ licensing professions and occupations. land). Growing forces called for major review The persistence of auto repair com­ of licensing's actual impact on the econ­ plaints at the top of the list of consumer omy and on consumers, licensing's effect complaints prompted legislative action on prices, and licensing's possible impact in a steadily growing number of States as on competition by unduly restricting free well as counties and cities in 1974-75 entry into a profession or occupation. (Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, New York, There were a growing number of ques­ Rhode Island, Wisconsin, District of Co­ tions concerning domination of regula­ lumbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges tory boards by representatives of the very County, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas). professions those boards control. The general pattern was to license or New directions are indicated by laws register auto repair shops and to require enacted in a few States in 1974-75 and more information disclosure for con­ being proposed in others: initiating or sumers. strengthening consumer representation on licensing boards; increasing a board's NO-FAULT INSURANCE responsibility and power to involve itself The trend toward state enactment of in consumer complaint mediation and some form of state no-fault insurance resolution; providing for consumer resti­ slowed in 1974-75 with four States enact­ tution through several mechanisms such ing such laws (Georgia, Kentucky, Penn­ as surety bonds, escrow accounts, recovery sylvania, and South Carolina) and one fupds, and licensing board determina­ (Minnesota) strengthening its version. In tion; specifying unfair and deceptive 1975 only North Dakota enacted an auto practices and misleading advertising as no-fault law. Court tests of automobile grounds for license suspension and revo­ no-fault insurance laws in Connecticut, cation; and requiring additional disclo­ Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and sure of information to consumers. Pennsylvania during 1975 upheld the con­ stitutionality of the laws. A total of 24 MALPRACTICE CRISIS States and Puerto Rico now have some The medical malpractice insurance automobile insurance reform law. crisis burst into the state legislative spot­ In Massachusetts, with the Nation's light in 1975. Almost all States had en­ only no-fault property damage insurance, acted laws by the fall of 1975 in efforts to a 1975 law set a standard deductible of cool the crisis. Idaho's law limiting col­ $200 for collision and comprehensive in­ lectible damages to $150,000 and |300,000 surance in an effort to reduce the number was ruled unconstitutional in district of small claims. court, but the decision was appealed to The States continued their pace in out­ the State's Supreme Court. The thrust of lawing or regulating multilevel/pyramid most laws was toward the establishment distribution programs. Six States acted in of mechanisms to guarantee the avail­ 1974 (Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ne­ ability of malpractice insurance. Some braska, Ohio, and Vermont) and five MAJOR STATE SERVICES 427 more by the fall of 1976 (Arizona, Missis­ corporate a consumer office into that de­ sippi, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania partment. outlawed; South Dakota regulated). This A total of 65 cities reported consumer brought the jurisdictions which have pro­ offices by late 1975. Of these, New York hibited or regulated pyramid distribution State led with 11 cities and towns having programs to 42 plus Puerto Rico. consumer offices, followed by Ohio with eight, California and Massachusetts with CONSUMER OFFICES GROW five each, and Pennsylvania, Texas, and Consumer education programs in­ Virginia with four each. creased. By late 1975 at least seven States A trend in the 1974-75 period has been had, to some degree, made consumer edu­ the creation of an office of public counsel cation mandatory in public schools (Flor­ or consumer advocate to represent con­ ida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, sumers, primarily before state utility Rhode Island, and Wisconsin). Several commissions but in many cases before other jurisdictions took steps in 1974-75 other state, local, and federal regulatory to oflEer voluntary consumer education agencies as well.. Of all new consumer courses. offices reported in 1974-75, consumer ad­ The steady increase in the number of vocate offices represented six in 1974 consumer offices and specific consumer (Florida, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, advocacy offices in state, county, and city District of Columbia, and Guam), and governments continued through 1974- four in 1975 (Connecticut, Georgia, Ver­ 75. Zooming from 16 offices in 1969 to 347 mont, and one at the county level in Dade offices reported to the State and Local County, Florida). Other States with such Programs Division of the Office of Con­ offices are Indiana, New York, and Rhode sumer Affairs of HEW in 1975, this ac­ Island. tivity by state and local governments to One aspect of expanded consumer pro­ assist consumers is one of the most signif­ tection action is the increased use of om­ icant developments in consumer affairs budsmen. In 1975 Alaska established an over the last decade. The wave of new independent ombudsman's office to seek state consumer offices came first, and has resolution of citizen complaints against now peaked. The current action surge is government agencies. Hawaii, Iowa, and at the county level. Nebraska established ombudsmen previ­ At the state level, a total of 128 con­ ously. Several other States have offices sumer offices are reported, with a number with ombudsman functions, but have not of States having several offices each. A to­ made them independent of existing ex­ tal of 13 state-level offices was added in ecutive officials or agencies. Lieutenant 1974, and four more in the first nine Governors have such functions in Mis­ months of 1975. souri and New Mexico, as do the Gov­ A total of 137 counties in 29 States re­ ernors' offices in Illinois, Kentucky, Mas­ ported the existence of at least one con­ sachusetts, Montana, North Carolina, sumer office by September 1975; actual Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia. total was 154 since some counties have Specialized units also have been set up. more than one consumer office. Counties Ohio has separate ombudsmen for en­ establishing consumer offices are wide­ vironment, business, insurance, consumer spread geographically, and of widely vary­ protection, and local government; Utah ing population. California leads with 30 has one for blacks and one for the Spanish of its counties reporting at least one con­ speaking. New Jersey created in 1974 the sumer office, while Florida, Michigan, Department of Public Advocate, with and New York reported 11 counties with special divisions for rates, mental health, offices and New Jersey 10. In 91 of the public interest, and citizen's complaints 137 counties, the consumer offices were and dispute settlement. established by the prosecutor as a special A trend toward establishment of spe­ division within that office. The second cific consumer standing committees major trend has been for the County De­ within Legislatures also has begun to partment of Weights and Measures to in­ emerge since the late 1960s. 428 THE BOOK OF THE STATES The increase in the number of con­ Other growing communication links in­ sumer offices has been followed by efforts cluded expanded activities in consumer to increase communication and coopera­ affairs by the Regional Conferences of the tion. A landmark in the improvement of Council of State Governments, the Na­ communication and governmental lead­ tional Association of Attorneys General, ership in consumer affairs was the first the National Conference of State Legis­ National Conference for State and Local latures, and the National District Attor­ Government Consumer Office Adminis­ neys Association. Meanwhile, consumer trators held in 1974 at the initiation of offices within specific States are beginning Mrs. Virginia H. Knauer, Special Assist­ to formally organize into state- and area- ant to the President for Consumer Affairs wide committees for information ex­ and Director of the Office of Consumer change. Affairs of HEW. She encouraged the cre­ State and local governmental action ation of a national association of such in consumer affairs is too broad for com­ officials to expand communication and to plete coverage in this chapter, but the represent consumers' interests. A steering developments cited are indicative of the committee was elected to develop organi­ responsiveness and commitment to con­ zational plans. sumers by state and local governments. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 429 STATE CONSUMER AFFAIRS OFFICES: POWERS AND DUTIES* 1 1 1 It .1 1 i 1 s 1 II ft 8 .1 o 1 BO 1 8 1 1 1 II .8 ll !38 '3 1 1 1 1 State or Si ••a "5 8 J? 1 other •a o Jurisdiction 1 ^1 II If 1 "-I III 1 II 1 Alabama.. A,B A,B A,B B B B B B A.B A B • B B B B B" B B ' B • B B B" B B Arizona.. . B B B B B B B B B B B B B Arkansas.. B B c • B B.C C B" C C B.C B.C B.C B B.C C B.C California. B D C D.C B.C.D D D D D.C D,B,C D.B.C B.C D Dc P.B D Colorado.. B B B B B B B B B ... B D D D D D D D D D D ... D Delaware.. B B,M B.M B.M B bB " M M B,M B B" b" M M M Florida B B.G B.G B,G B B B B B B B ... G Georgia A A,B A A B ... A Hawaii A A A A A A A B B B • B B" B • B B B" B* B B • B • Illinois B A.B A,B.C A.B.C B B A.B,CA,B.CB.C B B B.C A A.B Indiana.. . B B cK" B,K B K K K K B,K B.K B Kc" K ... B.K B B B B B B B B B B B ... B Kansas.... B,C B C B,C B,C B.C C B.C B.C B B,C B.C B.C B.C B.C B C Kentucky.. B B B B B B B B B B B Louisiana.. A,B A E A.B A* A • A A B B B A* ... A.E B B B B B B B B B B Maryland.. B B • ij 8.1.1 B.I.J B.I.J ... B,I,J B.I.J B.I.J B.IJ B.I BJJ B,I,J B.I.J B.U B A,B A.B A.B B B B B B B.D B.D B Michigan.. B B,D D B.D B" B B D D Minnesota. B.F B,F F B.F F • F" B B.F B.F F • F • F Mississippi B B B • B B • B B ... B Missouri... B B,F F B.F B.F B.F B.F F" F • F • B,F B.F B.F F" F • F F Montana.. F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Nebraska.. B B B B B B B B B Nevada.... B.F B,F B.F B,F B.F F B.F B.F B" B,F B.F B F B.F F' N. Hamp... B B B B B B B B B B B" B B B New Jersey B B c • B B,C C B.C B.C B,C B B.C B.C B,C B,C B.C New Mex.. B B B B B B New York.. B A,B A.B A.B A • B • B B B A* A.B N. Carolina B B E " B,E B.E B.E E B.E B,E B.E B E" E" B.E B.E N. Dakota. B B.O B,0 B.O B B B B B B B,0 ... 0 Ohio B,F B.F F B • F B.F B B F ... F Oklahoma. B B B B B B B B B Oregon.... B F E,F F" B.F B.E B" B.E E B.E B" B.E E • B.E E.F E.F B.C B C,E B B.C B.C B.C B.C B.C C B.C ... B.E Rhode Is... B B,D B.D B.D B B D B B.D Bc B' Dc D D S. Carolina B B B S.Dakota.. FF ...F F FFFFF ... F FFF Tennessee. ... B.E B E E Texas B B,E D B.D.E B.E B.D B ... B.D B,D B B B E Utah B,F F K F.K B.F F.K ... F.K F.K B B.F.K B,F B,F K B.F ... F Vermont.. B B.P P B.F B B.P B.P P B B.P B,P B,P B P B,P ... P

Virginia... B,L B.L C C.L L C C C ... B.C B.C B B C C B L Wash B B.E ... E B,E B B E ... B B B B ... E E E W. Va B B,N N.E B B,E B B B.E B.N B.E B.E B.E B.E.N B.E.N B.E B B.E.N Wisconsin. B.E A.B.E A A.B.E A.B.E B.E E A,E B.E E B.E B.E B.E ... E A.B B.E Wyoming. .B B B B B B B Puerto Rico D D ...D D DDDDD D DD D DDD Virgin IS...DD ...D D D...DD... DDD D DDD *Source: U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, U.S. Department of Dept. of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, etc.) Healtli. Exlucation, and Welfare, State Consumer Action: G— Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services Summary '74. tlpdated to January 1976 with information pro- H—iComptroUer vided by U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs. I— Motor Vehicle Administration Symbols: J— Commission of Consumer Credit A—Gk)vernor's Office K— Dept. of Banking. Financial Institutions, or similar dept. B—Attorney General's Office L— Dept. of Agriculture and Commerce C—Dept. of Insurance M—Dept. of Community Affairs and E^nomic Development D—Independent Consumer Protection Agency N— Dept. of Labor E—Dept. of Agriculture O— State Laboratories Dept. F— Dept. of Commerce. Business Regulation, Licensing, or P— Dept. of Banking and Insurance slniUar agency (in some States the agency may be called :•¥•¥•¥¥ -K^-K* : -K-k-K-K-K -K-K-K-K-K -K-K-K-K-K -K-K-K-K-K -K-K-K-K-K

9at)if3y3p div/uj}

p9jfnB3j : : : : : -.M-.M: : : : : : : : :-K-K -K : : : : : :-K : : :->t : : :

3uiSU93fJ /UOtfOXtSfSgXMpgp : : : :* :•¥. .M : : : :-K : : :-K : : -K : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 'utof'gx otpDx-/ix

sunoo stutvp jjvtu£ ^t-K-K :-k -¥•¥•¥• -.M MMMMM MMMMM ¥MMMM •¥•¥¥•¥•¥ ¥¥¥•¥•¥

p3)VjnS94 SpOt{3S apVAf MM: :•¥• M -.MM : ¥ :¥ :¥ M :•¥• \ : -K : :* : ¥¥ :•¥•'. : : :¥•¥ ^ ssaufsnq »;o«^

p9)ttUtX3

Sutst}j9apv

:¥:•.: :::::*:::: : : : : : -K : : : : -K : : : : : : : : : S33viuvp »jq3xi :S3tp3tU3X 3)Vat4J S33/ ,SK3UM}}}V ID :s3tp3m34 3]vatu^ :¥•.:'. '.'.•.•.•.¥¥:•.¥•.:•.¥'.•¥••.¥¥•.¥:•.¥'. I/) 1/3 I—I :S3fp3iu3U 3)VlliAJ :¥•.:¥ :¥•.:•.¥ :¥¥¥ ¥ : :•¥ \ ¥ : : :¥ :¥:'.•. •.:•.:¥

p3ptaoxf S3ip3Ul34 '31Va}4J :¥¥ :¥ ¥¥ :¥ : ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ :¥¥¥ ¥¥ :¥¥ : :¥ :¥ iz; p3JtnS3j spoof ' gUi)Vp MfO : : : :¥ :¥ :¥ : : : : : : : : : : : :•.¥:: •.:::¥

p3tt>]n3»J S3JDS ^^ :¥¥ :¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥ :¥ :¥ ¥ :¥ :¥ ¥¥¥ :¥ ¥¥ :¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥

Sp4VpUV}S U0}pnxistu» ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ :¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥ giuoif 3fiqopi ;2; sttsofsp mOiOS3 )U3X :¥•.:¥ ¥ :¥¥ :¥•.¥:¥ : :¥ :¥ ¥¥¥ : : : : : :¥ :¥ : :¥ o :}UVU31-pM}JpuV'J }3S S3%1tftqtSW>fS3A/Sm2tjt :¥¥:¥ :¥ :¥•.¥:: :¥ :¥::¥¥ •.•.•.:¥¥:¥ : :'.::¥ •fuvusi-pxojpuvj

pOU3

3sunoy C/3 -3np-uf-u3pjog ¥¥ : :¥ ¥¥ :¥ : ¥¥¥ :¥ ¥ :¥¥¥ :¥¥ :¥ : : :¥¥ ' :¥¥ :¥

X/osjn^uioo uotivonps MtunsuoQ : : : : : :•.•.¥:¥•.¥•.: :¥ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

SUtSU39tj/tlOffVU}SiS3X J3JV3P jitv434 0}ny :•.::¥ •.¥::: : : : :¥ :¥ : : : : : : : : :¥ : : :

u 211 oi. sa. !i SSfl ill^l Hill SS-i«. IIIJI lilllyif IItunI ssl^^ Mm UT^ T^tU

am alls! 43««sli0 l ^JJii mM silll lllli • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • if if if if • • • • • • • if • • • • Texas • • • • • Utah • • • • • • • • 4^ • • • • • • • • • • • • •- Virginia • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • West Virginia • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Wyoming • • • • • • • ... • • • • • • • • • • • i^ Virgin Islands • • • • • • • *Source: U.S. OflSce of Consumer ASairs, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, State Consumer Action: Summary '74. DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION

BY JOHN C. SPYCHALSKI*

URING the early 1970s, the role of pects of more than 14,000 trucking firms); commission regulation in state gov­ various intercity motor bus firms; urban D ernment had been thrust from com­ transit entities; cable television systems; parative obscurity to prominence by new and other miscellaneous types of trans­ and resurgent themes—energy conserva­ port and public utility properties. Still tion, environmental protection, and con­ another measure of the scope of state regu­ sumerism—and by dramatic economic and latory activity is provided by a look at the technological changes in various segments relatively large number of distinct types of public utilities and transport. These of activities within the jurisdiction of phenomena have stimulated significant state commissions—e.g., rate regulation, changes in various aspects of state regula­ prescription of utilities' accounting pro­ tion such as (1) efforts to strengthen the cedures, auditing of accounts, control of capabilities of state commissions, and (2) financing practices, control of the initia­ legislative and commission alternatives to tion and abandonment of services, safety past utility rate designs. Description of regulation, and control of service ade­ such changes, together with other recent quacy. developments and conditions affecting state regulatory agencies, comprise this BACKDROP TO COMMISSION REGULATION chapter. State commissions with mandatory reg­ ulatory powers over railways were first OVERVIEW established in the Midwest during the The broad range of regulatory func­ 1870s. Commission regulation of electric, tions entrusted to state public utility com­ gas, water, telecommunications, and vari­ missions is partially revealed by Table 1 ous other activities defined as public util­ which appears at the end of this chapter. ities began during the mid-1880s, and ex­ Additional insight into the magnitude of perienced its greatest surge of growth state regulatory responsibility is provided between 1907 and 1920. Federal regula­ by noting that approximately 1,962 tele­ tion of railways began in 1887 with estab­ phone companies, 377 investor-owned lishment of the Interstate Commerce electric companies, 482 electric coopera­ Commission. Federal commission regula­ tives, 296 municipal and other publicly tion of interstate utilities other than rail­ owned electric systems, 829 investor- ways and pipelines achieved relatively owned gas utilities, and 305 publicly full development during the 1930s. owned gas systems lie within the jurisdic­ In recent years, the federal commis­ tions of 53 state and territorial commis­ sions, by comparison with state commis­ sions. Also subject to state regulation is sions, have taken the initiative in pursu­ a significant portion of the more than ing regulatory changes. This is reflected 19,000 publicly owned water systems; ap­ by the increasing domination of interstate proximately 5,500 investor-owned water over intrastate aspects of utility controls, systems; approximately 340 railway com­ as required by federal laws and court panies; tens of thousands of motor freight decisions. Other changes in regulatory carriers (the California Commission alone trends, stimulated in part by recent ex­ holds jurisdiction over at least some as- perience with steep inflation, have also emerged. Emphasis has been shifting *Mr. Spychalski is Professor of Business Admin­ from rate base valuation and the deter­ istration, Department of Business Logistics, Col­ lege of Business Administration, The Pennsyl­ mination of allowable rates of return vania State University. thereon to the use of ratemaking stan- 432 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 433 dards which focus on the cost of capital of electric service have produced rate or on the amount of earnings required to structures characterized (in most in­ attract capital for necessary utility invest­ stances) by decreasing block rates for resi­ ment. In addition, the need for innova­ dential users, and by charges to commer­ tion in rate design and the encourage­ cial and industrial users which lack the ment of competitive services have been declining block feature but are lower given increasing attention. Changes such than residential rates. This pattern of as these come about in two ways: (1) by ratemaking has been defended with administrative action of the regulatory (among other things) the contention that commissions themselves and (2) by legis­ it induces higher levels of electricity usage lative action changing the law or policy and hence also results in the achievement under which the commissions operate. of lower unit costs when electricity sup­ The Federal Communications Commis­ ply takes place under conditions of de­ sion has furnished an example of the first clining short-run or long-run average alternative in its treatment of interstate cost, or both. This practice has drawn telephone rates and services with a policy criticism from economists for several rea­ which has encouraged the introduction sons, one being the tendency to ignore and interconnection of customer-owned peak load costs. The pricing of electricity equipment with the national telephone on the basis of its average cost per kilo­ network by independent telephone manu­ watt-hour of use by each class of customer facturers and suppliers. Along the same is said to result almost inevitably in the line, the Federal Power Commission has sale of peak load period service at rates sought to relax regulatory restraints over below the additional costs incurred in ful­ natural gas production for interstate serv­ filling peak load demand. ice and Congress has shown interest in Although this criticism emerged in this aspect of "deregulation." The U.S. economists' writings more than two dec­ Supreme Court has also turned to the re­ ades ago, it failed to excite interest among laxation of monopolistic service practices either regulators or utility executives. of interstate gas and electric supply utili­ More definite recognition of this emerged ties through broader interpretation of the when various politically active groups ag­ antitrust laws. At the state level during gressively promoting environmentalist the past few years, more attention has and conservationist causes began, during been paid to changes in rate design for the early 1970s, to argue that traditional various purposes: conservation of serv­ electric rate structures—with their under- ices, environmental protection, and wel­ pricing at peak periods and consequent fare consideration for consumers. "overselling" of electricity—caused exces­ sive environmental damage and waste of ELECTRICITY RATEMAKING exhaustible and irreplaceable natural re­ Sharp departures from traditional prac­ sources. Additional pressure for rate re­ tice have distinguished recent case deci­ structuring came at approximately the sions and participants' submissions in same time from consumer advocates (who electric rate proceedings before state com­ recognized that total opposition to fur­ missions. Especially during 1975, regula­ ther rate increases was infeasible in the tory and general public attention focused current inflationary period, but that the on four relatively new areas affecting elec­ restructuring of rates might provide a tric utility rates: (1) peak load pricing, means for minimizing the impact on low- (2) so-called lifeline rates, (3) fuel adjust­ income consumers), and from public offi­ ment clauses, and (4) managerial efficiency cials who view utility rate "reform" as an studies by a number of state regulatory essential element in reducing the Nation's commissions to determine whether utility dependence upon imported fuels. management practices have contributed The most noteworthy of several deci­ to the problem of rising costs. sions along this line occurred on August 8, 1974, when the Wisconsin Public Serv­ Peak Load Pricing ice Commission, in a rate case (10 PUR4th Conventional approaches to the pricing 187) involving the Madison Gas and Elec- 434 THE BOOK OF THE STATES trie Company, proposed a variety of sig­ used during morning and evening peak nificant changes in electricity pricing periods costs more than five times that which conformed in varying degrees with used during off-peak periods. This action those advocated by the aforementioned was undertaken in an attempt to reduce groups. Several highlights of this decision sharp morning and evening peaks which deserve mention. had confronted the corporation during 1. Long-run incremental cost (LRIC) winter months. was accepted as the "appropriate" cri­ In the allied direction of antipromo- terion for establishing electric rates con­ tional pricing was a 1974 case decision sistent with the achievement of efficient involving the Detroit Edison Company. resource allocation. The Michigan Public Service Commis­ 2. The implementation of LRIC pric­ sion stated that promotional decreasing ing would require price differentiation block-type rates had been rendered inap for peak and non-peak sales. Hence, the propriate by changes in electric utilities' commission ordered that full peak load cost conditions which, in the commis­ pricing, including differentials between sion's view, caused average cost per kilo­ daytime and nighttime usage, be insti­ watt-hour to increase rather than decrease tuted promptly for the company's large with rises in total kilowatt-hour produc­ industrial and commercial customers. Dif­ tion levels. Consequently, the commission ficulties involving time-of-day metering approved the imposition of a flat rate caused the commission to require winter- schedule for residential customers and summer rate differentials for low-volume also increased residential space heating commercial and residential customers. rates on the grounds that such changes However, the commission acknowledged would contribute both to conservation that seasonal differentiation is not a fully and a more appropriate matching of costs satisfactory device for achieving peak load and rates by reducing low-use customers' pricing objectives because it does not re­ payments and raising high-use buyers' ward ratepayers for improving a utility's charges. Rate structure changes directed load factor by shifting electricity usage to at least partially toward energy conserva­ off-peak hours. The commission thus di­ tion, aid to low-income customers, or rec­ rected large investor-owned utilities in ognition of changes in relationships be­ Wisconsin to initiate a search for feasible tween unit cost behavior patterns and methods of applying time-of-day metering changes in electric service volume levels to smaller-volume customers. (and utility plant size requirements) had In Florida, the state public service com­ also been ordered or suggested during mission has approved an experimental 1974-75 by several other state commis­ peak load electric rate schedule submitted sions, including those in Missouri, North by the Florida Power Corporation. The Carolina, and Ohio. The New York Pub­ project will run from November 1975 lic Service Commission announced in through December 1976. The experiment February 1975 that it was initiating a will involve 250 residential customers to proceeding to identify new approaches to be selected by a computerized random electric rate design which "may provide a sampling. In the summer, peak usage fruitful basis" for conserving energy, hours for this group have been set from achieving more efficient resource alloca­ 1:00 P.M. until 9:00 P.M. The daily winter tion to and within the electric utility in­ peak use periods will be from 7:00 A.M. dustry, and holding down electric service through 11:00 A.M. and from 5:00 P;M. costs to utilities' customers. until 9:00 P.M. Along the same line of time-oriented Fuel Adjustment Clauses pricing was an action by the Vermont The relatively high rates of inflation Public Service Board in which Central presently being experienced within the Vermont Public Service Corporation was American economy have impacted heav­ ordered to introduce an optional time-of- ily upon three market areas—plant and day rate differential for residential cus­ equipment, financial capital, and fuel- tomers. Under the differential, electricity in which utilities purchase most of their MAJOR STATE SERVICES 435 inputs. As a result, the state commissions tures in the history of public utility regu­ have been confronted by a veritable flood lation. of rate increase applications which, The most dramatic of recent state regu­ ideally, should be processed in a manner latory decisions in this subject area oc­ that will (1) enable utilities to adjust rates curred on April 22, 1975, when the New at a pace commensurate with inflation- Mexico Public Service Commission au­ induced changes in costs and thus main­ thorized the Public Service Company of tain service of requisite quantity and New Mexico to implement procedures quality, and (2) provide for adequate providing for automatic electricity rate treatment of the various public interest adjustments directed toward the achieve­ considerations which inhere in public ment and maintenance of an earned rate utility ratemaking. A number of methods of return of between 13.5 and 14.5 per­ have been suggested for meeting this cent on the book value of the company's critical two-pronged challenge. common equity capital. Under the pro­ To cope with the volume and frequency cedures, which were initially proposed by of revenue requirement increases imposed the company, adjustments in each of the upon electric utilities by recent fuel price company's various categories of retail elec­ escalations, approximately 40 States have tric rates will be made when the com­ approved the use of fuel adjustment pany's accounting reports indicate that its clauses which in essence permit utilities earned rate of return on common equity to pass fuel cost changes on to customers capital for the preceding accounting pe­ without either filing a conventional rate riod has either exceeded or fallen short increase application or otherwise obtain­ of the 13.5 to 14.5 percent range. If return ing specific permission from a regulatory on equity exceeds the prescribed range, agency. Such clauses do eliminate the time all of the company's retail electric service lag which regulatory procedures can im­ rates are to be decreased by amounts de­ pose upon utilities' efforts to recoup signed to reduce the rate of return to 14.5 higher costs via rate increases. However, percent during the accounting period they have drawn a rising level of criticism ending with the company's next quar­ from consumer interest groups and from terly business period. Conversely, upward some state commissioners and elected of­ rate adjustments are to be made if the ficials. company's return on equity falls below Failure to assure or provide adequate 13.5 percent. No rate adjustments are to incentive for seeking the lowest available be made (except for fuel and purchased fuel price is a leading complaint against power cost adjustments provided for by fuel clauses. Also, it has been alleged that other clauses remaining in effect from some utilities have used the clauses to ob­ previous commission orders) when the tain additional payments from consumers company's return on equity falls within which, taken as a whole, exceed total fuel the prescribed range during the immedi­ cost increases incurred by the companies. ately preceding quarter. Thus, pleas have arisen for the initiation The veracity of the company's account­ of adequate audits of utilities' fuel costs ing reports obviously plays a crucial role by state commissions, and for the revision in this approach to ratemaking (as well of fuel adjustment clauses in ways that as in virtually all aspects of, and alterna­ would prevent the inclusion of unwar­ tive techniques applicable to, economic ranted cost elements. Efforts to eliminate regulation). Hence, the decision specifies the clauses altogether have been launched that the reports are to be verified by cer­ in several States. tified public accountants selected by, and Methods for minimizing so-called regu­ responsible to, the New Mexico commis­ latory lag and reducing the procedural sion. costs of adjusting regulated rates in re­ The commission supported its accept­ sponse to all principal categories of cost ance of the company's quarterly rate ad­ incurred by a utility firm have been justment method by stating (among other sought and, in some instances, subjected reasons) that it represented the most ef­ to limited application at various junc­ fective means for providing the company 436 THE BOOK OF THE STATES with an opportunity to generate earnings The California commission was the commensurate with its cost of capital and only state regulatory agency which ac­ other expenses, while simultaneously pre­ tually adopted a lifeline rate structure in cluding the company's rates and total 1975. The new policy was implemented revenues from rising to levels significantly as part of a rate increase authorized for higher than justified by prevailing cost the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. conditions. Traditional rate proceedings Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., subse­ were recognized as open to greater degrees quently signed legislation to extend life­ of error in the matching of rate levels with line gas and electric service to all Cali­ costs. If a commission miscalculates in fornia consumers. The Miller-Warren such proceedings by approving rates Energy Lifeline Act freezes rates at the which ultimately prove to be higher than level in effect on January 1, 1976. The necessary vis-a-vis the company's costs, measure bars any increase in the lifeline correction can be accomplished only by rate until "the average system rate in another time-consuming and costly gen­ cents per kilowatt-hour or cents per therm eral rate proceeding, and excess earnings increased 25 percent or more over the generated during the interim are not January 1, 1976 level." subject to refund. The new quarterly ad­ justment method also lacks a refund pro­ Studies of Regulatory Management vision, but it limits the magnitude of Efficiency excessive profits obtainable through over­ Consumer reaction to rising utility charging by providing for much more rates has spurred a number of the state timely correction of rate levels on the commissions to scrutinize all facets of the basis of current or very recent cost levels. utility business to test managerial com­ petence and efficiency during the past Lifeline Rates year. In New York the state commission The continued pressure of price infla­ analyzed a 348-page report of a six-month tion and economic recession has given study of the Nation's largest utility con­ fresh emphasis and momentum to rate cern, Consolidated Edison Company of concessions for poor and fixed income New York, Inc. An outside consultant groups. The prospect that this movement firm reported that the utility might be will grow and brpaden is a definite possi­ able to improve earnings by as much as bility. Although viewed with misgiving by $40 million a year over the next few years the utility industries as a matter which through a mix of cost reduction and effi­ should be classed as a welfare problem, ciency improvements. the federal government, through the Fed­ In Ohio, the state commission proposed eral Energy Administration and U.S. Of­ a bill to permit it to investigate utility fice of Consumer Affairs, has offered en­ management, policy, organization, etc. In couragement and the States have been Missouri, the Kansas City Public Service responding. Company was ordered to hire a consult­ The most common approach is to pro­ ing firm to audit its affairs. vide a low, uniform kilowatt-hour charge The National Association of Regula­ for the first several hundred kilowatt- tory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), hours consumed by residential customers. in October 1975, released a new study (In Massachusetts and New Jersey the that attempted to compare the perform­ lifeline plan allows 300 kilowatt-hours at ance and efficiency of most U.S. investor- 3 cents per kilowatt-hour on the assump­ owned electric utilities. In doing so, how­ tion that this meets the basic needs of a ever, the NARUC Executive Committee, customer who does not use or need frill undoubtedly anticipating the storm of appliances, electric space heating, cook­ controversy that would ensue, clearly ing, or air conditioning. An alternative stated that it neither endorsed nor re­ approach to lifeline rates is the use of fuel jected the report's findings. The report, stamps, similar to food stamps, which "The Measurement of Electric Utility Ef­ would place the subsidy burden on the ficiency," examined 213 utilities repre­ taxpayer rather than other ratepayers. senting about 98 percent of all electric MAJOR STATE SERVICES 437 power producers in the country. Using an incentive to greater discovery effort if data from the Federal Power Commission a much greater supply does in fact exist. and annual reports of electric utilities for the years, 1966 and 1971-73, the study TELECOMMUNICATIONS evaluated the utilities on 14 "characteris­ In the telephone service field, a mea­ tic" variables which were assumed to be sure of increased reliance in competition beyond managerial control and eight has been urged on behalf of the consumer "performance" variables which the study by means of the relaxation of constraints assumed management could control to "a applicable to terminal equipment and to degree." The eight categories were: capac­ the certification of newly formed inde­ ity utilization; heat rate; production ex­ pendent bulk service carriers. The Bell pense per kilowatt-hour generated; net system and independent telephone com­ utility plant investment per kilowatt- panies have resisted efforts to throw hour sold; total operating expenses per open the network system to competi­ kilowatt-hour sold; total operating ex­ tive manufacturers and suppliers. The penses per kilowatt-hour sold, excluding Federal Communications Commission taxes; total operating expenses per kilo­ has taken the view that such innova­ watt-hour sold, excluding taxes, fuel, and tions would benefit the subscribers. The purchased power costs; and annual kilo­ state commissions to a large extent have watt-hour sales per employee. taken the view that such resulting lower operating costs would chiefly benefit long NATURAL GAS distance and business subscribers at the Quantitatively, most of the regulatory expense of and disadvantage to residen­ action in 1975 was in the area of electric" tial home service. Still pending in the fed­ utility ratemaking, where most of the eral courts is a suit by the Justice Depart­ pressure for rate increases was felt. Cor­ ment under the antitrust laws to divorce responding impact in the gas utility field the Bell system from its manufacturing took the form of efforts, mainly in Con­ subsidiary. Western Electric Company. gress and at the Federal Power Commis­ Attempts to apply comprehensive auto­ sion level, to "deregulate" natural gas matic adjustment clauses to telephone producer rates on the assumption that ratemaking have drawn a positive and a this will spur more discovery and invest­ negative response in two recent cases. ment in an area where low producer rate In December 1973, the New Jersey ceilings over many years have led to de­ Board of Public Utility Commissioners clining reserves and increasing demand. approved an automatic adjustment clause As of the beginning of 1976, Congress for all telephone utilities under its juris­ had not approved the "deregulation" diction, which permitted the companies approach, although increasing activity to increase rates by a maximum of 2.5 per­ along that line was expected. Federal cent (if justified by cost conditions) in Power Commission activity to deregulate January 1974 and in the first month of natural gas production rates has so far several subsequent years. The adjustment been frustrated in the federal appellate clause, evidently the first in the Nation to courts. be approved for a telephone utility, was Consumer interests have been mainly intended to achieve objectives largely responsible for resistance to deregulation identical with those sought through ac­ in the natural gas field on the assumption tions involving electric rates; namely, to that such withdrawal of controls would reduce time consumed in rate case pro­ lead to widespread rate increases. The ceedings and to provide for more timely counter argument is that such decontrol adjustments of rates in response to cost would really protect the consumer inter­ changes in both upward and downward est—even at higher rates—by stimulating directions. The commission stated that and assuring a more ample and reliable the clause would provide telephone com­ supply of gas. This is a very controversial panies subject to the decision with incen­ point. Higher prices will obviously not tive to minimize costs because of the types create more gas although they might be of proof which they would be required to 438 THE BOOK OF THE STATES submit in their pursuit of authorized in­ nated as "limited firm service" that would creases. It is pertinent to note some of the be priced at an escalating price per therm contrasts between the New Jersey decision over a three-year period. The ultimate and the previously discussed New Mexico purpose of the price escalation feature electric rate adjustment clause—e.g., quar­ was to draw the price of gas paid by buy­ terly versus yearly intervals between rate ers within this category to a level 10 per­ adjustments, and the use of a specified cent above the prices of alternative fuels range for rate of return on common and thus induce such buyers to convert equity capital versus a specified maximum from gas to other fuels. Similarly, on July percentage increase in rates. 24, 1975, the Illinois commission autho­ In a more recent action, the Illinois rized Peoples Gas Light & Coke Company Bell Telephone Company sought to bring to increase, in two steps, its off-peak and into use an automatic revenue adjust­ interruptible rates by 40 and 60 percent, ment clause that would permit decreases respectively, which would make them and increases in rates to be placed in ef­ equivalent to between one half and two fect by applying a cost and efficiency ad­ thirds of the price of competing fuel oil justment factor. The Illinois Commerce and, in some instances, above the price of Commission rejected the company's pro­ so-called firm or noninterruptible gas posal, holding in essence that determina­ service. A third state gas rate action oc­ tion of the just and reasonable nature of curred on November 19, 1974, when the operating expenses incurred by Illinois Michigan Public Service Commission or­ Bell could be best performed by hearings dered Consumers Power Company to in­ focusing on the propriety and reasonable­ clude certain synthetic natural gas plant ness of proposed rates and charges. In the costs in rates charged to commercial and commission's view, the company already industrial consumers rather than averag­ possessed an adequate remedy for the con­ ing out such cost elements among all cus­ sequences of rising operational expenses tomer groups, including residential gas in the availability of interim rate relief, buyers. The increased commercial and when justified, pending public hearings industrial rates constructed from this re­ and a final decision on the full amount of allocation of costs were explicitly in­ the requested rate adjustment. The Illi­ tended to hold down residential rates and nois commission's decision, which ran perhaps, secondarily, to diminish demand counter to that approved in New Mexico for gas supplies for commercial and indus­ and New Jersey, was defended with the trial purposes. view that the design of automatic price The question of whether a utility's cus­ escalators involves significant difficulties, tomers should be required to pay rates such as the selection of an appropriate high enough to provide the utility with fi­ index and the identification of cost ele­ nancial capital (i.e., with funds in excess ments which should be included or ex­ of an amount which represents a reason­ cluded from escalation. able return on the company's existing as­ set base for the purpose of financing ad­ GAS REGULATION ditions to that base) has long been Several important evolutionary changes vigorously debated among regulators, involving gas rate design have occurred company executives, academicians, and which appear to be directed primarily others concerned with the social control toward the encouragement or discourage­ of firms rendering essential utility serv­ ment of gas consumption for certain pur­ ices. Regardless of the merits of the argu­ poses. ments pro and con, several state commis­ Two recent examples of such actions sions, as well as the Federal Power have emanated from the Illinois Com­ Commission, have recently issued deci­ merce Commission. On August 24, 1975, sions permitting the inclusion of allow­ the commission directed the Illinois ances for natural gas exploration outlays Power Company to allow existing inter- in the computation of rate level require­ ruptible industrial customers to "up­ ments. Examples of regulators' reasons grade" their service to a category desig­ for requiring ratepayers to contribute MAJOR STATE SERVICES 439 toward the funding of such speculative viding electric, gas, telecommunications, outlays are provided by several Wyoming transport, water, sewerage, and other serv­ Public Service Commission actions in ices operate within the jurisdiction of one which that agency concluded that (1) gas or more of 53 state and territorial com­ transmission and distribution utilities missions. Taken collectively, the commis­ can no longer depend fully upon tra­ sions employ about 7,100 individuals in ditional suppliers in attempting to ade­ job categories ranging from commissioner quately fulfill customers' needs, and (2) to office receptionist. This total popula­ gas obtained by a utility through its own tion of regulatory personnel is distributed exploration is the lowest cost "new" gas unevenly relative to the dimensions of in­ available to it. Implicit in both the Wy­ dividual commissions' regulatory tasks. oming decisions and in the reasoning of That is, some commissions employ fewer other state commissions involving similar individuals than do others charged with cases is the view that the prospective bene­ controlling comparable numbers of utility fit or value to utility customers will equal and transport firms. More pronounced or exceed the cost to customers through disparities also exist in this area—e.g., one payment of higher gas rates, and that al­ commission with approximately 75 em­ ternative means for financing the pursuit ployees holds jurisdiction over about 130 of such benefits are unavailable. more firms than does its counterpart in Absent from these cases and other sec­ an adjacent State, which employs 230 in­ tors of state regulatory activity are efforts dividuals. to ascertain whether the recent gas short­ In the past, inevitable budgetary limi­ age has resulted partially or wholly from tations have created perceptible difficul­ (1) alleged eflEorts by gas producers to ties for state commissions in obtaining withhold supplies from the market in an­ and holding requisite personnel. How­ ticipation of achieving higher rates of ever, the resurgence of attention cast profit, and (2) alleged failures by gas pro­ upon state regulation by events noted in ducers to deliver available gas to their this chapter has contributed toward vari­ pipeline customers in contractually speci­ ous recent efforts to improve the attrac­ fied amounts. Efforts to secure definitive tiveness of regulatory employment and information concerning these allegations these efforts have attained varying de­ warrant investigation by state regulators, grees of success. A few state commissions given the implications which significant now compensate top-level employees at gas price changes hold for gas users, and levels which (1) equal or exceed those the crucial role which fuel supply stabil­ paid for similar positions in federal regu­ ity plays in avoiding disruption in various latory agencies, and (2) compare favor­ key industries and regional economies. ably with professional and executive sal­ aries in other areas of activity. DETERMINANTS OF STATE COMMISSION A number of other encouraging devel­ PERFORMANCE opments affecting state commission per­ The distinctive cases reviewed above, sonnel can also be observed. Prominent together with a vast number of other ac­ among them is the Annual Regulatory tivities, provided state commissions with Studies Program, sponsored by NARUC, a 1974-75 workload markedly in excess of which consists of a course format extend­ the demands of previous periods. This ing over 12 days and encompassing an workload increase imposed additional introductory overview and instructional pressure upon two basic ingredients of modules in seven major functional group­ regulatory performance—personnel and ings of subject matter (e.g., cost allocation funding. Both ingredients had already and ratemaking techniques, administra­ been regarded as in relatively short sup­ tive practices and procedures of state and ply at many state commissions. federal commissions, and the application of new analytical techniques to regulatory Positions and Salary Levels problems). The program was begun in As noted in the opening section of this 1959 and has experienced growth in en­ chapter, tens of thousands of firms pro­ rollment from a range of 30 to 60 during 440 THE BOOK OF THE STATES earlier years to levels of 120 and more dur­ Knowledge acquired prior to regula­ ing the most recent oflEerings. In late 1973, tory service obviously impacts upon com­ NARUC initiated operation of an An­ mission performance. The quality of com­ nual Seminar on the Regulation of Water missioners' educational and professional Utilities to provide coverage of subject accomplishments attained before assum­ matter unique to this area of activity. ing their appointments is now quite im­ Other means of continuing professional pressive in many States. development for incumbent staff mem­ bers are also being utilized by some com­ Other Conditions Affecting Performance missions. For example, the California Other recent phenomena impacting Public Utilities Commission provides par­ favorably upon the trend of future per­ tial tuition reimbursement for classes of­ formance in state regulation include: (1) fered by outside institutions and presents a growing recognition of the benefits various in-house training sessions on sub­ which can flow from the application of jects ranging from computer applications computer-based data collection systems to personnel management to environmen­ and analytical techniques, and (2) con­ tal impact statement preparation. The tinuing advances in efforts to upgrade the Missouri Public Service Commission quantity and quality of actions taken on sponsors an annual conference focusing behalf of all state commissions (involving on the use of electronic data processing in matters ranging from representations on regulation, an activity in which it has currently pending federal legislation to taken a leading role. economic research) by NARUC. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 441 STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS

Members Length of Selection commis- Num­ Selec­ of sioners State or other jurisdiction Regulatory authority ber tion chairman terms*

Alabama Public Service Commission 3 E E 4 Alaska Public Utilities Commission 3 GL G 6 Arizona Corporation Commission 3 E C 6 Arkansas Public Service Commission 3 GS G 6 California Public Utilities Commission S GS C 6 Colorado Public Utilities Commission 3 GS G 6 Connecticut Public Utilities Commission 3 GL C 5 Delaware • Public Service Commission 5 GS GS 6 Florida Public Service Commission 3 E C 4 Georgia Public Service Commission S E C 6 Hawaii Public"Utilities Commission S GS C 4(a) Idaho Public Utilities Commission 3 GS C 6 Illinois Commerce Commission S GS G S Indiana Public Service Commission 3 G G 4 Iowa State Commerce Commission 3 GS C 6 Kansas State Corporation Commission 3 GS C 4 Kentucky Public Service Commission 5 GS GS 4 Louisiana Public Service Commission 3 E C 6 Maine Public Utilities Commission 3 GC GC 7 Maryland Public Service Commission 4 G G 6 Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities 7 GC G 7 Michigan Public Service Commission 3 GS GS 6 Minnesota '.. Public Service Commission 5 E(b) C 6(b) Mississippi Public Service Commission 3 E C 4 Missouri Public Service Commission 5 GS G 6 Montana Department of Public Service Regulation 3 E C 4 Nebraska Public Service Commission .5 E C 6 Nevada Public Service Commission 3 G G • 4 New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission 3 GC GC 6 New Jersey Board of Public Utility Commissioners 3 GS GS 7 New Mexico • Public Service Commission 3 GS G 6 New York.. Public Service Commission 5(d) GS G 6(c) North Carolina Utilities Commission 5 G G 8 North Dakota Public Service Commission 3 E C(e) 6 Ohio Public Utilities Commission 3 GS G 6 Oklahoma Corporation Commission 3 E C 6 Oregon Public Utility Commissioner 1 G G 4 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 5 GS G 10 Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission 3 GS.L G 6 South Carolina Public Service Commission 7 L (f) 4 South Dakota. Public Utilities Commission 3 E C 6 Tennessee Public Service Commission 3 E C 6 Texas Railroad Commission 3 E C 6 Utah Public Service Commission 3 GS G 6 Vermont Public Service Board 3 GS G 6 Virginia State Corporation Commission 3 L C 6 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission 3 GS G 6 West Virginia Public Service Commission 3 GS G 6 Wisconsin Public Service Commission 3 GS G 6 Wyoming Public Service Commission 3 GS C 6 District of Columbia Public Service Commission 3 P(g) C 3(g) Puerto Rico Public Service Commission S GS GS 4 Virgin Islands Public Service Commission 7 G G 2 •In all States except Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oregon, (a) May be reappointed; maximum 8 years, terms of commissioners overlap. - (b) 1 commissioner appointed by Governor; 2 serve balance Explanation of symbols: of term concurrent with Governor (4 years). G—Appointed by Governor. (c) Chairman is designated by Governor and serves at his GS—Appointed by Governor, approved by Senate. pleasure. GL—Appointed by Governor, approved by Legislature In (d) Regular comi>onent is 5; may be increased to 7 if work joint session. requires. GC—Appointed by Governor, with advice and consent of (e) Commission reorganizes every 2 years and elects a pres- Council. ident who serves with no additional pay. P—Appointed by President. (f) Rotates annually. L—Selected by Legislature. (g) 1 commissioner is appointed by the mayor and serves an E—Elected. Indefinite term. C—Elected chairman by commission. 442 THE BOOK OF THE STATES REGULATORY FUNCTIONS OF STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS

Commissions have jurisdiction over rales of privately owned utilities rendering the following services

Transportation Communications

State or other jurisdiction to Alabama (a) fa) fc) fa) • Alaskat (d) fd) 8i iS! • • • fe) fa) Arizona (a) • • • • fd) • • fd) fd) (d) • • • Arkansast (d) • • • • • CaUfornla • • • Coloradot ir • • • • • Connectlcutf (a) fa) • fa) • • Delaware -jk • • • • • • Florida • • •ff) Georgia • fc) Hawaii • • • Idaho (a) • • fc) • • • Illinois (a) • • • (?i ff) • Indianaf TI^ • • • Si • • lowat • • • • • • Kansasf -k • • (g) Kentucky fd) • • • • Louisiana -AT • • • • fh) ff) Malnet fa) • fd) • • • Marylandt (a) • • • • S! • Massachusettsf -Ar • • • • fd) Michlgant (a) • • • Minnesotat (a) • • • fd) Mississippi. • • • fa) • Missouri (a) (a) Montanaf. TAT • • fc) • • fc) • Nebraska fh) (h) • Nevada fa) • • • • • • • New Hampshlref (a) • • • • New Jerseyt -k • • • • • • New Mexlcot (d) • • • fd) fd) fd) New Yorkt (d) Si iS • • • • (d) North Carolina • • • • • • fc) • North Dakota (a) • • fa) • fa) • • Ohio • fi) fi) fi) • • fb) (b) Oklahoma fa) • fb) • • • Oregon • • • • • • • Pennsylvaniat "k • • • • • • • • Rhode Islandf ir • • • • South Carolina -k • • • • • • South Dakotat • • Tennessee • • • 0) • • • Texas • • • • Utah • • • Vermontt "k • • • • • • • Virginia •*• • • Washingtont (a) • • • West Virglniat fa) • • • * Wlsconslnt (a) • • • Wyomlngt (a) • • District of Columbia • • Puerto Rlcot fa) fa) fa) Virgin Islands •

t Commission regulates some aspect of municipally owned of Motor Transportation; Massachusetts: CATV Commission; public utilities. Minnesota: CATV Commission; New Mexico: Corporation Com­ (a) Statute confers jurisdiction but no utility now renders mission; New York: Dept. of Transportation, Commission on this service. CATV. (b) Jurisdiction applies only to operations outside of cor­ (e) Jurisdiction is limited to those situations wherein the porate limits not contiguous. In Ohio exemption from regulation consumer has no alternative in his choice of supplier of a com­ applies when the transportation line is wholly within a munici­ parable product and service at an equal or less price. pality and its immediately contiguous municipalities. (f) Limited jurisdiction. Florida: in some counties at the ^c) Authority does not extend to rural electric cooperative request of county commission; Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi; uiuts. Mississippi: except for service areas; Missouri: opera­ natural gas pipelines; Utah: attachment to utility poles. tional safety only except for full authority over a few requesting (g) Jurisdiction over radio common carriers, cooperatives; North Carolina: service areas where there is (h) If common carrier. found to be discrimination as to rates or service. (i) Original jurisdiction in unincorporated areas, within (d) Regulated by another governmental unit. Alaska:' corporate limits upon appeal, Transportation Commission; Arkansas: Commerce Commis­ fj) Local distribution only. sion; Hawaii: Dept. of Regulatory Agencies; Kentucky: Dept. THE NATIONAL GUARD

BY PAUL L. LYTER*

As THEIR PREDECESSORS of the colonial treacherous missions through a winter /-\ and state militia have done for 339 blizzard to save the lives of five stranded "^ "^ years, today's National Guardsmen mountain climbers. Three others. Air stand ready to answer the call of their Guardsmen who had been on patrol in communities, States, and Nation. As Xenia, Ohio, after a tornado destroyed America's first and oldest military force. most of the town last year, were honored Guardsmen provide indispensable emer­ for risking their own lives to save others gency services to unfortunate victims of from death inside a blazing furniture natural disasters and civil disorders in store. The remaining four Guardsmen, the States. They concurrently train to from the California, Idaho, Oklahoma, fight alongside the active forces of the and Pennsylvania Army and Air Guard, Army and Air Force in defense of the rescued people from burning automo­ Nation. biles, a vehicle that was submerged in 12 The Guard is a unique force of men feet of near-freezing water, and the wreck­ and women from all walks of life, under age of a train carrying highly explosive state control during peacetime. In this chemicals. period of an expanding federal bureauc­ Through acts of heroism such as these, racy and power, there is probably no or­ and labors of kindness and concern for ganization in America which better ex­ the people of their communities, count­ emplifies the positive aspects of States' less other lives were saved by the more rights than the National Guard. than 36,200 Guardsmen called to duty by It is an economical force, providing the Governors of 44 States in 1974. Be­ highly trained people to perform two es­ sides providing relief caused by virtually sential services for little more than the every kind of disaster, they preserved un­ price of one, saving state and federal dol­ told millions of dollars worth of property lars. It is a group of 500,000 men and because they were there to assist local au­ women who maintain the proud tradi­ thorities in fighting fires, sandbagging tions of a heritage that is more than a flooded streams and rivers, and cleaning century older than the Nation itself. As up after major storms. we pause during the Bicentennial to see where we have been and where our coun­ IN CIVIL DISORDERS try is going, it is appropriate to take a Awards of another kind were also pre­ brief look at the service contributed by sented during the conference in Seattle. the modern counterpart of the militia— One of these, for meritorious service, was the National Guard. received by Wisconsin's Colonel Hugh Simonson, who took charge after Indians IN DISASTER EMERGENCIES commandeered a Catholic novitiate in When approximately 3,000 leaders of that State. Gunfire already had been ex­ the Guard and their guests met in Seattle, changed between the Indians and civil Washington, for an annual conference in law enforcement authorities. Colonel September 1975, 11 young Guardsmen Simonson and his Guardsmen worked to were honored for extraordinary heroism bring peace to the area. Practicing tact during 1974. Four of them. Army Guards­ and restraint over the ensuing weeks, he men from Maine, flew helicopters on five restored order to an extremely explosive situation without loss of life or further *Mr. Lyter is Information Officer, the National incident. Guard Association of the United States. Since the racial and antiwar demon- 443 444 THE BOOK OF THE STATES strations of the 1960s and early 1970s, con­ same time, the Guard has accepted a diffi­ frontations like the one in Wisconsin cult challenge—to reach the highest level provide few surprises for Guardsmen. of readiness in its history. The Guard is well trained for such inci­ The national commitment is known as dents, and has more experience than any the "Total Force Policy," and much other military organization in the U.S. in progress has been made under it. Through handling them. During the past 10 years, innovations and increased emphasis on more than 400,000 National Guardsmen productive training, the Guard has have helped maintain law and order in achieved an unparalleled readiness pos­ civil disturbances from New England to ture as measured by Active Army and Air southern California. Force standards. Fortunately, such call-ups have been On the other hand, progress in equip­ decreasing in number, from 85 (involving ping the Guard has not been as speedy nearly 60,000 Guardsmen) in 1970, to 21 as most people had hoped. This is due in 1974. On the other hand, disasters re­ largely to massive unanticipated ship­ quiring Guard assistance have been in­ ments of critical equipment items to for­ creasing, and the 216 call-ups during the eign allies, and because of reluctance past fiscal year were the highest number among officials to seek increases in de­ in the history of the Guard. More than fense-related spending. As a result, more ever before, the Guard is an indispensable than 60 percent of the Army Guard's element in disaster plans and resources. tanks are of Korean War vintage, and much of its communications gear is out­ As A RESERVE FORCE dated. In the Air Guard, 17 squadrons At the federal level, today's Guardsmen still are flying outdated F-lOO fighters. furnish 16 percent of the Nation's defense Another problem is that Guard train­ forces for well under 3 percent of the ing progress is slowed by the need to de­ total defense budget. The Army Guard vote a great deal of time to recruiting. As alone provides 46 percent of the entire long as the attention of unit commanders U.S. Army's combat power and the Air is diverted from training to recruiting, as Guard contributes similarly significant it often must be under present circum­ support to the Air Force. stances. Guard units cannot attain their At both the state and federal levels, full readiness potential. A number of National Guard manpower and equip­ States have recognized this problem and ment are extremely attractive resources have helped alleviate it by providing spe­ as budgets are brought under intensive cial education and tax benefits lor scrutiny. More and more, leaders are Guardsmen. Others are considering such seeing that the Guard provides not one incentives. Efforts also are being made to but two vital services for little more than win congressional approval for new fed­ the relatively low cost of a reserve force eral recruiting incentives, such as educa­ which performs military functions only. tional assistance and improved survivor The cost-effectiveness of the militia benefits. How the problem is resolved will provided compelling logic for its organi­ have considerable impact on the future zation 339 years ago by thrifty New En- of the force. glanders searching for ways to avoid The heritage of the modern-day Min- waste. Today, the logic of a ready Na­ utemen—a heritage of dedication and tional Guard is again receiving consider­ commitment to peace and freedom, and able attention by elected officials. Caught of professional training and sure leader­ in the dilemma of costly social and de­ ship—was forged in the early days of our fense programs at a time when it is diffi­ Nation, and tempered by three centuries cult to justify further raises in taxes, of both war and peace. The National national commitments have been made to Guard is proud of its past, and prepared improve the quality and quantity of to uphold its great traditions as our Na­ equipment assigned to the Guard. At the tion moves forward into its third century. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 445 ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD STRENGTH* December 1975

Percent of Federal State or Army Guard Percent of Air Guard manning Total Guard appropriation strength standard strength fiscal year 1975 other jurisdiction strength authorized »3.642 97.8 485,825 $1,489,120,064 Total 392.183 9S.8 3.126 100.6 21,966 47,235.345 Alabama 18,840 106.6 611 85.3 2,519 13.673.989 Alaska 1,908 79.8 2.112 101.9 5,254 24,275,826 Arizona 3,142 95.6 1,763 91.9 9.982 27,873,998 Arkansas 8,219 96.7 4,971 100.3 27.071 82,628,067 California 22,100 10S.6 Colorado 2,970 87.8 1,366 88.2 4,336 24,575,833 Connecticut 5,816 95.9 1,045 97.6 6,861 19,717,963 Delaware 2,780 100.5 779 101.8 3,559 12,198.591 Florida 9,463 109.8 942 101.9 10,405 23,786,045 Georgia 9,471 100.1 2,900 101.5 12,371 38,134,900 Hawaii 3,441 94.1 1.530 96.1 4,971 23,935,382 Idaho 3,063 84.7 869 97.4 3,932 18,125.420 Illinois 9,441 88.1 2,688 94.2 12,129 36,626,282 Indiana 12,013 115.0 1,878 97.8 13,891 30,860,500 Iowa 7,188 90.2 1,859 89.0 9,047 27,873,494 Kansas 7,213 96.0 1,351 88.1 8,564 33.167.200 Kentucky 5,468 90.9 920 97.8 6,388 17,176,531 Louisiana 8,703 96.0 1,145 102.6 9,848 22,658,851 Maine 2.849 98.9 1,348 103.2 4.197 15,880,929 Maryland 6,146 94.9 1,623 105.2 7,769 23,475,688 Massachusetts 11,623 93.4 2,462 94.9 14,085 43,954,016 Michigan. 9.526 94.8 2.365 91.9 11,891 53,680.169 Minnesota 9,033 90.9 1,972 97.6 11,005 29.798.837 Mississippi 11,145 99.1 2,086 99.0 13,231 40.934.051 Missouri 8.685 97.7 2,542 104.4 11.227 34,374,632 Montana 2.311 88.7 885 95.5 3,196 16,338.200 Nebraska 4,020 90.1 900 96.7 4,920 14,481,200 Nevada 1,249 83.8 774 86.5 2,023 10,786,200 New Hampshire 2,250 99.2 762 109.6 3,012 9,753,950 New Jersey 13,743 98.4 2,384 93.0 16,127 46.683,560 New Mexico 3,223 94.3 839 92.6 4,062 15,488,300 New York 19,218 86.6 4,659 96.5 23,877 71,056.153 North Carolina 11,657 100.5 1,074 108.8 12,731 27.580.220 North Dakota 2,249 89.9 1.018 108.8 3,267 13,167,316 Ohio ;. 13,799 90.3 4,994 98.3 18,793 58,225.940 Oklahoma 8,613 98.9 1,936 97.2 10,549 27.396,240 Oregon 5,715 88.9 1,834 97.9 7,549 25,670,522 Pennsylvania 16,113 89.7 4,187 99.3 20,300 54,670,778 Rhode Island 2,868 90.9 1,123 89.2 3,991 12,579,700 South Carolina 10,425 98.2 967 99.4 11,392 26,005,422 South Dakota 3,444 93.6 807 91.4 4,251 13,153,326 Tennessee 10,909 94.0 3,156 100.4 14,065 41,218,760 Texas 16,920 96.8 3.218 98.1 20,138 58,916,915 Utah 4,540 90.6 1.400 104.7 5.940 18,590,994 .Vermont 2.869 102.3 762 106.2 3.631 12,506.263 Virginia 6.991 88.3 977 95.5 7,968 22,175,008 Washington 5.314 92.9 2.196 95.3 7,510 31.005.281 West Virginia 3,294 95.8 1,575 104.7 ^ 4,869 16.456,300 Wisconsin 9,150 90.6 1,863 100.3 11,013 30,812,382 Wyoming 1,514 88.4 691 91.1 2,205 9,998,664 District of Columbia... 2,101 89.8 1,247 92.7 3,355 17,979,700 1,161 103.6 8,599 19.800.231 Puerto Rico.. 7,438 107.1 *Source: National Guard Association of the United States. / . 5 Housing and Development

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING

BY ANNE D. STUBBS*

EVERAL EVENTS of the past few years munity development and housing pro­ have raised anew questions of the grams, as well as its greater financial S States' role in community develop­ resources, must complement local govern­ ment and housing. Significant shifts of ment capacity. job opportunities and population be­ tween rural and metro areas, and the po­ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS tentially rapid development of energy As the federal government retreats resources, create problems of growth and from its dominant role of designing and decline which challenge a State's re­ financing community development pro­ sponse. The retrenchment of the federal grams. States are becoming actively in­ government from community develop­ volved in a range of community develop­ ment and housing programs places new ment activities. States are creating com­ demands upon state government re­ munity affairs agencies, and are adopting sources. The federal new communities enabling legislation, land use programs, programs have created a recognition and technical and financial assistance pro­ among developers and federal officials grams to increase local governments' that a community development effort of capacity to respond to growth and de­ such scale and complexity cannot achieve cline. its potential without the active involve­ ment of state agencies. Community Affairs Agencies The 1974 Housing and Community Although all States offer assistance to Development Act places new demands local governments, a recent trend in state upon local governments' capacity to de­ organization has been the creation of com­ velop and administer community devel­ munity affairs agencies as independent opment programs. In addition, the in­ departments or adjuncts to the Office of creasing number of local governments State Planning. The internal organiza­ adopting ordinances or capital improve­ tion pattern includes many variations: a ments plans designed to limit growth, and concentration of community affairs re­ the decisions of courts in several States sponsibility in the state planning agency, in support of fair-share housing and equal a local affairs office, a community devel­ educational opportunity, challenge the opment component in the economic de­ traditional assumption that community velopment agency, and functional agency development is a local responsibility. The offices each dealing directly with regional broader perspective of the State in the councils and local governments. The planning and implementation of com- more dispersed the responsibilities, the more essential become the techniques and machinery for coordination. *The author is a Special Assistant for the Coun­ cil of State Governments. Such agencies offer a range of finan- 446 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 447 cial, planning, and technical assistance ment Commission has reduced the bor­ and services to local governments and rowing costs of local governments by substate districts, as well as provide means providing financial advice and bond mar­ of communication between governmental keting assistance. levels. Community affairs agencies tradi­ One of the areas of greatest state ac­ tionally served as conduits for federal tivity during 1974-75 to assist communi­ categorical grants. With the new demands ties in financing community development placed upon local governments by the occurred with legislation to expand the 1974 federal act to devise community de­ powers of communities to finance de­ velopment programs, housing assistance velopment and redevelopment projects. plans, and land use plans, the assistance Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, and and coordination programs of community Kentucky in 1974-75 followed the exam­ affairs agencies become important com­ ple of nine other States^ in adopting legis­ ponents of effective community develop­ lation enabling local tax increment fi­ ment. nancing of urban redevelopment. More common was state legislation broadening Financing Community Development the authority of local public agencies to Local governments' problems in accom­ issue revenue bonds. Colorado in 1975 ex­ modating new growth pressures and in panded the activities eligible for local discouraging community decline are as revenue bond financing to include low- much a matter of financing as they are the and middle-income housing, utilities, ability to develop plans and programs. recreation facilities, airports, and mass The forces contributing to community transit facilities. New legislation in Cali­ growth or decline are regional or national fornia permits all cities and counties to in scope; yet most communities have a issue revenue bonds for rehabilitation fixed economic base from which revenues programs. On the other hand, a new Ken­ are generated. Inflation in interest rates, tucky law restricts the powers to finance land, and equipment is raising the costs development, redevelopment, and resto­ to local governments of providing public ration of urban neighborhoods to urban infrastructure, yet most communities county and city governments. Illinois have a constitutionally or statutorily set adopted legislation in 1974 to permit mu­ debt ceiling. Local governments often nicipalities to issue revenue bonds for have responded to these constraints by commercial redevelopment projects, creating special financing districts, a while recent laws in Connecticut and trend which has led to the fragmentation Michigan give local governments sweep­ of local government accountability in ing financing powers to renovate center many areas. cities and attract industry (revenue bonds, special taxes, tax incentives to industry). A large number of States are respond­ New Jersey has an active loan program ing to the financing dilemma which many within the Department of Community communities are experiencing through Affairs for neighborhood preservation. direct financial assistance or by expand­ ing the financing authority of local gov­ ernments. The State's assumption of a New Communities greater share of public facilities' costs The most comprehensive approach to through a buy-in to federal grants can sound patterns of community develop­ relieve the capital burden on communi­ ment is the new community concept. ties. Thirty-two States have buy-in pro­ States can develop policy and program visions to various federal grant programs, support for new communities and large- while 21 States have state-funded revenue scale, planned communities through sharing. Alaska, Maine, New York, and imaginative implementation of existing Vermont attempt to improve the credit powers and programs. New York's Urban ratings of municipal bonds and thus re­ Development Corporation provides evi­ duce interest rates by channeling local is­ dence of this with its development of sues through a state-level municipal bond ^California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, bank. North Carolina's Local Govern­ Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. 448 THE BOOK OF THE STATES three new towns (Roosevelt Island, New zoning regulations must conform to a York City; Audubon, near Buffalo; and comprehensive plan once it is adopted. In Radisson, near Syracuse). contrast, Florida adopted legislation in Several States adopted legislation de­ 1975 requiring local governments to fining the State's relationship to new adopt comprehensive plans with land use community development. Eight States, and housing elements by 1979. Idaho including New York (1968), have adopted adopted a Local Planning Act in 1975 re­ new community legislation: Arizona and quiring cities and counties to develop and Kentucky (1970), Ohio and Louisiana adopt comprehensive plans according to (1972), Georgia and Tennessee (1974), state guidelines and requiring state plans and Florida (1975). In Arizona, Florida, to be consistent with local plans. Hawaii Kentucky, and Tennessee, the major em­ in 1975 became the first State to have a phasis of the policy is to provide state legislatively enforced urban growth administrative oversight and safeguards policy by amendments to the state land for the public interest which are im­ use law. Local boundary commissions, pacted by private efforts to develop new which permit communities to influence communities. Rather than facilitating the creation of new political units ad­ the establishment of new communities jacent to them, have been authorized in districts at the local level, policies in several States. California, Oregon, and Georgia, Louisiana, New York, and Ohio Washington permit the formation of make provisions for the expenditure of county or areawide local boundary com­ public funds in support of new commu­ missions, while Alaska, Iowa, Michigan, nities meeting specified criteria. The leg­ and Minnesota have authorized statewide islation has been implemented in Louisi­ commissions. ana, New York, and Ohio, and is expected to be used by developers in Florida. The Public Facilities Component Adequate and well-planned public fa­ The Land Use Component cilities—water and sewer facilities, roads The manner in which land is brought and streets, and schools—are important into urban use has important implica­ components of sound patterns of commu­ tions for the efficiency with which local nity development. The efforts of Ramapo, governments provide services. Local plan­ New York, and Petaluma, California, to ning and zoning ordinances are effective link the community's growth to planned tools to discourage sprawl and to encour­ capital facilities expansion have been up­ age efficient use of serviced areas. After held by the courts. one half century of nearly passive delega­ Many States have regions in which tion of planning and zoning authority to growth pressures have resulted in state or local governments, state governments are locally mandated moratoria. Maryland, encouraging and exercising oversight of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Vir­ local governments' plans and zoning ordi­ ginia, and Wyoming are representative nances. of States where numerous moratoria on A common trend of state land use leg­ sewer expansion have been imposed for islation in 1974-75 is the requirement public health reasons. State financing pro­ that local governments adopt land use grams can assist communities in provid­ plans, using state guidelines or criteria. ing public facilities adequate for existing Oregon's State Land Use Plan directly or anticipated population pressure. Ha­ relates land use to goals for community waii appropriated |5 million in 1974 to development, economic development, provide for water supply facilities for ag­ transportation, housing, the provision of ricultural and community development public facilities and services, and the or­ projects on former plantation land. Penn­ derly transition of land from rural to sylvania and Virginia created supplemen­ urban use. Arizona's Urban Environment tal grant programs to assist communities Management Act (1973) encourages but experiencing difficulties in financing does not require municipalities to pre­ sewer treatment facilities. Wyoming's pare comprehensive general plans, but Community Development Authority has MAJOR STATE SERVICES 449 the power to make loans for a full range increased by two programs: the "loans-to- of public infrastructure to communities lenders," in which the agencies advance impacted by industrial and energy re­ loans to the lending institutions; and the source development activity. In Mary­ mortgage purchase program, in which the land, the State linked community growth agency buys existing mortgages held by with public facilities by requiring that institutions. In both programs, the building permits and subdivision plans be agency usually stipulates income, mort­ consistent with community plans to pro­ gage, or interest limits, and the type of vide adequate water and sewer facilities. housing that can be financed by funds The legislation eflEectively discourages ei­ made available by the agency. Agencies ther state or local authorities from grant­ in 37 States have authority for either of ing permits or approving plans unless these programs, and in at least 15 States utility systems conform to county plans. one of the two programs has been imple­ Montana's Department of Intergovern­ mented. mental Relations adopted regulations in In direct financing programs, the 1974 which require developers of subdivi­ agency makes temporary or permanent sions to provide county commissioners financing directly available to the non­ with detailed information on the addi­ profit or limited-dividend sponsors or de­ tional public services required by a velopers of low- and moderate-income sin­ project and on the manner in which the gle or multiple family housing. Agencies cost of services will be distributed. in 32 States have authority for a direct mortgage loan, while short-term construc­ HOUSING PROGRAMS tion loans are authorized in 33 States. The responsibility of the States to as­ Twenty-seven States have authorized ad­ sist low- and moderate-income families to vance "seed money" from revolving funds secure decent housing has won acceptance to assist nonprofit and limited-dividend during the decade. An increasing number sponsors in the start-up costs of planning of States have adopted programs to pro­ and architectural design. vide new or rehabilitated housing in ur­ Rising costs and increases in interest ban and rural areas. These programs rates which agencies must charge have re­ range from the direct financing and de­ duced the effective subsidy which a state velopment powers of state housing fi­ agency can offer through its own pro­ nance agencies to regulations and special grams. Thus many agencies seek to pro­ programs designed to influence private vide a greater subsidy by "piggy-backing" sector activities. or combining the savings offered by the agency with federal subsidy programs of­ Housing Finance Agencies fered by the Section 8 leased housing sub­ The most common state housing pro­ sidy, the 235 interest subsidy for home- gram is the state housing finance agency. ownership, and the 515 (rental) and 502 The 1973 federal moratorium on housing (homeownership) rural housing programs programs and the special set-aside of of the Farmers Home Administration housing funds (Section 8) for state hous­ (FmHA). ing finance agencies in the 1974 act in­ Several States have expanded their crease the attractiveness of this housing housing finance agencies beyond these program. Twelve States created housing traditional housing finance mechanisms. finance agencies during 1974-75, making New York's Urban Development Corpo­ a total of 39 States with housing finance ration (UDC) has a range of powers to agencies. acquire land (including the power of emi­ State housing finance agencies generate nent domain) and to develop and rede­ funds through the sale of tax exempt velop housing, industrial and commercial bonds, and the savings from the relatively facilities, and educational, cultural, com­ lower interest rate is passed on to the con­ munity, and other civic facilities. In 1974 sumer through several direct and indirect the Hawaii Legislature gave the Hawaii financing programs. The amount of mort­ Housing Authority the authority to do gage capital available to private lenders is commercial and industrial development 450 THE BOOK OF THE STATES and to override local zoning, thus making their position in state government, hous­ it one of the most powerful housing fi­ ing finance agencies are better situated nance agencies. The housing agencies in than Housing and Urban Development 18 States have authority to acquire and (HUD) regional offices to coordinate develop land. Although agencies in 22 housing programs with other state agen­ States may do limited commercial, indus­ cies involved with planning, transporta­ trial, and community facilities projects if tion, health, parks and recreation, and they are integral to housing development, similar community development pro­ only New York's Urban Development grams. Corporation and Hawaii's Housing Au­ Unlike federal programs designed for thority are empowered to undertake sig­ nationwide application, state housing fi­ nificant nonhousing community develop­ nance agency programs exhibit greater ment projects. flexibility to state and local conditions. State housing finance agencies have Most state agencies have programs de­ been a major source of subsidized housing signed for target groups such as the programs in the biennium. One study in­ elderly, handicapped, or special minority dicates that they may be more effective groups such as American Indians. In than direct federal programs in the man­ States such as Idaho, Maine, South Da­ date to provide a decent housing envi­ kota, and West Virginia, the agencies con­ ronment for low- and moderate-income centrate on rural housing needs. In States families.2 The expertise of state housing such as Georgia, Illinois, and Rhode Is­ personnel in federal and state housing land, the statutes or regulations govern­ programs and their knowledge of local ing the agency specify a balance between housing conditions within the State make urban and rural targets of agency pro­ them an effective link for optimal useof grams. In other States where blight threat­ federal, state, and local resources. Several ens central cities, state agencies are de­ state agencies have cut the processing veloping special programs to rehabilitate time of Federal Housing Administration housing or to attract mortgage money to (FHA) programs by up to a year, thus en­ such areas. The Illinois Housing Develop­ couraging a saving of time and dollars. ment Authority began a special loan pro­ Most agencies provide technical, finan­ gram to complement the State's 1975 anti- cial, and planning assistance to local gov­ redlining law (see next subsection), while ernments and developers and sponsors of Michigan's housing agency has worked subsidized housing, informing them of with HUD in developing a housing re­ the availability of state and federal pro­ habilitation program for Detroit's grams and assisting them in developing blighted areas. The Michigan State Hous­ housing packages and applications. The ing Development Authority has proposed Tennessee Housing Development Agency a "Better Neighborhoods" program to en­ has an active technical assistance pro­ able it to finance physical and social im­ gram, with a housing staff person located provements in neighborhoods where its in each substate district. The Idaho State projects are located. Both the Missouri Housing Agency played an active role in Housing Development Commission and assisting communities to prepare applica­ the New York Urban Development Cor­ tions for. community development block poration are involved in new-town-in- grants and providing oversight of local town redevelopment programs. housing and community development Most state housing finance agencies needs and plans. Housing finance agen­ make particular efforts to produce devel­ cies are frequently the agency of govern­ opments of high quality and design. Such ment responsible for developing data attention to design and quality con­ banks and housing needs studies which tributes to the marketability of housing are available to other state agencies. With projects and to the sound financial record of most state housing finance agencies. ^Nathan Betnun, "State Housing Finance Agen­ It has also contributed to the success cies and Public Purpose Housing Development," unpublished dissertation (Boston, Mass.: Mas­ of the Massachusetts Housing Finance sachusetts Institute of Technology, June 1975). Agency and New York's Urban Develop- MAJOR STATE SERVICES 451 ment Corporation in integrating subsi­ dized and market rate units within se­ Special State Housing Programs: lected development projects. Finance and Regulation Responding to the unstable credit situ­ Although housing finance agencies are ation which intensified with the tempo­ the most visible state housing program, rary default of New York's UDC in the several States have created discrete pro­ spring of 1975, housing finance agencies grams to assist citizens in obtaining a de­ are exploring financing mechanisms to cent living environment. Several of these enable them to continue to provide mod­ programs provide financial incentives to erate-income housing programs. Several the private sector to encourage rehabilita­ agencies cancelled bond sales due to high tion efforts, while others employ the po­ interest rates, and others found the mar­ lice power to regulate standards. ket rates close to state laws on usury. Urban Programs: Urban Homestead­ Many agencies sought to roll over short- ing and Antiredlining. A recent program term notes or issue three-year notes rather to fight central city blight and to alleviate than be locked into high-interest, long- the critical shortage of urban housing for term bonds. Several agencies avoided low- and moderate-income families is ur­ market issues for short-term construction ban homesteading. States and cities are loans by establishing private lines of joining with the HUD pilot program to credit with banks; and a select committee make abandoned units and rehabilitation was established in the Minnesota Hous­ financing available to individuals. Wil­ ing Finance Agency to explore the use of mington, Delaware, Baltimore, Mary­ variable interest rates on agency issues land, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and flexible mortgage payments (i.e., de­ were the first cities to experiment with ferral of interest payments). Without a urban homesteading; other cities and decline in interest rates, the activation of States have followed their lead. Since federal programs such as Section 802 of 1974, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, the 1974 act^ or HUD and federal co­ and Rhode Island have enacted enabling insurance of agency programs, state hous­ legislation for cities to establish and pro­ ing agencies will be unable to provide the vide funding for these programs, while a large subsidies required for low-income similar proposal failed in Pennsylvania in housing units. 1973. One aspect of state housing finance The difficulties which central city resi­ agencies which contributes to their politi­ dents experience in obtaining private fi­ cal acceptability to state officials and to nancing for new construction or rehabili­ their sound financial performance is the tation have prompted several States and statutory requirement that the agency be cities to enact antiredlining legislation self-supporting. Yet this requirement acts ahead of congressional efforts. In antired­ as a constraint on agency activities and lining programs, public officials use the the ability to support projects of even deposits of public funds as a lever to en­ moderate risk. The use of public monies courage lending institutions to disclose to increase the housing stock available to their lending patterns within central low- and moderate-income families re­ cities, or to favor those institutions which flects an increasingly acceptable social do not discriminate against central city policy. Yet their use of conventional mar­ residents. Rochester, Cincinnati, Cleve­ keting devices to achieve this goal, and land, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia the common practice of relying on con­ have adopted ordinances which require ventional lending institutions to process city funds to be deposited in financial loans, frequently prevent agencies from institutions which disclose their lending serving low-income groups. policies regarding central cities. Illinois adopted legislation in 1975 requiring dis­ ^Section 802 authorizes federal guarantees on closure of mortgage loans; a bill similar agency loans made in blighted areas, if the bonds to this one barely failed passage in New issued are taxable, and authorizes federal pay­ York. ment of up to one third of the interest on such taxable issues. {Continued on page 456.) STATE HOUSING FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES As of November 1975

Develop­ Adminis­ ment trative Financial and lending activity activity " capa bilities ^ « ^^ ^ 60 •i •s ts «v^ .5 « •3 s «8g Quasi- S a le .:•1» :t ^6 •S 5 60 «^l s s lSf-5 Date inde­ 9 •« ^22 ^ .0 e 8-2 es­ pendent .2 5 n 1 •5-2 State Name of agency tablished status II :?l. :?° ^1 "^ :?.5^ (Sg^ ^^ 1 o^«. f^S il^.§l 8 Alaska Housing Finance Corporation 1971 No -ir • •A- •A- •ft- •ft^ it • •A- • California Housing Finance Agency 1975 No ir if •j!f •ft- •ft- it -ft •^ Colorado Housing Finance Authority 1973 ^es • ir •ft- •A- •ft- •A- •A- Connecticut Housing Finance Authority 1969 Yes • • • •ft •A- it •A^ it (eS) Delaware State Housing Authority 1968 No •A- -ft- •ft- • •ft- it -ft- -ft- it • Georgia Residential Finance Authority 1974 Yes •ft- •ft- •ft- •ft it •ft- -ft it 4^ Hawaii Housing Authority 1970 N.A. N.A. * •ft- •A- it Tft •A- • •ft- -A- • N.A J2 Idaho •. State Housing Agency 1972 Yes -A- * •ft- •ft^ it N.A. N.A. •A- N.A. it it -ft- Illinois Housing Development Authority 1967 Yes • •ft •A- -k it •A- • • • • • Iowa Housing Finance Authority 1975 Yes it •ft- -ft it •ft- •ft- •ft- N.A. Kentucky Housing Corporation 1972 Yes •*• •ft- •ft- it it •ft- it Louisiana Office of Housing Finance 1976 No N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. •i!r (e) N.A.

Maine State Housing Authority 1969 Yes •A- * •A- •ft- •ft^ it •i!r it •A^ •A- Maryland Community Development Authority 1971 No it -ft • • •Ar (e) it it it •A- •A^ Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency 1966 Yes it •ft- • •A- •ft- •A- • • • it Home Mortgage Finance Agency 1974 Yes ir it it it -ft -ft it Michigan State Housing Development Authority 1966 Yes • • •A- it • •Ar •A^ (e) Minnesota State Housing Finance Agency 1971 Yes ir •ft- •A- • •ft- •ft- •A^ -Ar • Missouri Housing Development Commission 1969 No ic •ft • • -ft- T5r •A- •A- • it Montana Housing Division 1975 No •ft- •ft •ft: ir •ft -ft (e) it Nevada State Housing Division 1975 No ic •ft ic it •ft- -ft- it

New Hampshire Housing Finance Agency 1975 Yes ir •ft •ft it •ft- •ft- •ft- •i!r it New Jersey Housing Finance Agency 1968 Yes • •A- • • it •ft- • -A- (e) Mortgage Finance Agency 1970 Yes • •ft^ New Mexico Mortgage Finance Agency 1975 Yes N.A. if N.A. N.A, N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A,

New York Housing Finance Agency 1960 Yes - • •A- •AT • •A- •A- it Mortgage Agency 1970 Yes • State Urban Development Corporation 1968 Yes it • •A- •ft- it • •A: •A- • North Carolina Housing Finance Agency 1974 No •ft it it •ft^ Ohio Housing Development Board 1970 Yes -ir iV (e) Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency 1975 Yes -S •ir N.A. • Oregon State Housing Division 1971 No ^ •ft- (e) •ir • Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency 1972 Yes •tr • • • • • •k Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency 1973 Yes •*• • • • • (e) South Carolina State Housing Authority 1971 Yes -j^ •A- •ft- •Ar • • South Dakota Housing Development Authority 1973 Yes -S • • • (e) Tennessee Housing Development Agency 1973 Yes • -k • • . Utah. Housing Development Division 1971 No • • • or Vermont.. Housing Finance Agency 1974 Yes -k TV -k • ** Virginia Housing Development Authority 1972 Yes -jl^ • • •k • West Virginia... Housing Development Fund 1968 Yes * • • • TV Wisconsin Housing Finance Agency 1971 Yes • Wyoming Community Development Authority 1975 Yes -ft- • (e) ir—Agency presently performing function. States have full or limited powers of eminent domain or zoning override, but these have sel­ T^-—Statutory authority but not implemented. dom been used (Connecticut, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming, and New York State N.A.—Not available. Urban Development Corporation). (a) Refers to insurance programs, distinct from reserve funds for uninsured loans. '. (d) Refers to commercial and/or community facilities which are ancillary to the housing (b) Refers to state-funded rent supplement programs. project. The New York Urbsm Development Corporation and the Hawaii Housing Authority (c) Land acquisition refers to the power to acquire land for housing and housing-related have broader powers for commercial, industrial, and community facilities development, projects rather than land acquired through foreclosure. Housing finance agencies in several (e) Function shared with or performed by related state agency. FUNCTIONS OF STATE OFFICES OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS'

Coor- Func­ Local Regional Re- Eco­ Inter- dinalion Per- Local Finart- tional plan­ plan- search Hous­ nomic local of sonnel financial cial planning ning ning and ing develop­ Fiscal CO- state train- super- assist­ assist­ assist­ poor- infor- pro­ ment Anti- state Name of agency advice operation activities ing vision ance ance ance dination motion grams programs poverty Alabama Development Office .. .. ^ Alaska Dept. of Community & Regional Affairs "ic ^k "k "k Arizona. Dept. of Economic Planning & Dev. ir i^ i^ ir Arkansas Dept. of Local Services -k ^ ir "k Califomla Dept. of Housing & Community .. k "k Development Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs -k ir -k -k • Connecticut Dept. of Community Affairs ^ i^ -k •A- Delaware Dept. of Community Affairs .. -jlr -jlr -k • Florida Dept. of Community Affairs ir if i^ "k • Georgia Bureau of Community Affairs, Dept. of ir -k ir • Community Dev. •f^ Idaho Bureau of Planning & Community Affairs -k •. kr Illinois Dept. of Local Government Affairs ir • • ik kr Iowa Office for Planning & Programs kr kr kr "k Kentucky Office for Local Government "k "k "k "k • Maine Bureau of Community Affairs ...... -k • Maryland Dept. of Economic & Community Dev...... kr Massachusetts... Dept. of Community Affairs -k kc kr "k • Minnesota Office of Ix)cal & Urban Affairs, State .. -k kr ic Planning Agency Missouri Div. of Community Dev., Dept. of kr kr kr "k • Consumer Affs., Reg. & Liscensing Nebraska Div. of Community ASairs, Dept. of Econ. kc "k kc "k • Dev. Nevada Urban Planning Division .. -k New Hampshire. Community Planning, Office of .. -k it Comprehensive Planning New Jersey Dept. of Community Affairs kr "k "k kc New Mexico Intergovernmental Services, State -k Planning Office New York Div. of Community Affairs, Dept. of State .. kc ic kc North Carolina.. Div. of Community Assistance, Dept. of Econ. & Natural Resources • • • •• • • • • • • Ohio Dept. of Economic and Community Dev. • •••.. •••••••• Oklahoma Div. of Community Affairs, Dept. of ..•••..••••• Ek:on. & Comm. Affairs Oregon Local Government Relations Div., • • • • • • • Executive Dept. Pennsylvania Dept. of Community Affairs • • • • •• •.• • • •• Rhode Island Dept. of Community Affairs ....••..•••..••..• {^ South Carolina.. Oflace of Community Dev., Div. of y» Administration • ..•....••..••..•.. South Dakota. .. State Planning Bureau ..••....•••••••.. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs • • • • • •• • •• •• Utah Dept. of Community Affairs • •••..•..••••..• Vermont Dept. of Housing & Comm. Affairs, • • • • • • • • • •.. .. Agency for Dev. & Comm. Affairs Virginia Div. of Planning & Community Affairs • •••.. •••••••• Wisconsin Dept. of Local Affairs & Development • ••••••..••••..• •Based on a survey of community afiairs agencies compiled by the Pennsylvania Depart­ ment of Community Afiairs, 1974, updated by the Council of State Governments, fall 1975. 456 THE BOOK OF THE STATES {Continued from page 451.) Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New A task force was created in Massachu­ York, Ohio, and Oregon). setts to examine approaches to the red­ Regulation: Building Codes, Mobile lining problem. Legislative recommenda­ Homes, Energy Use, Landlord-Tenant. tions are being developed to present to While financing incentives are becoming the California Legislature in 1976 to widely adopted to encourage decent hous­ complement administrative regulations ing, a second area of state activity is state­ against redlining. wide codes on buildings and mobile Rehabilitation and Rural Programs. homes. Almost 20 States have enacted Urban homesteading and antiredlining statewide standards for building codes, laws are targeted to central cities. How­ although only nine States have preemp­ ever, the high cost of new housing and the tive standards. shortage of federal housing programs Several States responded to the energy have prompted several States to encour­ crisis by considering legislation which age public and private sector programs in links building codes to energy conser­ housing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation vation. Thirty-three States have the au­ programs can have great impact in rural thority to regulate energy use in buildings areas, where developers and lending in­ or are studying the issue. Legislatures in stitutions interested in building or financ­ 24 States considered bills in 1975, and ing new subsidized housing are less nu­ at least eight States adopted regulations merous. or tax incentives for energy-efficient build­ Most of the housing finance agencies ings (California, Colorado, Montana, created in 1974 and 1975 were authorized North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Washing­ to make rehabilitation loans, while exist­ ton, and West Virginia). ing agencies were given new authority With the sharp increase in housing or implemented existing authority for costs, mobile homes are frequently the rehabilitation loans. Tennessee estab­ only housing available to moderate- lished a Housing Rehabilitation Corpo­ income families in small towns and rural ration in 1974, while Utah is one of the areas. The expansion of the manufac­ few States to earmark part of general tured housing market is accompanied by revenue sharing funds for rehabilitation proposals in almost all States to regulate programs in housing and community de­ the siting, standards, or tax status of velopment. A similar focus on rural re­ mobile homes. As of June 1974, 35 States habilitation programs emerged in Penn­ had regulatory programs for mobile sylvania with a program sponsored by the homes and nine others were preparing State Department of Agriculture, in con­ regulations to activate enabling legisla- junction with FmHA rehabilitation pro­ tibn. grams. In 1974, Florida enacted a Rural Another area in which States are acting Housing Land Acquisition and Site De­ to encourage decent housing environ­ velopment Assistance Act to provide ments is landlord-tenant relations. Massa­ funds for the acquisition and improve­ chusetts, New Jersey, and New York were ment of land for rural housing. Legisla­ among the first States to modernize laws tures in Maryland, Massachusetts, and governing landlord-tenant relations, Oregon considered proposals in 1975 to while Arizona, Oregon and Washington establish revolving funds (Maryland), tax adopted legislation in 1973. In 1975, 11 exemptions (Oregon), or variable loan re­ States considered revisions of landlord- payments (Massachusetts) to encourage tenant laws (California, Colorado, Con­ rehabilitation efforts. Several States have necticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, enacted tax abatement programs as in­ New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, centives to encourage rehabilitation ef­ Vermont, and Virginia). New Mexico forts by owners or by nonprofit or adopted legislation modeled on the Uni­ limited-dividend private corporations form Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, (California, Indiana, Massachusetts, while the proposal was killed in Virginia. STATE PLANNING

BY H. MILTON PATTON, L. V. WATKINS, AND LEONARD WILSON*

TATE PLANNING is a composite of the Most States use some modification of one functions of many units of govern­ of these forms (see Table 1). S ment. Where a process exists, state Vermont is an example of a State where planning is the organized and continuous there is a clear organizational distinction interaction of goal definition, problem between the three functions. State plan­ analysis, policy development, program ning is in the Executive Office of the design, resource allocation, and perform­ Governor, budget in the Agency of Ad­ ance evaluation. Coordination at all ministration, and community affairs in stages involves all participating units and the Agency of Development and Com­ levels of government. Among those States munity Affairs. The Vermont state plan­ with a defined planning process, different ning officer has coordinative functions as roles are assigned to different units but secretary of the cabinet and administrator there is a clear delineation of responsi­ of OMB Circular A-95. He chairs stand­ bilities among the Governor's executive ing a;nd ad hoc interagency groups and staff, state planning, community affairs, he participates in budget hearings. The budget, line agencies, and regional and commissioner of the Department of Com­ local units of government. How the or­ munity Affairs administers regional and ganization chart establishes the structural local planning assistance. relationships among these functions is Community affairs and state planning secondary to the missions assigned to are combined in Minnesota's highly cen­ them and the ways in which they interact tralized planning organization. The and interrelate with one another. State Planning Agency has divisions of development, transportation, environ­ STATE PLANNING AGENCIES mental planning, human resources, The dominant emphasis in the emerg­ health planning, federal relations, finan­ ing patterns of planning structure ap­ cial and administrative services, and local pears to be on the coordination of policy and urban affairs. The State Planning and program design within state govern­ Agency provides staff support for the ment and between state and local gov­ Commission on Minnesota's Future ernments. The structural variations re­ which was established by the Legislature flect differing views of the management to propose a state growth and develop­ roles of the planning function, the budget ment policy. As in every State, the pri­ function, and the state-local relations mary responsibility for the program function. There are three basic forms of planning in Minnesota lies with the line organization: (1) state planning, com­ agencies. Functional planning—the plan­ munity affairs, and budget in separate ning that gives direction and cohesion to agencies; (2) state planning and com­ program planning—is, in Minnesota, a munity affairs together and budget sepa­ shared responsibility; planners from the rate; and (3) budget and planning in the State Planning Agency work with plan­ same agency and community affairs apart. ners from the functional agencies, in many instances from several agencies with •The authors are, respectively, Associate Di­ common or overlapping functional re­ rector of State Services, the Council of State Governments; Special Assistant, the Council of sponsibilities. At the same time, the State Governments; and Director of Planning for agency maintains close working relations Vermont. Their article is based on.recent studies with the Legislature and legislative staffs. by the Council of State Governments on the state Another approach used by the agency to planning system and state responses to growth, and change. broadly involve itself in state government 457 458 THE BOOK OF THE STATES is a system of "interlocking directorates" to resolve conflicts among different agen­ through membership on and staffing of cies. The primary purpose of these bodies interagency bodies such as the Manpower is to coordinate activities which cannot Council, Environmental Quality Coun­ be consolidated into a single department cil, Council of Economic Advisors, Hous­ or agency. ing and Finance Agency, Rural De­ Utah has one of the most highly devel­ velopment Council, Interdepartmental oped interagency coordination systems. Transportation Task Force, and Human The Utah structure consists of interde­ Service Council. partmental groups of state agency plan­ The association of planning with ners and decisionmakers organized ac­ budgeting usually occurs within a depart­ cording to the interrelationships among ment of administration or a department activities of different agencies. These of finance. Wisconsin is characteristic of groups of decision-making and planning the large group of States that have officials work on problems of planning adopted this pattern. Under a Secretary for the delivery of government services of Administration, there is a Bureau of that concern two or more agencies. The Planning and Budget divided into sec­ highest level of the structure is the State tions for budget and program planning, Planning Advisory Committee composed statewide comprehensive planning, man­ of department directors, the budget di­ agement services, and administrative rector, and the state planning coordi­ operations. The Budget and Program nator. At this level, matters of policy Planning Section has a budget operations determination, conflict resolution, and unit and units for educational resources, program integration are considered. The human relations and resources, environ­ purpose of the structure is to make pos­ mental resources and commercial re­ sible communication upward from the sources, and general government. The needs-assessment level and downward independent Department of Local Affairs from the policy level. The key objective and Development has responsibility for is to identify potential conflicts among both regional and local planning. agencies at the earliest stage of planning, With executive reorganizations in 1974 rather than to attempt to deal with con­ and 1975, the planning/budgeting rela­ flicts through a review of projects already tionship continued to undergo change in at the implementation stage. several States. The functions were united Utah's state-level structure parallels a in Colorado, Idaho, and Kansas, but di­ similar organization of local units of gov­ vided in Connecticut, Kentucky, and ernment. The Governor's Advisory Coun­ Ohio. cil on Local Affairs is made up of 21 city and county elected officials invited by the INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COUNCILS Governor to represent their respective At least 18 States have interagency co­ Associations of Government. ordinating councils of some sort. These councils take several different forms: INTRASTATE REGIONAL PLANNING cabinets or cabinet subgroups, generally ORGANIZATIONS chaired by the Governor and made up For a great many States, the keystone exclusively of department heads; state in state-local cooperation and coordina­ planning boards, established as an ad­ tion is the multifunctional regional or­ junct to the overall state planning process ganization. By 1975, 45 States had desig­ and, again, made up primarily of agency nated substate district systems with a total heads; and interagency clearinghouses, of 530 districts (see Figure 1). frequently composed of lower-level de­ Only Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, partmental representatives and program Rhode Island, and Wyoming do not have officials. Their principal functions are to substate district arrangements. Of these, exchange information, to focus on com­ geographically small Delaware and mon problems, to provide policy advice Rhode Island have one metropolitan and recommendations to the Governor planning region each, with planning and and State Legislature and, in some cases. intergovernmental coordination for the MAJOR STATE SERVICES 459 balance of the State being done by the elected officials appears to be a prerequi­ state planning office. With four regional site to a strong regional planning role in organizations in Nevada and two in state-local relations. Alaska, and increasing land use problems The scope of program activity varies in both States, these States continue to within as well as among States. Regional evaluate the feasibility of establishing organizations in several States have a substate districts. In Hawaii, the four largely uniform program scope, including counties (the only units of local govern- federal planning assistance programs in riient) serve as the substate districts and health, manpower, aging, land use, hous­ the State has recently established a state- ing, economic development, criminal jus­ level intergovernmental council to assure tice, and transportation. There is usually maximum input and coordination. some variation between metropolitan and There is radical variation in the pro­ nonmetropolitan districts. In others, land ductivity, stability, and scope of activity use and community development are the of regional planning organizations. Al­ predominant concerns. Almost all re­ most all States approach regional or­ gional organizations serve the A-95 clear­ ganization with considerable flexibility. inghouse function. Membership and support by counties and Across the South and Southwest, sub- municipalities is voluntary. Composition state districts established for economic of governing boards juay vary by organi­ development predominate. In States such zation, although the great majority of as Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas, the States now require that elected officials districts represent very strong associations predominate. The participation of of local government, generally have uni-

Figure 1 SUBSTATE DISTRICTS

State Desig- Orga- Funded State Desig- Orga- Funded nated (a) nieed (b) (c) nated (a) nised (bj (c) Alabama 12 12 12 Montana ... 12 .12 12 Alaska 0 0 0 Nebraska 26 15 . 14 Arizona 6 6 6 Nevada 0 0 0(f) Arkansas 8 8 8 New Hampshire .6 6 6 California 10 4 4 New Jersey ...... 10 0 0 Colorado ... 13 13 13 New Mexico .... 6 6 6 Connecticut 15 15 15 New York 11 11 11 Delaware 0 0 0(d) North Carolina .. 17 17 17 Florida 10 10 10 North Dakota ... 8 8 8 Georgia 18 18 18 Ohio ;.. 15 10 8 Hawaii 4 4 4(e) Oklahoma 11 11 11 Idaho 6 6 6 Oregon 14 13 13 ^ Illinois 14 14 14 Pennsylvania .... 10 10 10 "^ Indiana 17 17 17 Rhode Island ... 0 0 0 Iowa 16 15 15 South Carolina.. 6 6 6 Kansas 11 11 11 South Dakota ... 6 6 6 Kentucky 15 15 15 Tennessee 9 9 9 Louisiana 8 8 8 Texas 21 21 21 Maine 8 8 8 Utah 7 7 7 Maryland 7 5 5 Vermont 13 13 13 Massachusetts ... 13 13 13 Virginia 22 22 22 Michigan 14 14 14 Washington 13 11 4(g) Minnesota 13 13 13 West Virginia ... 11 11 11 Mississippi 10 10 10 Wisconsin .. 8 8 8 Missouri 20 20 20 Wyoming 0 0 0

(a) Districts have been officially designated by the (e) Four counties serve as substate planning organiza­ Governor. tions. (b) Districts have begun internal organization and, in (f) Designated their larger counties as mandatory some cases, beg^un acquiring staff. planning units. (c) Districts receive state appropriations or state pass- (g) Has separate designations for local areawide plan­ through of federal funds. ning and coordination of federal-state activities. (d) Considered too small to divide into substate dis­ tricts. 460 THE BOOK OF THE STATES forin work programs, and are engaged in nated substate districts and single- a broad spectrum of activities. Across the purpose, areawide planning agencies re­ northern tier of States, the picture is questing federal funding. mixed. With improved organizational and ad­ California and Washington each have ministrative capability, more substate dis­ some active and potent regional organiza­ tricts are attempting to integrate plan­ tions, while other areas of those States ning activities to provide policies and either are without councils or have criteria for reviewing and coordinating largely inoperative groups. This is a pat­ development activities. Georgia now re­ tern common to States across the country, quires an annual development plan to although almost every State is actively encourage the evaluation of integrated promoting regionalism and investing in­ areawide planning and management ca­ creasing activity and funds in strengthen­ pability. Louisiana and Minnesota are ing regional structures. studying ways of integrating federally Just as regional organizations vary, so funded planning programs to facilitate do state attitudes toward them. The ques­ policy and program integration. tion of whether regional organizations The improved capability of substate should represent local interests, state in­ districts appears to offer increased op­ terests, or both, concerns state officials. portunities for intergovernmental man­ However, where regional organizations agement of growth through effective are most effective and powerful, they are leadership by the States. With recent revi­ recognized as representing local interests sion of OMB Circular A-95, more States albeit in the administration of state and appear to be discovering new opportu­ federal programs. They are considered to nities for exercising leadership. be locally controlled and their programs compatible with local goals and concerns. INTERSTATE REGIONAL COOPERATION Most States add a state contribution to Multistate regional development com­ the local and federal funds that support missions and councils provide member regional organizations. There is a direct States with a mechanism to deal with relationship between the amount of state growth problems which transcend juris­ support and the degree of state influence dictional boundaries. As forums for plan­ over regional policy. ning and development, these regional Many States would like to devolve institutions assist in the coordination of more powers and programs to the re­ individual state plans and programs gional level, where there is more poten­ which affect the quality of life through­ tial for responsiveness to differing local out the region. States have joined to­ needs. Moreover, state bureaucracies are gether at the initiative of the federal gov­ sensing increased legislative and public ernment as well as at the initiative of opposition to the concentration of powers member States. The federally sponsored and funding at the state level. economic development groups are the In 1973, the National Advisory Com­ Appalachian Regional Commission, with mittee on Intergovernmental Relations 13 member States; the New England Re­ recommended the adoption of state pol­ gional Commission, with six States; the icies and action to foster creation of sin­ Coastal Plains, with the three South At­ gle, multipurpose, multijurisdictional lantic States; the Upper Great Lakes Re­ regional councils called "umbrella multi­ gion, with three member States; the jurisdictional organizations" or UMJOs. Ozarks Regional Commission, with four By the mid-1970s, 28 States had taken ac­ States; the Old West Regional Commis­ tion to recognize a single substate body sion, with five Northern Great Plains and to be responsible for comprehensive Upper Rocky Mountain States; the Four planning for its region. The UMJO con­ Corners Regional Commission, serving cept has been encouraged by a 1973 revi­ four southern Rocky Mountain States; sion in Part IV of OMB Circular A-95, and the Pacific Northwest, with three which requires memorandums of agree­ member States. Although member States ment on coordination between desig­ contribute funds to the commissions, the MAJOR STATE SERVICES 461 principal support is federal and includes growth policy and growth management; capital investment funding. In the Federation, the basic units are the The Appalachian Regional Commis­ functional councils with public and pri­ sion (ARC), created under separate legis­ vate representatives. Each council iden­ lation from the other economic develop­ tifies and develops regional agreements ment commissions, has devoted most of on key issues, defines policies on those its efforts to highway development as a issues, and proposes multistate policies means of opening the area to economic and programs to address the issues. In development. The remaining seven com­ 1974-75, the Federation concentrated on missions, organized under Title V of the common goals and concerns in the area Public Works and Economic Develop­ of energy development. ment Act of 1965, have less authority and An offshoot of the Federation and the funding than does ARC, but they have Old West and Four Corners Regional developed and are currently revising Commissions is the 10-State Western Gov­ long-range, comprehensive development ernors' Regional Energy Policy Office. plans to serve as guidelines for programs The mission of the office is to identify and project funding. Though the pri­ those energy areas in which States have mary purpose of the economic develop­ basic agreement and to provide a mech­ ment commissions is economic planning anism for cooperation with the various and public investment, they also provide federal agencies involved in energy deci­ effective forums for Governors to develop sions. policy positions and to articulate regional The Southern Growth Policies Board concerns to federal policymakers. was formed in 1972 as a regional plan­ Since 1973, several regional commis­ ning agency to provide cooperative ef­ sions have given primary attention to the forts to encourage the conservation and f)articular energy and employment prob- development of the region's human and ems common to the region. In energy- natural resources. Regional committees dependent New England, for example, were formed in 1974 to advise the Board the New England Regional Commission in the areas of growth management, hu­ has developed short-range programs of man and natural resource development, fuel rationing and conservation, as well and transportation. A Commission on the as addressed long-range efforts at policy Future of the South, created by the Board planning, technical assistance in energy in 1974, produced the first statement of resource management, and cooperative proposed regional objectives for consider­ arrangements with Canada to increase ation and implementation by member fuel supply. In contrast, the Old West Re­ States. The regional objectives were sup­ gional Commission provides financial and plemented in 1975 with recommended technical assistance to the States and com­ methods to implement land and natural munities in an energy-producing area to resource programs. meet the environmental, social, and eco­ nomic impacts associated with accelerated NEW PLANNING PERSPECTIVES energy resource development. In both In many States in the mid-1970s, eco­ energy-producing and energy-dependent nomic and environmental circumstances areas, the regional commissions have con­ have significantly altered the role and tributed to state growth management ca­ perspective of state planning. State plan­ pability by contributing funds for staff ning is evolving into a concept of growth development, public investment plans, policy planning and management. This economic development models, and citi­ is also reflected in the changing concepts zen participation programs. of land use and economic planning. Of the numerous and varied state- In general, the concept of land use initiated regional councils, the Federa­ planning has changed from directly con­ tion of Rocky Mountain States, composed trolling growth to coordinating develop­ of the eight States in the region, and the ment consistent with environmental and Southern Growth Policies Board, with 14 land use concerns. State initiatives are member States, are strongly oriented to directed to coordinating development 462 THE BOOK OF THE STATES through such measures as powerplant moderate and change past trends and siting, environmental regulations, capital location of growth by deliberate policy improvements planning, floodplain regu­ implementation. The 1975 Hawaii Legis­ lations, and mandated guidelines for local lature passed a major growth policies land use planning and control. This ap plan bill to guide state development on proach is also reflected at the federal level the basis of a program developed by the in the Housing and Urban Development state administration using this technique. Administration, the Economic Develop­ The "Utah Process" is a demographic ment Administration, and the Environ­ and economic data analysis and projec­ mental Protection Agency guidelines and tion technique. Through the use of com­ interagency agreements providing com­ puter-based projection and allocation munity development and capital improve­ models, the Utah Process is employed to ment coordination with uniform land use identify important consequences of large- plans and environmental standards. scale developments and events that are On the other hand, state economic proposed or may be anticipated. "Alter­ planning, which has traditionally con­ native futures" are developed through centrated on industrial location and ex­ testing different combinations of devel­ pansion, is now becoming defined in opments and events for their impact on terms of optimization of economic ben­ the State's base demographic and eco­ efits, environmental quality, and resource nomic projections. Arizona is developing conservation. States see themselves as in­ a similar approach based on an economic struments of change that can allocate and environmental tradeoff model. resources to stimulate development con­ The second approach is the "strategic sistent with desired land use and environ­ issues" technique, which is currently in mental quality in order to maximize so­ its embryonic stages in Kentucky and cial benefits. Maryland. This process focuses on those Both land use planning and economic planning are evolving toward a concept Figure 2 now being referred to as growth policy STATE GROWTH PLANNING STATUS planning and growth management. Con­ Completed Growth Plans or Policy Guidelines{a.) sistent with this approach, 17 States have Connecticut (1975) Louisiana (1974) some form of official growth plan or Florida (1975) Maryland (1975) policy guideline; 20 States have estab­ Hawaii (1975) Missouri (1974) lished state-level growth commissions or Wisconsin (1974) Oregon (1975) Vermont (1973) North CaroHna (1975) processes (see Figure 2). Relatively few Iowa (1974) Rhode Island (1975) of these statements or studies have gone Kansas (1975) Washington (1975) far beyond the recognition of need and Kentucky (1974) Pennsylvania (1975) the identification of some key compo­ South Dakota (1975) nents over which States may exercise On-going Public Commissions and Processes initiative. In the handful of States that Alabama Maine have developed sophisticated growth Alaska Massachusetts planning processes, three general types Arizona Minnesota Connecticut Mississippi can be identified: (1) alternative futures Delaware Montana analysis; (2) strategic issues identification; Hawaii New Jersey and (3) public investment planning. Idaho North Carolina The "alternative futures" approach in­ Illinois South Dakota Indiana Utah volves a considerable number of goals Iowa Wisconsin and objectives being tested against alter­ On-going Private Commissions and Processes native future scenarios. These scenarios California Tomorrow are based on a range of alternatives from New Hampshire Tomorrow a stabilized economy to highly accelerated Institute of Public Alternatives (New York) economic growth rates. From the results Oregon Tomorrow Foundation of testing the alternatives, state officials Vermont Tomorrow can "design a program to encourage a de­ (a) Complete plans or guidelines have not been officially sired growth pattern; that is, attempt to adopted in all States. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 463 key problems which, if eliminated, would examine long-range plans of state de­ have the greatest impact on the state partments and agencies, and to report economy. The strategic approach as­ on development implications of major sumes that, of all things that might be state decisions. The State Planning done under the heading of "develop­ Agency is the primary staff support for ment," there is a relatively small number the commission, with a joint legislative of truly critical actions. If identified and committee overseeing the effort and iden­ accomplished, these will not only be use­ tifying priorities. Out of the discussions ful in themselves, but will also have a is to come an analysis of alternative fu­ cascade effect, causing other useful events. tures for the State. The Kentucky approach involves a de­ Alternatives for Washington is the citi­ tailed and intricate process designed to zen participation element of that State's (1) collect and organize existing data and long-range policy planning process which, identify information gaps; (2) reorganize in turn, is a component of Washington's the accumulated information in order to Program Decision System of budget prep­ identify those key elements that can guide aration. Governor Daniel J. Evans said the State's growth and development; and he was asking citizens to attempt to mea­ (3) examine the management structure sure the tradeoffs and costs of their pro­ needed to carry out the objectives of the posals in order to provide guidelines to strategy design. the executive and Legislature for sound Maryland is developing a somewhat planning of specific actions. different strategic issues method. Their Meanwhile, a systematic effort was un­ process includes issues identification, is­ dertaken in Washington State to analyze sues development, issues resolution, and state policies in light of public survey re­ implementation. The process has an ex­ sponses as well as state goals formulated plicit "action-oriented mission," designed by areawide and statewide groups. Under to result in an array of legislation, new the State's integrated planning and bud­ programs, or public investment of spe­ geting process, state agencies must de­ cific resources. velop a program framework for budget The third system is "public investment requests, working with state planners to planning," employed in Pennsylvania. assure that agency planning is consistent This approach requires the projections with broader administration goals and of future growth potentials, population, policies. income, and social service requirements. Florida provided an example of legisla­ These "probable" indicators of future tive initiative in coming to grips with trends are then matched with a set of fundamental state policy issues when it "desired" expectations. The gap between adopted a state policy on growth. The the projections and desires represents Division of State Planning provided in­ those areas which need public attention formation and analysis, but the formula­ and investment. The culmination of the tion of policy statements was done by program is the identification of funding legislators. Statements range from "qual­ sources for future investment and the re­ ity of life" to "local responsibility" to thinking of those adopted development "sound economy." For each area, several targets for which resources will be un­ policies were enunciated, restraints ac­ available. knowledged, and alternative implement­ ing actions proposed. The resolution was CITIZEN PARXiaPATioN intended as a framework for legislative Efforts to engage citizens in the plan­ action in the future and a broad policy ning process are Jhighlighted by develop­ guide for state and local governments. ments in Minnesota and Washington. An executive order from the Governor The Commission on Minnesota's Future directed the Division of State Planning began meeting in 1973 to prepare a pro­ to study and develop methods to imple­ posed state growth policy, to gather in­ ment the policies established by the Leg­ formation regarding the State's future, to islature in 1974. 464 THE BOOK OF THE STATES

TABLE 1 ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION OF STATE PLANNING AGENCIES

Department Separate Governor's of Economic State Agency department Office administration development Other Alabama Development Office Alaska Div. of Policy Development Arizona Office of Economic Planning & Development Arkansas Office of Planning California Office of Planning & Research Colorado... Div. of Planning (a) Connecticut Dept. of Planning & Energy Policy Delaware...... State Planning Office Florida Div. of State Planning Georgia Office of Planning & Budget Hawaii...: Dept. of Planning & Economic Development Idaho Div. of Budget, Policy Planning & Coordination Illinois Bureau of the Budget Indiana State Planning Service Agency Iowa Office of Platming & Programming Kansas Div. of State Planning & Research Kentucky. Office of State Planning Louisiana. State Planning Office Maine. . . . State Planning Office Maryland. Dept. of State Planning Massachusetts. Office of State Planning Michigan Dept. of Management & Budget Minnesota State Planning Agency Mississippi Office of Federal-State Programs Missouri Div. of Budget & Planning Montana Div. of Planning Nebraska State Office of Planning & Programming Nevada Office of the State Planning Coordinator New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning New Jersey Div. of State & Regional Planning (a) New Mexico. ... State Planning Office New York Div. of State Planning (b) North Carolina. Office of State Planning North Dakota.. State Planning Div. (c) Ohio Dept. of Ekionomlc & Community Development Oklahoma Office of Community Affairs & Planning Oregon...; Intergovernmental Relations Div. Pennsylvania .. Office of State Planning & Development Rhode Island... Statewide Planning Program South Carolina. Office of Community Development South Dakota.. State Planning Bureau Tennessee State Planning Office Texas Div. of Planning Coordination Utah Office of State Planning Coordinator Vermont State Planning Office Virginia Div. of State Planning & Community Affairs (a) Washington.. . Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management West Virginia. . Office of Federal-State Relations Wisconsin State Planning Office Wyoming State Planning Office (a) Community Affairs. (b) State Department. (c) Department of Accounts and Purchases. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 465 TABLE 2 SPECIAL SERVICES TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT*

.fe^ t. f i ^i.i I II ^ I5t ^1 •si II ••s-g -^-a --a-S 6-5 s 5 6 .a .-S .'a *^ ?> vj ^ ?v 11 III ^ ?? II «** ^j3 «2 ^"S^ *i"2 State or "3 « ^S "3-5 o a-2 « S 1i 111 i •S.R i 11 co«, co§ other jurisdiction 55,558 ^8 «g Si's II i Alabama • • • • • lilll • Alaska • • • • • • Arizona -k ir • Arkansas ic ir if • • California • • • Colorado • • • • *• • • Connecticut • • • • • • • • Delaware ir "k • • Florida • • • .. .. • • • Georgia • • • • • • • • Hawaii * • •. Idaho • • • • • Illinois • • • • • • • Indiana •..••• • • • • Iowa • • • • • • • • Kansas ir if • • • • Kentucky k if • • • Louisiana ir if • • • • Maine -jlr •*• • • • Maryland if if .. • • • Massachusetts ir ir if ir • • • Michigan • • • • • Minnesota ir ir if • • • Mississippi •*• ir if • • Missouri ir • • • Montana •*• • • • • • Nebraska ic ir ir if • • • • • • • Nevada if ir • • • • • New Hampshire ir ir if if • • • New Jersey ir ir. ir • • • • • • • • • New Mexico ir if ir • • • • • New York • • • • • • • • North Carolina • • * • • • • • North Dakota ir ir if • • • Ohio • .. • • • • • Oklahoma • • • • • • • • • • Oregon •*• •*• • • • • • Pennsylvania ir ir ir ir • • • • • Rhode Island -A- ir ir • • • • • South Carolina • • • • • • • • • • South Dakota •*• • • • • • Tennessee ir ir ir • • • • • • Texas • • • • • • • • • Utah • • • • • Vermont • • • • • • • • • Virginia • • • • • • • Washington ir • • • West Virginia * • • Wisconsin • • ir • • • • • Wyoming • • • • • • • • Puerto Rico • • • • • • • • Virgin Islands • • • • 'Source: Office of International Investment, Domestic Invest­ • • • ment Services Division, Department of Commerce. 466 THE BOOK OF THE STATES TABLE 3 STATES PROVIDING DATA BASIC TO PLANT LOCATION FOR INDUSTRY*

J1

1! •« ^" i] i 3 1 State or other jurisdiction III ^ ^ III* III Alabama if • • • • • • • Alaska -S- • • • • • • • • • Arizona -^ • • • • • • • • • • Arkansas -^ • • • • • • • • • California • • • • • Colorado if • • • • • • • • Connecticut if • • • • • • • • • * Delaware • • • • • • • • • • Florida if • • • • • • • • • Georgia if • • • • • • • • Hawaii • • • • • • • • • Idaho if • • • • • • • • • • • • Illinois if • • • • • • • • • • • Indiana if • • • • • • • • • • • Iowa -j^- • • • • • • • • • • • • Kansas. if • • • • • • • • • Kentucky • • • • • • • • • • • Louisiana if • • • • • • • • • • • Maine if • • • • • • • • • • • Maryland if • • • • • • • • • • • Massachusetts if • • • • • • • • • Michigan •*• • • * • • • • * • • • • Minnesota if • • • • • • • • • Mississippi • • • • • • • • • • Missouri if • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Montana if • • • • • • • • • • • Nebraska if • • • • • • • • • • • • Nevada • • • • • • • • • • New Hampshire if • • • • • • • • • • • • New Jersey if • • • • • • • • • • • New Mexico if • • • • • • • • New York if • • • • • • • • • • • • • North Carolina if • • • • • • • • • • • • • North Dakota •*• • • • • • • • • • • • • Ohio • • • • • • • • • • • Oklahoma if • • • • • • • • • • Oregon if • • • • • • • • • • • • Pennsylvania if • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rhode Island • • • • • • • • • • • South Carolina if • • • • • • • • • • • South Dakota if • • • • • • • • • • • • Tennessee if • • • • • • • • • Texas •*• • • • • • • • • • • • • • Utah • • • • • • • • • • • • Vermont if • • • • • • • • • Virginia if • • • • • • • • Washington -jlr • • • • • • • • • West Virginia if • • • • • • • Wisconsin if • • • • • • • • • • Wyoming if • • • • • • • • Puerto Rico if • • • • • * • • • • • • Virgin Islands • • • • • • • • *Source: Office of International Investment, Domestic Invest­ ment Services Division, Department of Commerce. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 467 TABLE 4 STATES PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRY*

5 < |g itu i Q •S 5>fe ^ •S •5S ^ H «, ^ 51 tl :2 s.s 8 5 3 I SE ^•S •t^ •t-l -t s- LS. State or Jl other jurisdiction it « ^^ i n If CO , Alabama.. I Alaska.... Arizona... Arkansas. , California. Colorado Connecticut. • • Delaware. . . . Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho minols Indiana Iowa 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 • • Puerto Rico ... Virgin Islands. • • *Source: OflSce of Internationai Investment, Domestic Invest­ ment Services Division, Department of Commerce. 468 THE BOOK OF THE STATES TABLE 5 TAX INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRY AND OTHER PERTINENT LAWS*

.•5 S .a H 1 1 S g •s ^ a i 160 •^ •5 *. e •Ji e a a t •f 42 vs "& ,o a 'a 1 ! & 2? 1 1 11 it 00 1 §^ i i 8 «"a a .ft 8 4 •5 t i 1 5 s a-^ *. a BO il It 1 11 :«•- a a State or o «3 it 11 5 a other i! 1 1" 3 » "a a S "1 a 'a •3 o'a til jurisdiction '^S- O b) i--^ f^l5 ft, cog H« t-& I-a tH- t-"^ {-J! to ^ to tots to-^ to*. Alabama • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Arkansas • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • Colorado • • • • • • Connecticut • • • • • • • • • • • • Delaware • • • • • • • Florida • • • • • • • • •k ir if 'A' 'A' -A- -A^ 'A- -A- Hawaii -A- Tk •A- if -A- -A- -A- 'A- •A- ir • if ir -A- 'A- -A' lUlnols ? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A- A- • ir if if -A- ir •A- Kansas • • • • • • • • ic if -k if ir •A- if •A- •A' •A- Louisiana • • • • • • • if if if 'A' ir -A- if 'A- Maryland • • • • • • • Ar • •k • Massachusetts. .. • • • • • • • • • • • • Michigan • • • • • • • • • A- • • Minnesota • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Missouri • • • • • • • • Montana • • • • • • Nebraska • • • • • • • Nevada • • • • • • • • New Hampshire.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • New Mexico • • • • • • • • • New York • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • North Carolina .. • • • • • • • • North Dakota.... • • • • • • • • • • • • Ohio • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Oregon • • • • • • • • • Pennsylvania.... • • • • • • • • • • • Rhode Island.... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • South Dakota • • • • • • • • • • • • Tennessee • • • • • • • • • • Texas • • • • • • • Utah • • • • • • Vermont • • • • • • • Virginia if if -A- -A- -A- •A- if • • • • • • West Virginia • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A- • Wyoming • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Virgin Islands .... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Source;'Office of International Investment, Domestic Invest­ ment Services Division, Department of Commerce. Natural Resources

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT*

that air cleanup required a national ef­ I. POLLUTION CONTROL fort, but it specified that the States should OLLUTION in its various forms—air, retain primary authority and responsibil­ water, noise, solid waste, and hazard­ ity for doing so. The 1970 amendments P ous substances—has been an environ­ provided for development and enforce­ mental concern for many years. In general ment of two kinds of standards for ambi­ it is agreed that pollution should be re­ ent air quality—"primary" standards nec­ duced. Differences arise over how serious essary to protect health and "secondary" a problem one particular type of pollu­ standards desirable to protect welfare, in­ tion may be, whether the technology to cluding property and aesthetics. The abate it is available, and whether the de­ amendments' stated goal was achievement gree of abatement achieved is worth the of primary standards throughout the Na­ costs. tion between 1975 and 1977. The amendments also set forth a two- Air Quality part strategy for attaining this goal. First, The first attack on air pollution was the federal Environmental Protection mounted by the States as they enacted Agency (EPA) was to establish air quality laws governing their jurisdictions. Con­ standards for six major classes of pollu­ gress followed with a series of laws in­ tants: particulates, sulfur oxides (SO2), tended to provide a framework for clean­ hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide ing up the air throughout the Nation in (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO^), and pho­ a concerted, comprehensive fashion. The tochemical oxidants. EPA promulgated most important of these federal laws were standards for each class in November the Clean Air Act of 1967 and the Clean 1971. Air Act Amendments of 1970. Next, the States were to develop state The 1967 act embodied the concept implementation plans indicating how they intended to achieve the EPA stan­ •The sections on "Pollution Control" and dards. Each implementation plan, typi­ "State Environmental Impact Statement Require­ ments" were adapted from the 1975 Annual Re­ cally, is a compilation of state air pollu­ port of the Council on Environmental Quality tion statutes and regulations and of with special thanks to Malcom Baldwin and pollution control strategies—including Shelia Mulvihill of CEQ for their assistance; emission limitations, land use controls, James Breithaupt, Special Assistant, the Council of State Governments, prepared the section on and transportation controls. EPA is re­ "Organization of Environmental Programs"; the quired either to approve the state imple­ section on "State Land Use Programs" was pre­ mentation plans, thus making them part pared by Robert Matthews, Special Assistant, the Council of State Governments, with assistance of federal law, or to amend them in con­ from Michael Arnold of Land Use Planning Re­ formance with EPA criteria for attaining ports. ambient air standards. 469 470 THE BOOK OF THE STATES Because different geographical, cli­ stalled; and continued operation of the matic, and other conditions introduce source must be essential to national secur­ necessary variations in the state plans and ity, the public health, or welfare. Adjudi­ because each plan contains several often catory hearings are also required under complex programs, EPA developed a pol­ Section 110(f). icy of approving them on a program-by- The controversy over which procedure program basis. The resulting constant re­ should be used—the easier, state-granted view process has given EPA and the States variance or the tougher, lengthier exten­ the flexibility required to revise plans in sion under Section 110(f)—soon resulted accordance with later changes ordered by in several suits before different courts of the courts or the Congress. As of late 1975, appeals. no state implementation plan had been Ultimately the Supreme Court held approved in its entirety by EPA. that the purposes and philosophy of the The Issue of Variances. The Clean Air Clean Air Act of 1967 were not changed Amendments provide for attainment of by the 1970 amendments. Accordingly, ambient air standards in all areas by 1975 the chief responsibility for attainment of (or 1977 if a two-year extension has been ambient air standards rests with the granted to an area). Most state implemen­ States. So long as a State's control strategy tation plans were drafted so that all emis­ achieves and maintains ambient air stan­ sion limitations were effective immedi­ dards, the Court ruled, EPA cannot inter­ ately. Because most sources were not in fere with the State's timing or its enforce­ compliance with emission limitations of ment techniques. implementation plans, there was a transi­ Significant Deterioration. On May 30, tion period (still continuing for some) 1972, the District of Columbia District between the time a plan became effective Court ruled that according to the provi­ and the time that ambient air standards sions of the Clean Air Act, no State could had to be attained. The most common permit "significant deterioration" of air way of dealing with source noncompli­ quality in areas where it was already ance was for a state pollution control au­ cleaner than required by ambient stan­ thority to issue a variance from the re­ dards. This ruling was upheld by the Su­ quirements, provided that the source and preme Court. the State reached a mutually acceptable EPA has issued proposed final regula­ compliance schedule and that the na- tions to incorporate the Court's decision 'tional ambient air quality standards were into state implementation plans. Al­ met by the statutory deadlines. EPA took though the regulations were to take effect the position that such variances would be July 1, 1975, several challenges are delay­ treated as revisions of the state implemen­ ing implementation. In addition, the tation plans, requiring only approval by President has urged Congress to under­ EPA. take a comprehensive review of the issue. This variance procedure was chal­ Transportation Control Plans. Soon lenged throughout the country. Oppo­ after submission of the state implementa­ nents argued that once a plan was ap­ tion plans, EPA found that special efforts proved, an individual source could be to control mobile sources would be excused from full compliance with all needed to meet ambient air quality stan­ emission limitations only by obtaining an dards in 34 metropolitan areas. In partic­ extension under Section 110(f) of the ular, plans were needed to reduce auto­ Clean Air Amendments. Section 110(f) mobile use and concentration within permits an extension of no more than one these metropolitan areas. Where localities year upon application from a Governor to and States were unable to come up with EPA if four conditions are met—good an acceptable plan, the Clean Air Amend­ faith efforts must have been made to com­ ments directed EPA to develop one. ply with the implementation plan; failure Meanwhile, the Administration sub­ to comply must result from lack of avail­ mitted—as part of its January 1975 pack­ able technology; all available controls, age of amendments to the Clean Air Act— including interim controls, must be in­ a proposal to authorize EPA to grant up MAJOR STATE SERVICES 471 to two five-year extensions of transporta­ by 1983. The ultimate goal is to eliminate tion control plan requirements to munici­ the discharge of all pollutants into navi­ palities that had implemented all reason­ gable waters by 1985. Each discharger able control measures but still failed to must obtain a permit which limits, item- meet the standards. by-item, the amount of pollution that Indirect Sources. Another issue with re­ may be discharged. The amendments also spect to mobile sources has been the devel­ provide for regulating toxic pollutants. opment of statewide programs for precon- The 1972 amendments greatly in­ struction review of major facilities that creased the amount of federal aid avail­ attract large numbers of vehicles and thus able to local governments for construct­ may create violations of ambient air qual­ ing municipal waste water collection and ity standards. These "indirect sources"— treatment systems. The original 1948 act also referred to as "complex sources"—in­ had authorized loans, but monies were clude shopping centers, stadiums, air­ never appropriated. Federal involvement ports, amusement parks, and urban road­ increased with subsequent amendments, ways, among others. The requirement for however, so that by 1971 municipal grants States to develop a review program to con­ covered up to 55 percent of construction trol the siting of indirect sources under costs and annual appropriations were EPA regulations derives from a January running at $1 billion. The 1972 amend­ 1973 Court of Appeals ruling by the Dis­ ments increased the federal share to 75 trict of Columbia Circuit Court. EPA is­ percent, and Congress authorized |18 bil­ sued final regulations in February 1974, lion over a three-year period. but federal enforcement of the program The NPDES Permit Program. Section was delayed in order to allow Congress to 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Con­ review the issues. trol Act provides for a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) Water Quality and requires point sources discharging Until 1972, the federal approach to wa­ pollutants into waters of the United ter pollution was defined by the 1948 Fed­ States to have obtained a discharge per­ eral Water Pollution Control Act (as sub­ mit by December 31, 1974. By July 1, sequently amended) and the Refuse Act 1975, over 40,000 permits had been issued. of 1899. The FWPCA originally focused The emphasis was on "major" industrial on ambient water quality, and allowable and municipal discharges. discharges were related to the estimated In many States, state agencies will as­ assimilative capacity of the receiving sume responsibility for issuing permits as stream or lake. Enforcement was slow and they develop acceptable implementation cumbersome, requiring conferences and and enforcement mechanisms. Their do­ long waiting periods. As a result, the act's ing so relaxes some of the pressure on provisions were the basis of only three EPA and places the review function in the civil court actions (and no criminal ac­ hands of people who have more direct tions) brought against polluters before knowledge of the discharger and of local 1972. water quality. However, EPA still retains Under the 1972 amendments to the a right to prevent the issuance of any per­ Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the mit within 90 days of notification. By July act no longer focused on ambient quality 1975, 24 States had taken over the permit­ and assimilative capacity but instead es­ ting functions.1 tablished discharge requirements, calling Planning. Section 201 of the 1972 upon industrial polluters to achieve the FWPCA pertains to the planning of in­ "best practicable treatment control tech­ dividual facilities. Section 303(e) pertains nology currently available" by 1977 and more stringent "best available technology ^The States are California, Colorado, Connecti­ economically achievable" by 1983. Mu­ cut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, nicipal sewage discharges must receive Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, secondary treatment by 1977 and best South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, practicable waste treatment technology Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 472 THE BOOK OF THE STATES to statewide planning efforts and is de­ tion, the Legislature created the Connect­ signed to encourage the States to develop icut Resources Recovery Authority. The an overall strategy for water quality im­ plan sets a 1985 date for completion of 10 provement, including industrial and mu­ facilities that will process 84 percent of nicipal waste water discharges. Section the State's waste. These are energy recov­ 208 calls for areawide waste treatment ery facilities that will principally prepare and water management plans that incor­ municipal wastes for use as fiiel in utility porate abatement facilities, land use, and boilers and collecting the unburnable res­ economic growth considerations in cover­ idue for possible recycling. ing metropolitan areas and other regions. Most activity during 1975 was directed State Initiatives and Community Resource toward implementing Section 208. Gov­ Recovery Projects, March 1975* ernors are responsible for designating Commu­ areawide 208 planning agencies which, nity Planning recovery after EPA review and approval, may re­ Grants or or Operating systems ceive planning grants. The law calls for State loans regulation authority (a) EPA to cover all the planning costs in fis­ X X cal year 1975, but only 75 percent in fiscal Connecticut ... X Delaware year 1976. By June 30, 1975, 149 planning Florida ...... X X agencies had been designated and Hawaii X awarded grants. X Iowa Solid Waste Management Louisiana X States and local governments have the Massachusetts . X primary authority for solid waste manage­ X X X X ment. State activity in solid waste man­ Missouri agement has increased dramatically in the X X past few years and has centered on more Ohio X effective regional approaches to the solid Oregon waste problem, financial and technical as­ Pennsylvania . X X Rhode Island . X sistance to local governments, and en­ X forcement of standards for the siting and Vermont ...... X operation of disposal facilities. Consider­ Washington ... X able progress has been made nationally West Virginia . X toward making the open, burning dump' Wisconsin .... a thing of the past, although the problem * Source: Richard E. Hopper, A Nationwide Survey of Resource Recovery Activities; EPA/S30/SW 142 (Wash­ is far from solved. ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), pp. 2-3. Resource Recovery. Developments in (a) All stages, from study through operating. technology combined with environmental and economic pressures continue to en­ Source Reduction. Source or waste re­ courage initiatives at the state level. As of duction means preventing waste at its the end of 1974, 11 States had grant or source by either physically redesigning loan programs for construction of re­ products or otherwise changing consump­ source recovery systems by municipalities, tion and waste generation patterns. Less 12 were involved in planning statewide solid waste will be generated by reducing systems or regulating resource recovery the amount of material contained in activities through guidelines or conform­ products, increasing the lifetime of prod­ ance requirements, and six had authority ucts, substituting reusable for single-use to create agencies to operate resource re­ products, and using a product item more covery facilities. They are shown in the than once. adjacent table. Legislation banning or taxing nonre- Connecticut is nearest to a state-oper­ turnable beverage containers has been the ated system. As a result of the comprehen­ most popular type of source reduction sive plan developed by the Connecticut proposal. Although several bills have Department of Environmental Protec­ been introduced in the U.S. Congress, MAJOR STATE SERVICES 473 more activity has taken place at the state Environmental Policy—to oversee the and local levels. Legislation has been in- act's implementation. By revising two tr6duced in 50 State Legislatures and nu­ previous executive orders, Michigan es­ merous county and city councils since tablished an Environmental Review 1971. As of mid-1975, three States, Ore­ Board, which is responsible for advising gon, South Dakota, and Vermont, had the Governor, suggesting environmental laws restricting beer and soft drink con­ policy, conducting public hearings, and tainers, and one, Minnesota, had a law af­ assisting the Governor in the review of fecting all major types of packaging state environmental impact statements. wastes. Hawaii, Maryland, and Texas made mi­ A mandatory deposit law has been in nor changes in their statutes, leaving the effect in Oregon since October 1, 1972. A basic policy goals intact. minimum 2-cent refund for beer, malt A few States, notably Connecticut, beverage, and carbonated soft drink con­ North Carolina, and South Dakota, have tainers certified for reuse by more than had problems in implementing their en­ one manufacturer and a 5-cent refund vironmental statutes. In these cases, the for all other beverage containers are re­ difficulty has arisen primarily in terms of quired. In addition, the sale of fliptop and a lack of enforcement authority in the pulltab beverage containers is outlawed. statute.

II. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT States with Comprehensive STATEMENT REQUIREMENTS Statutory Requirements Currently 14 States and one territory California New York have comprehensive statutory require­ Connecticut North Carolina ments for state environmental impact Hawaii South Dakota statements. An additional three have Indiana Virginia comprehensive requirements based on Maryland Washington executive or administrative orders, while Massachusetts Wisconsin six others have special or limited require­ Minnesota Puerto Rico ments (see the adjacent table). Montana Most other State EIS requirements have been in effect for at least two years. Dur­ States with Comprehensive ing 1975, a number of States amended Executive or Administrative Orders their environmental laws. In general, the Michigan Texas changes increase the strength and durabil­ New Jersey ity of the environmental impact proce­ States with Special or dures. Limited EIS Requirements California, Hawaii, Maryland, Michi­ Arizona Nebraska gan, Texas, Virginia, and Washington all amended their statutes or executive or­ Delaware Nevada ders. California now requires that impact Georgia New Jersey statements include a discussion of mitigat­ ing measures relating particularly to the III. ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL wasteful and unproductive consumption PROGRAMS of energy. Amendments to Virginia's stat­ Virtually every State has consolidated ute provide for an administrator of the under one agency its major air quality, Virginia Council on the Environment water quality, and solid waste manage­ who is responsible for "developing uni­ ment programs. Only five States continue form management and administrative sys­ to administer these programs separately, tems which will assure coherent environ­ while three others have partially consoli­ mental policies and will facilitate the dated them. Most States have accom­ provision of environmental services to the plished this consolidation through formal public." Washington amended its State reorganization. Reorganization of envi­ Environmental Policy Act to provide for ronmental functions has occurred in more a "watchdog" agency—the Council on than 30 States since 1967. 474 THE BOOK OF THE STATES For the most part the States seem to environmental organization in the form have relied primarily upon three basic of a State EPA. While the formation of organizational models: (1) the health de­ new state environmental agencies reached partment, (2) the State EPA, and (3) the a peak in 1971, reorganization activity has environmental superagency (see Table 1). continued. The Health Department Model. Six­ Between 1973 and 1975, Kentucky, teen States currently include their pollu­ Michigan, and Missouri created environ­ tion control programs within their state mental superagencies. South Dakota and health department. While a few States Wyoming created State EPAs in 1973 and have chosen explicitly to consolidate their South Carolina reorganized its environ­ previously fragmented pollution control mental activities into the newly created programs within a reorganized health de­ Department of Health and Environmen­ partment, in most States this approach tal Control in 1974. represents the historical organizational In 1975 there were two reorganizations placement of environmental programs. As which involved refinements to the exist­ such, it reflects the traditional linkages ing organizational structures. Massachu­ perceived between environmental protec­ setts completed the last phase of its en­ tion and public health considerations. vironmental reorganization begun in The State EPA Model. Twelve States 1969. Massachusetts now places under the currently have what might be called umbrella of its Executive Office of Envi­ "State EPAs"—so called because they mir­ ronmental Affairs all the State's major ror the U.S. Environmental Protection pollution control, conservation, agricul­ Agency in their program responsibilities. tural, water resources, and coastal zone State EPAs are primarily regulatory and management programs. All are subject to standard-setting agencies with limited the policy and budgetary control of the and clearly defined agency missions. umbrella office. Florida moved to The Environmental Superagency strengthen the capacity of its pollution Model. Fifteen States have elected to con­ control agency which was created in 1969 solidate their pollution control programs by consolidating all water programs (in­ with some of their State's natural resource cluding dredge and fill regulation) into a management and/or conservation func­ new Department of Environmental Regu­ tions in an environmental superagency. lation. The new department has an in­ These broad-based agencies generally ternal organization which integrates indi­ have major departmental or cabinet vidual program efforts by function, i.e., status. planning, management, and enforcement. Since 1967 there have been 32 major In California, efforts by the Governor state environmental reorganizations. Ap­ to create a reorganized environmental proximately one half of the state environ­ agency were defeated in the Legislature. mental reorganizations were part of over­ all executive branch reorganizations. IV. STATE LAND USE PROGRAMS Thus, it seems likely that general execu­ The prudent use and management of tive management considerations such as one of our most valuable and cherished reducing the number of state agencies, natural resources—land—continues to be grouping programs into broad functional an issue of m.ajor state importance. Re­ areas, and reducing the number of boards cent activity by the legislative, executive, and commissions have played an impor­ and judicial branches of state government tant role in shaping the organization of evidences an awareness of the complex in- environmental protection programs in terrelatedness of the land use decision­ many States. Overall executive branch re­ making process with the economic, po­ organizations have been much more likely litical, social, and environmental issues to result in the creation of environmental confronting state government. superagencies than have environmentally specific reorganizations. Environmentally Selected Legislative Activity specific reorganizations have tended to Since land use planning and manage­ lead to the establishment of a separate ment reemerged as an issue requiring MAJOR STATE SERVICES 475 some form of state participation, a num­ abridged the property rights of landown­ ber of approaches have been proposed ers. However, this bill and others intro­ and adopted by the States. The following duced to weaken various components of discussion highlights some of these ap­ the State's land use efforts were defeated. proaches. In 1972 the Land Use and Water Man­ A method which appears to be gaining agement Act was enacted in Florida. acceptance is that by which local govern­ There are two basic land use strategies in ments are required to develop compre­ the law. One is the designation of areas of hensive plans based on guidelines which critical state concern. This strategy in­ have been established by the State. By cludes the planning and regulatory au­ adopting this procedure, local govern­ thority to guide and control development ment is given the flexibility to plan for in areas designated by the State as being identified state concerns as well as unique of critical state concern. The second basic local goals. With this approach, if the lo­ strategy is an intergovernmental review cal government fails to act, the State usu­ of proposed developments to assess pos­ ally can develop the comprehensive plan sible regional impacts. Proposed large- for the locality. States which have adopted scale developments must receive approval variations of this general approach are: from both local government and regional Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mary­ planning agencies. These decisions can be land, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Ver­ appealed to the State. mont, Virginia, and Wyoming. Under Florida's legislation two desig­ Another means used by States has been nations of areas of critical state concern the adoption of legislation which ad­ have been made. The first area designated dresses a specific type of land use issue. under this legislation was the Green During 1974 and 1975, for example, sev­ Swamp, and recently the Florida Keys eral States have enacted legislation has also been designated. Prior to these directly related to energy resource and fa­ designations, the Big Cypress Swamp was cility development. Maryland, New Jer­ designated directly by the Legislature. In sey, and Texas adopted legislation that 1975 the development of regional impact deals with shoreline and offshore develop­ strategy was tested fully for the first time ment; North Dakota and Wyoming im­ when local government approval for a posed controls on surface mining and proposed large-scale development was assumed authority for the siting of power- overturned by the State. plants (see Table 2). In January 1975, Oregon promulgated its Statewide Planning Goals and Guide­ Status of Selected State Programs lines. The goals establish those concerns In 1970 the Vermont Legislature passed of statewide significance that by law must a highly innovative land use bill. The bill be incorporated into local land use plans. had three elements—an inventory of the The goals range from extensive require­ land, a determination of the development ments for citizen participation to the es­ capability of the land, and the develop­ tablishment of urban growth boundaries. ment of a statewide land use plan. The first two elements have been completed. Innovative Measures However, the land use plan has been In 1975 the New Jersey Legislature be­ twice rejected by the Legislature. came the first to seriously consider enact­ Since the early 1970s, the Maine Legis­ ing transfer of development rights lature has enacted a series of measures to enabling legislation. The proposed leg­ address various land use issues. In 1972 islation would give a community the au­ the Land Use Regulation Commission thority to separate the "development was established, with authority to regu­ rights" from the "ownership rights" of late all unorganized areas within the State certain property and allow the develop­ —approximately one half of the State. ment rights to be sold and used in other During the 1975 legislative session, a mea­ designated areas. The bill passed the Gen­ sure was introduced in an attempt to abol­ eral Assembly; however, the Senate did ish the commission on the grounds that it not act upon the measure. 476 THE BOOK OF THE STATES In January 1975, Governor Thomas P. Salmon of Vermont issued Executive Or­ Federal Impact der #2 which directed 12 state agencies Despite congressional failure to enact involved in capital investment decisions an explicit land use bill, federal influence to examine their policies and procedures on state land use decision-making con­ as to impact on future land use patterns. tinues to be a major factor. The Governor was primarily concerned In the 1975 Congress, Section 701 of the with whether or not each agency coordi­ Housing and Urban Development Act nated its capital investment planning was amended to require recipients of 701 with other state agencies "at an early planning funding—States, regions, and enough stage and whether they assess the local governments—to include a land use growth-inducement potential of a deci­ element in their planning program. The sion before one alternative is chosen over act specifies that the land use element in­ the rest." clude: (a) studies, criteria, and procedures necessary for guiding major growth deci­ Selected Court Activity sions, and (b) general plans with respect In response to unresolved land use is­ to the pattern and intensity of land use sues, judicial activism has increased. In for residential, commercial, and other March 1975 the New Jersey Supreme activities. Broad goals and annual objec­ Court ruled, in the case of Southern Bur­ tives, programs, and evaluation proce­ lington County NAACP v. Township of dures must be explicit. Recipients who Mount Laurel, that restrictive municipal fail to comply will be ineligible for fur­ zoning ordinances excluding low- to ther 701 funding after August 1977. moderate-income housing from a commu­ Under the Clean Air Act Amendments nity violate the state constitution. The of 1970, several regulations have been court went on to state that the township proposed or promulgated that impact must take positive action in its land use upon land use patterns and decisions. regulations to ensure that housing is pro­ Among these regulations are: transpor­ vided for every economic and social class tation control plans for selected metropol­ in its region. itan areas, indirect source review, new In 1975, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court source performance standards, and pre­ of Appeals ruled that the community vention of significant deterioration. growth control ordinance adopted by the The 1972 amendments to the Federal City of Petaluma, California, was legal. Water Pollution Control Act are also The three-member court declared unani­ playing significant roles. Two examples mously that: "the concept of public wel­ are Section 208 which deals with areawide fare is sufficiently broad to uphold Peta- waste treatment and water management luma's desire to preserve its small-town planning, and Section 402—the National character, its open spaces and low density Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. of population and to grow at an orderly These amendments will influence finan­ and deliberate pace." This decision re­ cial and locational considerations made versed an earlier U.S. District Court de­ by the public and private sectors. cision which had held that the ordinance Implementation of the Coastal Zone placed unconstitutional restrictions on Management Act of 1972 has proceeded the right to travel. under the administration of the Depart­ Also in 1975, the Oregon Supreme ment of Commerce. The act provides in­ Court ruled, in the case of Baker v. City centives to the 30 coastal States (including of Milwaukie, that zoning ordinances the Great Lakes States) to establish a man­ must conform to comprehensive plans, agement program in the coastal area to even if the plan was adopted subsequent achieve wise use of their land and water to the ordinance. This decision once more resources. All 30 of the States have begun raises the issue of whether a comprehen­ development of such programs. In 1975 sive plan is a guide for the future or is Washington State became the first State permanent and legislative in nature as the to receive federal approval of its manage­ Oregon court ruled. ment program. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 477

TABLE 1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REORGANIZATIONS, 1967-74*

Slate Year Type of agency adopted Type of reorganization Minnesota 1967 Little EPA Environmentally specific Superagency Overall executive Wisconsin Umbrella Agency (a) Overall executive California 1968 Superagency Overall executive Delaware 1969 Little EPA (b) Overall executive Florida Health Department (c) Overall executive Maryland Superagency (d) Overall executive Massachusetts Little EPA Environmentally specific Oregon Superagency Overall executive Vernaont Illinois 1970 Little EPA Environmentally specific New Jersey Superagency Environmentally specific New York..! Superagency Environmentally specific Pennsylvania * Superagency Environmentally specific Washington Superagency Environmentally specific Alaska 1971 Superagency Environmentally specific Arkansas Little EPA Overall executive Connecticut Superagency Environmentally specific Maine Little EPA Overall executive Montana Health Department Overall executive Nebraska Little EPA Environmentally specific New Mexico Little EPA Environmentally specific North Carolina Superagency Overall executive Georgia. 1972 Superagency Overall executive Idaho Health Department (e) Overall executive Iowa Little EPA Environmentally specific Ohio Little EPA Environmentally specific Kentucky 1973 Superagency Overall executive Michigan Superagency Environmentally specific South Dakota Little EPA Overall executive Wyoming Little EPA Environmentally specific Missouri 1974 Superagency Overall executive South Carolina Health Department Environmentally specific •eolorado (1968), Utah (1969), Louisiana (1972), and Arizona (d) In 1969, reorganization established the Executive Office of (1974) had reorganization activities within their health depart­ Environmental Affairs as one of 10 umbrella agencies into which ments which changed the internal relationships of their environ­ all existing executive departments and agencies were eventually mental programs. to be merged. Under this plan, departments and agencies were (a) California created the Resources Agency as a special to retain their separate identities but were to be subject to the umbrella agency, with only limited coordination powers. Indi­ policy and coordinative authority of the heads of the umbrella vidual units assigned to this agency continued to exercise con­ agencies, including budgetary review and approval. In 1971 siderable autonomy. legislation was enacted placing all conservation programs, the (b) In 1975, Florida carried out a second reorganization water quality and coastal zone management programs, and limited solely to health and environmental programs. Its pollu­ several other miscellaneous functions under the Executive tion control agency remains essentially a Little EPA. The major Office of Environmental Affairs; the State's air quality and solid action taken was the consolidation of all water programs (in­ waste management programs remained in the state health de­ cluding water supply, potable water, and dredge and fill regula­ partment. In 1975, the Executive Office of Environmental tion) in a new Department of Environmental Regulation, which Affairs was further reorganized by adding these two programs as superseded the Department of Pollution Control. well as all of the State's agricultural programs to its jurisdiction. (c) Reorganization involved the state health or human re­ This umbrella agency has been treated here as an environmental sources department, which already had responsibility for en­ superagency because it does exercise strong control over each of vironmental programs. The reorganization did not entail any its five constituent agencies. creation of a new environmental department or agency or the (e) In addition, Idaho has an Office of Environmental Control transfer of these environmental functions to another agency, within the Governor's Office (created in 1970), which has overall although intraorganizational changes may have taken place coordinative responsibility for environmental programs. within the health department 478 THE BOOK OF THE STATES TABLE 2 STATE LAND USE PROGRAMS*

Statewide Coastal Wetlands Designation Differential Floodplain land use zone manage- manage- of critical assessment manage- Surface State program (a) mentih) ment{c) areas{A) laws(,e) mentd) mining(g)

Alabama Alaska 2 2 Arizona 2 1 Arkansas 1 • 2,3 California 2 3 • 1 Colorado 1 Connecticut 2 2 • Delaware 2 • 1 Florida 1,2.3 1.3 2 Georgia 2 • 2.3

Hawaii 1,2 1 Idaho 3 1 Illinois 2.3 Indiana 2 2.3 Iowa 2.3 Kansas 2.3 Kentucky 2.3 Louisiana Maine 1,2,3 • • • 2 Maryland 2 • • • 2.3 Massachusetts • • Michigan • • Minnesota 2 • • Mississippi • • Missouri • 1 Montana 2,3 • 2 • 2,3 Nebraska 3 2 • Nevada 2,3 • 2 New Hampshire 2,3 New Jersey 2

New Mexico 2 1 New York 1,2 2 North Carolina 2 2 North Dakota 1 Ohio.... 2

Oklahoma 1 Oregon 2,3 2 Pennsylvania 2 Rhode Island 2. 2 South Carolina 2

South Dakota 2 Tennessee 2,3 Texas 1 Utah 2 2 Vermont 1,2 1

Virginia 3 2,3 Washington 2 2 West Virginia 2,3 Wisconsin 2 1 Wyoming 2,3 2

•Indications that a State has a program in one of the above (e) State has adopted tax measure which is designed to give categories does not constitute an evaluation of the effectiveness property tax relief to owners of agricultural or open space lands. of the program, nor does it indicate that the program is based on 1. Preferential Assessment Program—Assessment of eligible specific enabling legislation. land is based upon a selected formula, which is usually use-value. (a) Type of program. 2. Deferred Taxation—Assessment of eligible land is based 1. State has authority to require permits for certain types of upon a selected formula, which is usually use-value and provides development. for a sanction, usually the payment of back taxes, if the land is 2. State-established mechanism to coordinate state land use converted to a noneligible use. related problems. 3. Restrictive Agreements—Eligible land is assessed at Its 3. State requires local governments to establish a mechanism use-value, with a requirement that the owner sign a contract, for land use planning (e.g., zoning, comprehensive plan, plan­ and a sanction, usually the payment of back taxes if the owner ning commission). violates the terms of the agreement. (b) State is participating in coastal zone management pro­ (f) State has legislation allowing regulation of floodplains. gram authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. (g) State regulations of surface mining. (c) State has authority to plan or review local plans or the 1. State has structural authority. ability to control land use in the wetlands. 2. Preferential Assessment Program—Assessments of eligible (d) State has established rules, or is in the process of estab­ land is based upon a selected foi:mula, which is usually use-value. lishing rules, regulations, and guidelines for the identification 3. Deferred Taxation—Assessments of eligible land is based and designation of areas of critical state concern (e.g., environ­ upon a selected formula, which is usually use-value and provides mentally fragile areas, areas of historical significance). for a sanction, usually the payment of back taxes, if the land is converted to a noneligible use. OUTDOOR RECREATION

BY WILLIAM K. WIGHT* '

URING 1974-75, state park, systems were forced to cut back in the areas of throughout the Nation were chal­ travel and transportation. Many States, D lenged to find new alternatives to such as Maine and New York, resorted to deal with continuing economic problems. cutting back in their overall operations, At a time when public demand for recrea­ closing parks, or turning over areas to the tional opportunities was increasing, state National Park Service or to local park de­ park directors were faced with either no- partments. growth budgets or budget reductions. De­ Others such as California, Idaho, and spite such problems, there was expansion Maine, set up park foundations to raise in several areas of state park operations funds. Such foundations offer tax breaks and programming. to citizens in return for donations to be used for park and open space purposes. INFLATION AND BUDGETARY RESTRICTTIONS Many States have adopted a "wait and Like most other governmental agencies, see" attitude toward the more traditional state park departments were hit by the method of raising funds for environmen­ country's economic crunch—a combina­ tal-recreational concerns through bond tion of high inflation coupled with de­ issues. Recent defeats of such bond issues creased revenue. Confronted with this have persuaded States to put off new ones deficit financial situation, many States, for the time being, hoping for a change such as Michigan and Vermont, called for in public attitudes. Notable bond issues in no-growth budgets in fiscal year 1976. the recent past include a |240 million Other States experienced overall budget bond issue in Florida (1972), and a $40 cuts, ranging from a 3 percent cut in Mis­ million bond issue in Washington (1972). souri to a 15 percent cut in Massachusetts. In 1974, Louisiana passed a $113 million At the same time, nearly one half of the general obligation bond issue. States were handed new responsibilities in Another form of financial assistance, the form of land acquisitions and pro­ the Land and Water Conservation Fund gram expansion. Massachusetts acquired (LWCF), is currently under review by two new park areas, Maine gained nine, Congress. A move to increase the LWCF Missouri gained six, and Delaware added to $1 billion has been approved by the one new park. Increased acreage through Senate and is under consideration in the donations, gifts, and legislative mandate House of Representatives. Many States often was not accompanied by the neces­ feel that the fund, traditionally used only sary funds for development, operation, for capital expenditures, should be used and maintenance. for operation and maintenance expendi­ Expansion in the area of programming tures. was evident in such States as Rhode Is­ land, with its Ft. Adams Restoration Proj­ LEGISLATION ect; Florida, with its.Pioneer Cow Camp; Significant legislation affecting state and Alabama, with its Oak Mountain park operations has been initiated since State Park. 1973, especially in the area of trails. Fol­ States took different approaches in deal­ lowing the lead of such States as Oregon ing with financial problems. Most States and Wisconsin, 10 States currently have some sort of trails legislation. In 1974 *Mr. Wight is Director, Division of Parks and alone, 61 bills concerning trails were in­ Recreation, Missouri Department of Natural Re- troduced across the country. Development of trails has been expanded to include 479 480 THE BOOK OF THE STATES equestrian, bicycle, and hiking trails, with Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Ken­ some States, such as Missouri and Wiscon­ tucky has recently converted one of its sin, active in pursuing the use of aban­ oldest resorts to a year-round tennis com­ doned railroad rights of way. Also promi­ plex. The new resorts have been estab­ nent in the area of legislation is the lished with an eye toward stimulation preservation in Kansas of a system of nat­ of economic growth and development, ural areas. Such natural areas would be rather than for competition with existing protected by law from commercial devel­ commercial interests. Also, opinions vary opment. as to whether the resorts should be state- One of the problem areas in legislation operated, as in West Virginia, or con­ involves the increased use of all-terrain tracted to a concessionaire, as in Ohio, or vehicles (ATVs). While some States have both, as is the case in Alabama. been reluctant to allow ATVs in state parks, other States, notably Delaware and MANPOWER Michigan, have developed parks specif­ Many States have utilized the Compre­ ically for their use. South Dakota has in­ hensive Education and Training Act stituted a snowmobile lease program. (CETA), a federal economic recovery pro­ gram, in dealing with their manpower EXPANDED PROGRAMMING problems. The Youth Conservation Programming was expanded through­ Corps, a federal employment program out the country in several important aimed at educating young people in the areas. Due to the recent surge of reorga­ conservation of our natural heritage, has nization of many state governments, some been expanded. In one State, Missouri, state park systems have been merged with the program was expanded from one natural resources or environmental agen­ state park in 1974 to nine state parks in cies. This, in turn, has resulted in a trend 1975. In addition, many States are now toward environmental education through venturing into the areas of attracting col­ state parks. Michigan has been a leader lege interns and volunteers. in this area. Also, Indiana has experi­ enced success with statewide television FUTURE DIRECTIONS presentations on natural history inter­ Without doubt, the largest single event pretation. An increased amount of leisure in the near future will be the U.S. Bicen­ time has prompted Ohio to develop work­ tennial. While it will affect States on the shops on the wise use of leisure time. East Coast more than others, its effects Still another area of expansion has will undoubtedly be felt in state park been in the field of recreation program­ systems throughout the country. Most ming. Ohio's "rent-a-camp" program, States have developed bicentennial pro­ whereby tents, cots, stoves, etc., are rented grams along historic lines, as is the case to visitors for $7 a night, has proved suc­ in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and cessful. Ohio also sponsors traveling pro­ Rhode Island. grams involving Indian ceremonies, Other future trends will include a move music, and drama. So far the programs away from traditional preservation of have been attended by some 750,000 peo­ open space areas and toward acquisition ple. and development of urban recreational In the area of special recreational areas. Such acquisition and development events, Missouri has increased its schedule has already begun in California, Mich­ over a broad spectrum, including annual igan, and New York. events such as music and crafts festivals The concept of computerized reserva­ and sailing regattas. tion systems which initially excited many Related to the area of programming is States has encountered problems, notably the development of new resort parks. in Michigan, Mississippi, and Pennsyl­ While this concept is well known in States vania. Currently, the only States still such as Kentucky and Oklahoma, it is using the computer reservation system are now spreading to Alabama, Arkansas, California, New York, and Virginia. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 481 STATE PARK ATTENDANCE, AREAS, AND ACREAGES, 1975*

Total Total Total number of number of State Administrative agency attendance areas (a) acres Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources Div. of Parks S,477,027(b) 19 45,014 Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources l,040.108(c) 64 1,177,315 Div. of Parks 1.406,431(c) 11 24,000 Arizona Arizona State Parks Board Arkansas Dept. of Parks and Tourism 3,236,984(c) 34 26,717 Parks Div. California Resource Agency 43,762.748(b) 220 910,000 Dept. of Parks and Recreation Colorado Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks Div. of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 3,664,971(d) 25 151,200 Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection Parks and Recreation Unit 7,894,206(d) 90 30,961 Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Parks, Recreation and Forestry 3,173,066(c) 9 8,117 Florida Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Recreation and Parks 11,084,422 (c) 114 283,061 Georg>ia Dept. of Natural Resources Parks and Historical Sites Division 13,110,626(c) 39 39,741 Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources 12,907,000(b) S3 16,629 Div. of State Parks l,914,253(b) 18 29,315 Idaho Idaho Dept. of Parks Illinois. Dept. of Conservation 22,784,139(d) 90 80,188 Div. of Parks Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources 6,452,743(d) 20 64,819 Div. of State Parks Iowa State Conservation Commission Div. of Lands and Waters 12,163,603(d) 113 47,402 Kansas Kansas State Park and Resources Authority, S,047,466(d) 21 28,068 Kansas State Historical Society 27,578,109(d) 43 40,202 Kentucky Dept. of Parks S,28S,336(d) 31 14.360 Louisiana State Parks and Recreation'Commission Maine Maine Dept. of Conservation 1.817,836(d) 41 57,411 Bureau of Parks and Recreation Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources 7,08S.305(c) 36 72,652 Maryland Park Service Massachusetts.... Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Forests and Parks 8,68S,034(c) 112 280,000 Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Parks Div. 19,485,924(d) 93 220,761 Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources 6,868,479(e) 82 168,556 Div. of Parks and Recreation 4,500,000(d) 21 15,655 Mississippi Mississippi Park Commission Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources 9,971,0S5(d) 60 79.065 Div. of Parks and Recreation Montana;:? Dept. of Fish and Game N.A. 49 20,441 Recreation and Parks Div. Nebraska Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Bureau of State Parks 2,869,556(d) 90 16,000 Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources Nevada State Park System 1,631,467 (d) 16 135,000 New Hampshire... Dept. of Resources and Economic Development Div. of Parks 3.816,097(d) 48 66,918 New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection Div. of Parks and Forestry 4,447,881 (c) 40 247,696 New Mexico State Park and Recreation Commission 5,609,663(d) 30 71,391 482 THE BOOK OF THE STATES STATE PARK ATTENDANCE, AREAS, AND ACREAGES, 1975*-Concluded

Total Total Total number of number of State Administrative agency attendance areas(a) acres New York Executive Dept. OflSce of Parks and Recreation 46,987.000(d) 144 242.129 North Carolina Dept. of Natural and Ek:onomlc Resources 35 108,000 Div. of State Parks 2.6S8,772(d) 20 14,378 North Dakota North Dakota Park Service 793,2S2(d)

Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources 61 , 167,145 Div. of Parks and Recreation 39.501.759(c) Oklahoma Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Dept. 88 91,000 Div. of Parks 16,129,497(c) Oregon State Dept. of Transportation State Highway Div. Parks and Recreation Branch 25,209,167(b) 54 89,792 Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources Bureau of State Parks 31,819,632(d) 119 301,000 Rhode Island Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Parks and Recreation 7,000,000(c) 90 10,000 South Carolina.... Dept. of Parks. Recreation and Tourism Div. of State Parks and Recreation 10,200,68S(c) 40 59,621 South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks Div. of Parks and Recreation Custer State Park 4,097,500(d) 41 86,154 Tennessee Dept. of Conservation Div. of State Parks 13,99S,S36(c) 26 83,548 Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Parks Div. Administration 13,489,395(b) 80 129,000 Utah Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Parks and Recreation 2,826,601 (d) 43 56,258 Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation Dept. of Forests and Parks 911,869(d) 41 98,337 Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development 20 42,415 Div. of Parks 2,643,925(d) 171 79,233 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 29,414,092(c)

West Virginia Dept. of Natural Resources 34 65,861 Div. of Parks and Recreation 5,055,707(b) Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Div. of Conservation Bureau of Parks and Recreation 7,501,951 (d) 52 52,518 Wyoming Wyoming Recreation Commission . 685,972(d) 18 78,191

*Source: Division of Parks and Recreation, Missouri Depart- (b) For fiscal year 1974. ment of Natural Resources. (c) For fiscal year 1975. N.A.—Not available. (d) For calendar year 1974. (a) Number of areas as defined in this table may include any (e) For calendar year 1973. recreational facility from a single swimming pool to a large game preserve. STATE AGRICULTURE

BY WM. STAN WOOD CATH AND JAMES M. RIDENOUR*

EPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE have as possible. The ideal system is one in evolved over the years as individual which States retain a large measure of D agencies within the framework of control over local issues while stiir being state government. The misconception consistent in enforcing a uniform na­ that agriculture departments are the gov­ tional pattern of standards. ernmental arm of a small and special in­ terest group fades when one considers the CONSUMER BENEFITS thousands of inspections agricultural em­ A specific benefit to the consumer is the ployees perform daily in assuring the con­ passage of the federal Wholesome Meat sumer of wholesome food products. The Act. It has provided for minimum stan- establishment and enforcement of weights 'dards to be enforced in all States in re­ and measures standards and inspection of gards to antemortem and postmortem in­ fertilizers, pesticides, medicated feeds, spections, reinspection, and sanitation of seeds, and food products assure the con­ all meat and meat food products. Forty sumer of the value of his purchase. States were certified by the Secretary of Cooperation between the States and the Agriculture as having programs at least U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) equal to the federal program and 10 dates back to 1884, when an act was passea States had turned over this duty to fed­ that provided for investigations of certain eral inspection by the USDA. Because of cattle diseases. Since that time, the co­ the difficulty States are now encountering operative role between the federal govern­ in appropriating funds sufficient to cover ment and the States has become firmly their share of the costs of this program, established. By 1917 the first formal co­ there are now 37 States involved in meat operative agreement for estimating crop inspection. As the demand for state funds and livestock statistics was made between continues, it seems likely that others will USDA and Wisconsin. This followed turn their meat inspection responsibilities many years of informal working relation­ over to the federal government. ships between the States and USDA in The inspection of poultry products and such matters. By 1922 authorization was shell and processed eggs also are main­ expanded to provide shipping point tained under the same rigid standards as grading of fruits and vegetables to the that for red meat. These enforcement pro­ USDA; however, funds were not made cedures are a result of the passage of the available to carry out the work and thus Wholesome Poultry Products Act and the cooperative agreements were made with Wholesome Egg Products Inspection Act. the States. To this day, the majority of Closely tied with the consumer services shipping point inspections are carried out program are the enforcement activities in by state personnel. the weights and measures area. Ninety In some cases, the primary financial re­ percent of the state agricultural agencies sponsibility for program funding lies with are involved in assuring the public of the the federal government; in others, the accuracy of weights, measures, and counts States provide more of the funding and in their day-to-day commercial transac­ personnel. In all cases, the attempt is tions. made to preserve as much state autonomy The eradication and suppression of ani­ mal disease is an important function of all *Mr. Cath is Executive Secretary of the Na­ state agricultural agencies. Some pro­ tional Association of State Departments of Agri­ culture. Mr. Ridenour is Director of State Services grams are aimed specifically at diseases for the Council of State Governments. transmissible to humans (such as tuber- 483 484 THE BOOK OF THE STATES. culosis and brucellosis of dairy cattle) and the administrator of EPA for the training, others are aimed at diseases which pose certification, and licensing of all users of a serious and definite threat to the general pesticides within their States. Georgia and health and welfare of all livestock such Iowa have been certified and other States as hog cholera, hoof and mouth disease likely will follow in the near future. of cattle, and African swine fever. State The seed laws for most States assure and federal veterinarians maintain a con­ (Quality by determining levels of germina­ stant surveillance of these diseases. tion and percentages of noxious weed State plant, insect disease, and weed seeds present. Some States also cooperate laws have been enacted to protect the with seed-growing organizations by as­ horticulture of specific regions and pre­ sisting in the certified seed programs vent the spread of a number of serious dis­ through testing of grower seed stock and eases, insects, and noxious weeds to other determining varietal purity and freedom sections. Most agricultural pests are of for­ from contamination. eign origin and the scope of the problem The inspection of feed for animal use has enlarged in recent years with a tre­ involves determination of levels of medi­ mendous increase in world tourism and cation and presence of bacterial contam­ expanding foreign trade. Plant industry ination, such as salmonella, in the feed. divisions of state departments of agricul­ Fertilizer and pesticide regulations in ture cooperate with federal agencies in many States require registration of each enforcing state and federal quarantines product and laboratory analysis of its on the movement of products between in­ composition in order to provide growers fested and noninfested areas as well as and consumers a product that meets the assisting with import inspections at U.S. standards claioned for the materials. ports of entry. Some economic pests of These regulations also provide statistical foreign origin now established in the data on the use of these products within States are cereal leaf beetle of grains, the the States. The pesticide residue analysis golden nematode of potatoes, Japanese work conducted by state agricultural lab­ beetle on horticultural crops, and the oratories involves the detection of resi­ witch-weed parasite of com. dues on food products in order to ensure that food items meet tolerance require­ AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ments as established by the Food and Most state departments of agriculture Drug Administration. regulate the use of economic poisons by licensing commercial applicators, issuing PROMOTION ACTIVITIES dealers licenses or permits, and restrict­ The balance of trade problems that we ing or prohibiting the use of certain face in this Nation appears destined for chemicals. The passage in 1972 of the further deterioration by our increased de­ federal Environmental Pesticide Coiitrol pendence on foreign fuel supply. The one Act gives the federal Environmental Pro­ bright spot in our trade picture has been tection Agency (EPA) the authority to agricultural products. In order to more establish controls and patterns of use for efficiently utilize marketing capabilities, pesticides nationally. The act provides 12 midwestern state agriculture depart­ EPA with the capability to assist state de­ ments have incorporated under the name partments of agriculture in carrying out of Mid-American-International Agri- their responsibilities under these new na­ Trade Council (MIATCO). Other simi­ tional standards. lar incorporations of state departments of The recent amendments to the federal agriculture in foreign market develop­ Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide ment include North Carolina, South Car­ Act have set rigid standards for the use of olina, Virginia, and Maryland (Atlantic agricultural chemicals and placed the re­ International Marketing); Washington, sponsibility for enforcing these standards Oregon, Idaho, and Montana (Pacific in EPA. Designated lead state agencies Northwest International Trade); and the such as departments of agriculture are New England States plus New York, New preparing and submitting state plans to Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware (East- MAJOR STATE SERVICES 485 em States Agriculture and Food Export ment, the State, for the most part, draws Council). A recent addition to these ex­ samples and submits them to the state port efforts is (SUSTA) Southern U.S. seed laboratory and reports any apparent Trade Association. violations to the Federal Seed Act admin­ The importance of U.S. agricultural istrators. exports to our Nation's prosperity can be Forty-four States are receiving match­ best noted by the fact that these exports ing funds under provisions of Title 2 of have increased from |3 billion in 1955 to the Marketing Act of 1946. The intent of 121.3 billion in 1974. This resulted in an the act is to improve the efficiency and agricultural trade surplus in 1974 of $11.8 effectiveness of the National Marketing billion, which put the total U.S. trade System by providing federal funds to balance ahead by $2.4 billion, the first finance up to one half the cost of service such trade surplus since 1971. In addition, projects which assist growers and market­ these exports amounted to 25 percent of ing agencies to improve the quality, trade, total U.S. exports in 1974, and created and consumer acceptance for agricultural close to 1 million jobs. products; to increase the efficiency and effectiveness in getting these products to STATE-USDA PROGRAMS the consumer; and to strengthen the Four hundred different cooperative marketing and bargaining position of agreements are in effect with USDA's producers. The Packers and Stockyards Marketing and Consumer Services. The Administration of the USDA and depart­ Service conducts regulatory programs in ments of agriculture in 45 States assist animal health and plant pest control each other in enforcement of their respec­ work. Cooperative programs are con­ tive livestock and poultry licensing, regis­ ducted with all States, Puerto Rico, and tration, and bonding laws by providing the Virgin Islands to control and eradi­ ownership volume and operational infor­ cate various diseases and plant pests. The mation to each other, including the ex­ Animal and Plant Health Inspection change of financial audit information. Service (APHIS) conducts these pro­ Each agency remains fully and exclusively grams, establishes goals, and keeps all responsible for enforcement of its own States informed of progress toward eradi­ statutes and no funds are exchanged. cation and encourages uniform proce­ Programs covering the selection and dures in various States. The Plant Pro­ dissemination of agricultural estimates tection and Quarantine Division of are conducted in 47 States with the Statis­ APHIS conducts programs designed to tical Reporting Service (SRS) of the prevent the introduction of plant pests USDA. All agreements between SRS and not known to occur or be widely dis­ the States provide for the operation of a tributed in the United States. joint office under the supervision of the The Virus-Serum Toxic Act admin­ state statistician, who is a federal em­ istered by the APHIS Veterinary Bio- ployee. The cooperative state agency in logics Division prohibits interstate com­ most cases is a state department of agri­ merce in worthless, contaminated, and culture and, in a few States, it is a branch harmful veterinary biologies. The Mar­ of the state university. keting and Consumer Services of USDA also is responsible for programs involving STATE-FDA PROGRAMS consumer protection marketing services State departments of agriculture are en­ and marketing regulatory programs. gaged in a continuing program with the Cooperative market news programs are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in conducted in 43 States covered by 62 in­ the establishment of federal-state partner­ dividual agreements. Commodities cov­ ships which will give the American con­ ered include fruits and vegetables, dairy sumer better protection from unsafe and poultry, livestock, grain, and tobacco. foods, drugs, cosmetics, devices, and haz­ In the administration of the Federal Seed ardous household products. Generally Act, one standard cooperative agreement speaking, programs administered by state is in effect in all States. Under this agree­ departments of agriculture with FDA- 486 THE BOOK OF THE STATES type responsibilities involve various as­ portation systems have drawn state de­ pects of food and drug laws dealing with partments of agriculture to these broad analysis of bakery products, soft drinks, fields. The threatening world food short­ candy and sugar products, fluid milk, ages and the resulting increase in food manufactured milk products, eggs and prices have alarmed the public. An in­ egg products, canned and frozen foods, creasingly disturbing balance of payments seafood products, animal feeds, drugs problem has caused the Nation to look to (human and veterinary), cosmetics, de­ the farmer to increase his production. To vices, and hazardous household sub­ meet this challenge, the farmer will need stances. State departments of agriculture help, however, in assuring that there will also have similar responsibilities for the continue to be land to farm. Realizing determination of additives and residues in this, many state agricultural agencies are conjunction with work done in this area becoming increasingly active in land use by the FDA. planning. There are various proposals that speak to the problem of preserving TRENDS prime agricultural land, such as tax in­ In addition to the activities considered centive proposals as they relate to farm­ traditional in state agricultural agencies, land assessment. Some States are consider­ there are some important trends to be ing the possibility of purchasing the de­ considered. National concern with the velopment rights of the farmer in order to environment, world food shortages, food lock farmlands into continuing agricul­ pricing, energy needs, and domestic trans­ tural production. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 487 FARM ACREAGE AND INCOME PER FARM—1974*

Farms Realized Realized Total Number Total gross income net income net income State of farms acreage per farm per farm per farm Alabama 78,000 14.600,000 $17,340 $ 2,396 $ 3,390 Alaska (a) 310 1,710,000 23,706 2,268 1,861 Arizona 5,900 38,400,000 212.791 59,705 57,256 Arkansas 69,000 17,300,000 32,471 7,226 . 9.427 California 63,000 36,100.000 142,270 40,692 43,382 Colorado 29,500 39,900,000 76,770 18,944 16,756 Connecticut 4,400 540,000 53,210 8,822 12,012 Delaware 3,600 698,000 78,565 23,254 23,189 Florida 34,000 14,500,000 69,475 22,284 25,249 Georgia 75,000 17,000,000 30,410 6,838 7,978 Hawaii 4,300 2.300,000 153.941 96,942 97,455 Idaho 27,200 15,500,000 57.223 20,131 22,219 Illinois 126,000 29,200,000 48,997 13,364 9,923 Indiana 106,000 17,500,000 32,035 8,499 5,161 Iowa 138,000 34.300,000 55,493 14,548 8,727 Kansas 83,000 49,900,000 50,434 14,614 11,381 Kentucky 126,000 16.200,000 13,727 3,812 5,072 Louisiana 48,000 11,800,000 30.792 10,844 11,814 Maine 7,600 1,710,000 62,275 20.644 27,980 Maryland 17,800 2,955,000 38,938 8,096 7.648 Massachusetts 5,800 710,000 38,579 6,668 7',885 Michigan 80,000 12,300,000 24,403 7,503 8,200 Minnesota 118,000 30,600.000 41,098 16,933 14.851 Mississippi 85,000 17,200,000 19,187 4,074 4,530 Missouri 139,000 32,800,000 21.760 4,441 3,694 Montana 24,600 62,500,000 52,608 17,150 28,219 Nebraska 69,000 48,100,000 63,713 17,510 9,870 Nevada 2,000 9,000,000 75,544 16.159 15,054 New Hampshire 2.600 560,000 31,762 6,421 6,760 New Jersey 8,000 1,030.000 49,146 11,728 12,319 New Mexico 11,800 47,200.000 53,198 6.411 7,953 New York 57,000 11,200,000 30,474 4,883 6,450 North Carolina 135,000 14,000,000 21,673 7,907 8,058 North Dakota 41,500 41,700,000 65,225 33,547 27,131 Ohio 117,000 17.400.000 24,216 5,050 5,524 Oklahoma 87,000 36,900.000 24,384 3,292 4,572 Oregon 32,500 19,600,000 37,320 12,240 12,555 Pennsylvania 71,000 9.900,000 25,373 4,674 5,734 Rhode Island 680 65,000 41,781 9.371 9,737 South Carolina 47,000 7.800.000 19,671 5,086 5,170 South Dakota 43,500 45,500,000 50,996 18.729 13,157 Tennessee 125,000 15,400,000 9,704 974 1,876 Texas 209,000 141,800,000 30,315 5,074 3,892 Utah 12,600 13,000,000 27,927 5,213 6,571 Vermont 6,600 1.860,000 36,464 6,359 6,455 Virginia 73.000 11.100,000 15,853 3.945 4,331 Washington 40,000 16,500,000 52,709 21.798 22.719 West Virginia 26,500 4,850,000 7.227 634 1.027 Wisconsin 105,000 19,600,000 25,886 6,765 7,145 Wyoming 8,200 35,500,000 50,026 6,140 8,239 Total 2.830.490 1,087,788,000 $35,722. $ 9,789 $ 9,211 *Source: Economic Research Service and Statistical Reporting (a) Exclusive of grazing land leased from the U.S. govern­ Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture. ment, Alaska farmland totals about 70.000 acres. STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FUNCTIONS*

Regulatory functions

A dministration Auditing BoTiding Enforcement Service functions

S =5 o :- ° V? « -. -2 ^ •s 6 !5

•£ *• •§ •§ ill State or other jurisdiction ^ g ^ si Hi! .... • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . (a) • • • • • • • • • • • • .. •*• . (b) • • • • • • • . . (c) • • • • • • • • • •*• • . • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. •- • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • . • • • • • • • • • • • .. -k .... • . • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •k .... • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • if • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • Illinois • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. * '.'. (•(1 ) (d) • • • • • • .... • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .... • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ir -k .... • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. •*• • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • : . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * .... • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. * • . • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • .- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • North Carolina •*• .. .. • .. ..•....•••••••••••••••••• North Dakota ^ • .. • • Ohio • .. • • • •..••..• • • .. • • Oklahoma if • • ..•....••••••••••..•••••..• ..••.-••••••••..•..••••••• Oregon -^ • • • • • ..•.. .. ••••••••••••.. ••.. • Pennsylvania TI^ • .. ••••••••••....*••• • Rhode Island ic (e) .. • • • • • South Carolina ir • .. • ..•..•....•..• • • ••••••..•..•••• South Dakota -AT. • .. • .. .. •••.. •••••••••••.. ••••.. • Tennessee iic • • • .. Texas * .. .. • .. • ....•• ••••••••••••••••• Utah • • • • ...... ••.. •.. ••.. .. •.. .. •.. ••.. ••.. • Vermont .. -*• .. • • • • • • • • •...••••••••..• S5 Virginia • • ••••... • . .••••••.. ••••••*•••.. ••••••••••.. ••.. •••. •

Cash receipts from farming Farm income (in thousands of dollars) {in millions of dollars) Total Realized Farm Net net Livestock gross produc- change in farm and Government farm tion farm income State products Crops payments Total income expenses inventories (a) Alabama $ 679,000 $ 511,000 $ 9,220 ; 1,199,220 $ 1,352.5 $ 1,165.7 77.5 264.4 Alaska 4,000 2,000 59 6,059 7.3 6.6 $ -0.1 0.6 Arizona 583,000 613,000 5,252 1,201,252 1,255.5 903.2 -14.4 337.8 Arkansas 827,000 1,260,000 7,417 2,094,417 2,240.5 1,741.9 151.9 650.4 California 2,788,000 5,863,000 18,285 8.669.285 8.963.0 6.399.4 169.4 2.733.0 Colorado 1,409,000 744,000 12,533 2,165,533 2,264.7 1,705.9 -64.6 494.3 Connecticut 125,000 88,000 505 213,505 234.1 195.3 14.0 52.9 Delaware 164,000 108,000 254 272,254 282.8 199.1 -0.2 83.5 Florida 549,000 1,695,000 12,548 2.256.548 2,362.2 1,604.5 100.8 858.5 Georgia 1,027,000 1,072,000 10,364 2,109,364 2,280.8 1.767.9 85.5 598.3 Hawaii 58,000 579,000 8,310 645.310 661.9 245.1 2.2 419.1 Idaho 411,000 1,043,000 11,151 1.465.151 1.556.5 1.008.9 56.8 604.4 Illinois 1,789.000 3,937,000 9,755 5.735.755 6,173.6 4,489.8 -433.6 1.250.2 Indiana 1,162,000 1,888,000 6,591 3,056,591 3,395.7 2,494.8 -353.8 547.1 Iowa 3,786,000 3,495,000 16,596 ' 7,297,596 7,658.0 5.650.4 -803.3 1.204.4 Kansas 1,835,000 2,140,000 22,457 3.997.457 4.186.0 2.973.1 -268.3 944.6 Kentucky 585,000 903,000 5,813 1.493,813 1,729.5 1,249.3 158.8 639.0 Louisiana 335,000 1.046,000 13,591 1,394.591 1,478.0 957.5 46.6 567.1 Maine 226,000 213,000 1,656 440,656 473.3 316.4 55.8 212.6 Maryland 369,000 253,000 1.023 623,023 693.1 549.0 -8.0 136.1 Massachusetts 105,000 96,000 487 201,487 223.8 185.1 7.1 45.7 Michigan 707.000 1,050,000 10.438 1,767,438 1,952.2 1,352.0 55.7 656.0 Minnesota 1.950.000 2,591,000 18,420 4,559,420 4,849.6 2,851.5 -245.7 1.752.4 Mississippi 602,000 873,000 7,944 1,482,944 1,630.9 1,284.7 38.8 385.0 Missouri 1.441.000 1,289,000 22,549 2.752.549 3,024.7 2,407.4 -103.8 513.5 Montana 430,000 760,000 14,998 1,204,998 1.294.1 872.2 272.3 694.2 Nebraska 2,265,000 1.964.000 20.970 4.249.970 4.396.2 3.188.1 -527.1 681.1 Nevada 101.000 35.000 305 136.305 151.1 118.8 -2.2 30.1 New Hampshire... 51.000 20.000 654 71.654 82.6 65.9 0.9 17.6 New Jersey 114.000 236.000 660 350.660 393.2 299.3 4.7 98.6 New Mexico 410.000 156.000 13.341 579.341 627.7 552.1 18.2 93.8 New York 1,026.000 506,000 6,003 1,538,003 1,737.0 1,458.7 89.3 367.6 North Carolina. . . 920,000 1,712,000 8,125 2,640,125 2,925.9 1.858.5 20.4 1.087.8 North Dakota 490,000 2,080,000 30,968 2.600.968 2.706.8 1,314.6 -266.3 1.126.0 Ohio 998,000 1,508,000 7,419 2,513,419 2,833.3 2.242.4 55.5 646.3 Oklahoma 1,117,000 830,000 14,355 1.961.355 2.121.4 1.835.1 111.4 397.8 Oregon 328,000 775,000 4,137 1.107.137 1,212.9 815.1 10.2 408.0 Pennsylvania 1.097.000 504,000 4,916 1,605,916 1,801.5 1,469.6 75.2 407.1 Rhode Island 12,000 14,000 63 26,063 28.4 22.0 0.2 6.6 South Carolina. .. 255,000 572,000 5,591 832,591 924.6 685.5 4.0 243.0 South Dakota 1,279,000 816,000 33,443 2,128,443 2,218.3 1,403.6 -242.4 572.3 Tennessee; 459,000 546,000 8,979 1,013,979 1,213.0 1,091.3 112.8 234.5 Texas 2,972,000 2,848,000 80.552 5,900,552 6.335.8 5,275.4 -247.0 813.4 Utah 220.000 101.000 2.946 323,946 351.9 286.2 17.1 82.8 Vermont 197,000 17,000 1,573 215.573 240.7 198.7 0.6 42.6 Virginia 453,000 519,000 7,825 979,825 1.157.3 869.3 28.1 316.1 Washington 458,000 1,525,000 9,829 1.992.829 2.108.4 1.236.4 36.8 908.8 West Virginia 100,000 43,000 1,496 144,496 191.5 174.7 10.4 27.2 Wisconsin 1.919.000 526,000 13,298 2,458,298 2,718.0 2,007.7 40.0 750.3 Wyoming 237,000 132,000 4,784 373,784 410.2 359.9 17.2 67.6 All States $41,424,000 $52,097,000 $530,448 $94,051,448 $101,112.0 $73,405.0 $-1,635.0 $26,072.0 *Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of (a) Of farm operators. Agriculture. ^ STATE FORESTRY ADMINISTRATION

BY H. F. SIEMERT*

VER ONE THIRD of the land area of the United States is today either GOALS OF FORESTRY O forested^ or in need of tree plant­ In all instances, the States have one ing, and since a part of these 767,661,000 common goal—to contribute to the spiral­ acres occurs in every State and represents ling need for more forest products and an important natural resource, all States services, broader recreational opportu­ are taking aggressive, active leadership nities, cleaner waters, increased wildlife roles in establishing full-scale multiple- values, and a quality environment. use management on these lands. The na­ The keynote to any successful state for­ ture and extent of these efforts vary due estry agency is "service." This includes to different legislative authorities, organi­ personal counsel to private landowners, zational structures, operating budgets, general information to the inquiring pub­ and resource characteristics. lic, management of state-owned lands, Nonindustrial private ownership of guidance to citizen groups, development forested lands in the United States is of statewide programs and organizations especially meaningful. While nationally (for fire and pest control, reforestation, this ownership class accounts for almost regulations, community forestry, etc.), 60 percent of all commercial forest land, and being a partner in related-resource in 30 States private landowners hold 80 endeavors. percent or more of this resource. Assist­ State foresters cooperate regularly and ing these 4 million landowners with the closely with "sister" agencies such as the protection and management of this re­ U.S. Forest Service through its many co­ source is a direct responsibility of the operative programs, the Soil Conserva­ state forester (see Table 1). tion Service, the Cooperative Extension How do the state forestry organizations Service, the Soil and Water Conservation vary? A few are direct parts of land-grant Districts, rural fire departments, and nu­ university extension systems. A few op­ merous special interest groups. Many erate as independent agencies under state States have formalized this cooperative commissions. Most, however, are parts of effort by creating state forestry planning broad, cabinet-level state departments committees comprised of key state-level which report directly to the Governor. forestry and conservation leaders who Most States rely primarily on state ap­ meet regularly to review internal forestry propriations for their financing. While all situations and to formulate workable so­ state forestry agencies participate in lutions to needs and problems. State for­ federal-aid programs on a reimbursable esters maintain an effective voice on the basis, some are not able to use these funds regional and national scenes by active in­ or any monies they generate internally for volvement in the National Association of their own direct usage. These monies State Foresters. usually go back to the state treasury and become a part of the state funds available STATE FORESTS for appropriation by the Legislature. Most state forestry organizations admin­ ister state-owned forest lands or provide technical assistance and, frequently, •Mr. Siemert, Supervisor of the Illinois Division equipment and supplies on other state- of Forestry, died December 15, 1975. owned or local public properties. State forested includes all areas, commercial and noncommercial, having 10 percent or more tree forest lands are usually managed under cover. the multiple-use concept which provides a 491 492 THE BOOK OF THE STATES whple range of forest and foi^est-related The most recent advance in rural fire benefits. Many of these areas also serve as protection is the federal funding of Title research areas and, occasionally, as a IV of the Rural Development Act. The watershed for public water supply. $3,500,000 appropriation in fiscal year The major large state forest holdings 1975 was distributed to the States so they are in Alaska, Michigan, Minnesota, New could issue 50 percent matching grants to York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, needy rural fire departments for training, with most of the timber-harvesting in specialized equipment, and the like. This terms of volume and receipts occurring program is expected to mushroom and in the western States. Latest data shows improve and broaden rural fire protec­ that well over 1 billion board feet is be­ tion programs by strengthening local ing harvested annually from these lands, rural fire-fighting capabilities. providing stumpage returns of close to |100 million. FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE Almost 60 percent of this Nation's com­ FOREST FIRE CONTROL mercial forest land is in private owner­ All States realize the importance of ship. These 4 million "small owners," i.e., protecting both forest and related lands those owning less than 500 acres, need from the ravages of wildfires and have both motivation and counselling to prop­ on-going programs. The U;S. Forest Serv­ erly manage their woodland holdings. ice, under Section 2 of the Clarke-McNary Technical forestry assistance is available, Act, helps with this effort through coop­ upon request, to these landowners erative reimbursements and technical as­ through state forestry organizations on an sistance. This federal-state effort is cur­ advisory and educational basis. rently undergoing a complete study to The U.S. Forest Service is a financial determine the magnitude and needs of and technical partner via the Cooperative this program as well as improved means Forest Management program. Counsel to distribute available federal monies. and guidance to landowners, loggers, and This information, ranging fro,m acreage processors include tree planting, timber- protected and recent fire history to esti­ stand improvement, more efficient har­ mated actual expenditures for protection, vesting, improved sawmilling methods, is shown in Table 2. Almost all forest and marketing assistance, and making forest field fires are still man-caused (over 85 management inventories and plans. State percent), with lightning-strikes occurring foresters, in many instances and where mainly in the western States. The Smokey available, encoiu-age landowners to secure Bear prevention campaign continues to the services of private consultants. Federal flourish. and state expenditures for this program State forestry departments are working in fiscal year 1974 are shown in Table 3. to update their tactics and equipment. A landmark piece of federal legislation More sophisticated machinery, chemical is the Agricultural and Consumer Protec­ retardants, "water-drops," infrared aerial tion Act of 1973. Title X of the act detection, use of space satellites, and includes a separately funded Forestry In­ specialized fire-weather forecasting are centives Program directed at small, non- just a few of the recent advances. industrial, private landowners. By pro­ Actual fire suppression, the key element viding up to 75 percent cost-share help, of any successful fire control program, is the productivity and output of these for­ also being solved. In several sectors of the ested acres is expected to increase as tree country, the States, the federal govern­ planting and timber-stand improvement ment, and several Canadian Provinces work are carried on. This production- have joined in formal compacts. This en­ oriented program provides for a greatly ables all concerned to pool equipment accelerated effort and is in addition to and manpower in times of fire emergency, the conventional Rural Environmental thus offsetting the inability of individual Conservation Program which provides States to fund fire programs at critical some cost-sharing funds for other forest emergency levels. benefits such as watershed, wildlife, and MAJOR STATE SERVICES 493 beauty, in addition to forest products. key ingredients in establishing self-sus­ Federal cost-share allotment and total taining, economic incentives for good for­ acres treated in fiscal 1974 by the Forestry est management. Over 40 States now have Incentives Program are given in Table 4. forest products utilization specialists on State forestry agencies are involved in their staffs to lead the way in providing planning, developing, and providing technical guidance in harvesting, process­ technical counsel for urban and rural ing, and marketing forest products. community forestry projects. Although Two recent specialized state-federal not yet federally funded, this urban- programs in this area are helping to initi­ forestry emphasis should grow rapidly. ate some new, needed directions. The Im­ proved Harvesting Program provided REFORESTATION $552,000 in fiscal year 1975 to 25 States Planting of trees and shrubs on sub- for specific improved utilization projects. marginal eroded lands for improving With special thrusts like: (1) improved existing forests and for windbreak and felling and skidding practices, (2) better shelterbelt purposes continues to be a mid-product recovery, (3) use of urban popular forestry effort. In fiscal year 1974, tree removals, (4) timber salvage, and (5) 42 state tree nurseries produced and increased timber availability, this pro­ shipped over 620 million seedlings and gram promises an estimated increase of transplants for use on 1.25 million state over 410 million board feet from trees and private acres. Another 106.6 million currently felled but not always fully or trees came from federal nurseries for use efficiently used. on 322,000 acres. Private landowners nor­ The Sawmill Improvement Program mally purchase these small plants at mini­ concentrates on securing increased lumber mal rates (usually below cost; frequently recovery from logs. In fiscal years 1974 subsidized up to 50 percent by state and and 1975, state expenditures in 37 States federal governments) to help put the 41 of $424,300 plus federal monies provided million acres of abused and idle land a total of $664,063 to allow analysis of 387 back into a stable and useful condition. mills and 62 follow-up evaluations. These Operating tree nurseries has become efforts have increased production as much specialized and greatly refined, emphasiz­ as 30 percent in certain mills with the ing establishment of seed orchards to as­ overall increase amounting to 7 percent. sure supplies of superior tree stock. The This has meant an increase of over 400 federal government has encouraged these million board feet of softwood lumber efforts with limited funds through Title with no increase of log input at the saw­ IV of the 1956 Agricultural Act. mill. These utilization improvements pro­ Many States have joined forces with vide significant quantities of needed other industrial and federal organizations lumber for housing and other purposes to assure growing large quantities of "su­ while at the same time improving the per seedlings" for future needs. The quality of the environment through re­ American Forestry Association's 10-year duction of waste. tree-planting project with commitment and involvement of many groups is a good FOREST PEST CONTROL example of this cooperative effort. Ex­ Protection of the Nation's timber re­ penditures for Title IV achievements are source from uncontrolled insect and dis­ shown in Table 3. ease attacks requires combining all avail­ Section 4 of the Clarke-McNary Act able forces to prevent, detect, and sup­ assists state nursery production by pro­ press these pests on all forest lands. Many viding monies for special projects, equip­ States now employ trained entomologists ment, and studies. Federal and state ex­ and pathologists. They also have devel­ penditures are shown in Table 3, oped regular surveillance and control programs and have utilized federal USE AND MARKETING PROGRAMS monies and counsel (via formal agree­ Having adequate markets and develop­ ments) to assist in suppressing epidemic ing efficient wood product operations are conditions (see Table 4). 494 THE BOOK OF THE STATES TABLE 1 FORESTED LAND AND STATE FORESTRY PERSONNEL, 1974*

Forested land Idle, open (in acres)' land State forestry personnel Total needing land Percent refor­ , -^ » area privately estation Total number Total number State (in acres) Total owned (in acres) permanent graduate personnel (a) forester positions Alabama 33,030,000 21,333,000 95 109.000 417 64 Alaska 365,500,000 119,000,000 .00.C 7 20.000 21 14 Arizona 73,000,000 21,000.000 4 11 7 Arkansas 33,468,000 18,207,000 84 2,666 445 40 California 100,091,000 16,828,000 48 1,252,000 3.206 109 Colorado 66,486,000 22,609,000 30 200,000 79 41 Connecticut 3,117,000 1,861,000 90 5,000 22 16 Delaware 1,000,000 392,000 90 200,000 IS S Florida 35,179,000 17,933,000 79 1,546,000 1.077 109 Georgia 37,380,000 25,253,000 93 1,402,000 863 121 Hawaii 4,110,000 1,048,000 54 100.000 85 18 Idaho 52,250,000 21,815,000 15 1.573,000 200 51 Illinois 35,795,000 3,871,000 94 2.000.000 84 35 Indiana 23,132,000 3,964,000 90 460.000 108 32 Iowa 35,869,000 2,609,000 98 648,000 35 18 Kansas 52,510,000 1,564,000 97 120,000 52 19 Kentucky 25,512,000 11,855,000 91 1,500.000 261 58 Louisiana 28,868,000 14,527,000 93 1.500.000 613 60 Maine 19,797,000 17,749,000 96 200.000 283 35 Maryland 6,319,000 2.963,000 90 275,000 172 42 Massachusetts 5,013,000 2,952,000 80 6,000 485 140 Michigan 36,492,000 19,373,000 66 3,305,000 478 101 Minnesota 51,033,000 19,047,000 44 1.861,000 345 167 Mississippi 30,538,000 16,580,000 90 2.000.000 534 122 Missouri 44.189,000 12.919.000 87 1.747.000 196 61 Montana. 93,600,000 28,093.000 23 599.000 83 45 Nebraska 47,169,000 976,000 93 165.000 16 13 Nevada 70,264,000 18,187,000 7 30,000 44 16 New Hampshire. 5,781,000 5,132,000 82 77 27 New Jersey 4,820,000 1,928,000 83 698.666 110 19 New Mexico 77,866,000 18,187,000 10 40.000 34 14 New York 30,636,000 17,170.000 79 1.270.000 440 115 North Carolina 31,302,000 20,160,000 92 2.300.000 575 100 North Dakota 45,400,000 460,000 93 5.000 18 7 Ohio 26,200,000 6,400,000 94 1.200,000 367 56 Oklahoma 43,819,000 8,581,000 92 1,750,000 153 IS Oregon 61,600,000 30,700,000 34 1,130.000 415 122 Pennsylvania 28,000,000 17,200,000 79 800.000 561 151 Rhode Island 671,000 434,000 92 26.000 54 6 South Carolina 19,366,000 12.493.000 92 800.000 639 77 South Dakota 48,983,000 2,169,000 27 102,000 39 24 Tennessee 26,500,000 12,800,000 90 1,000,000 1.185 54 Texas 171,000,000 24,669,000 93 785.000 356 49 Utah 52,540,000 4,665.000 20 403.000 42 IS Vermont 5,935,000 4,494.000 89 20.000 81 41 Virginia 25,496,000 16.389.000 90 245.000 415 117 Washington 42,665,000 22.893.000 48 727.000 1.095 294 West Virginia 15,401,000 10.562.000 89 1.500.000 141 55 Wisconsin 35,000,000 14.500.000 68 3.267.000 295 143 Wyoming 62,343,000 10.085.000 18 189.000 18 9 Total 2,272,035,000 726.579.000 53 41.082,000 17.340 3.069 *Source: National Association of State Foresters, (a) On state payrolls and/or under direct control, permanent full- and part-time (no seasonal). MAJOR STATE SERVICES 495

TABLE 2 FOREST FIRE CONTROL PROGRAM ANALYSIS, 1974*

Fire occurrence Qualified land protected (acres) •per million Estimated acres actual State Forest Nonforest Total protected expenditures

Alabama 20,838,000 4,191,000 25,029,000 288 $ 3,185,000 Alaska 18,108,000 40,328,000 58,436,000 15 2,574,000 Arizona 3,416,000 14,912,000 18,328,000 21 309,000 Arkansas 16,308,000 4,390,000 20,698,000 146 2,344,000 California 20,852,000 12,428,000 ' 33,280,000 247 37,469,000

Colorado 6,882,000 13,290,000 20,172,000 70 2,744,000 Connecticut. . . . 1,928,000 462,000 2,390,000 200 197,000 Delaware 387,000 170,000 557,000 75 112,000 Florida 18,990,000 7,253,000 26,243,000 375 9,114,000 Georgia 23,712,000 3,859,000 27,571,000 363 8,435,000

Hawaii 1,774,000 1,532,000 3,306,000 110 280,000 Idaho 4,320,000 2,806,000 7,126,000 35 1,864,000 Illinois 3,585,000 4,868,000 8,453,000 200 475,000 Indiana 3,761,000 3,567,000 7,328,000 47 279,000 Iowa 2,586,000 5,026,000 7,612,000 30 502,000

Kansas 1,125,000 15,675,000 16,800,000 100 1,311,000 Kentucky 10,988,000 5,933,000 16,921,000 178 1,876,000 Louisiana 14,926,000 6,013,000 20,939,000 390 4,288,000 Maine 17,220,000 523,000 17,743,000 30 2,682,000 Maryland 2,706,000 994,000 3,700,000 320 1,171,000

Massachusetts.. 3,145,000 436,000 3,581.000 1,200 1,121,000 Michigan 16,677,000 2,998,000 19,675,000 50 4,155,000 Minnesota 16,166,000 6,663,000 22,829,000 40 854,000 Mississippi 15,388,000 4,471,000 19,859,000 325 4,249,000 Missouri 9,646,000 6,050,000 15,696,000 250 2,731,000

Montana 5,346,000 16,407,000 21,753,000 28 2,420,000 Nebraska 866,000 24,535,000 25,401,000 70 1,207,000 Nevada. . . • 409,000 8,368,000 8,777,000 17 1,123,000 New Hampshire. 4,345,000 286,000 4,631,000 245 528,000 New Jersey 2,163,000 542,000 2,705,000 525 1.490,000

New Mexico 6,853,000 33,346,000 40.199,000 8 417,000 New York 14,050,000 2,908,000 16,958,000 50 3,496,000 North Carolina.. 17,946,000 2,834,000 20,780,000 126 5.626.000 North Dakota... 585,000 9,850,000 10,435,000 30 47.000 Ohio 4,056,000 1,767,000 5,823,000 190 871,000

Oklahoma 3,565,000 1,442,000 5,007,000 184 1,166,000 Oregon 10,524,000 2,505,000 13.029,000 64 5,750,000 Pennsylvania. . . 16,083,000 3,458,000 19.541.000 51 4,305,000 Rhode Island. . . 411,000 101,000 512,000 975 307,000 South Carolina. 11,427,000 1,862,000 13,289,000 300 4,360,000

South Dakota... 705,000 25,111,000 25,816,000 88 582,000 Tennessee 12,082,000 4,231,000 16,313,000 220 2,948,000 Texas 14,720,000 6,520,000 21,240,000 80 2,317.000 Utah 4,665,000 10,059,000 14,724,000 14 688.000 Vermont 4,081,000 557,000 4,638,000 30 165.000

Virginia 14,367,000 4,228,000 18.595.000 1.618 2.793,000 Washington 12,101,000 2,957,000 15.058.000 94 6,161,000 West Virginia... 10,430,000 2,403,000 12.833,000 100 1,240,000 Wisconsin 14,058,000 4,840,000 18,898,000 125 3,825,000 Wyoming 1,429,000 23,569,000 24,998,000 27 636,000

Total 442,701,000 363,524,000 806,225,000 10,364 $148,789,000 *Source: National Association of State Foresters and U.S. Forest Service. 496 THE BOOK OF THE STATES TABLE 3 AGRICyLTURAL ACT ACHIEVEMENTS, COOPERATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT, AND CLARKE-McNARY ACT STOCK DISTRIBUTION EXPENDITURES* (Fiscal year 1974)

Clarke-McNary Act stock dis- Agricultural Act—Title IV Cooperative Forest Management tribution—Section IV t '^ ^ r \ I * % State Federal State Total Federal State Total Federal State Total Alabama $.24,000$ 117,100$ 141,100$ 111,200$ 239,000$ 350.200 ... $ 177.200$ 177,200 Alaska ...... 23,000 23,000 46,000 Arizona ... 30.000 40,900 70,900$ 3,000 25,300 28,300 Arkansas 10,000 53,000 63,000 92,300 520,100 612,400 800 106,500 107,300 California 18,000 33,900 51,900 78,300 189,600 267,900 2,400 23,800 26,200 Colorado 9,500 23,200 32,700 52,800 55,200 108.000 8.000 19,200 27,200 Connecticut 4,000 5,000 9,000 33,900 119,200 153,100 1,200 5,800 7,000 Delaware ...... 30.000 34.800 64,800 6,000 17,100 23,100 Florida 30,000 326,800 356,800 189,600 965,900 1,155,500 Georgia 20,000 150,800 170,800 207,700 749,300 957,000 ... 442,500 442,500 Hawaii 35,000 27,000 62,000 28,000 30,800 58,800 Idaho :. 12,000 44,200 56,200 39,100 93,800 132,900 15,000 32,300 47,300 Illinois 8,000 23.900 31.900 69.100 383,200 452,300 1,000 159,900 160,900 Indiana 12,500 7,400 19,900 62,500 203,800 266,300 3.000 37,100 40,100 Iowa 7,000 8,200 15,200 42,500 85,100 127,600 ... 83,400 83,400 Kansas 16,500 81,900 98,400 35,100 124,600 159,700 22,000 97,400 119,400 Kentucky 12,000 22,200 34,200 155,000 465,800 620,800 ... 313.300 313.300 Louisiana 16,500 72,200 88,700 89,400 201,400 290,800 ... 81.100 81,100 Maine 15,000 17,900 32,900 105,000 267,900 372,900 ... 149,000 149,000 Maryland 5,000 40,600 45,600 78,200 336,800 415,000 ... 87,400 87,400 Massachusetts ...... 41,900 114,600 156,500 Michigan 30,000 40,000 70,000 126,200 264,200 390,400 ... 46,700 46,700 Minnesota 50,000 760,500 810,500 97,500 205,600 303,100 ... 388,600 388,600 Mississippi 14,500 50,600 65,100 126,000 807,500 933,500 2,500 482,700 485,200 Missouri 33,000 87,000 120,000 150,100 237,900 388,000 .. . 108,400 108,400 Montana 15,900 17,600 33,500 53,100 81,500 134,600 16,000 22,600 38,600 Nebraska ...... 36.100 39,200 75,300 10,000 19,500 29,500 Nevada ...... 33.000 818,000 114,800 15,000 43,900 58,900 New Hampshire. 10,000 19,500 29,500 52,600 155,700 208,300 . 26,100 26,100 New Jersey 12,000 21,200 33,200 42,900 192,900 235,800 2,500 37,500 40,000 New Mexico ...... 43,600 57,900 101,500 12,000 19,100 31,100 New York 30,000 38,500 68,500 167,600 765,300 932,900 6,800 21,700 28,500 North Carolina.. 14,000 149,000 163,000 258,000 1,375,500 1,633,500 ... 228.600 228,600 North Dakota ...... 30,200 61,300 91,500 12,000 72,900 84,900 Ohio 14,000 29,900 43,900 106,100 351,100 457,200 ... 506,500 506,500 Oklahoma 10,000 12,900 22,900 37,600 38,000 75,600 11,000 96,900 107,900 Oregon 60,000 477,800 537,800 63,600 365,700 429,300 ... 238,100 238,100 Pennsylvania.... 29,000 88,900 117,900 147,300 870,800 1,018,100 4,600 872,500 877,100 Rhode Island...... 25,000 40,500 65,500 2,000 3,800 5,800 South Carolina.. 22,000 46,600 68,600 121,600 170,800 292,400 ... 199,800 199,800 South Dakota ...... 32,300 79,400 111,700 12,000 43,800 55,800 Tennessee 14,000 85,000 99,000 92,500 1,136,600 1,229,100 ... 295,700 295,700 Texas 15,000 195,900 210,900 84,600 430,300 514,900 26,000 231,200 257,200 Utah ...... 33,800 49,100 82,900 15,000 101,200 116,200 Vermont 5,500 8,100 13,600 82,600 92,900 175,500 ... 25,400 25,400 Virginia 23,000 124,800 147,800 202,600 991,700 1,194,300 ... 118,000 118,000 Washington 60,000 4,891,400 4,951,400 72,200 146,900 219,100 ... 21,200 21,200 West Virginia... 10,000 22,600 32,600 81,100 297,400 378,500 ... 116,900 116,900 Wisconsin 20,000 22,000 42,200 193,600 429,900 623,500 ... 414,200 414,200 Wyoming 10,000 21,200 31,200 32,200 42,900 75,100 4,000 4,000 8,000 Total $756,900 $8,266,500 $9,023,400 $4,220,200 $15,105,100 $19,325,300 $213,800 $6,665,800 $6,879,600 *Source: U.S. Forest Service. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 497 TABLE 4 FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM REVIEW AND FEDERAL INSECT AND DISEASE CONTROL FUNDS* (Fiscal year 1974)

Forestry Incentives Federal Insect and Disease Control Funds— Program Review State 6* private lands Federal Total Program Pest cost-share acres management 6* action Suppression Stale allotment treated technical service program projects Total Alabama $ 726,000 18,207 $ 84,694 $ 50,232 $ 475,000 $ 609.926 Alaska Arizona 14,300 418 442 2,210 2,652 Arkansas 271,800 12,541 72,595 22,556 21,285 116,436 California 109,700 1.571 169,393 18,900 74,745 263,038 Colorado 47,500 632 4,735 18,200 135,967 158,902 Connecticut 32,200 592 425. 425 Delaware 19,800 355 750 750 Florida 253,900 7,623 145,190 33,488 178,678 Georgia 956,500 30,230 96,793 21,411 96,000 214,204 Hawaii. 2,500 20 1,100 13,000 14,100 Idaho 31,300 392 50,818 13,104 374.165 438,087 minols 88,300 2,696 225 225 Indiana 81,200 4,477 4,839 11,648 16,487 Iowa 30,200 774 4,070 4,070 Kansas 50,600 1,203 1,183 5,824 7,007 Kentucky 142,300 3,446 24,198 17,368 41,566 Louisiana 341,100 13,215 241,984 26,675 100,000 368,659 Maine 129,500 4,796 315,898 59,696 698,750 1,074,344 Maryland 88,100 1,982 1,625 1,625 Massachusetts 74,300 2,798 575 575 Michigan 255,700 11,648 9,938 15,958 25,896 Minnesota 86,700 2,633 18,212 31,668 10,500 60,380 Mississippi 482,200 16,637 108,893 45,864 56,210 210,967 Missouri 265,200 17,345 9.414 22,568 31,982 Montana 41,100 657 45,482 13,016 4,699 63,197 Nebraska 87,700 1,481 1,183 5,824 7,007 Nevada 800 6 147 147 New Hampshire 142,600 4,268 17,156 15,666 32,156 New Jersey 39,300 2,349 132,383 15,000 204.733 352,116 New Mexico 14,600 485 1,201 8,008 9,209 New York 155,600 5.443 130,032 29,116 290.883 450,031 North Carolina 1,700,400 35.565 169,388 44,408 124.505 338,301 North Dakota 10,500 135 Ohio 212,300 5.055 6,422 15,288 21,716 Oklahoma 86,700 4.446 12,099 12,099 Oregon 83,900 1,525 14,939 33,475 481.103 529,517 Pennsylvania 207,400 5,681 332,041 48,776 320.433 701,250 Rhode Island 4,700 81 84,837 4,368 159.553 248,758 South Carolina 421,800 11,070 120,992 29,848 47.500 198,340 South Dakota 23,600 341 3,284 : 5,096 150.000 158,380 Tennessee 137,000 4,263 36,298 21,000 57,298 Texas 464,900 14,854 60,496 40,593 185.666 286,089 Utah 3.400 82 910 910 Vermont 61,400 3,073 7,302 17,472 24,774 Vh-glnia 326,900 15,758 36,298 42,224 9.500 88,022 Washington 140,000 2,540 7,470 34,125 267.598 309,193 West Virginia 132,100 4,934 37,831 33,488 56.993 128,312 Wisconsin 146,100 4,946 27,885 47,320 23.086 98,291 Wyoming 6,800 169 3,262 5,096 15.000 23,358 Total $9,232,500 285,438 $2,657,327 $938,911 $4,383,208 $7,979,446 *Source: U.S. Forest Service. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION

BY DAVID G. UNGER*

T NO TIME since the dust storms of the farm fields, forest lands, and construction 1930s has the Nation looked more sites have a direct bearing on the amount A^closely at its soil and water conserva­ and kinds of pollutants that enter our tion program. Changing uses of land, the waterways. need to protect lakes and streams from Finally, growing erosion hazards caused pollution, and the growing pressure on by new technology and intensive produc­ American farmers and ranchers to in­ tion on crop and pasture lands are caus­ crease production are among the factors ing major concern. Shifts away from soil- contributing to this scrutiny. conserving crop rotations and the cultiva­ Although the basic distribution of land tion of millions of acres of formerly uses in the United States has changed lit­ retired land underscore the need for ac­ tle in recent decades, some trends can be celeration of soil and water conservation seen. Since 1950, for example, substantial efforts. acreages of open land have reverted to Some observers believe that the climatic forest, particularly in the East and South. cycle in the Great Plains States could lead However, these gains have been largely to another dust bowl if conservation pro­ offset by land clearing for urban and other grams are not expanded. During the last uses and clearing of several million acres "blow season" in the 10 Plains States, 5.7 of forested wetlands in the Mississippi million acres were damaged by wind ero­ Delta for crop use during the last decade. sion—the largest amount since 1955-57. Land occupied by urban areas, rural Because nearly 99 percent of the Na­ highways, roads, airports, and reservoirs tion's crop land, 61 percent of the grass has increased as the Nation's population land, and 56 percent of the forest land has expanded. Land now being converted are in private ownership, the country's to such uses amounts to 1.2 million acres soil conservation program has been de­ annually, of which about two thirds is for liberately designed to enlist the partici­ urban uses and one third for reservoirs. pation and resources of private landown­ Reports also indicate that as real estate ers, local governments,.state governments, becomes more expensive, more farmland and the federal government. Progress in is being rented to producers. In 1969, recent years, however, has been hampered nearly 40 percent of all farmland was by a decline in technical assistance made rented. available by the federal government for These changes in the ways land is util­ soil surveys and conservation planning, by ized have important implications for the the lack of implementation of the Rural protection and improvement of soil and Development Act, and by repeated fed­ related resources. The same is true of eral efforts to diminish financial incen­ emerging national, state, and local pro­ tives to farmers and ranchers for initia­ grams aimed at the prevention and con­ tion of conservation practices. trol of water pollution from "non-point" Legislation now pending in Congress sources—those sources of pollution, in­ has been proposed to help reverse this cluding sediment and other wastes, which trend. It calls for periodic appraisals of are carried into streams by diffuse land the status of land, water, and related re­ runoff. Ck)nservation measures that help sources, and for the preparation each five prevent erosion and reduce runoff on years by the Soil Conservation Service of a specific program of corrective action based on the appraisal. Congress would *Mr. Unger is Executive Secretary, National As­ sociation of Conservation Districts. thereby have a clearer picture of the soil 498 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 499 conservation needs of the Nation and the development on a community and re­ potential consequences of alternative ac­ gional basis; tions. 4. Sponsor projects for water conserva­ tion and utilization, flood protection, and CONSERVATION DISTRICTS economic development on a watershed The function of the States in helping and/or multicounty basis; to solve soil and water conservation prob­ 5. Conduct erosion and sediment con­ lems is principally carried out through trol progra.ms in urbanizing and rural 2,939 individual conservation districts areas; which include within their boundaries 6. Aid in the coordinated planning and virtually all of the Nation's privately implementation of needed resource con­ owned land. Created in accordance with servation measures in areas where public provisions of state enabling legislation en­ and private lands are intermingled; acted in each of the 50 States, Puerto Rico, 7. Assist public bodies and private and the Virgin Islands, conservation dis­ landowners in carrying out measures that tricts are managed by 17,000 elected and reduce air and water pollution, improve appointed officials who contribute their waste disposal procedures, and enhance time and services. the landscape; and Most conservation districts are orga­ 8. Carry out environmental education nized along county lines, but some have programs with schools and colleges, orga­ watershed, river basin, or township nized youth groups, and the general pub­ boundaries. They are variously named lic. soil conservation, soil and water conserva­ Conservation districts also have respon­ tion, natural resources, natural resources sibilities in reviewing and approving con­ conservation, resource conservation, or servation plans under the Federal Great simply conservation districts. They pro­ Plains Conservation Program and the, vide services to some 2.3 million coopera- Water Bank Program (a waterfowl habi­ tors who are voluntarily establishing con­ tat protection program). servation measures and practices on their properties. STATE AGENCY PARTICIPATION Conservation districts have entered into Although conservation districts are in­ memorandums of understanding with dependent local governmental subdivi- many state and federal agencies and help visions, they receive general guidance, to coordinate their services. Key federal supervision, and assistance by an agency agencies with such memorandums include of state government in each State, In some the Department of Agriculture (and the States, these agencies are independent Soil Conservation Service within that de­ state soil and water conservation commis­ partment) and the Department of the In­ sions which report directly to the Gover­ terior. nor. In others, the commissions are at­ Serving as a channel for the application tached to another agency such as the state of technical, financial, and educational natural resources, environmental, or agri­ services provided by the federal and state cultural department. ^ conservation agencies, conservation dis­ The commissions provide information tricts: to the public about conservation districts, 1. Assist individual landowners to de­ help the districts secure appropriate gov­ velop and carry out scientific conservation ernmental assistance, aid them in budget­ plans; ing and administrative management, and 2. Provide and interpret basic data on help coordinate their plans and programs. soil and water resources for individuals, In many States, the commissions provide groups, and local and state government staff services to conservation districts on agencies engaged in land use planning a regional basis, and in most States they and implementation, resource develop­ make available to districts funds which ment, and economic improvement; are appropriated by the Legislatures for 3. Provide technical services to indi­ district support. viduals and agencies engaged in resource In fiscal year 1975, state funds appropri- 500 THE BOOK OF THE STATES ated for direct assistance to conservation ernments and forwarded to the U.S. De­ districts, and for the support of their pro­ partment of Agriculture. Projects were grams in the fields of soil surveys, flood in the operations stage in 1,125 water­ prevention, and watershed protection, sheds, and 600 others were being planned. amounted to |47 million. JFunds provided Growing even more rapidly is the Re­ by local governments for district work in source Conservation and Development these and other fields totaled $39 million. Program authorized under the 1962 Food and Agriculture Act. There are 132 of CONSERVATION PROGRESS these multicounty economic improve­ Substantial progress continues to be ment projects in operation, sponsored by made by districts in the conservation of conservation districts and other local gov­ land and water resources on farms and ernments and organizations. Another 26 ranches and in urbanizing areas. In 1974, are in the planning stage. Designed to district cooperators installed 2.7 million create jobs and stimulate rural develop­ acres of contour farming, 12,000 miles of ment through land and water conserva­ terraces, 450,000 acres of strip cropping, tion, the 158 authorized projects include and 172,000 acres of vegetative cover on 666 million acres. critical areas, and 2.5 million acres of minimum tillage—a new conservation OTHER DEVELOPMENTS practice gaining wide acceptance. Following are several other recent de­ Detailed and reconnaissance soil map­ velopments of importance to the Nation's ping done by the Soil Conservation Serv­ soil and water conservation program. ice was completed on 47 million acres, and 1. A series of 45 state sediment control 80 new surveys were published. institutes was sponsored by the National The application of agricultural con­ Association of Conservation Districts servation technology to problems of ex­ (NACD) with the support of the Environ­ panding cities, suburbs, and other de­ mental Protection Agency (EPA). There veloping areas continues to increase as are now regulatory sediment control pro­ well. In 1974, 32,000 units of state and grams in Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisi­ local government were assisted by con­ ana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, servation districts and their cooperating New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Penn­ agencies with soil surveys, resource inven­ sylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and tories, interpretations of desirable and po­ the Virgin Islands. Another 15 States have tential land use, and plans for waste dis­ drafted similar legislation. A new NACD posal and other resource-related facilities. program with EPA is now under way to Erosion control plans for residential and assist States with information about man­ commercial construction operations were power and training in sediment control. provided, as well as assistance in the lo­ 2. Conservation districts are receiving cation and design of parks and other rec­ funds under the Comprehensive Employ­ reational areas; the preservation of open ment and Manpower Act and the Emer­ space; and the selection of sites for gency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance schools, highways, utilities, and buildings. Act to employ personnel to conduct ero­ Aid was given in utilizing land adjacent sion control work, assist in salvage and to schools and colleges for environmental storm cleanup, and maintain flood pre­ instruction. vention structures. 3. Comprehensive recreation inven­ REGIONAL PROGRAMS tories have been conducted in most of the Requests for assistance in carrying out conservation districts of the Nation to aid watershed protection and flood preven­ in meeting recreation needs on private tion projects are growing steadily. As of lands. August 1, 1975, 2,905 applications for as­ 4. New authorities contained in the sistance under P.L. 566, the Watershed Water Resource Development Act of 1974 Protection and Flood Prevention Act, had will enable conservation districts to spon­ been sponsored by conservation districts sor watershed programs that contain non­ in conjunction with local and state gov­ structural elements for the prevention of MAJOR STATE SERVICES 501 flood damages such as floodplain manage­ "SELECTED REFERENCES ment, floodways, and other devices. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 5. A new agreement was signed by the Agriculture. Our Land and Water Resources: Forest Service, Bureau of Land Manage­ Current and Prospective Supplies and Uses. Misc. pub. No. 1290. Washington, D.C., May ment, and the Soil Conservation Service 1974. aimed at cooperation with districts in im­ Environmental Protection Agency. Report on proving the planning and management of State Sediment Control Institutes Program. intermingled public and private lands. Washington, D.C., April 1975. National Association of Conservation Districts. 6. Model cooperative agreements have America's Conservation Districts. Washington, been developed to foster working rela­ D.C., 1975. tionships between districts and county Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Ag­ Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva­ riculture. Soil Conservation. Washington, D.C., January 1975. tion Committees and units of the U.S. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Perspectives on Army Corps of Engineers. Prime Lands. Washington, D.C., July 1975. 502 THE BOOK OF THE STATES SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS* Cumulative to June 30, 1975

Approxim.ate area and farms within organized districts Districts having Date State's Districts •^memoranda of un­ district law orga­ Total area Farms and Land in derstanding with State or became nized (a) {1,000 ranches farms (1,000 USDA (b) other jurisdiction effective (number) acres) (thousands) acres) (number)

Alabama Mar. 18, 1939 67 32,597 72 13,652 Alaska Mar. 25. 1947 1 375,304 .. 1,604 Arizona June 16. 1941 31 59,971 6 28.809 Arkansas July 1, 1937 76 33,599 60 15.695 California June 26. 1938 142 73,711 54 25,946 Colorado May 6, 1937 84 61,352 30 37,383 Connecticut July 18. 1945 8 3.112 4 541 Delaware Apr. 2. 1943 3 1,266 4 674 FloHda June 10, 1937 60 31,367 35 13.583 Georgia Mar. 23. 1937 27 37,263 67 15,806 HawaU May 19, 1947 IS 3.992 4 2.058 Idaho Mar. 9, 1939 51 52,608 25 14,427 minols July 9, 1937 98 33,512 124 29,773 Indiana Mar. 11, 1937 92 23,102 101 17,573 Iowa July 4, 1939 100 35,828 140 34,070 Kansas Apr. 10. 1937 105 52,649 86 49,390 Kentucky June 11, 1940 121 25,377 125 15,950 Louisiana July 27, 1938 35 28,118 42 9,757 Maine.... Mar. 25, 1941 16 17,539 8 1,759 Maryland June 1, 1937 24 6,282 17 2,803 Massachusetts June 28. 1945 15 4.973 6 701 Michigan July 23, 1937 85 37,257 78 11,905 Minnesota Apr. 26, 1937 92 50.6.S9 111 28,743 Mississippi Apr. 4. 1938 82 30.222 73 16,040 Missouri July 23, 1943 107 40,353 127 30,249 Montana Feb. 28, 1939 58 90.471 25 62.904 Nebraska May 18, 1937 24 49,032 72 47,225 Nevada Mar. 30, 1937 34 69,590 3 12.033 New Hampshire May 10, 1945 10 5,955 2 613 New Jersey July 1, 1937 15 4,813 8 1,036 New Mexico Mar. 17, 1937 50 69,503 14 42,630 New York July 20, 1940 56 30.288 <^ 52 10.146 North Carolina Mar. 22, 1937 92 33,670 119 12,833 North Dakota Mar. 16, 1937 64 45,226 46, 43,118 Ohio June 5, 1941 88 25,351 111 17,085 Oklahoma Apr. 15, 1937 88 44,180 83 35.769 Oregon Apr. 7, 1939 56 59,964 28 17,610 Pennsylvania July 2, 1937 66 28.927 63 8,898 Rhode Island Apr. 26. 1943 3 677 1 69 South Carolina Apr. 17. 1937 45 19,345 40 6,992 South Dakota July 1. 1937 69 48,147 45 44,463 Tennessee Mar. 10, 1939 95 26,285 121 15,057 Texas Apr. 24, 1939 196 169,355 213 137,414 Utah.... Mar. 23, 1937 41 51,217 13 10.160 Vermont Apr. 18, 1939 14 5,935 7 1.916 Virginia Apr. 1. 1938 40 25.198 64 10.572 Washington Mar. 17, 1939 55 41.575 34 17,558 West Virginia June 12, 1939 14 15,411 23 4,341 Wisconsin July 1, 1937 72 34,858 99 18,109 Wyoming May 22, 1941 39 62,373 10 35,799 All States 2,921 2.209,359 2.695 1.033,241 Puerto Rico July 1, 1946 17 1,862 33 1,296 Virgin Islands June 1946 1 84 ..'. 40 Total 2.939 2.211.305 2.728 1.034.577 •Prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department state soil conservation districts' laws. of Agriculture. (b) Upon request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture enters (a) For specific procedure on organization of soil conservation into memoranda of understanding with districts for such assist­ districts, reference should be made to each of the respective ance from the departmental agencies as may be available. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 503 STATUS OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS* (Under Public Law 87-703) As of June 30, 1975t

Applications Projects Projects Total on hand in planning in operation authorized projects State or other jurisdiction No. Acres {1,000) No. Acres {l,00d) ^o! Acres {l,00d) No. Acres (1,000) Alabama.. 2,602 16,026 16.026 Alaska.... Arizona... 15,356(a) 44,151 4 44.151 Arkansas. . 9,223 24,363 5 24.363 California. 25,486(b) 10.634(c) 2 10.634 Colorado 22,667 34.103(d) 4 34.103 Connecticut. 952 1.177 2 2.129 Delaware..., '1.266 1 1.266 Florida 1.680 7.644 3 9.324 Georgia 3.087 5,096 5 5,096 Hawaii 2,981 714 1 714 Idaho 8,609 10,720(e) 2 10.720 IlUnois 473 2,448 4.321 3 6.769 Indiana , 1,972 1.098 6.399 5 7.497 Iowa 1.135 5,551 3 5.551

Kansas... 2.381 13,292 5 15.673 Kentucky. 2,533 2,072 5,332 4 7.404 Louisiana. 4,332 8.646 3 8,646 Maine. ... 3,040 6.427 3 6.427 Maryland. 668 1 668 Massachusetts 1,120 1.077 2 2.197 Michigan 1 1,091 18.139 3 18.139 Minnesota 3,415 21.474 4 24.889 Mississippi 1 3,174 25,171 4 25.171 Missouri 2 4,359 13.289 3 13.289 Montana 16,858 3 16.858 Nebraska 8,000 9.030 2 17.030 Nevada 6(f) 23.080(g) 2 23.080 New Hampshire.. 3.161 1 3.161 New Jersey 569 1 569 New Mexico.... 2 16,427 20,936 23.685(h) "4 44.621 New York 2 6,383 12.115 4 12.115 North Carolina. 4 7,921 2,002 4.812(1) 4 6.814 North Dakota.. 3 16,624 4.322 19.584 4 23.906 Ohio 4,133 3.890 5 8,023 Oklahoma 2 9,207 4.283 12.415 4 16,698 Oregon 1.685 14.962 4 16,647 Pennsylvania.., 1 2,837 5,832 6.101 4 11,933 Rhode Island. . , 671 1 671 South Carolina. 1 1,856 9,106 4 9,106 South Dakota.. 4 27,506 5.871 10.9740) 4 16.845 Tennessee 2.575 7,048 4 9.623 Texas 7 32.869 5.948 22.982 8 28,930 Utah 2 14.295 5.413 16.125(k) 3 21.538 Vermont 3.156 2 3,156 Virginia 445 1.404(1) 1 1.849 Washington... i 2.890 6.372(k) 2 6.372 West Virginia. 1 2,970 7.675(0 4 7,675 Wisconsin. ... 4 10.815 18,103 3 18,103 Wyoming 39,903(m) 3 39,903 Caribbean Area.. 1 789 85 1 85 Total 64 265,515 26 86.611 132 579,546 158 666,157 •Prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department (!) Application shared with Arizona and California. of Agriculture. (g) Project shared with California. fFor multistate applications and projects the number is tab­ (h) Project shared with Colorado. ulated for the State having project leadership. The acreage (i) Project shared with Virginia. column reflects actual acreage in each State. (j) Project shared with Wyoming. (a) Application shared with California and Nevada. (k) Project shared with Idaho. (b) Application shared with Arizona and Nevada. (1) Project shared with West Virginia and one with North (c) Project shared with Nevada. Carolina. (d) Project shared with Wyoming and one with New Mexico. (m) Project shared with Idaho, one with South Dakota, and (e) Project shared with Washington and one with Wyoming one with Colorado. and one with Utah. 504 THE BOOK OF THE STATES STATUS OF WATERSHED APPLICATIONS* (Under Public Law 83-566) Cumulative to August 1, 1975

Applications received Authorized for Approved for in Washington planning assistance operations State or , ^ ^ , ^ ^ other jurisdiction No. Acres {1,000) No. Acres (.1,000) 'NO. Acres U.OOO] Alabama 62 4,289.6 41 2,919.2 28 1.882.7 Alaska 2 204.8 0 0 0 0 Arizona 29 2,985.5 17 1,922.7 13 1,152.4 Arkansas 107 8,350.5 75 6.336.0 51 3,004.5 California 80 5.585.7 47 3.182.1 21 909.4 Colorado 57 4.784.2 31 2.138.1 16 967.4 Connecticut 22 358.6 16 287.6 8 139.6 Delaware 6 357.8 4 281.9 4 281.9 Florida 77 5,177.4 33 2,381.2 20 1,230.9 Georgia 153 10,536.3 75 5.271.3 61 3,839.2 Hawaii 12 544.2 10 519.4 6 282.7 Idaho 48 5.123.9 17 1.365.5 6 303.1 Illinois 68 4.099.2 41 2.329.8 20 991.8 Indiana Ill 8.630.5 55 4.238.8 32 2,097.7 Iowa 96 3.073.1 53 1,094.1 44 808.3 Kansas 97 10,977.4 68 7,209.4 42 3,893.7 Kentucky 60 3,727.1 44 2,861.7 31 2,141.4 Louisiana 72 8,247.7 51 6.059.2 32 3.727.1 Maine 27 2.022.1 16 1.044.1 9 427.1 Maryland 39 1.618.7 29 948.3 17 • 275.7 Massachusetts 23 1,013.4 16 603.5 10 457.3 Michigan 44 2,807.4 25 1,211.5 19 708.6 Minnesota 44 3,493.1 27 2,324.6 14 1.101.9 Mississippi 90 7,029.7 67 5.270.2 49 3.587.8 Missouri 83 7,010.9 33 2,389.1 18 736.9 Montana 50 3,667.7 24 1,280.5 12 384.1 Nebraska 83 7,053.8 57 3,804.3 41 2,432.4 Nevada 30 3,678.7 15 2.060.2 5 388.1 New Hampshire 14 1,041.3 12 1,021.4 6 455.3 New Jersey 24 457.4 17 376.3 12 252.6 New Mexico 80 7.927.6 39 3,246.4 25 1,413.0 New York 38 2,063.1 21 1,175.6 13 663.1 North Carolina 77 5,147.8 59 3,294.9 41 1,708.6 North Dakota 43 6,486.1 29 4,535.8 18 2,518.4 Ohio 72 7.290.0 23 2,023.9 14 944.S Oklahoma 110 11,657.6 72 7,517.7 60 5.973.8 Oregon 58 5,820.0 23 2,098.3 13 679,3 Pennsylvania 48 2,323.5 31 1,817.0 23 1,141.1 Rhode Island 2 104.2 2 104.2 0 0 South Carolina 55 2.795.5 46 2.466.3 35 1.299.3 South Dakota. 28 2,426.9 21 1,574.4 13 516.7 Tennessee 88 4.331.5 51 2.455.6 33 1,342.6 Texas 163 17.390.8 104 11,136.8 74 7,525.4 Utah 38 4,367.4 21 2,211.1 12 1.305.7 Vermont 9 717.8 8 699.9 4 62.9 Virginia 70 3,127.0 35 1,877.9 26 1,404.5 Washington 50 2,891.3 22 978.0 12 256.6 West Virginia 56 2.154.0 34 1.056.7 23 822.0 Wisconsin 56 2,944.5 36 2,173.1 24 1.148.5 Wyoming 48 5,467.2 23 1.921.6 12 578.1 Puerto Rico 6 342.7 5 292.8 3 252.0 Total 2.905 225.724.2 1.721 127,390.0 1.125 70,417.7 •Prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. THE ENERGY CRISIS

BY THEODORE J. MAKER AND TOM HAUGER*

HE ENERGY CRISIS has Vaulted into tunities afforded by the construction have one of the great issues facing public caused a massive influx of predominantly Tjurisdictions across the United young male adults, skilled and unskilled, States. All States are confronted with seeking high-paying employment. In ad­ problems of high energy consumption, dition, the magnitude of salaries paid rapidly escalating energy costs, supply these workers has contributed to a state shortages, dependence on foreign imports, inflation rate of staggering proportions. possible allocation programs, threats of The net effect has been a fast and boom­ facility shutdowns, and proposals that ing growth of the State's population and would increase the costs of petroleum economy, which will likely be only tem­ products still further. With all of these porary, but which may have unforeseen perceived problems, the intensity of state consequences in the longer term. government policy concerns that intersect Regarding the exploitation of OCS oil the energy issue is also increasing. It adds and gas resources, even the short-range up to an immense demand on both the effects are still undefined, although some executive and legislative branches and general assumptions seem clear. Most of brings into question the adequacy of in­ the effects will fall in state jurisdictions. stitutions, methods of decision-making, The short-range effects will be primarily and federal-state relationships. related to initial construction of drilling facilities. Longer-range effects may be FEDERAL-STATE INTERACTION more related to possible concomitant on­ Federal leadership, with overall pol­ shore facilities, such as oil refineries. Sec­ icies designed to combat the embargo-in­ ondary impacts of either short- or long- duced "energy crisis" did not emerge. The range activities are likely to have serious scope of that embargo resulted in gasoline growth implications through their pro­ prices doubling, home heating fuel prices motion of community development and tripling,, and natural gas service exten­ amenities for those employed by the en­ sions being terminated. The broad strat­ ergy industry. A few States are only now egy adopted at the federal level has been beginning to consider the ramifications entitled Project Independence, a collec­ that may occur should OCS drilling be tion of as yet largely unstated measures undertaken contiguous to their States. aimed at reducing potential economic Other federal proposals such as the leas­ impacts on this country deriving from, fu­ ing and mining of coal resources in the ture acts by foreign energy suppliers. Of western United States or the develop­ the overt actions taken by the federal gov­ ment of oil shale could stimulate similar ernment, two of the most significant place secondary growth problems. new burdens on the States. These are the The States lost any claims they may decisions to proceed with the construction have had to OCS oil in the 1975 Supreme of the Alaska pipeline and to accelerate Court decision, U.S. v. Maine, in which leasing of oil rights on the outer conti­ the court ruled that the Atlantic Coast nental shelf (OCS). States own only three miles of the OCS The development of the trans-Alaska and that the remainder belongs to the pipeline has had tremendous effects on federal government. The States had al­ the growth of that State. The job oppor- leged that colonial charters granted them as much as 200 miles off their respective *Mr. Maher is Director of State Programs for coasts. Anticipating this decision and Public Technology, Inc. Mr. Hauger is a Special Assistant for the Council of State Governments. aware of federal plans for leasing the 505 506 THE BOOK OF THE STATES OCS, the Atlantic Coast Governors met in location of nuclear energy centers or January 1975 and recommended: (1) power parks. The power parks represent that exploration and drilling of OCS geographic aggregates of nuclear power- tracts occur before leasing decisions are plants and/or fuel cycle facilities that are made in order to determine more closely substantially larger than those presently where and what reserves exist; (2) that planned. Implementation of a national leasing decisions be based on the quanti­ policy permitting location of nuclear fa­ tative information gleaned from the ex­ cilities in power parks would begin in ploratory drilling; (3) that environmen­ 1985 if such centers can be shown techni­ tal impact statements precede leasing cally feasible and practical. As with other decisions; and (4) that compensation be federally initiated energy developments, guaranteed to any person, business, or the aggregation of facilities into a single government that may be directly or indi­ site would intensify environmental, eco­ rectly affected by an oil spill. nomic, and sociological impacts. Federal leasing and private develop­ The prospect of building these centers ment of energy mineral lands in western presents a number of problems for the States are aUo likely to encourage the State in which they would be located. One same level of secondary impacts, such as power park can have as many as 40 reac­ electric generating plants and boom tors with a block of capacity that is about towns that are possible in the coastal twice that available to metropolitan New areas. A vast array of environmental con­ York at present. The land area for cen­ cerns are just as likely to arise from this ters will be large, ranging from 20 to 75 development. Among these are the effects square miles for the power site. The ag­ of strip mining on the water quality in gregation of generating facilities into a these States, where the availability of limited number of centers will increase water is already perceived as a major is­ the investment and right-of-way require­ sue. The extraction of coal or oil shale ments significantly over those required requires the use of water, as does oil shale for dispersed sites. The concentration of processing or coal-fired electric plants. An heat dissipated from nuclear energy cen­ additional burden may be placed on the ters raises issues involving weather modi­ western States' water resources if current fication. The availability of water is crit­ proposals for additional coal slurry pipe­ ical to operation of economically feasible lines are adopted. Under this scheme, wa­ nuclear facilities. If water is not plentiful ter would be used to transport coal and dry cooling systems are needed, ad­ through pipelines from the area of coal ditional costs can be expected. extraction to a terminal for use or dis­ The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tribution. Federal legislation that would —in conjunction with individual States, give pipeline carriers the power of emi­ the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board, nent domain to construct this system has and the Western Interstate Nuclear Board already been introduced in the U.S. Sen­ —is working actively to identify specific ate. activities, new policies, and new programs In terms of federal-state energy rela­ that will be needed by States to imple­ tionships, an attempt is being made to ment federal plans for the development of demonstrate a partnership through the power parks. operation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission has con­ STATE ACTIONS ducted a nuclear energy center site survey While contending with the repercus­ and has solicited viewpoints from state sions of potential federal actions, the administrative officials in a series of re­ States have taken a variety of actions to gional workshops.^ meet the increasing concern over energy The purpose of the national site survey development within their borders. To be is to identify potential land areas for the sure, many of these responses were di­ rected at tide trauma posed by the energy ^Nuclear Riegulatory Commission, Nuclear En­ crisis of early 1974, but some of the mea­ ergy Center Citis Survey (Washington, D.C., 1975). sures preceded the crisis and many will MAJOR STATE SERVICES 507 have effects lasting beyond the 10-year emergencies is another important func­ deadline set for achieving energy inde­ tion of the department. pendence. Although some areas of state The powers and duties of the Gover­ energy-related activity are likely to have nor's Energy Advisory Council in Texas been initiated independent of the 1974 are fairly typical of energy agencies in crisis, most of the actions were responsive other States.2 They include: to particular needs made apparent by the 1. Developing and maintaining an en­ crisis. ergy data base system and econometric modeling of the State; Reorganization 2. Analyzing manpower needs for an­ As a demonstration of the States' abil­ ticipated and desired developments in the ity to respond to crisis situations and in structure of the Texas economy due to direct response to the oil shortage of early energy developments; 1974, a number of State Legislatures 3. Analyzing technological develop­ granted to their Governors powers re­ ments of particular importance to the garding distribution of energy and energy State; resources. These emergency powers will 4. Maintaining an awareness of all enable States to take quick action with­ energy-related research inside and outside out convening their Legislatures in the of the State in order to promote informa­ event of another series of events similar to tion exchange and coordination; those of early 1974. Every State set up an 5. Reviewing actions and policies of energy allocation office in response to the all state and federal agencies to determine federally mandated 10 percent cutback in the energy impact and to recommend pos­ gasoline distributed to the States. sible alternatives consistent with Texas The Connecticut State Legislature ap­ energy policy; and proved a measure in June 1975 combin­ 6. Recommending legislation and ex­ ing the State Department of Planning ecutive action to foster the development with the Connecticut Energy Agency. of increased energy supplies, more effi­ Several problems, not wholly unique to cient energy systems, and increased con­ Connecticut, prompted this decision. servation of energy. Connecticut's economy is 85 percent oil As the long-term implications of the based, 60 percent of that oil being im­ energy problem became apparent, other ported. Existing state agencies were un­ and possibly more permanent organiza­ prepared to deal with severe shortages of tional arrangements have been made to imported oil after the 1973 Arab em­ handle energy allocation and planning. bargo. There had been no centralized Four States—Connecticut, Kentucky, planning agency designed to oversee any Oklahoma, and Oregon—have established aspect of energy planning, but through cabinet-level departments of energy, Min­ this action Connecticut acknowledged the nesota an energy agency, eight States have need to deal with present and future en­ created energy divisions within existing ergy needs as well as to conduct compre­ departments, 22 States established energy hensive statewide planning. The resulting offices, and eight have energy councils department represents a comprehensive (see Table 1). policy-making body, a fiscal savings to the State, and an effective mechanism for Energy Planning dealing with future energy problems. Over 30 States responded to the energy The department, with a $900,000 an­ shortage by establishing a system of en­ nual budget, works closely with legislators ergy planning. Generally speaking, this to develop a yearly legislative program. planning involves the collection and anal­ The department spends time educating ysis of data relating to the production the public and working with communities and/or consumption of energy. It may and regional planning associations. A also extend to the preparation of plans computer has been utilized to trace energy flows in the various sectors of the economy *State of Texas, Energy Policy Planning Act of within the State. Planning for energy 1975 (S.B.519). 508 THE BOOK OF THE STATES designed to match anticipated demands core element, the projection of future for energy with anticipated supply under levels of energy supply and demand ex­ a number of assumed conditions. pected in the State. The Minnesota legislation establishing the Minnesota Energy Agency (MEA) Research and Development provides an illustration of the kinds of If one thing is certain about the energy elements that may be included in state crisis it is that there are no quick cures. energy planning. The director of this As a consequence, the pursuit of longer- state agency is given the responsibility to range solutions has stimulated heavy state collect and analyze data that public util­ investment in energy research and de­ ities and major energy producers in the velopment and, as a by-product, has State are required to supply on an annual helped to strengthen the State's partner­ basis. This private sector contribution in­ ship with universities, industry, and fed­ cludes five-, 10-, and 20-year forecasts of eral agencies for joint problem-solving. In energy demand and the facilities required large measure the shape and direction of to oneet these demands. The energy energy research and development are now agency is charged with evaluating these being framed and scaled by state govern­ projections as they relate to population ments. and economic growth, land use and de­ The State of Illinois, for instance, velopment trends, and transportation passed the Coal Development Bond Act capacity. The end product of this analysis which provides a total bonding authority is a biennial report submitted to the Gov­ of $80 million, the revenue from which ernor and the Legislature in which the will be used to conduct research into the MEA's evaluation of projected supply and discovery, production, conversion, and demand forces is presented in considera­ uses of coal, as well as into the feasibility tion of possible social economic and en­ and development of other potential en­ vironmental effects, along with an assess- ergy sources. This coal research program mient of the available energy resources in provides for the creation of an institu­ the State. tional arrangement with flexible contract­ Legislation in California mandates ing and financing procedures and is ori­ processes similar to those outlined for ented toward the formulation of new Minnesota. In California the Legislature initiatives. has established a surcharge on all electric In 1974, the Kentucky General Assem­ utility bills to generate funds for the en­ bly approved an appropriation of $57.7 ergy commission. The surcharge is based million for a "three-pronged expansion on a sliding scale from zero up to two of the State's energy resource utilization tenths of a mill per kilowatt hour. The program."^ Included are $3.7 million for practical effect is that the more electricity expanded research through the Univer­ someone uses the higher the surcharge on sity of Kentucky's Institute for Mining the monthly bill. Depending on the en­ and Minerals Research, $4 million for a ergy commission's approved budget new specialized research facility, and "$50 amount each year, the State Board of million over six years to provide seed Equalization has the power to raise or money for pilot and demonstration syn­ lower the surcharge. As of January 7, thetic fuel plants." As part of the Energy 1975, a surcharge of one tenth of a mill Development and Demonstration Trust was added to all electric utility bills. This Fund, this financial commitment will en­ is expected to raise about $15 million to able Kentucky to participate in the de­ meet the commission's expected budget sign, construction, and experimental op­ request for its first year of operation. eration of projects for coal gasification In Connecticut, provision is made for and liquefaction. "The State will be a conservation programs to be implemented joint participant with the federal govern­ in those identified areas of energy short­ ment and the private [sector] in acceler- ages that emerge from the forecasting. En­ *State of Kentucky, Kentucky's Response: Re­ ergy planning in most of the other States search Applied to Meet the Nation's Energy Needs cited in Table 2 seems to include, as a (Frankfort, Kentucky, 1975) . MAJOR STATE SERVICES 509 ating the comihercial feasibility of such struction of a wide range of energy fa­ processes." cilities—oil refineries, generating facilities, In pursuit of the overall objectives of and transmission lines. the Kentucky program, research will also The extent and nature of the processes be undertaken to determine precise in­ existing in the various States are greatly formation about the size and location of diverse. Some States, such as Minnesota coal reserves; to develop a more efficient, and Montana, require direct state involve­ safe, and economical mining system; to ment in the review. New Hampshire and investigate improved land reclamation Maine's programs place more emphasis techniques; and to conduct research into on review by local governments regarding the environmental impacts resulting from the siting of facilities within their juris­ coal production. dictions. Through skillful management of both A number of these state siting processes state and federal funds for research, Ken­ were developed prior to the biennium tucky has created a program that bridges 1974-75, although some were begun dur­ the public, university, and private sectors. ing that time. The 1975 Vermont legis­ In this sense, it is an example of a new lation provides that the General Assembly breed of "intersect" arrangements and will have the final review of siting de­ one that is a creature of state government. cisions regarding nuclear powerplants. A The 1974 Iowa Legislature appropri­ significant requirement written into ated $3 million to conduct coal research. many of the States' siting laws is the sub­ In Arizona, a state power authority was mission of five-, 10-, and 20-year energy de­ set up in 1975 with the purpose of acquir­ mand and facilities construction plans by ing or encouraging solar, nuclear and utility companies for review by the State, geothermal energy sources. an element that feeds directly into state The significance of these and other re­ energy planning. search and development efforts being un­ A striking example of this strategy is dertaken by States is that, given the rela­ found in California's recent promulga­ tively small geographic jurisdictions and tion of a comprehensive energy law [A.B. limited financial resources, the States ap­ 1575 (1974)]. Through this legislation pear to have taken the lead in this coun­ the State established an Energy Resources try's search for more efficient and more Conservation and Development Commis­ self-sufficient energy sources. To be sure, sion charged with responsibility for en­ they are following the broad policy guide­ ergy shortage contingency planning, fore­ lines of Project Independence, but their casting, and assessing future energy needs, own diverse interests in particular re­ adopting and recommending conserva­ sources available within their boundaries tion measures, and power facility and site are not likely to have received the con­ approval. centrated effort from the federal govern­ The energy commission will approve ment that the States have initiated. all new powerplant facilities except those for which construction is planned prior Facility Siting to January 1978. Another exception will As population growth and relocation be the approval of new power facilities place new demands on both the develop­ in the coastal areas of the State. In those ment of energy's raw resources and the cases the commission will cooperate with construction of new electric power plants, the California Coastal Zone Conservation the locational decisions for these activities Commission which has final approval of may have consequent effects on the en­ new power facilities in its jurisdiction. vironment and other private sector loca­ Although the commission's basic duty tional decisions. To minimize the adverse here is to approve enough new power fa­ effects of powerplant or other facility cilities to meet future demand, approval siting, over one half of the States have for new facilities will require review of instituted some form of statewide facility the technological and environmental ad­ siting process that requires the review by vantages and disadvantages of each new a central authority of the plans for con­ plant. 510 THE BOOK OF THE STATES could be a larger capacity to accommo­ Regional Arrangements date growth if significant numbers of in­ With the strong trend in the United dividuals take advantage of the tax break States toward multijurisdictional arrange­ allotted. ments for cooperative planning and de­ Among the States cited in Table 2, the cision-making, a real case exists for re­ most common form of tax incentive is full gional institutions to assemble priority or partial property tax exemption given energy needs and policy positions for the to property owners who install solar heat­ participating States. Taking just one ex­ ing or cooling devices. ample, 10 Western States have organized the Western Governors' Regional Energy Consumer Advocacy Policy Office.^ Significant benefits from The traditional nexus between the pro­ the organization of the Western group vision of utility and energy services and will be to inject a multistate viewpoint the protection of the citizens' interest is into national energy policy planning and state public utilities commissions (PUCs). to provide States leverage in coping with About a dozen States have chosen this as the complex interactions now emerging the point in which to insert a consumer among various levels of government. advocacy function that will ensure that While not always achieving unanimity, a fair review is given an energy supplier's the Western States have already taken col­ request regarding energy pricing in light lective positions vis-^i-vis the federal gov­ of the effects of that pricing on the energy ernment on synthetic fuel programs, de­ consumer. Most of these States took their control of oil prices, control of imports, action in the 1974-75 biennium as a re­ levying of windfall taxes, and the fuel sponse to the energy crisis and subsequent allocation program. Thus far, the aims of requests for utility rate increases made by the Regional Energy Policy Office are gen­ the power suppliers, but a few, most no­ eral and have shown a concentration on: tably Maryland (1924) and Indiana (a) production of energy at the lowest (1941) have long recognized the need to possible cost; (h) protection of the en­ consider citizens' input in utility rate and vironment and ecosystems; (c) prom,o- supply decisions. tion and development of energy storage It was the apparent shortage of oil and backup systems; (d) conservation in for powerplants and natural gas for the production, transportation, and con­ home and industrial consumption that sumption of energy; (e) research in the prompted many rate increase requests and development of new energy sources; (f) PUG conservation programs. The con­ encouragement of priorities for the use sumer counsels have been able to press of water in energy production; and (g) for adequate consideration of the heeds development of energy transportation of the State's citizens in the formulation and transmission facilities. of such decisions. Another similar sign of the times is the initiation by many States Tax Incentives of investigations into utility rate struc­ A major tool that a State can use to tures and the general operations of PUGs. implement policy decisions is allowing In a fundamental opinion issued on taxpayers to take credit on their taxes for August 18, 1974, the Pubhc Service Gom- actions the State considers beneficial. A mission of Wisconsin adopted the prin­ few States have opted for this method as ciple of limited time-of-day pricing for a means of encouraging their citizens to utilities in the Madison Gas and Electric use nonconventional sources of energy, Gompany Gase.^ The case is considered especially for home heating and cooling. by most in the industry to be a landmark This tactic permits increasing develop­ decision in utility regulation. Time-of-day ment without the usually expected de­ pricing gives the consumer the choice of mand on public utilities. The net result using or forbearing to use electricity at *Westerii Governors' Regional Energy Policy 'State of Wisconsin, Public Service Ckjmmission, Office, "Policies and Positions," mimeo. (Denver, Madison Gas and Electric Company Case, August Colorado, 1975).. 18, 1974. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 511 the proper economic prices. The basic level. The phased approach—combining premise is that if a customer adds to the public administration, facilities manage­ system peak he should be required to pay ment, and engineering skills—minimizes the cost associated with that demand. In the complexity of conservation efforts. At all cases it is far more costly to serve loads every step the decision-maker is fully in­ that coincide with the system peak. Not formed about targets of energy conserva­ only is capacity built to serve that load, tion opportunity, the extent of necessary but it is also necessary to rely on the less modifications, and associated costs. efficient units for on-peak generation. The Commonwealth has calculated The essential benefit of a peak-responsi­ other benefits to the program. Through bility pricing system is that it flattens out modification of existing building systems, the load curve and tends to discourage the drastic reductions in energy consumption need for investment in additional gener­ can be achieved. In 17 of its public fa­ ating capacity. Time-of-day pricing is not cilities surveyed, Massachusetts reported new in some industrial electric rate clas­ a potential for near-term savings of |1 sifications in the United States, but it has million annually on fuel and electrical not been employed for domestic rates costs. Pay back periods—the time required prior to this. for the Commonwealth to recapture its investment—are short, ranging typically Energy Conservation from eight months to two years. The rep­ Conservation programs continue to be resentative nature of the buildings ana­ regarded as the most effective short-term lyzed (correctional institutions, hospitals, means of countering the energy situation. office buildings, and educational com­ Rising governmental expenditures, short­ plexes) adds the advantage of inter- ened lead times, public dissatisfaction, changeability—the transfer of energy con­ and resistance to mounting tax burdens servation methodology, results, and have induced state governments to search benefits to a larger number of public fa­ for cost-saving techniques. cilities with similar characteristics. Massachusetts, for example, is under­ taking an innovative program aimed at CONCLUSION significantly reducing the consumption The foregoing examples of recent state of fuel and electricity in state facilities. initiatives, while by no means complete, The structure of the program involves point out that the States do respond with three distinct phases leading to the altera­ initiative. The major criterion for future tion of mechanical and electrical systems success will be adequate program defini­ in public buildings. The first phase, or tion. To this point, the States have dem­ energy appraisal, includes the collection onstrated a strong capacity to respond to of energy consumption data and an on- problems of national dimensions. Such de­ site walk-through of selected public fa­ cisive actions may have effects on the Na­ cilities to identify a number of representa­ tion's future and in areas beyond the issue tive buildings that have potentially of energy. substantial energy savings. The second phase involves an in-depth survey and analysis of building opera­ SELECTED REFERENCES The Council of State Governments. State Re­ tions and systems for the selected facil­ sponses to the Energy Crisis. Lexington, Ken­ ities, The third phase involves implemen­ tucky, 1975. tation of recommendations of earlier National Conference of State Legislatures. Energy: phases and results in detailed drawings The State's Response. Washington, D.C., 1975. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Re­ and specifications for modification of lations. State Actions 1974: Building on Inno­ heating, ventilation, and air conditioning vation. Washington, D.C., 1975. systems. Federal Energy Administration. Project Indepen­ In many respects, the Massachusetts dence. Washington, D.C., 1974. University of Oklahoma. Energy Alternatives: A program constitutes a model for action in Comparative Analysis. Norman, Oklahoma, energy conservation programs at the state 1975. TABLE 1 FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE ENERGY OFFICES—1975

State Emer- Con- General Interde- Recom- Resource Fore- Research or other gency servation data partmental mending alio- casting 6* develop- Power- jurisdiction Office planning planning collection cooperation legislation cation needs ment plant siting Alabama Energy Management Board, Development Office' • • • • • Energy Resources Research Div., Geological Survey • • Alaska Energy Office, Office of the Gov. • • • • • • • • Arizona Office of Econ. Plann. b" Dev. • • • • • • • • Corporation Commission • • • • •. • Oil &• Gas Conservation Comm. " • • • • • Arkansas Energy Office, Dept. of Commerce • • • • • • • • California Govt. Affairs Office, Energy Res. Conserv. 6* Dev. Comm. • • • • • • • • • • Colorado Energy Research Institute • • • • • • • Energy Policy Council, Office of the Gov. Connecticut Dept. of Planning 6* Energy Policy • • • • Power Facility Evaluation Council • • • • • • • • • Delaware ..... Dept. of Natural Res. 6* Envir. Control Div. of Emerg. Plann. 6* Ops., Dept. of Public Safety • • • • • • • • State Planning Office, Office of the Gov. • • • • • • Florida Energy Office, Dept. of Admin. Solar Energy Center • • • • • • • Georgia Energy Office, Office of the Gov. • • • • • • • • o» Hawaii Energy Mgt. 6* Conserv. Office, Dept. of Plann. 6* Econ. Dev. • • • • • f3 State Center for Science Policy 6* Tech. Assessment, Dept. of • • • • Plann. 6* Econ. Dev. Idaho Div. of Energy, Public Utilities Comm. • • • • • • • • Illinois Div. of Energy, Dept. of Business 6* Econ. Dev. Commerce Commission • • • • • • • • Energy Resources Comm., General Assembly • • • • • • Indiana Energy Office, Dept. of Commerce • • • • • Geological Survey, Dept. of Natural Res. • • • • • • • • • Iowa Energy Policy Council • • • • • • • ••(a ) Kansas Energy Office, Office of Governor • • • • • • Geological Survey • • • • • • • Kentucky Dept. of Energy • • • • • • • • Center for Energy Research • • • • • Louisiana Div. of Nat. Res. 6* Energy, Dept. of Conserv. • • • • • • Maine Office of Energy Resources, Exec. Dept. • • •(b) Div. of Community Services, Exec. Dept. • • • • • • • • Maryland Office of Energy Policy, Exec. Dept. •(b) Administrative Div., Public Service Comm. • • • • • • • Dept. of Natural Resources • • • * • • Massachusetts. . Energy Policy Office • • • • • • • • • Energy Facilities Siting Council • Michigan Energy Office, Public Service Comm., Dept. of Commerce • • • • • Dept. of Natural Resources • • • • • • • Minnesota Energy Agency • • • • • • Environmental Quality Council • • • Mississippi Fuel 6* Energy Management Comm. • • • • • • • Missouri Energy Agency, Dept. of Natural Resources • • • • • • • Dept. of Geology 6* Geophysics, Univ. of Missouri • • • • • Montana Energy Advisory Council, Office of Li. Gov. ..••••••-•• Energy Planning Dip., Dept. of Nat. Res. b" Conserv. ..•....•• Utility Div., Public Service Comm. • •-.••••.... Nebraska Office of Planning 6* Programming, Energy Office, Dept. of • •••••••.. Revenue Div. of Planning, Natural Resources Comm. • • • • • Power Review Board, Dept. of Water Resources Nevada Energy Resources Advisory Bd. • .. • Public Service Comm. New Hampshire. Gov.'s Council on Energy • • • • • • New Jersey Energy Office, Dept. of Public Utilities • New Mexico Energy Resources Board • ••....•••.. New York Emergency Fuel Office, Exec. Dept. Energy Research and Development Authority • ••••••... Public Service Commission North Carcrflna.. Energy Div., Dept. of Military 6* Vets. Affairs • •••••••• Utilities Commission, Dept. of Commerce • •• • • • • •• North Dakota... Office of Energy Management • • •••••• • Public Service Commission • •••••••.. Ohio Energy &• Resource Development A gey. • •••••••• Oklahoma Dept. of Energy • •••••• ••.. Oregon Dept. of Energy • .. .. y^ Pennsylvania Gov.'s Energy Council • •••••••• H- Rhode Island... . Energy Office, Exec. Dept. • •••••••.. ** South Carolina.. Energy Management Office • •••••• ••• • •••••••• South Dakota... Office of Energy Policy • •••••••.. Tennessee Energy Office, Exec. Dept. • •••••••• Texas Gov.'s Energy Advisory Council • ••••••..... Utah Energy Coordinator, Dept. of Natural Resources • • •• • • • • State Science Advisor, Univ. of Utah • ••••••••.. Vermont State Energy Office{c), Agcy. of Admin. • • • • • •...... •• Virginia Energy Office • • • • • • • • Washington Energy Office, Office of the Gov. • ••••••.... Thermal Power Plant Site Selection Council • • •• • • • • West Virginia... Fuel &• Energy Office, Gov.'s Office of Fed.-State Rslations ....•••.. • • •••••••... Comm. on Energy, Economy, &• Envir. • • • .. • • Wisconsin Office of Emergency Energy Assistance • ..•••••.... Public Service Commission • ••••..•••• Wyoming Mineral Development Div., Dept. ofEcon. Planning b"Dev. • ••••••.... OH & Gas Conservation Comm. • • • • Guam Energy Office • •••••..•.. Office of Consumer Council • • • • • Puerto Rico Office of .Petroleum Fuels Affs., Office of the Gov. • • • • • ••

(a) Research only. (b) Advisory only. (c) Interasency committee. 514 THE BOOK OF THE STATES TABLE 2 STATE ENERGY ACTIONS*

Subsidized research 6* Tax Energy Emergency development incentives for facility Energy Powers to into alternate alternate siting Consumer State planning Governor energy sources energy process advocacy Alabama ir Alaska -. .• Arizona Arkansas ..: if California • Colorado ; Connecticut.; .;..... if Delaware if Florida • Georgia. if Hawaii • • Idaho • • minois •(a) Indiana • Iowa ir •(a) Kansas if Kentucky if •(a) Louisiana if Maine if Maryland Massachusetts Michigan if Minnesota if Mississippi Missouri if Montana -A* Nebraska if Nevada New Hampshire if New Jersey ^ij- New Mexico if New York. ; .. North Carolina if North Dakota if Ohio. • Oklahoma if Oregon • Pennsylvania if Rhode Island South Carolina if South Dakota if Tennessee Texas • Utah. . .; ^ Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia • Wisconsin •yir Wyoming *Source: Advisory Commission on intergovernmental Rela­ •^ indicates action prior to 1974-75 biennium or iindeter- tions, State Actions, 1974: Building on Innovation, and various mlned date. Council of State Government's publications. •k indicates action in 1974-75 biennium. (a) Includes research into conventional sources. 7 Labor Relations

DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE PERSONNEL SYSTEMS* )

URING the past two years, most States have been faced with the combined LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS D impact of inflation, recession, and The trend toward collective bargaining declining revenues, as well as escalating in the state employment sector was one of demands from organized employees and the most significant developments in the interest groups. However, the dominant last two years, and was marked by legisla­ trend throughout the period has been the tion in numerous States, a substantial in­ growing role of the States as both middle­ crease in the number of state employees men and performing agents in the im­ in represented groups, union pressure for plementation of national programs. The federal legislation, and illegal strikes by thrust of federal regulations has been to state employees. standardize state personnel procedures. This was illustrated by the fact that 26 The proliferation of block grants has States now authorize collective bargain­ led to the decentralization of program ing on the subject of compensation. The administration, yet has imposed federal Indiana General Assembly passed a bar­ control through regulations, post audits, gaining bill for state employees effective and program evaluations. January 1, 1976, and the new bargaining In the area of categorical grants, the law enacted by the Iowa Legislature de­ Federal Assistance Review Task Force, in ferred actual bargaining until July 1, a survey of 221 grant programs, found 172 1976. Massachusetts expanded its collec­ instances of regulations and procedures tive bargaining statute to include wages related to personnel administration. and established 11 statewide bargaining In addition to these regulations, the units, including one covering state police. demands created by federal legislative en­ Connecticut approved a new comprehen­ actments pertaining to fair labor stan­ sive collective bargaining law in 1975 and dards, occupational health and safety, Minnesota achieved its first collective bar­ and affirmative action on the part of eth­ gaining agreement in the same year. In nic and cultural minorities, women, the Wisconsin, retirement benefits and em­ aged, and the handicapped have severely ployee contributions, as well as the em­ taxed both the financial and human re­ ployee share of premiums on group life sources of state personnel systems. and health insurance, became bargain- able issues for the first time in 1974-75. *This article is a joint venture by Carl K. Wet- Collective bargaining legislation cov­ tengel, Administrator of Employe Relations, and ering 25,000 public employees was enacted Verne H. Knoll, Acting Director, State Bureau in New Hampshire in 1975, replacing a of Personnel; State of Wisconsin; and H. Brinton 1969 act. In Maine, collective bargaining Milward, Assistant Professor of Political Science, and W. Mark Pentz, graduate assistant. University rights were extended to university person­ of Kansas. nel for the first time while Montana ex- 515 516 THE BOOK OF THE STATES tended bargaining rights to about 9,000 pal Employees (AFSCME), membership public schoolteachers. has increased from 250,000 in 1964 to over The picture was not completely one­ 700,000 in 1975, and the union is pres­ sided. Collective bargaining bills were ently expanding at the rate of 1,000 new not successful in Ohio and California. In members each week. In Illinois, AFSCME Ohio, the Governor vetoed legislation scored the largest single representation which would have enabled state em­ gain in 1975 when it won a statewide cler­ ployees to engage in collective bargain­ ical election covering 15,000 employees. ing, while in California a collective bar­ AFSCME was thwarted in two attempts gaining bill for state employees was de­ to represent New Jersey's professional, ad­ feated although collective bargaining for ministrative, and clerical employees. In public school employees was adopted. Al­ 1975, the coalition of the Civil Service though some of the comprehensive laws Association and the State Employees' As­ passed by States reflected a growing ac­ sociation was selected in a contested elec­ ceptance of some form of agency shop and tion for the right to represent New Jer­ the limited right to strike, the Iowa and sey's 8,200 white-collar professionals. In Florida laws do not conform to this trend. 1974, the same coalition won the right to Both laws contain strong management represent New Jersey's 12,000 adminis­ rights clauses, prohibitions against agency trative and clerical employees. Wisconsin shop, and stringent antistrike provisions. now has more than 17,000 represented Likewise, New Jersey toughened its exist­ employees, including about 8,200 clerical ing collective bargaining statutes to pro­ employees who voted for certification in vide penalties for bad faith bargaining. December 1975. Pennsylvania currently The doctrine of the separation of pow­ has approximately 100,000 state employ­ ers in state government increases the dif­ ees covered in bargaining units and two ficulty in determining who has ultimate thirds of Oregon's state employees are power to make binding agreements for represented in 85 bargaining units involv­ the State. Management is not the mono­ ing 11 unions. lithic structure it is in the private sector. Between 1965 and 1975, strikes by state In the States, both the executive and legis­ and local employees increased by over 800 lative branches play a role. For unions the percent-from 42 in 1965 to 382 in 1974. difficulty is in determining with whom to Seven States—Alaska, Hawaii, Minnesota, negotiate, while for the States the prob­ Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and lem is designating an individual or group Vermont—now have laws that, in varying to represent the interests of the State. degrees, make strikes possible. Although Florida, Kansas, and Minnesota have most States have laws prohibiting public dealt with this problem by statutorily es­ employee strikes, such laws are no guar­ tablishing responsibility for conducting antee that strikes will not occur. During negotiations. Oregon has gone so far as to the period under review, Ohio and Penn­ recognize the fact that public employee sylvania both experienced strikes by state unions may act as interest groups by at­ employees. In Ohio, where there is no tempting to lobby the Legislature during collective bargaining, the International the collective bargaining process. In or­ Brotherhood of Teamsters and AFSCME der to prevent this, Oregon has made it called for a strike after the Governor's of­ an unfair labor practice for union repre­ fice announced an $80 million surplus at sentatives to communicate with officials the end of fiscal 1974. Many of the 7,500 other than those designated as represent­ workers who left their positions held criti­ ing the employer during collective bar­ cal jobs enabling the unions to negotiate gaining. a wage increase of 10 cents to 30 cents per The rapid growth of state and local hour with the greatest proportional bene­ government employment, which reached fit going to those workers at the lowest 12.95 million in 1975, has been paralleled end of the wage scale. The Pennsylvania by an influx of new members into public strike occurred in July 1975 after the State sector employee unions. In the American offered its employees a 3.5 percent wage Federation of State, County and Munici­ increase. The Pennsylvania experience MAJOR STATE SERVICES 517 illustrates the difficulties that officials may ing. The first (S. 294) would extend the face when attempting to negotiate with National Labor Relations Act to state several different employee unions. Al­ and local government workers, while the though most of the 50,000 strikers re­ second (S. 3295) would establish a sepa­ turned to work after AFSCME negotiated rate legal structure and enforcement ap­ a 12 percent pay increase over 24 months, paratus for public employees. Although two other unions representing 12,600 em­ both bills have been before subcommit­ ployees held out not only for a larger tees since 1974, it is doubtful that con­ wage increase, but also for a change in gressional approval of either will be forth­ promotion policies that would make coming. Collective bargaining legislation seniority, not merit, the exclusive criter­ has been overshadowed by economic ion for job advancement. problems and other political issues, and Although public employee unions are the unions have so far failed to come up the fastest-growing segment in the Ameri­ with a unified position. Also, the role of can labor movement, their increasing size unions in events lea^ding to New York and militancy will not necessarily guar­ City's near-bankruptcy has created a po­ antee future success at the bargaining litical climate so unfavorable to public table. The recession and the fiscal crisis employee unionization that neither major confronting many States will most likely political party has been willing to push make collective bargaining easier for collective bargaining legislation through management. Runaway inflation has in­ Congress. This has been aided by the creased public support for state officials AFL-CIO's refusal to go along with any determined to hold the line against union prohibition on the right to strike in fed­ demands. Austerity budgets may force eral legislation. public employee unions into holding ac­ tions geared to avoid pay freezes, layoffs, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and reductions in fringe benefits. New In recent years, few developments have York City's near-bankruptcy forced the had more impact on state personnel sys­ city's powerful public employee unions to tems than the increased emphasis on Af­ accept 25,000 dismissals and a reduc­ firmative Action programs. The passage tion in their 1975 wage increases. The of the Equal Employment Opportunity "New York City syndrome" spread to the (EEO) Act in 1972 and the Griggs and States—the State of New York granted its subsequent court decisions related to 180,000 organized workers only one half EEO reflect a growing realization that of a recommended 6 percent wage in­ merit system practices have not been to­ crease and the Governor planned to freeze tally fair and non-discriminatory. Federal wages until April 1, 1977, and reduce the requirements have forced States to do State's payroll by 7,000; the New Jersey more than passively prohibit discrimina­ Senate voted to appropriate only one tory hiring practices; they have broad­ third of the $12 million needed to give ened the scope of equal opportunity to 40,000 state employees a pay increase cover all elements of personnel policies averaging 2 percent; and Connecticut's and procedures, including areas such as 40,000 state employees, having lost a gen­ qualification requirements, job classifica­ eral wage increase and one fourth of their tions, compensation, promotion policies, normal longevity increments, faced the and training programs to increase upward prospect of having 4,000 to 6,000 layoffs. mobility. In response to federal pressure This prospect eased early in 1976. and court requirements, action taken by The tremendous growth in state gov­ States to balance their work forces to re­ ernment employment and the diversity of flect both the racial and sex proportions state legislation governing public em­ of their respective populations has pri­ ployee labor relations have prompted marily been in two areas. public employee labor unions to seek fed­ First, a majority of the States have eral regulatory legislation. Congress is adopted formal Affirmative Action goals presently considering two bills, both of and programs and a number of these have which would legalize collective bargain­ provided adequate staff to implement the 518 THE BOOK OF THE STATES programs and monitor the results. Al­ tion quite successfully, the problems in though the lack of adequate funding and achieving Affirmative Action goals within the scarcity of trained minorities and the framewQrk of the merit system will women in some technical and profes­ most likely continue to be resolved in the sional fields have tended to complicate courts. Affirmative Action programs, many States are currently eliminating artificial bar­ EXAMINATION VALIDATION riers such as unrealistic job requirements, In response to EEOC requirements and the lack of publicity about job openings, the Griggs decision which struck down and unvalidated examinations. Some nonperformance-related tests for appoint­ States have also created training and in­ ments and promotions, examination vali­ ternship programs to accelerate the pro­ dation has become a high priority item motion of women and minorities to ad­ for the majority of state personnel man­ ministrative positions. agement operations. A,lthough some ex­ Second, although Affirmative Action is amination validation activity has been intended to reinforce the merit principle inaugurated with the use of Intergovern­ by assuring all individuals the opportu­ mental Personnel Act (IPA) funds, the nity to enter the public service and ad­ consensus of the States reporting is that vance on the basis of their ability, some much greater professional resources are States have reported problems in integrat­ going to have to be applied in this area to ing Affirmative Action programs with meet federal and court standards on vali­ their merit systems. This may be due to dation for all positions. To date, the em­ differing perceptions of what merit em­ phasis in most States has been necessarily ployment means: hiring the most quali­ in validating examinations used for posi­ fied person for a position or hiring some­ tions involving a large number of hires. one who is competent to perform a given The growing concern for examination job. In light of the latter definition, sev­ validation has generally resulted in an eral States have made changes or amend­ increase in both the number of staff in­ ments to their basic selection procedures volved in validation activity and in their to permit selective certification when that professional qualifications for such work. is ruled the only viable way to secure a In an effort to cope with the immediate balanced work force. Such supplemen­ needs of examination validation, some tal certification procedures have been States have utilized outside consultants. adopted by Michigan, Pennsylvania, As of 1974, only 10 percent of the state Washington, and Wisconsin. As could be and local civil service examinations met anticipated, particularly in the current the Griggs requirement. Although most period of high unemployment, there have States will probably continue to expend been court challenges to some of these resources for examination validation, modifications in civil service procedures. there is a growing trend toward the de­ In Michigan, there is a case pending in velopment of other selection and certifica­ court in which "reverse discrimination" tion devices—structured oral interviews, has been charged by the plaintiff, a white pass-fail tests, relevant training and ex­ male, because the passing test score was perience, and performance tests of the job lowered on an examination to make more to be done. minorities and women eligible. In New Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, the Kirkland case resulted in a York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West court declaring illegal a quota system that Virginia have joined several local govern­ employed blacks at a 1 to 3 ratio in one ments and administrative bodies in form­ job classification. An administrative rul­ ing the Mid-Atlantic Personnel Assess­ ing by Wisconsin's Director of the State ment Consortium (MAPAC), the overall Bureau of Personnel, restricting appli­ purpose of which is to improve the cants for a certain position to minorities general quality of civil service tests. and women, is being challenged in court. MAP AG's objectives, include: (a) making Although Washington reports having the most efficient use of resources through useci various forms of selective certifica­ exchange of information and cooperative MAJOR STATE SERVICES 519 projects, (b) assisting member jurisdic­ six others used the program to reorganize tions in meeting professional and legal or establish central personnel manage­ standards for personnel selection, and (c) ment departments. increasing the technical competence of As a result of IPA, the majority of examinations and research personnel in States have reported improved relation­ member jurisdictions. ships with both the U.S. Civil Service Commission and local governments. Al­ THE IMPACT OF IPA though IPA has funded over 500 projects Throughout the period. States encoun­ a year, it is currently meeting less than tered new demands and responsibilities in 1 percent of the potential demand of state areas such as labor relations, revenue and local governments for personnel sharing. Affirmative Action, and em­ funding assistance. Nevertheless, by al­ ployee productivity, resulting in a grow­ lowing diversity and encouraging innova­ ing need for improved manpower pro­ tion, administrators at all levels of govern­ grams and better management practices. ment have recognized IPA as one of the By helping to strengthen personnel ad­ most successful federal grant programs. ministration at both state and local levels, programs funded under the Intergovern­ MAJOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES mental Personnel Act have played an A number of States took major organi­ increasingly important role in the upgrad­ zational actions to improve the quality of ing of public personnel management per­ manpower management during this pe­ formance. Since its enactment in 1971, the riod, ranging from the establishment of IPA has funded three major programs: initial career service programs to the reor­ matching fund grants for employee train­ ganization of classification systems and ing and general personnel management the delegation of personnel functions to improvements; advisory and operational operating agencies. North Dakota and assistance by the U.S. Civil Service Com­ South Dakota are the most recent States mission staff; and talent-sharing, which to establish statewide career services un­ enables administrators to "borrow" ex­ der the merit system, and Montana has pertise from other levels of government laid the groundwork for such a system or colleges and universities. with the establishment of a Board of Per­ By loosely defining the type and scope sonnel Appeals and the development of a of fundable projects, IPA has allowed single classification and compensation sys­ States to set their own priorities in pro­ tem. gram design. Consequently, States have Several States reorganized existing per­ used IPA grants to initiate projects rang­ sonnel management operations in rela­ ing from cooperative recruiting and ex­ tion to new and changed responsibilities. amining efforts to training programs for Massachusetts combined its Department newly elected Governors and state legisla­ of Personnel and Department of Civil tors. The stringent requirements of both Service into one Division of Personnel federal agencies and the courts with re­ Administration to eliminate duplication gard to the validation of examination and and provide better coordination of man­ selection procedures were reflected in power policies. In Wisconsin, a Division New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, of Employe Relations was created en­ where IPA grants were used to retain re­ compassing the Bureaus of Personnel, search psychologists for test validation Collective Bargaining, and Human Re­ and development. Likewise, the growing sources Services. Under a statewide reor­ impact of collective bargaining in the ganization in 1974, Missouri's personnel public sector resulted in Iowa, Nebraska, department picked up authority for ap­ and West Virginia utilizing IPA funds to proximately 2,000 employees in other establish collective bargaining units and agencies and added 30 new members to its training programs in labor relations. A own staff. In a reorganization effective in number of States made use of IPA grants 1976, North Carolina's Office of State Per­ to upgrade or inaugurate formal classifi­ sonnel will be removed from the Depart­ cation and selection systems, while at least ment of Administration and made into an 520 THE BOOK OF THE STATES independent agency under a commission in Illinois to about 70 percent of all classi­ reporting to the Governor. fication and examination processing in A majority of States reported a signifi­ Wisconsin, the trend toward delegation cant increase in the number of employee of the more routine or patterned person­ appeals being received. In Indiana, ap­ nel actions appears to be continuing peals are now heard by the newly created among the States. This is part of the trend State Employees Appeals Commission to cut down on delays inherent in going whose members are appointed by the through a central personnel office and to Governor. In Wisconsin and North Caro­ make personnel more of a positive man­ lina, hearing officers have been hired to agement function. expedite the handling of personnel ap­ The major limiting factors cited by peals; Texas and Missouri are considering States on the question of delegation are the employment of hearing officers. New the varying abilities of agencies to absorb Jersey, which has used per diem hearing the added work load involved and the fact officers since 1971, reports the waiting that many personnel actions require the time for hearings had declined from discretion and judgment of centralized nearly two years in 1970 to under three decision-making if uniformity is to be months at the beginning of 1976. Reasons maintained within the system. The most given for the increase in appeals include frequently reported moves toward delega­ union-prompted grievances, collective tion were: (1) classification or job evalua­ bargaining disputes, the impact of Affirm­ tion processes in which most States have ative Action, and the general questioning delegated entrance-level clerical, blue-col­ of procedures more closely than in pre­ lar, and other nonprofessional or admin­ vious periods. These were heightened by istrative classes; and (2) examination and the willingness of the courts to intervene recruitment processes in which local ad­ in matters previously considered to be ad­ ministration of examinations was re­ ministrative. In this area the major trend ported by an increasing number of States. is toward increased judicialization of the States reporting some progress toward personnel process. delegation within these limits include There is considerable evidence that ex­ California, Colorado, Georgia, Minne­ isting classification systems are being sota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, strained by the increasing number and Texas, and Washington. complexity of appeals and that a trend Even though delegation has been seems to be developing toward conversion largely limited to repetitive and highly to a point factor/benchmark comparison structured actions in which the probabil­ job evaluation system as an answer. For ity and consequence of error is relatively instance, New Jersey has used such a sys­ minor, it has required an increase in staff tem for position classification since 1973. by the personnel units of the operating Michigan is implementing a system of this agencies. Likewise, delegation has not re­ type and Washington has established a sulted in the anticipated decrease in the point factor system for payment of its top work load of the central agency. Decisions executives that is comparable to the one requiring some degree of specialization used by Wisconsin. In Indiana, a new are generally retained in the central pay and classification system of the point agency along with most developmental factor/benchmark comparison type was work. The latter activity has increased in recommended by the Governor's task scope and complexity with the profusion force and was scheduled to go into eflEect of requirements being placed on central early in 1976. Georgia, Iowa, and North personnel agencies by the federal govern­ Carolina are currently in the process of ment and the courts. updating their classification systems and will most likely adopt point factor systems COMPENSATION in 1976. In the area of compensation, two sig­ While the status of delegating person­ nificant trends have emerged in recent nel functions to operating agencies years. First, although the recession and ranged over a broad spectrum from none the energy crisis have been felt nation- MAJOR STATE SERVICES 521 wide, their combined impact has been with many varying their pay packages to greater in the East than in the agricul­ grant larger percentage increases in the tural and energy-producing States of the lower-paid categories than for middle- mid- and far-West. Regional economic and top-management groups. This was conditions have therefore resulted in a generally in recognition of the political wide variation in pay increases granted by power of organized employees, most of the States. Second, both the size and oc­ whom are at the lower end of state pay currence of annual salary increases for scales. Iowa, for example, used a three- state employees have become indicators of tiered plan granting 10 percent to em­ the political power of employee organiza­ ployees earning $7,000 or less, 9 percent to tions. those in the $7,000 to $14,000 category, While general pay increases granted by and 7 percent for those over $14,000. States during 1975 varied from zero to Considerable emphasis was also placed more than 15 percent, fiscal austerity was on increased fringe benefit packages, the the dominant theme of the period with at impact of which will not be fully appar­ least four States granting no increases and ent for some time. Although there is n6 others granting increases substantially be­ discernible trend in the area of fringe low those provided in the past few years. benefits, improvements ranged from the Layoffs and reductions in force became granting of unemployment and work­ increasingly common throughout the men's compensation coverage to increas­ States and general salary increases were ing retirement, health, and dental bene­ completely eliminated for state employees fits. in Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, If the theme of the past two years has and North Carolina. Employees earning been persistent federal influence in state below 112,000 were granted range in­ personnel systems, the path of influence creases without delay. In addition to the has not been a one-way street. Many States elimination of any general pay increase, have developed innovative personnel pro­ Connecticut scheduled the layoff of some grams and practices, which as in the past 4,000 to 6,000 employees. At the other ex­ could come to be adopted by the federal treme, Colorado, Oregon, and Texas all government. In the bicentennial year the granted increases of over 10 percent. The metaphor of States as "laboratories of majority of States, however, kept salary federalism" is a concept that retains its increases within the 3 to 8 percent range. historic vitality. 522 THE BOOK OF THE STATES STATE PERSONNEL AGENCIES Coverage, Organization and Selected Policies As of late 1975

Workweek Board members for office No. Number of •^ workers Paid State or employees How Term vacaiii other jurisdiction Coverage (a) covered No. apptd. (years]) Days Hrs, days Alabama State Personnel Department General 25,357 3 G(b) 6 5 40 13(c) Alaska State Division of Personnel General 8,156 3 G(b) 6 5 37.5 lS(c) Arizona State Personnel Commission General 15,563 5 G(b) 5 5 40 12(c) Merit System Council Highway Patrol 850 3 G 6 5 40 15(c) Arkansas • Merit System Council Grant-in-aid 3.668 3 G(b) 3 S 40 Office of Personnel Management... General 13,300 5 40 California lis State Personnel Board General 129.435 5 G(b) 10 5 40 10(c) Colorado State Department of Personnel... General 30.000 S S 5 40 12(c) Merit System Council County public welfare 2,400 3 f 3 5 40 15(c) Connecticut State Personnel Department General 36,500 6 G 6 S 35 15(c) Delaware Office of Personnel General 9,800 5 G 3 5 37.5 15(c) Florida Career Service System General 85,000 5 G(b) 4 S 40 13(c) Georgia State Merit System General 44,661 3 G(b) 7 5 40 15(c) Hawaii Dept. of Personnel Services General 16,388 7 G(b) 4 5 40 21 Idaho Personnel Commission General 8,500 5 G(b) 6 5 40 12(c) Illinois I Department of Personnel'. General 64,000 5 37.5 10(c) \ Civil Service Commission(e) General 3 6 State Police Merit Board(e) State police 1,600 3 8i8 6 "5 40 i6(c) Univ. Civil Service System Nonacademic 22,151 6 (f) 5 40 12(c) Indiana A State Personnel Division General 19.558 4 G 4 5 40 12(c) Iowa Merit Employment Department.. General 22,000 5 G(b) 6 5 40 10(c) University System Nonacademic 8,500 10 G(b) 4 5 40 10(c) Kansas Personnel Division General 25,000 5 G(b) 4 5 40 12(c) Kentucky Department of Personnel. General 33,714 S G 4 5 37.5 Merit System Council Local health 1,550 5 A 3 5 37.S \m Louisiana Department of Civil Service..... General 57.809 7 G 6 5 40 12(c) Maine Department of Personnel General 12,500 5 GC 4 5 40 12(c) Maryland Department of Persoimel General 50.100 1 G(b) 6 S 35.5 10(c) Massachusetts Division of Personnel Administra­ tion General 72,757 5 G 5 5 37.5 10(c) Michigan Department of Civil Service. .... General 57,607 4 G 8 5 40 13(c) Minnesota Personnel Department General 30,765 7 G(b) 3 5 40 9.7S(c) Merit System Local health, welfare, civil defense 2,635 3 G(b) 3 S 35-40 12 Mississippi Merit System Council(e) Public welfare 1.140 3 A 3 S 40 IS Advisory Committee on Pers.Ce).. Employment security 1.000 3 A 5 40 24 Merit System Council ;. •.. Health 2,993 3 A "3 5 40 15 Missouri Personnel Division Grant-in-aid(h) 22,000 G(b) 40 lS(c) t—X indicates that the State has group insurance but the Seldom, however, is coverage complete. "Grant-in-aid" indi­ employee pays the premium. In other cases, the premium per­ cates that the program covers employees engaged in activities centage or dollar amounts paid by the State is indicated. aided by the grant-in-aid programs administered by the United Abbreviations: G—Governor, A—Agencies, GC—Governor States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "Local" and Cabinet. indicates that the program covers only local government em­ (a) The pattern of personnel agency coverage varies widely ployees administering grant-in-aid programs. Other entries In­ rom State to State. Where coverage is shown as "General, dicate that the program covers the activities designated, e.g., most employees in state agencies are covered by the program. state police, public welfare, health, employment security. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 523 STATE PERSONNEL AGENCIES—Continued Coverage, Organization and Selected Policies As of late 1975

Statewide employee Group insurance organizations

{including premium , ' V Sick leave Percentage or dollar amounts Non- (working Paid by States) affili- Affili­ days) ated ated Paid , * » with with After Cumu- holi­ Hos- Medical AFL- AFL- State or other days pitali- or CIO CIO jurisdiction 1 yr. lative zation^ surgical] Life] Alabama 13 150 13 -100- X .. State Personnel Department Alaska 15 no limit 11 -100- X .. State Division of Personnel Arizona 12 no limit 12 $lS/mo. X .. State Personnel Commission IS no limit 11 $15/mo. X .. Merit System Council Arkansas IS 90 9 $ll/mo. X ., .. Merit System Council 12 90 11 $ 16/mo.- Office of Personnel Management California 12 no limit 10 $22/mo.— X X .. State Personnel Board Colorado IS no limit 11.5 —$11.62/mo.— .88/mo. State Department of Personnel IS 180 11 $9.30/mo. X .. Merit System Council Connecticut IS no limit 11 -100- X X State Personnel Department Delaware IS no limit 12 —$11.46/mo.— X ... Office of Personnel Florida 13 no limit 8 $9.98/mo. X X X Career Service System Georgia 15 90 12 3 X .5 . i State Merit System Hawaii 21 no limit 13.5 30-42 100 X X Dept. of Personnel Services Idaho 12 no limit 9 •—$10.83/mo. 100 X .. Personnel Commission IlUnois 12 no limit 13 100 varies 100 X ^ / Department of Personnel .. \ Civil Service Commission(e) 12 no limit 9 -100- X X State Police Merit Board(e) 12 no limit 9 -100- Univ. Civil Service System . Jndiana 12 no limit 13 -96- X .. State Personnel Division Iowa 30 90 10 $22/mo.— 100 X X Merit Employment Departmetit 30 90 10 X X 33 X .. University System Kansas' 12 no limit 9 -100- X .. Personnel Division Kentucky 12(c) no limit 10.5 —$13.85/mo.— 100 Department of Personnel 12(c) 120 10.5 —$13.85/mo.(g)— 100 Merit System Council Louisiana 12 no limit 8+ -50- X Department of Civil Service Maine 12 90 10 -100- X X Department of Personnel Maryland 15 no limit 14 -75- X X Department of Personnel Massachusetts Division of Personnel Admlnistra- 15 . no limit 10 -75- X .. tion Michigan 13 no limit 8+ -90- 75 X X Department of Civil Service Minnesota 6.S(c) 100 9 -100- X X Personnel Department 12 100 9 -100- X Merit System Mississippi 30 10 X Merit System Council(e) 12 60 10 -40- Advisory Committee on Per8.(e) 30 60 10 -50- Merit System Council Missouri 15 no limit 11 -$10/mo.- X Personnel Division (b) With confirmation of Legislature. (h) Plus additional coverage. (c) Additional days after a specified number of years. (i) Governor, Board of Higher Education, and elected of­ (d) Governor appoints 3 members with legislative confirma­ ficials each appoint one; employees elect two. tion; employees elect 2. (J) 75% for employees, 50% for dependents. (e) Data shown from prior years. (k) State pays 70% first year, 100% thereafter. (f) No fixed term. (1) Covers only non-Trust Territory citizen employees; high (s) Payment of employer's portion optional for local health and low options. departments. 524 THE BOOK OF THE STATES STATE PERSONNEL AGENCIES-Concluded Coverage, Organization and Selected Policies As of late 1975

Workweek Board members for office No. Number of , ^ , workers paid State or employees How Term ', * ^ vacation other jurisdiction Coverage (a) covered No. apptd. (years) Days Hrs, days Montana Joint Merit System Grant-in-aid 2,100 3 G 6 5 40 lS(c) Nebraska Joint Merit System Grant-in-aid(h) 3.000 3 A 3 5 40 12(c) State Personnel Department General 16,000 5 G 5 5 40 12(c) Nevada Personnel Divlslon(e) General 8,000 5 G 4 5 40 15(c) New Hampshire Department of Personnel General 8,413 3 GC 3 5 37.5 15 New Jersey Department of Civil Service General 166,781 5 G(b) 5 5 35 12(c) New Mexico State Personnel OflSce General 12,300 5 G 5 5 40 15 New York Department of Civil Service General 175,193 3 G(b) 6 5 37.5 13(c) North Carolina Office of State Personnel Genersil 58,000 7 G(b) 6 5 40 10(c) North Dakota Central Personnel Division General 8,000 5 (i) 6 5 40 12(c) Ohio Division of State Personnel General 82,000 3 G(b) 6 5 40 10(c) Oklahoma State Personnel Board General 24,199 7 G 7 5 40 15(c) Oregon f Personnel Division General 30,324 5 40 12(c) \ Public Employment Relations Bd. "3 G '3 Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission Grant-in-aid 77,597 3 G(b) 6 5 37.5 10(c) Bureau of Personnel General 119,000 5 37.5 10(c) Rhode Island Division of Personnel General 17,000 S 35 15(c) South Carolina Personnel Division General 47,739 5 GC(b) 4 5 37.5 lS(c) South Dakota Bureau of Personnel General 8,000 5 G(b) 5 5 40 I5(c Tennessee Department of Personnel Grant-in-aid 15,000 1 A (f) 5 40 12(c) Texas Merit System Council Grant-in-aid 15,000 3 G 6 5, 40 10.5(c) Utah Personnel Office General 9,640 5 G 4 5 40 12(c) Vermont Personnel Department General 5,789 3 G(b) 6 5 37.5 12(c) Virginia Merit System Council Grant-in-aid 7,144 3 A 6 5 40 Division of Personnel General 60,000 5 40 m Washington Department of Personnel General 32,500 3 G(b) 6 S 40 12(c) West Virginia Civil Service System Grant-in-aid(h) 13,500 3 G(b) 6 5 varies lS(c) Wisconsin Division of Employee Relations .. General 53,756 5 G(b) 5 5 40 10(c) Wyoming Personnel Division General 5,000 5 40 12(c) Career Service Grant-in-aid 851 "3 G '3 5 40 12(c) Guam Department of Administration.... General 3,397 7 G(b) 3 5 40 13(c) Puerto Rico Office of Personnel General 61,204 3 G(b) 4 5 37.5 30 TTPI Department of Personnel General 8,400 5 G(b) 3 5 40 13(c) Virgin Islands Personnel Office General 7,659 5 G 3 5 40 15(c) MAJOR STATE SERVICES 525 STATE PERSONNEL AGENCIES—Concluded Coverage, Organization and Selected Policies As of late 1975

Statewide employee Group insurance organizations (including premium Sick leave percentage or dollar amounts Non- (working paid by States) affili- Affili­ days) ated ated Paid Hos- Medical with with After Cumu- holi­ pitali- or AFL- AFL- State or other 1 yr. lative days zation\ surgical^ Life] CIO CIO jurisdiction .Montana 12 no limit $10/mo. Joint Merit System Nebraska 12 180 11 100— Joint Merit System 12 180 11 -100- State Personnel Department Nevada IS no limit 9 -100- X X Personnel Division(e) New Hampshire 15 90 10 -100- 41 X Department of Personnel New Jersey IS no limit 12 -100- X X Department of Civil Service New Mexico 12 no limit 11 -50- X X State Personnel Office New York 13 180-190 11 X Department of Civil Service North Carolina 10 no limit 9-10 -100- X Office of State Personnel North Dakota 12 no limit 9 XXX X Central Personnel Division Ohio 14.9 no limit 9 66Ji 100 X Division of State Personnel Oklahoma 15 45 10 -100- State Personnel Board Oregon 12 no limit 10 $20/mo. X f Personnel Division \ Public Employment Relations Bd. Pennsylvania IS 200 13 X Civil Service Commission 15 200 13 -100- X Bureau of Personnel Rhode Island IS 120 9 X partial X Division of Personnel South Carolina 15 90 12 -100- X Personnel Division South Dakota 15 90 10 X Bureau of Personnel Tennessee 12 120 12 -50- Department of Personnel Texas 12 no limit 13 -$15.00/mo.- X Merit System Council Utah 12 no limit 12 -100 37 X Personnel Office Vermont 12 no limit 12 -(J) SO X Personnel Department Virginia 15 no limit 11 X Merit System Council 15 no limit 11 24 Division of Personnel Washington 12 11 $34.25/mo.— 75 Department of Personnel West Virginia 18 no limit 12 (k) Civil Service System Wisconsin 13 no limit 10.5 -90- Division of Employee Relations Wyoming 12 no limit 10 —$18.15/mo.— $6.85/mo. Personnel Division 12 no limit 10 —$18.1S/mo.— $6.85/mo. Career Service Guam 13 no limit 13 SO— Department of Administration Puerto Rico 18 90 18 $lS/mo. X Office of Personnel TTPI 13 no limit 11 —52 and 75(1)— 33 Department of Personnel Virgin Islands 13 no limit 22 75 Personnel Office STATE EMPLOYEE LABOR RELATIONS LEGISLATION* (Excluding school employees, firefighters and police)

Bar­ Impasse resolution provisions gaining (mandatory or permissive) Scope of Legis- Covar­ rights bar­ iation age con­ Medi­ Fact­ Arbi­ gaining State enacted (a) Administrative body ferred ation finding tration (b) Strike Policy

Alabama Prohibited (c) Alaska -k * State Personnel Board -A" •A' Prohibition varies by class of employee Arizona. Arkansas '.'.'. (d) Prohibited (e) California •! * State Personnel Board -A- k Prohibited (f) Colorado State Board of Labor •A" k • -A- • Prohibited Connecticut ,.. i^ i( Relations State Department of "A" "AT •(g) • Prohibited Delaware -k -k Labor Public Employment k "k •Ar (h) -k Prohibited; penalties Florida • • Relations Commission Prohibited (f); penalties Georgia Public Employment -A- A: •A" k Ar(i) Limited right to strike for all employees; unlawful ^ Hawaii • • Relations Board public health and safety endangered; enjoinable 0» Idaho Office of Collective Bar- ArG) (k) ::: ..: 'kw ..'. Illinois...... •0) gaining Indiana Education Em- -k kr ployment Relations • • • Prohibited Indiana -Ar 'A' Board Public Employment k "k Relations Bo2ird •A" -A- • Prohibited; enjoinable; penalties Iowa ic -k Public Employment -A: ir •A- -A- -A- Prohibited Kansas -Art if Relations Board Prohibited (1); penalties Kentucky Louisiana ... Maine Labor Relations if Ar(in) -A" Prohibited; enjoinable . Maine -A; 'A: Board Maryland Labor Relations Com- k 'Ar k k k Prohibited; employee subject to discipline and Massachusetts ic "k mission discharge Department of Civil (n) -A- •A- ... -A- Prohibited Michigan -A-Cn) Service Public Employment -Ar 'A: •A: •(o) Prohibited except limited right for nonessential em­ Minnesota -k k Relations Board ployees or where employer refuses to comply with arbitration Mississippi ... Missouri •t * State Board of Media­ ..'. '..'. ic Prohibited tion Montana -A' il(s>) Board of Personnel • • Appeals • Nebraska if if Court of Industrial • • Prohibited; penalties Relations Nevada Prohibited; enjoinable; penalties if Public Employee Labor • Prohibited; enjoinable New Hampshire.... ir Relations Board New Jersey ir if Public Employment • • Prohibited (e) Relations Commission • New Mexico ... •^•(q) State Personnel Board (q) Prohibited (q) New York if ik Public Employment • (h) '•(o) Prohibited; penalties Relations Board North Carolina North Dakota • (c) Prohibited (e) Ohio Prohibited (f); penalties Oklahoma Prohibited (c) Oregon * • Public Employee Re­ Permitted for some employees after exhaustion of fact­ lations Board finding; enjoinable if public health, safety, or welfare is. threatened Pennsylvania if if Pennsylvania Labor Limited right after impasse procedures exhausted un­ Relations Board less public health, safety, or welfare threatened Rhode Island if if State Labor Relations Prohibited Board South Carolina Prohibited (c) Jo South Dakota * Department of Man- Prohibited; enjoinable; penalties' ixjwer Affairs Tennessee ...^ Prohibited (e) Texas Prohibited (f) Utah Prohibited (c); terminates employment Vermont if State Employee Labor Prohibited Relations Board Virginia Prohibited; terminates employment Washington if(i) State Personnel Board • G) (r) Prohibited (s) - - West Virginia...... Prohibited (e) Wisconsin if if Employment Relations • • Prohibited; enjoinable; penalties Commission Wyoming *Sources: Public Personnel Administration: Labor-Management Relations, vols. 1 and 2 (h) Legislature may make final determination if issue remains unresolved. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.); Office of Legislative Research, Collective Bar­ (i) Health insurance and retirement benefits are excluded from negotiations. . gaining for State Employees: Issues and Laws, Connecticut General Assembly, December 1974; (j) Executive order. and Summary of State Policy Regulations for Public Sector Labor Relations, U.S. Department of (k) Impasse provisions are provided by the niles and regulations of the Director of Per­ Labor, Labor Management Services Administration, Division of Public Employee Labor sonnel. Relations, 1975. (1) Memorandum, Department of Personnel. t—Meet and confer law. (m) Binding on all issues except salaries, pensions, and insurance. (a) In this column only: ie—All state employees; normail exemptions usually include (n) The Michigan Department of Civil Service ha[s issued regulations requiring meet and elected and appointed officials, agency heads, and designated managerial or confidential confer for state classified service employees. employees.' -^—Limited state employee coverage. (o) Except retirement benefits. (b) Wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. (p) Except nurses and engineers. (c) Opinion of Attorney General. (q) The State Personnel Board has issued regulations for the conduct of employee-manage­ (d) Public employees may join unions and bargain collectively (Attorney General's opinion) ; ment relations with classified state employees. Management determines the degree of collective however, employers not required to bargain (State Supreme Court decision). bargaining or consultation, if any. (e) State Supreme Court decision. (r) Personnel matters over which employer may lawfully exercise discretion. (f) By case law. (s) Rules and regulations of State Personnel Board. (g) Except for issues of wages and salaries. LABOR LEGISLATION, 1974-1975

BY SYLVIA WEISSBRODT*

o RETREAT froHi worker protection employment, including large farms. standards was the overwhelming re­ Newly covered were about 3.5 million N sponse of State Legislatures to the state and local government workers,^ 1.6 economic stresses of the 1974-75 bien- million federal employees, and about 1.4 nium. Had interest in the adoption of million private household workers, improved standards faltered, a plausible among others. By court decision,^ patient- explanation would have been easily avail­ workers in certain institutions were also able in the compromises necessary during brought within the act's scope. a recession period. The opposite oc­ Major state developments included en­ curred. Amid other urgent problems, Leg­ actment of the first minimum wage law islatures gave high priority to safeguard­ in Virginia,^ and a broad-coverage, mod­ ing and extending wage standards, equal ernized law in Kentucky with minimum job opportunities, bargaining rights, and rate and premium overtime pay after 40 injury compensation. Concern for hours fixed by statute. The application worker needs was represented in the pas­ of that act's wage and overtime standards sage of about 2,000 pieces of labor legisla­ to municipal employees, including fire­ tion, aside from action taken in the field men, successfully withstood court chal­ of unemployment insurance. This is the lenge on constitutionality. The Wiscon­ highest output on record, representing a sin law, previously applicable only to 20 percent increase over the previous bi- women and minors, now applies to any ennium, and covering the entire spectrum employee, thereby extending coverage to of employment standards subjects. men. Rate increases were approved or took WAGE STANDARDS effect in a majority of States, with mini- mums scheduled to reach $2.30 or more Minimum Wages by January 1976 or 1977 under 18 laws.^ Advances in minimum wage standards Overtime pay standards were newly insti­ were made in almost every jurisdiction tuted or bettered for all or some covered during the biennium, thereby presenting employees in Michigan, North Dakota, resounding evidence of state intention to remain in the field along with the federal ^Suits brought by the National League of Cities, government. Legislatures took prompt ac­ the National Governors' Conference, four cities, tion to match or approximate the and 20 States challenging application of the amendments to state and local governments are amended federal standards by adopting pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. After new laws, higher rates, new or improved hearing oral arguments in April 1975, the Court overtime pay requirements, or expanded scheduled the case for reargument during the coverage. October term; in the interim the Court enjoined enforcement of the act's overtime provisions for The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act fire protection and law enforcement personnel. (FLSA) amendments (P.L. 93-259), which "Souder v. Brennan, Civil Action 482,73. took effect in May 1974, raised the mini­ "As of December 1975, laws were in operation mum hourly wage in successive steps from in 43 jurisdictions. States without minimum wage laws were Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kan­ $1.60 to 12.30, a level attained by Janu­ sas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Caro­ ary 1976 for most employment, and by lina, and Tennessee. January 1977 or 1978 for all other covered *In Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Mary­ land, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New *Ms. Weissbrodt is Director of the Division of Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Penn­ State Employment Standards, Employment Stan­ sylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, dards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. the District of Columbia, and Guam. 528 MAJOR STATE SERVICES 529 Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, because the permissible state offset was Washington, West Virginia, and Wyo­ well below 50 percent. ming, in addition to Kentucky. Coverage was extended to include farm Wage Payment and Collection workers in Maryland and Nevada, bring­ A first-time statute was approved in ing to 18 the number of jurisdictions with Iowa. With practically universal private farm coverage.^ Private household work­ and public employee coverage governing ers were brought under coverage in Ne­ wages and supplements, the law mandates vada, New Jersey, South Dakota, and the regular pay days, limits permissible de­ District of Columbia.® ductions, and empowers the labor com­ Expanded state and federal coverage missioner to pursue claims for unpaid has increased the degree of federal/state wages and liquidated damages and to as­ overlap, with the result that significantly sess civil money penalties against em­ more employers are subject to two sets of ployers in violation. A wage payment standards simultaneously, a situation giv­ measure passed in North Carolina, note­ ing rise to confusion. Since such employ­ worthy because it too is a first-time statute ers are required to comply with laws of of this type, is, however, narrower in its both governmental levels at the same coverage and restricted to the State's more time, obviously the higher standard, state limited minimum wage law coverage. The or federal, must be observed. In the recent labor commissioner may take claims for past when the federal minimum lagged, unpaid wages and vacation pay. Montana many States were exceeding it, and a few extended the reach of its existing law to still do. The chief superiority under state include the public sector. law now deals with cash wages for tipped Legislators' concern that workers be employees. Federal law permits employ­ paid all moneys due them is evidenced by ers to take up to 50 percent in tip credit strengthening amendments adopted in at against the minimum wage. But state law, least 14 States. Among the improvements generally speaking, takes a different posi­ were addition of fringe benefits to the tion on this issue. scope of laws in Maryland and Michigan; Tip offsets against the minimum wage new or stronger collection authority in are prohibited under 10 laws. Employers California, Maine, Michigan, New Hamp­ in these 10 jurisdictions'^ are required to shire, and West Virginia; and time limits pay out of pocket the applicable mini­ for payment to terminated employees in mum wage in full. Additionally under 17 California, Kentucky, Maine, and West other laws^ as of December 1975, the em­ Virginia. The Oregon Legislature added ployer was obligated to pay state-covered a nonretaliation provision, a type of tipped employees a higher minimum worker protection common in other labor wage in cash than under FLSA, primarily standards laws but often lacking in spe­ cific wage payment laws. Safeguarding "In California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, employees' wages from repeatedly delin­ Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, quent employers was the object of mea­ Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, Guam, sures in North Dakota, which entitled the and Puerto Rico. employee to double or triple the amount ^State minimum wage rates now specifically or due, depending on the number.of previ­ impliedly apply to such workers in households ous wage claims filed that year against the with one or more employees in 12 jurisdictions- California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, employer; and in California, where em­ Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, ployers with prior convictions or unsatis­ South Dakota, Wisconsin, and the District of fied judgments for nonpayment may be Columbia. required to post a bond payable to the ''In Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Washing­ labor commissioner. Oregon required ton, and Guam. such bonds of producer-promoters to as­ ^In Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, sure wage payment to their musicians and Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, other technical personnel. New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Provisions permitting employer deposit and the District of Columbia. to certain financial institutions of all or 530 THE BOOK OF THE STATES part of an, employee's wages, with em­ ployee authorization, were approved in Prevailing Wages Colorado, Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, Legislatures showed undiminished sup­ Wisconsin, and Wyoming. port for the prevailing wage principle, which mandates that wage rates on pub­ Wage Garnishment and Assignment licly funded contracts be no less than oc­ The most significant change which cupational rates prevailing in the locality, raised the level of earnings immune from as predetermined by a designated agency. gaCrnishment was achieved not by specific Typically, under the federal Davis- legislation but as an automatic conse­ Bacon Act and comparable state law, the quence of increases in the federal FLSA rates established beforehand remain the minimum wage, because both state and only enforceable rates throughout the federal laws express the basic shielded contract. In recognition of the obsoles­ amount as a multiple of the federal mini­ cence of rates during the life of a con­ mum wage. The exempted amount in tract, two Legislatures introduced a new state law is either 40 times the FLSA rate, standard to assure workers payment of as in the suggested Uniform Consumer updated prevailing rates after the initial Credit Code, or 30 times, as under federal determination. A New York amendment law. requires rate redeterminations to reflect A few Legislatures addressed the situa­ wage changes while the work is being per­ tion of workers whose wages are being formed, and an Ohio change stipulates forcibly withdrawn under a court order that wages "shall not be less at any time for the support of dependents, a type of during the life of a contract" than the deduction not restricted by the uniform prevailing rate payable under the law's credit code or federal law. California, rate determination criteria. Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Labor department authority to ascer­ Utah placed percentage limits on tain rates was designated by amendment amounts so withdrawn or expressly in Montana and Minnesota, the latter banned dismissal of workers because of also adding a criminal penalty provision. such deductions. In addition, California In Tennessee, where building trades rates and New York clarified dependents' will now be based on 12 wage-rate areas rights to use the garnishment route to rather than a county basis, the labor exact support. commissioner was added to the prevailing Comprehensive consumer credit laws wage commission as chairman. adopted in Maine, South Carolina, and Coverage extensions, either to addi­ West Virginia incorporated worker pro­ tional construction contracts or other tections governing garnishment and wage types, were approved in California, Con­ assignment. The South Carolina provi­ necticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, sion prohibits all garnishment for con­ and Rhode Island. California, aside from sumer debt. By individual amendment, legislating that publicly subsidized hous­ Alaska, Delaware, and Oregon increased ing be constructed under prevailing wage the amount of wages protected from gar­ rates, made similar requirements for pri­ nishment. Alaska and New Jersey also vate sector construction of buildings later adopted antidismissal provisions. New leased to a public authority. York outlawed wage assignments for those earning |85 a week or less and banned DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT employee dismissal by reason of assign­ The principle that all qualified persons ment, as did Illinois. be given equal job consideration, based Creditors in Illinois being paid by wage only on valid job related requirements, assignment will now have to compensate continued to evolve in state law as Legis­ the employer for processing the assign­ latures selected additional targets for ac­ ment under a new law, perhaps the first of tion banning discrimination. Equal em­ its kind, which entitles the employer to ployment opportunity (EEO) measures of appropriate a small percentage of each one type or another were approved by 39 assigned payment. Legislatures during the biennium. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 531 Most numerous were actions to prevent amendment gained four more ratifica­ bias from denying handicapped persons tions—in Maine, Montana, North Dakota, access to jobs they can perform. Measures and Ohio—leaving the total ratifications of this type were approved in at least 13 still four short of the 38 required by States,® usually by expansion of existing March 1979.^2 ^ state constitutional EEO laws, thus giving the handicapped amendment was approved in Connecti­ the same remedies available to persons cut, and the ajpproved New Hampshire alleging other forms of discrimination. In amendment addresses other categories of addition, four States adopted measures equality, such as race and creed, not affecting public sector opportunities for sex alone. Proposed state amendments the handicapped (Florida, Illinois, Mis­ adopted in Massachusetts and South Da- sissippi, and North Carolina). Response kotai3 will be submitted to the electorate to the needs df other particular groups is in November 1976, but those submitted illustrated by laws prohibiting discrimi­ in New Jersey and New York in 1975 were nation "Against former cancer patients in voted down. California, against those with sickle cell Broadened coverage of existing EEO traits in North Carolina, and against laws or improved administrative pro­ those formerly institutionalized or treated visions were passed in seven States;^* laws for developmental disability in Colorado. in Arizona, California, and Minnesota Discrimination because of one's marital sought to assure prospective apprentices status, a type of bias tending to exclude equal treatment; and measures in several wives rather than husbands, was specifi­ States were aimed at eliminating dis­ cally prohibited by statute in seven crimination in public contract work or States,^^ with Alaska additionally barring other state-supported activities.^^ A new bias because of pregnancy. Entitlement human rights law adopted by the District to maternity leave of reasonable length of Columbia prohibits discrimination not in both private sector and governmental only on such grounds as race, religion, employment was guaranteed by law in age, sex, marital status, and handicap, but Montana; for state employees in Alaska also on the basis of school matriculation, such leave must be treated as sick leave. political afl&liation, and sexual orienta­ In furtherance of requirements for sex tion. equality in the job field. Legislatures con­ tinued to wipe out remaining work stan­ ^nrhe proposed federal amendment has been ratified in Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecti­ dards or occupational barriers that had cut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Ken­ applied only to women. Repealers were tucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michi­ approved in 13 States^^ affecting employ­ gan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hamp­ ment in mines, hours and nightwork shire, New Jersey; New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode limits, meal periods, the provision of seat­ Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Ver­ ing facilities, or restrictions on employ­ mont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and ment before and after childbirth. Ten­ Wyoming. However, the Legislatures of Nebraska nessee and Virginia mandated equal pay and Tennessee rescinded their ratifications, an action of uncertain effect. irrespective of sex, and the scope of the ^The South Dakota amendment took effect federal equal pay law was expanded by upon adoption by the Legislature in March 1975 the 1974 FLSA amendments. and will remain in effect unless disapproved by Adoption of equal rights amendments the electorate on November 2, 1976. It revises the Bill of Rights by adding a section prohibiting to constitutions made some headway in discrimination in employment and in sale or the biennium. The proposed federal rental of property on account of race, color, creed, sex, ancestry, religion, or national origin. Among 'Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, other changes, the revision also deleted the Maine, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, "Right-to-Work" section from the constitution, New York, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. but the law itself remains in force by retention "Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Mon­ in the statutes. tana, New Hampshire, and New York. "In Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Ken­ "Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mas­ tucky, Montana, and Wisconsin. sachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ne­ "In California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, vada, Rhode Island, Texas (Attorney General Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Vir­ Opinion), Wisconsin, and Virginia. ginia. 532 THE BOOK OF THE STATES Apparently letting bygones be bygones, The Indiana law, applicable to most Louisiana dropped its ban against public public employment except for police, fire­ sector employment of conscientious ob­ men, and a few others, vests administra­ jectors, Illinois made it unlawful to dis­ tion in the Education Employment Re­ criminate against veterans with an "un­ lations Board created by a 1973 law for favorable" discharge, and laws in eight teachers. Employer refusal to bargain in Statesi^ were directed toward bringing ex- good faith is designated an unfair prac­ ofiFenders into the job stream without im­ tice, among others, but the employer may pediment because of past arrests. not enter into an agreement that requires Action to reduce job bias on grounds deficit financing. Strikes are banned. of age was taken in Montana by a new Impasse resolution calls for mediation statute; in Utah by addition to the EEO and fact-finding. law; in Connecticut and New York by ex­ The Iowa act covers state and local em­ tending the law's coverage to persons of ployees, police, firemen, and teachers, all ages, instead of those in upper age though the effective date for state cover­ brackets alone; in Ohio by prohibiting age was deferred until June 1976. It per­ wage differentials on an age basis. By 1974 mits broad-scope bargaining on wages, congressional action, the federal age dis­ fringes, safety and health, reduction in crimination act additionally protected staff, and other matters. Strikes are pro­ employees of state and local governments hibited; unfair practices are similar to (see footnote 1). those in Taft-Hartley; impasse proce­ dures include mediation, fact-finding, and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS "final offer" binding arbitration at the request of either party to a newly created Public Sector board. The New Hampshire act, re­ Efforts to stabilize public employer- placing prior laws for state employees employee relationships through legisla­ and police, creates an independent ad­ tively defined rights arid duties produced ministrative board, mandates good-faith major collective bargaining laws in sev­ bargaining, includes "cost items" within eral States. Broad-coverage, statutes cover­ the scope of bargaining but not merit ing state and local government employ­ practices based on statute, bans strikes, ment were adopted in Florida, Iowa, and provides for mediation. Indiana, and New Hampshire. Connecticut approved a new law for The Florida act requires unions to state employees, additionally amending register and file reports; imposes a duty impasse provisions in the existing mu­ to bargain; proscribes unfair practices by nicipal bargaining law to compel bind­ either side; mandates the negotiation of ing arbitration. In California the Winton grievance procedures culminating in Act, a "meet-and-confer" law for school binding disposition; and provides for dis- employees, was abandoned for a nego­ ute settlement, first by mediation, then tiating statute containing commonly ac­ Ey appointment of a "special master" to cepted features for the elimination of make a recommendation, and if rejected, unfair practices, exclusive representa­ ultimately by the Legislature. Strikes are tion, written agreements, and impasse prohibited. Penalties for violation in­ resolution, administered by a new board. clude fines against the individual and the Montana, repealing a separate law for union. Repealed was a prior meet-and- teachers, brought them into its 1973 confer type law for firemen, as well as a public employee act, incorporating also general provision which had barred gov­ their strike right previously recognized ernment employment of a person assert­ by court decision. A new State Employees ing the right to strike against a public Labor Relations Act was approved in entity or knowingly belonging to a union 1974 in Maine, where subsequent enact­ that asserts such right. ments also extended bargaining rights to employees of the University of Maine and "In California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mex­ of the State Turnpike Authority. In ico. Utah, firemen were given bargaining MAJOR STATE SERVICES 533 rights on wages and other work condi­ Recruitment and use of professional tions under a newly adopted negotiation strikebreakers has been the subject of act, and Maryland extended representa­ prohibitory legislation over a period of tion and negotiation rights to noncertifi- time. During the biennium, Legislatures cated public school employees, excluding in California, Illinois, Montana, and those in 11 counties. Oregon outlawed use of professional Changes to strengthen or clarify bar­ strikebreakers. Over 20 States and more gaining, representation, or dispute reso­ than 100 municipalities now have anti- lution under existing statutes were made strikebreaker laws, aside from the federal by several Legislatures—Massachusetts, Byrnes Act which makes it a felony to Nevada, New Jersey, New York, South transport in interstate commerce any per­ Dakota, and Wisconsin among them. The son employed for the purpose of inter­ Michigan compulsory arbitration re­ fering by force or threats with peaceful quirement in disputes involving police picketing or with the exercise of employee and firemen was made permanent; and organization or bargaining rights. In Ver­ Vermont now permits union certification mont, a State without an antistrike- by majority selection of the voters, rather breaker law, the Legislature banned so­ than of all in the bargaining unit. In liciting striker replacements without Hawaii, an office of collective bargaining notice that a dispute is in progress. was created to coordinate management Issuance of injunctions during labor policy and procedures and negotiate with disputes was restricted in California, unions. where courts were banned from enjoining peaceful picketing or other lawful activ­ Private Sector ities, and in Maine which forbad enjoin­ South Dakota is now among the 19 ing activities not resulting in substantial jurisdictions^'^ with a State Labor Re­ injury. Virginia dropped its ban against lations Act for the private sector. The picketing by nonemployees of the struck new South Dakota law, administered by firm. the Department of Manpower Affairs, ap­ A uniform arbitration act approved in plies to nonfarm cases over which the Colorado is specifically applicable to National Labor Relations Board does not voluntary employer-employee agree­ assert jurisdiction or those outside the ments, whereas a similar act passed in scope of the federal Railway Labor Acti Idaho is not, unless the parties opt for its It recognizes organization and bargaining application. rights, and bans specified unfair practices by either side. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH By action of Congress, coverage of the Operation of the federal Occupational National Labor Relations Act was ex­ Safety and Health Act of 1970, with its tended to include nonprofit hospitals and provision for federally approved state other health care institutions, whose em­ programs on a 50-50 cost basis in the en­ ployees number about 1.4 million. The forcement of safety and health standards, amendment (P.L. 93-360) also included continued to influence legislative action. particular provisions affecting the new In Michigan a major law was approved coverage, relating to appointment of a similar to the federal act. Measures in 12 Board of Inquiry by the federal medi­ other States were directed toward estab­ ation service, a cooling-off period, and lishing greater conformity with federal certain time limits.^^ led to the resignation of Secretary of Labor John "Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Mas­ T. Dunlop. The bill would have established new sachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, collective bargaining mechanisms and procedures North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Is­ to facilitate peaceful resolution of disputes in the land, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Vir­ construction industry. The controversial Title I ginia, Wisconsin, Guam, and Puerto Rico. would have, in effect, permitted a union in dis­ "Vetoed by the President on January 2, 1976, pute with one construction contractor or subcon­ was the "Construction Industry Collective Bar­ tractor of a project to picket the entire site, thus gaining Act of 1975" (H.R. 5900, popularly called overruling NLRB v. Denver Building Trades the common situs picketing bill), an action which Council, 342 U.S. 675 (1951). 634 THE BOOK OF THE STATES requirements. In December 1975, feder­ quired the States to meet specified work­ ally approved plans were in effect in 23 ers' compensation standards by January jurisdictions.^® 1, 1975, and the widespread hearings held On the other hand, several States dis­ in 1974, appear to have spurred state continued a federal/state partnership amendatory action. Substantial efforts arrangement, thus yielding to federal were made to improve the laws, using as takeover. Between 1973 and 1975, six guidelines the 19 "essential recommenda­ States withdrew their plans after they tions" included in the 1972 report to the had been approved (Illinois, Montana, President and Congress of the National New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Commission on State Workmen's Com­ and Wisconsin); in five others, before ap­ pensation Laws.2i Although the federal proval (Georgia, Maine, Mississippi, New bill did not pass, new bills were intro­ Hampshire, and Pennsylvania). Legisla­ duced in the Senate and House in 1975. tion in two of these States reflected the The Senate bill (S. 2018), a modified ver­ decisions to withdraw—in Maine by prior sion of S. 2008, was scheduled for hearings repeal of safety provisions applicable to in 1976. private sector employers, preserving only A development in 1974 was creation of ublic sector coverage; and in New York the Interdepartmental Workers' Compen­ gy adoption of measures for state juris­ sation Task Force by the President and diction over those occupational and pub­ issuance of a white paper stating the Ad­ lic safety standards not federally pre­ ministration's objectives. The task force empted in July 1975. has been providing technical assistance to Other types of safety needs were ad­ the States in the areas of coverage, bene­ dressed in many States. Improved mine fits, occupational diseases, medical and safety was legislated in Idaho, Illinois, rehabilitation services, and cost-of-living Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, North Car­ adjustments. It also is conducting re­ olina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Boiler search designed to answer many critical safety was the subject of measures in questions. State progress toward meeting Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, New the minimum objectives proposed by the Hampshire, North Carolina, and Vir­ Administration is being evaluated, and a ginia; elevator safety, in Indiana, New report, with recommendations, will' be Hampshire, and Virginia. Use of safety submitted to the President and Congress glazing material in hazardous locations in in 1976. buildings was required in four more Cash benefits for disabilities and death States (Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota, and were improved in most States during this Mississippi), but Virginia repealed its biennium, but a wide spread persists in prior law of this type. To protect against maximum weekly benefits from a low of eye accidents in schools, laws passed in $60 in one State to a high of $221 in an­ Iowa and Mississippi, like those in effect other. The trend accelerated toward link­ elsewhere, required teachers, students, ing the benefit maximum to a percentage and visitors to wear eye-protective devices of the State's average weekly wage, com­ when participating in courses involving monly known as a "flexible" maximum. hazards. With adoption of this method by 13 more States,22 a total of 36 States and the Dis- WORKERS' COMPENSATIGN^O ^A report by the Council of State Governments, The introduction of a federal bill (S. Workmen's Compensation: A Challenge to the 2008) in 1973, which would have re- States (1973), contains specific amendatory legis­ ^'Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Con­ lation for all 19 essential recommendations. A necticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mary­ later publication. Workmen's Compensation and land, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rehahilitation Law: Revised (1974), provides an North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennes­ integrated, complete, and updated law that meets see, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming, and in full all recommendations of the National Com­ the Virgin Islands. mission [Editor]. '^This section was prepared by Florence C. ^Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Johnson, Division of State Workers' Compensa­ Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, tion Standards, Employment Standards Adminis­ New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, and tration, U.S. Department of Labor. Virginia. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 535 trict of Columbia have such a provision. to extend care administratively, statu­ , Eighteen States^^ pegged the maximum at torily required full medical care but re­ 100 percent of the State's average wage, as tained limitations on certain diseases. recommended by the National Commis­ Eight States28 adopted legislation to fa­ sion, bringing that total to 20. All but two cilitate vocational rehabilitation, making States (Arizona and Oklahoma) increased a total of 48 with such provisions, and a weekly benefits for temporary total dis­ number enacted liberalizing amend­ ability during the biennium (see table on ments. page 540). At least 15 States^* eliminated In response to the commission's rec­ aggregate maximums or time limitations ommendation that each State utilize a for payment of benefits for disability or workers' compensation agency to fulfill death. administrative obligations, Wyoming ere-' Interest continued in providing on-the- ated a Workers' Compensation Division roll recipients with cost-of-living adjust­ to administer its act, formerly court ad­ ments or supplemental benefits to restore ministered. A number of States adopted the value of benefits eroded by inflation. strengthening amendments which will Twelve States^s enacted amendments to provide more effective systems for delivery give such increases, either as a percentage of benefits and services. of the State's average wage or by a specific amount. PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES Extension of coverage continued to re­ Finding common ground for agree­ ceive needed attention. With the change ment on standards of practice that should to mandatory coverage in seven States,^^ apply to commercial employment agen­ only three States (New Jersey, South Car­ cies continued to elude legislators, who olina, and Texas) now have elective cov­ had before them a barrage of sharply erage of employees. Delaware, Kansas, divergent proposals. Again in this bien­ and Nevada eliminated their numerical nium, as in the previous two, lawmakers exemption, leaving approximately one were subjected to competing pressures fourth of the States with an exemption from advocates of industry's goal of self- based on number of employees; Georgia, regulation, arrayed against those support­ Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, ing more emphasis on worker protection and South Carolina reduced the exemp­ needs. tion. Coverage for agricultural, domestic Following a legislative trend in pre­ or casual employment, considered hard- ceding biennia toward provision for self- to-administer groups, was established or regulation by industry and decontrol of improved in 14 States.^^ Kansas extended fee levels, a countertrend appears to be full coverage to all work-related diseases. emerging, at least in the discussion stage. Full medical care was provided in Kan­ As reflected in bills introduced in several sas and Louisiana. Arkansas and Mon­ States, there is growing interest in reduc­ tana, which had discretionary authority ing industry's access to regulatory func­ ^Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Mary­ tions by curtailing authority of existing land, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico (ef­ business-dominated advisory boards, and fective July 1, 1978), North Carolina, North Da­ in shifting fee charges from job appli­ kota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vir­ cants to employers for all or certain types ginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. "Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, of placements. While such proposals have Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, not yet gained acceptance by enactment New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, into law, they may signal future develop­ South Dakota, and Virginia. ments. "'California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Ne­ vada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Legislation that did succeed includes Utah, Virginia, and Washington. major improvement in Montana where *^Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, placement fee ceilings were newly estab­ Missouri, and West Virginia. "California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, lished for both permanent and temporary Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, '"Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, and West Virginia. North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia. 636 THE BOOK OF THE STATES jobs. Documented reconfirmation of a job are barred from accepting advance pay­ opening before sending an applicant for ments on placement fees, must uniformly interview is another new requirement. post a 110,000 bond, and risk license The Nevada Legislature, after prolonged denial or suspension in specified circum­ disagreement in previous sessions, suc­ stances under authority granted the labor ceeded in retaining fee limits for all place­ department. Five other States also insti­ ments, though at a higher level. The tuted or increased bonding require- amendment also banned registration fees, ments.^** outlawed specific agency practices, and In Louisiana a fee limit of 20 percent spelled out the administrator's enforce­ of earnings was fixed for placements last­ ment authority. ing up to 90 days irrespective of fault for In New York, where the subject has job termination. Under revised regula­ been under study for some time, changes tions adopted by the commerce depart­ were approved which among others re­ ment in Ohio, a similar limit applies only leased employer-paid fees from ceilings if for a 60-day period, and existing statutory the worker is not also charged a fee, in­ authority to fix maximum fees for place­ creased the agency's surety bond obliga­ ments of longer duration was not exer­ tion, stiffened criminal penalties, and cised. Stronger administrative or enforce­ stopped agencies from referring an appli­ ment powers were given administrators in cant to a specific financial institution for Arkansas, Delaware, and Maryland. obtaining a loan by making the practice Amendments in Wisconsin included a unlawful. The Governor's approval mes­ provision that temporary help contractors sage, noting a major deficiency in the bill, are exempted from the employment further directed the labor commissioner agency law only if a "liquidated-dam- to prepare a legislative proposal for 1976 age" payment to the contractor is not re­ that would provide a more equitable quired from a worker who takes a per­ schedule of maximum placement fees. manent job with the employer to whom A major revision adopted in Arkansas he was contracted. A ruling of the Illinois contained a prohibition against certain Attorney General that temporary help practices engaged in elsewhere, such as contractors are subject to the employment use of fictitious desk names by placement agency law was in litigation at the end counselors and use of percentages in ex­ of 1975. pressing fees, instead of dollars. However, fee levels remained uncontrolled, and CHILD LABOR AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE any regulations formulated by the labor The general direction of child labor commissioner cannot take effect until ap­ changes reflected efforts to balance the proved by a newly created industry- need for continued or even stronger pro­ oriented council. tection in some respects against the need Aside from Arkansas' new council, to afford minors greater opportunity to similarly constituted boards were created compete for available jobs. by statutory directive in Georgia and Numerous Legislatures removed or Michigan and by administrative action in eased nonessential restraints on youth em­ Delaware. By December 1975, boards or ployment, especially for minors aged 16 councils of this type, with more or less and over, those no longer attending influence over administrative activities, school or combining school and work, or were in operation in 22 States.^^ those who, by their graduate or marital By amendment in Minnesota, agencies status, are assumed ready for adult work responsibilities. "In Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Participants in work-study programs or Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, graduates of high school or vocational Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, school were released from some or all re­ Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. In addition, strictions in Arkansas, Florida, Connecti- advisory boards exist in at least two other States (Indiana and North Carolina) without specific *°In Delaware,.Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and statutory genesis. Oklahoma. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 537 cut, and Massachusetts; Arkansas addi­ farmwork at any time, but nonhazardous tionally releasing the married and the work engaged in outside of school hours parents. had been previously unregulated. Such Eight States^i lowered the permissible work now is subject to a 14-year minimum age for employment in places where li­ age, 12 if with parental consent, appli­ quor is sold or consumed, though not cable, however, only to those large farms necessarily in its direct sale. Four States which are also subject to the act's wage reduced the age in certain other occu­ coverage. When later attempts in Con­ pations (Maine, Massachusetts, North gress to retract this uniform age standard Dakota, Rhode Island), and Virginia dis­ did not succeed, the Legislatures of Ore­ carded the minimum age as well as other gon and Washington adopted so-called standards in the gathering and processing "berry laws," specifically sanctioning of seafood when performed outside school outside-school employment of children hours with parental consent. A 10-hour under 12 in berry harvesting on federally day was made possible by changes in covered farms, with the proviso that the Florida and Maryland, and later night children's output be segregated for intra­ schedules for certain youths were per­ state use. On the other hand, 20 jurisdic­ mitted in Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, tions have established a minimum em­ Minnesota, Rhode Island, and West Vir­ ployment age for farmwork outside of ginia. Several States equalized standards school hours (see table on page 542). for boys and girls (Alaska, California, Of major impact in eliminating unlaw­ Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, ful child labor is the new federal author­ Indiana, and Wisconsin), with the result ity to assess civil money penalties against that only a few child labor laws continue violators. Soon after its adoption, the to apply sex-difEerentiated restrictions. California Legislature approved similar For the first time Guam regulated the authority in the enforcement of its child employment of children, adopting a law labor law. establishing hours limits and authorizing The federal Work Experience and Ca­ administrative issuance of age bans in reer Exploration Programs (WECEP), in hazardous work. Tighter restraints also operation experimentally since 1969 to were adopted in Minnesota, where the encourage potential dropouts to complete Legislature extended the law's coverage, high school, were established on a perma­ fixed a 40-hour week for minors under 16, nent basis. Enrollees of 14 and 15 years and similarly provided for administrative of age are permitted to work during action to bar minors from hazardous jobs. school hours in school-supervised pro­ Employment in street trades came under grams, but each state educational agency regulation by a separate law in Illinois; must obtain prior approval of its program child performers were made subject to from the Department of Labor. revised standards in California and In­ Compulsory school attendance provi­ diana; and work hours limits were newly sions were altered in a few States. New prescribed for school children engaged in Mexico raised the required attendance household or farm employment in Cali­ age from 17 to 18. In Wisconsin, 16- and fornia. 17-year-old minors may now be excused The U.S. Congress approved stricter from attendance to participate in a work- controls over child labor by amendment study program; and a revision in South to the FLSA. For the first time a mini­ Carolina, where attendance is obligatory mum age was established for farm em­ until 17, permits minors of 16 to be ex­ ployment performed outside school empted from attendance for the purpose hours. Heretofore, a 16-year minimum of employment if court authorized. applied to farm employment. during school hours and in designated hazardous AGRICULTURAL WORKERS The California Legislature took a ma­ '^In Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Mas­ jor initiative when it adopted an Agri­ sachusetts, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washing­ culture Labor Relations Act designed to ton. seek peace in the fields and promote sta- 538 THE BOOK OF THE STATES bility and fair play in labor relations. Improved conditions in farm labor The law grants organization apd collec­ camps should result from amendments tive bargaining rights to farmworkers, passed in Californiia and Texas, as well provides for secret ballot representation as in Ohio where camps must now be in­ elections to be held during peak employ­ spected and licensed before occupancy. ment, and creates an independent board Aside from changes made in wage laws to oversee elections, certify unions, and and child labor standards, discussed else­ handle unfair practice charges from where, other types of new laws included either side. Strikes are permitted, as is an Illinois measure requiring that mi­ primary picketing as well as publicity grants recruited during a labor dispute picketing for the information of con­ must be so advised, and one in California sumers. Patterned after the National La­ forbidding children under 12 from ac­ bor Relations Act, the law directs the companying their parents into designated agriculture board to follow applicable hazardous agricultural zones. precedents of that act. Farm labor contractors were brought OTHER LABOR LAWS under stronger control in several States— Particularly noteworthy among numer­ in Illinois and Kansas by registration re­ ous other laws enacted during the bien- quirements, in Oregon by extended cov­ nium are those which serve as indicators erage of an existing requirement, and in of trends in the development of stan­ New Jersey by more effective enforcement dards. Statutory job security rights and power granted the labor commissioner. immunity from employer reprisal against Through an opinion of the Texas At­ employees called to jury service or per­ torney General, crew leaders are now sub­ forming other public service duties re­ ject to licensing and other provisions of ceived legislative attention in at least the State's labor agent act. In Delaware eight States. In Indiana, Louisiana, Ore­ the Legislature called on employers to as­ gon, and Tennessee, employers were sure that interstate contractors are fed­ barred from discharging employees serv­ erally registered. A Kansas amendment ing on jury duty; in Texas employee- obligated employers to pay wages di­ jurors were guaranteed reemployment rectly to workers and not to crew leaders, rights; and government employees in while in Texas fee-charging labor agents Montana were permitted to take paid who distribute wages were made subject jury leave instead of unpaid. A South to specified wage payment requirements. Dakota measure required employers to Amendments to the federal Farm La­ grant temporary leave without loss of bor Contractor Act in 1974 (P.L. 93-518) seniority to employees serving on a jury extended coverage to include intrastate or in the Legislature. By separate amend­ contractors and some employees of farm­ ments in Minnesota, legislators were ers and growers, strengthened insurance given job reinstatement rights to their requirements for vehicles used in trans­ regular employment without loss of se­ porting farmworkers, made it unlawful niority or pay, and employers were re­ for a grower to engage the services of an quired to permit employees who are unregistered contractor, added civil pen­ elected to public office to be absent to at­ alties for violation, and specifically for­ tend meetings necessary to their office bad the knowing employment of illegal without employer retaliation. aliens by contractors. Federal action giv­ Granting meal or rest breaks is becom­ ing farmworkers another type of major ing a matter for statutory guarantee, benefit was taken when Congress dis­ sometimes by converting a women's law carded the concept of a minimum wage into a standard for employees generally. differential for farmworkers under FLSA, For example, Nevada's women's laws, un­ approving a gradual phase-in of parity der court challenge for discriminatory with other workers to be reached by 1978. impact, were repealed and replaced by a Prior to congressional action, several statute for both sexes, covering such stan­ States already had adopted the wage dards as lunch and rest breaks, maximum parity principle. deductions for meals, and the provision MAJOR STATE SERVICES 539 of uniforms without charge to the em­ More stringent control over industrial ployee. Similarly in Massachusetts, lunch home work was approved in California. periods and workplace seating facilities, Montana joined States which ban use of formerly required for women only, must lie detector tests as a condition of em­ now be provided for all. Kentucky wrote ployment, and a strengthened ban was lunch and rest break requirements into approved in Maryland and Michigan, the statute, as did Illinois and Guam for Minnesota adopted a pension regulation lunch periods. law, whereas Oregon dropped its regula­ The first of its kind is the Hawaii Pre­ tory statute. Employers were made crim­ paid Health Care Act which mandates inally liable for willful default in making private sector employers to provide their agreed payments to an employee retire­ regular employees with coverage under ment or welfare plan in Missouri, and in a qualified prepaid group health . care providing agreed benefits arid wage sup­ plan that meets specified benefit stan­ plements in West Virginia. dards. Employers must contribute at least At the federal level, major private pen­ one half of the premium. The act, admin­ sion plan reform was instituted through istered by the labor department, is sched­ the Employee Retirement Income Secur­ uled to terminate when federal legislation ity Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-406), admin­ offers equivalent protection. istered by the Department of Labor in Voters approved a constitutional conjunction with the Internal Revenue change in Oklahoma for appointment, in­ Service. Though not obligating employ­ stead of election, of the labor commis­ ers to provide pension plans, the act does sioner and the chief of mine inspection require that those adopted must conform effective January 1979. Stronger enforce­ to spiecified standards for safeguarding ment powers in the administration of la­ employee rights in the vesting of benefit bor laws were given labor commissioners rights, portability of pension rights with of Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, and Ne­ job transfers, actuarially sound funding, vada. and fiduciary responsibility. 540 THE BOOK OF THE STATES MAXIMUM BENEFITS FOR TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAWS* As of November 1975

Maximum Total maxi-. Slate or other percentage Maximum payment mum stated jurisdiction of wages per week Maximum period in law

$75 300 weeks $22,500 66% &0% of the State's average weekly Duration of disability wage ($198.40) (a) 66% $153.85, plus $2.30 for total dependents Duration of disability 65 $66.50 450 weeks $29,000 $119 240 weeks • & 80% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability (b) ($144.13) (b) 66% 66%% of State's average production Duration of disability wage ($126)(c) 66% 66%% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($125.47) Florida 60 66%% of State's average weekly wage 350 Weeks ($105)(d) 66% $95 Duration of disability HawaU 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($155) 60 60% to 90% of the currently applicable 52 weeks; thereafter average weekly state wage ($82.80- 60 % of the currently $124.20) (c) applicable average weekly state wage for duration of dis­ ability nilnols 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability In manufacturing Industries ($205) (e), or 50^ of employee's wages, whichever is greater Indiana 66% $90 500 weeks $45,000 100% of State's average weekly wage Iowa 80(f) ($160) (f) Duration of disability 66%% of State's average weekly wage Kansas 66%(g) ($103.10)(g) Duration of disability $50,000 60% of the State's average weeldy Kentucky 55-62H(c) wage ($88) Duration of disability $85(h) Duration of disability Louisiana 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($141.41)(i) Maine. 66% 100% of State's average weeldy wage Duration of disability ($164.50) Maryland 66% $95, plus $6 for each total dependent; Duration of disability $23.7500) aggregate not to exceed worker's Massachusetts 66% average weekly wage (j) Michigan 66% $107 to $136(c, k) Duration of disability Minnesota 66% $135(1) Duration of disability Mississippi 66% $63 450 weeks $21,000(m) Missouri 66% $95 400 weeks Montana. 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($147)(n) Nebraska 66% $100 Duration of disability 100% of State's average monthly wage Duration of disability Nevada 66% ($175.86 weekly) 100% of State's average weeldy wage Duration of disability New Hampshire (o) ($221)(o) 66%% of State's average weekly wage 300 weeks New Jersey 66% ($119) $90(p) 600 weeks (p) New Mexico 66% $125 Duration of disability New York 66% 100% of State's average weeldy wage Duration of disability ($146) North Carolina 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability North Dakota 66% ($143), plus $5 for each dependent child, but not to exceed worker's net wage after taxes and Social Security Ohio.. 66% 66%% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($119) Oklahoma 66% $60 300 weeks, may be ex­ tended to 500 weeks Oregon 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($180.17) Pennsylvania 66% 100% of statewide average weekly Duration of disability wage ($171) Rhode Island 66% 100^ of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability(q) (Q) ($156), plus $6 for each dependent; aggregate not to exceed 80% of worker's average weekly wage(q) South Carolina 66% 66%% of State's average weekly wage 500 weeks $40,000 ($95.35) South Dakota 66% 66%% of State's average weekly wage 312 weeks ($88) MAJOR STATE SERVICES 541 MAXIMUM BENEFITS FOR TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY UNDER WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAWS*—Concluded As of November 1975

Maximum Total maxi­ State or other percentage Maximum payment mum stated Jurisdiction of wages Per week Maximum period in law

Tennessee 66^ $85 Duration of disability Texas 66?| $70(r) 401 weeks Utah 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage 312 weeks ($tS5)(c) Vermont 66% 60% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($91), plus $5 for each dependent under 21 Virginia 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage 500 weeks (8) ($149) Washington 60-75(c) 75% of State's average wage, adjusted Duration of disability annually ($138.45) (t) West Virginia 66% 100% of State's average weekly wage 208 weeks ($173) .. Wisconsin 70 66%% of State's average weekly wage Duration of disability ($108) Wyoming 66% 100% of State's average monthly wage Duration of disability ($166.55 weekly) District of Columbia 66% 200% of national average weekly wage Duration of disability ($318.38) (u) United Statest: FECA 66%-75(c) $S45.19(v) Duration of disability 66% 200% of national average weekly wage Duration of disability LS/HWCA ($318.38) (u) •Prepared by the Division of State Workers' Compensation (i) Effective July 1, 1977, maximum weekly benefits will be Standards, . Employment Standards Administration, U.S. 133 H% of State's average weekly wage; July 1, 1979, 166%%; Dept. of Labor. July 1, 1981, 200%. tFECA means Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 (j) Plus dependents' allowances. Total maximum $23,750 for U.S.C. 8101-8150). LS/HWCA means Longshore and Harbor temporary total and permanent partial disability. Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901-950). (k) The maximum benefits rate is adjusted annually on the (a) Effective January 1, 1976, maximum weekly benefits will basis of a $1 increase or decrease for each $1.50 Increase or be 100% of State's average weekly wage; January 1, 1977, decrease in State's average weekly wage. 133.3%; January 1, 1979, 166.6%; and January 1, 1981, 200%. (1) For injuries occurring after October 1, 1975, benefits (b) If periodic disability benefits are payable to the worker shall on October 1, 1976, and each October 1 thereafter, be under the Federal OASDI, the workmen's compensation weekly adjusted according to a specified formula, tying them to State's benefits shall be reduced (but not below 0) by an amount ap­ average weekly wage. proximating one half such federal benefits for such week. If (m) Law provides for a total maximum recovery of $23,500 disability benefits are payable under an employer pension plan, for an injury to, or death of, an employee, or combination the workmen's compensation benefits shall be reduced in an thereof. amount proportional to the employer's percentage of total (n) If periodic disability benefits are payable to the worker contributions to the plan. under the Federal OASDI, the workmen's compensation weekly (c) According to number of dependents. In Washington benefits shall be reduced (but not below 0) by an amount ap­ according to marital status and number of dependents. In proximating one half such federal benefits for such week. Connecticut, $5 for each dependent child under 18, up to 50% (o) Benefits set in accordance with a "wage and compensation of the basic weekly benefit, total benefit not to exceed 75% of schedule" up to average weekly wage of $138 (maximum benefit employee's average weekly wage. In Idaho, increased by 7% of $92). If employee's average weekly wage is over $138, com­ currently applicable average weekly state wage for each child pensation shall be 66%% of such wage, not to'exceed 100% of up to 5 children. In Utah, $5 for dependent wife and each de­ State's average weekly wage rounded to the nearest dollar. pendent child up to 4, but not to exceed 100% of State's average (p) Effective January 1, 1976, maximum weekly benefits weekly wage. will be 66%% of State's average weekly wage; July 1, 1976, (d) If periodic disability benefits are payable to the worker 78%; July 1, 1977, 89%; and July 1, 1978, 100%. The total under the Federal OASDI, the workmen's compensation benefits maximum will be an amount equal to 600 multiplied by maxi­ and the federal payment shall not exceed 80% of employee's mum weekly compensation payable at time of injury. average weekly wage. Said offset shall not be applicable when (q) After 500 weeks, or after $32,500 has been paicf, payments worker reaches age of 62. to be made from second-injury fund for period of disability. (e) Effective July 1, 1977, maximum weekly benefits will be (r) Each $10 increase in the average weekly wape for manu­ based on 133 H% of State's average weekly wage in manufac­ facturing production workers will increase the maximum weekly turing industries; July 1, 1979, 166%%; July 1, 1981, 200%. benefit by $7 per week, and the minimum by $1 per week. (f) Maximum percentage of wages based on employee's aver­ (s) Total maximum amount payable shall be the result ob­ age weekly spendable earnings. Effective July 1,1977, maximum tained by multiplying State's average weekly wage for the weekly benefits will be 133 H % of State's average weekly wage; applicable year by 500. July 1, 1979, 166J£%; and beginning July 1, 1981, 200%. (t) For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1975, a specified (g) Maximum percentage of wages based on employee's formula provides for an annual adjustment of benefits. average gross weekly wage. Entitlement to benefits ceases when (u) "National average weekly wage," as determined by the worker is entitled to or receives federal old age social security Secretary of Labor, shall be based on the national average benefits. weekly earnings of production or nonsupervlsory workers on (h) Effective September 1, 1976, maximum weekly benefits private nonagricultural payrolls. will be $95; and effective September 1, 1977, the maximum will (v) Based on 75% of the pay of specified grade levels In the be 66 K % of State's average weekly wage. federal civil service. SELECTED STATE CHILD LABOR STANDARDS AFFECTING MINORS UNDER 18* As of November 1975 (Because of limitations of space, occupational coverage, exemptions, and deviations are usually not indicated)

Documentary proof of age Maximum daily and weekly hours Minimum age for required up to age and days per week for minors under 16 Nightwork prohibited for minors under 16 agricultural employment State or other jurisdiction indicated (a) unless other age indicated (b) unless other age indicated (b) outside school hours (c)

Federal (FLSA). (d) 8-40, nonschool period. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. June 1 through Labor Day) to 14 (12 with written parental Schoolday/week: 3-18(e), 7 a.m. consent or on farms where parents are working). No minimum on parents' farm, or with parental con­ sent on farm of an employer who did not use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor in any calendar quar­ ter of preceding calendar year. Alabama 17; 19 in mines 8-40-6. 8 p.m; to 7 a.ni. and quarries. Schoolday/week: 4-28. Alaska (f) 8-40-6, under 18, except during school 7 p.m. to 6 a.nu vacations for 16 and 17 provided em­ ployment accords with prevailing hours in the industry. ife Schoolday/week: 9(g)-23. Arizona (f) 8-40. 9:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. Schoolday/week: 3-18. Arkansas 16 8^8-6. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. before nonschoolday) to 6 a.m. 14 10-54-6, 16 and 17. 10 p.m. before schoolday to 6 a.m., 16 and 17.

California 18 8-48. under 18. 10 p.m. (12:30 a.m. before nonschoolday) to 14 (12 during vacation and on Schoolday: 4 (6 on farms for 16 and 17), 5 a.m., under 18. regular school holidays). under 18 if required to attend schooL Schoolweek: 20 on farms, under 18 if re­ quired to attend school. Colorado 16 8-40, under 18. 9:30 p.m. to S a.m. before schoolday. 12 Schoolday: 6. Connecticut 18 9-48, under 18. 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., under 18. 14 (no minimum in weeks 8-48-6, under 18 in stores, and under 16 Midnight to 6 a.m., 16 and 17in restaurants be­ when average number of in agriculture. fore nonschoolday and if not attending schooL employees is 15 or fewer). (Overtime permitted in certain Indus­ tries.) Delaware 18 8-48-6. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. in stores on Friday, Saturday, and vacation) to 6 a.m. Florida 18 10-40-6. 9 p.m. (11 p.m. before nonschoolday) to 6:30 a.m. Schoolday: 4 when followed by schoolday, 11 p.m. (1 a.m. before nonschoolday) to 5 a.m. except if enrolled in vocational program. (may be extended under certain conditions), 16 and 17. Georgia... 18 8-40. 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. 60-hour week, 16 and over in cotton and woolen manufacturing. Schoolday: 4. Hawaii 18 8-40H5. 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. (8 p.m. to 6 a.m. June 1 through 12 (10 in coffee harvesting on Schoolday: 10(g). day before Labor Day). nonschooldays under direct parental supervision, with specified hours standards). Idaho (f) 9-54. 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. 16 8-48-6. 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Illinois Schoolday: 3 [8(g)] 17 8-40-6, under 17, except minors of 16 not 7 p.m. (9 p.m. before nonschoolday) to 6 a.m. 10 (no minimum if living with attending school. parents). 9-48 during summer vacation, minors of 10 p.m. (midnight\before nonschoolday) to Indiana... 16 attending school. 6 a.m., minors of 16 attending school. Schoolday/week: 3-23. 16 8-40. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. June 1 through Labor Day) to 14 (for migrants: 14 before Schoolday/week: 4-28. 7 a.m. \ schoolday in available school, 12 at other times. Iowa No minimum for part-time work by nonmigrants.). 16(f) 8-40. 10 p.m. before schoolday to 7 a.m. 18 8-40 for under 16, 8-48 for 16 and 17 If 7 p.m. (9 p.m. June 1 through Labor Day) to 7 Kansas attending school. a.m. 10-60, 16 and 17 not attending school. 10 p.m. (midnight on Friday, Saturday, and Kentucky. Schoolday/week: 3-18, under 16. during vacation) to 6 a.m., 16 and 17 if attend­ 4 (8 on Friday)-32, 16 and 17 if attending ing school. school. Louisiana. 18 8-44-6, under 18, except minors of 17 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. not attending school. 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., minors of 16, 17 if attending Schoolday: 3. school. Maine 16 8-48-6. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. Schoolday/week: 4-28. Maryland. 18 8-40-6. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. June 1 through September 1) to 9-48-6, 16 and 17 not enrolled in school. 7 a.m. Schoolday/week: 3-23 when school in ses­ 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17 if attending schooL sion 5 days or more, under 16. 5-30 when school in session S days or more (8 on nonschoolday-40, when in session less than 5 days), 16 and 17 attending school. Massachusetts. 18 8-48-6. 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. 4-24 in f armwork, under 14. 10 p.m. (midnight in restaurants on Friday, 9-48-6, 16 and 17. Saturday, and vacation) to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. Michigan 18 10-48-6, under 18. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. Schoolweek: 48(g), under 18. 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17 if attending school. 11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17 if not attending school. 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. in factories, girls under 18. Minnesota. 18 8-40. 9:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. Mississippi. (f) 8-44. 10-hour day, 16 and over in mill, factory, 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. and other specified establishments. SELECTED STATE CHILD LABOR STANDARDS AFFECTING MINORS UNDER 18*—Continued As of November 1975 (Because of limitations of space, occupational coverage, exemptions, and deviations are usually not indicated)

Documentary proof of age Maximum daily and weekly hours Minimum age for required up to age and days per week for minors under 16 Nightwork prohibited for minors under 16 agricultural employment State or other jurisdiction indicated (a) unless other age indicated (b) unless other age indicated (b) outside school hours (c)

Missouri. 16 8-40-6. 7 p.m. (10 p.m before nonschoolday and for 14 (no minimum for occasion­ minors not enrolled in school) to 7 a.m. al work with parental consent). Montana. 18 Nebraska. 16 8-48. 8 p.m, to 6 a.m., under 14. 10 p.m. (beyond 10 p.m. before nonschoolday with special permit) to 6 a.m., 14 and 15. Nevada 17(f) 8-18. New Hampshire. 18 8 on nonschoolday, 48-hour week during 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. if enroUed in school. 12 vacation, if enrolled in school. 10-48 at manual or mechanical labor in manufacturing, lOJi-54 at such labor in other employment, under 16 if not enrolled in school and 16 and 17. Schoolday/week: 3-23 if enrolled in school. S New Jersey. 18 8-40-6, under 18. 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. 12 10-hour day, 6-day week in agriculture. 10 p.m. (midnight in restaurants before non­ Schoolday: 8(g). schoolday and during vacation) to 6 a.m., 16 17, except 11 p.m. for boys in nonfactory establishments during vacation. New Mexico. 16 8-44 (48 in special cases), under 14. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., under 14. New York. .. 18 8-M)-6. 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. 14 (12 on home, farm for par­ 8-48-6, 16 and 17. Midnight to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. ents, and in hand harvest of Schoolday/week: 3-23, under 16. berries, fruits, and vege­ 4-28, 16 if attending schooL tables with parental consent under specified hours stand­ ards). North Carolina. 18 8-40-6. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. when school not in session) to 7 9-48-6, 16 and 17. a.m. Schoolday: 8(g). Midnight to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. North Dakota.. 16 8-48-6, under 18. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. June 1 through Labor Day) to 7 Schoolday/week: 3-24 if not exempted a.m. from school attendance. Ohio 18 8-48-6, under 18. 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. (10 p.m. to 6 a.m. before non­ Schoolday: 4, under 14. schoolday with prior approval). 9(g), under 16. 10 p.m. (midnight before nonschoolday) to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. Oklahoma. 16 8-48. 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., boys under 16, girls under 18. Oregon 18 10-44 (emergency overtime with per- 6 p.m. (10 p.m. with permit) to 7 a.m. (h) mit)-6. 44-hour week (emergency overtime with permit), 16 and 17. Pennsylvania 18 8-44-6, under 18. 7 p.m. (10 p.m. during vacation from June to Schoolday/week: 4-18, under 16. Labor Day) to 7 a.m. 28 in schoolweek, 16 and 17 if enroUed in 11 p.m. (midnight before nonschoolday) to 6 regular day schooL a.m., 16 and 17 if enrolled in regular day school. Rhode Island 16 8-40. 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. 9-48. 16 and 17. 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. South CaroUaa (f) 1&-55, 16 and over in cotton and woolen 8 p.m. (11 p.m. before nonschoolday In stores, manufacturing establishments. (Lim­ domestic service, farmwork) to 5 a.m. ited emergency overtime permitted.) South Dakota 16 8-40. After 7 p.m. in mercantile estaWishments, under 14. Tennessee 18 8-40H5, under 18. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Schoolday/week: 4 (5 on Friday)-28, un­ 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. der 17 if not exempted from school attendance. Texas lS(f) 8-48, under IS. 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., under 15. 14 (no minimum from June 1 to September 1). g Utah (f) 8-^0. 9:30 p.m. to 5 a.m. before schoolday. 12 (no minimum if with par­ Schoolday: 4. ental consent). Vermont 16(f) 8-48-6. 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. 9-50. 16 and 17. Virginia 18 8-40-6, under 18. 6 p.m. (10 p.m. before nonschoolday and June 1 14 (no minimum if with par­ to September 1) to 7 a.m. (minors of 15 may ental consent). begin at 5 a.m.). Midnight to 5 a.m., 16 and 17. Washington...; 18 8-hour day, 5-day week, under 18. 7 p.m. (9 p.m. during summer vacation) to 7 a.m. (h) Schoolday/week: 3-18. After 9 p.m. on consecutive nights preceding schoolday, 16 and 17. West Virginia 16 8-40-6. 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. Wisconsin 18 8-24-6 when school in session and 8—40-6 8 p.m. (9:30 p.m. before nonschoolday) to 7 a.m. 12 in nonschoolweek. 12:30 a.m. to 6 a.m., except where under direct 8-40-6 when school in session and 8—48-6 adult supervision, and with 8 hours rest be­ in nonschoolweek (voluntary overtime tween ewl of work and schoolday, 16 and 17 if per day and week permitted up to 50- required to attend school. hour week), 16 and 17 if required to at­ tend school. SELECTED STATE CHILD LABOR STANDARDS AFFECTING MINORS UNDER 18*—Concluded As of November 1975 (Because of limitations of space, occupational coverage, exemptions, and deviations are usually not indicated) Documentary proof of age Maximum daily and weekly hours Minimum age for required up to age and days per week for minors under 16 Nightwork prohibited for minors under 16 agricultural employment StaU or other jurisdiction. indicated (a) : unless other age indicated (b) unless other age indicated (b) outside school hours (c)

Wyoming...... 16 8-hour day. 10 p.m. (midnight before nonschoolday and for minors not enrolled in school) to S a.m. Midnight to 5 a.m., girls 16 and 17. District of Columbia. 18 8-48-6, under 18. 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. 14 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17. Guam 16 8-40HS, under 18. After 7 p.m. on schoolday, under 18. Schoolday: 9(g), under 18. Puerto Rico. ..'. 18 ' 8-40HS, under 18. 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. Schoolday: 8(g) 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., 16 and 17.

•Prepared by the Division of State Employment Standards, Employment Standards Admin­ programs may work during school hours up to 3 hours on a schoolday and 23 hours in a istration, U.S. Department of Labor. schoolweek. (a) Many Statesrequireanemploymentcertificateforminorsunder 16andan age certificate (f) Proof of age is not mandatory under state law in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, for 16-and l7-year olds; in a few States other types of evidence are acceptable as proof of age. South Carolina, and Utah; nor in Kansas for minors enrolled in secondary schools, and in In most States the law provides that age certificates may be issued upon request for persons Nevada and Vermont for employment outside school hours. For purjxjses of the Fair Labor above the age indicated or, although not specified in the law, such.certificates are issued in Standards Act, federal age certificates are issued upon request by the State Employment practice. Service in Idaho and by Wage and Hour offices in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas; (b) State hoiirs limitations on a schoolday and in a schoolweek usually apply only to those in Alaska, birth, baptismal, and census records are accepted as proof of age. In Utah, state law enrolled in school. Several States exempt high school graduates from the hours and/or night- directs schools to issue age certificates upon request. work or other provisions, or have less restrictive provisions for minors participating-in various (g) Combined hours of work and school. school-work programs. Separate nightwork standards in messenger service and street trades (h) Oregon. There is no minimum age for agricultural employment outside school hours, are common, but are not displayed in table. except for a 9-year minimum in harvesting berries and beans for intrastate commerce under (c) Under federal law and in the laws of most States, there is a specific parental exemption specified circumstances; applicable only to employment subject to FI-SA. for employment by a parent or on a farm owned or controlled by parents. Washington. The child labor law exempts all agricultural employment from its coverage. (d) Not required. State age or employment certificates which show that the minor has However a new provision, added to the statute relating to agriculture generally, specifically attained the- minimum age for the job are accepted under the Fair Labor Standards Act. permits outside-school-hour employment of minors under 12 in harvesting berries for intrastate (e) Students of 14 and IS enrolled in approved Work Experience and Career Exploiation commerce under si>ecified circumstances; applicable only to emplojrment.subject to FLSA. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IN THE STATES*

FTER RELATIVE STABILITY during the group applicants. The declinis from fiscal last half of fiscal year 1974, the em- year 1974 is due primarily to adverse eco­ A^ployment situation worsened con­ nomic conditions in the construction in­ siderably during fiscal year 1975. The dustry which traditionally provides 80. combined pressures of recession and infla­ percent of the apprenticeship placements. tion were reflected in a general slow­ down in the Nation's economy. The un­ IMPROVING PLACEMENTS employment rate rose steadily from 5.3 In June 1973, the Manpower Adminis­ percent at the beginning of fiscal year tration announced a major redirection of 1975 to 8.6 percent at the close of the fis­ USES calling for more effective pl^icement cal year. This was an increase of 62 per­ services. Since then USES has directed its cent from the previous year. efforts toward that goal. The increase affected nearly all major USES has expanded its statewide Job. labor groups, but was especially prevalent Bank system to 43 States, including all among blue-collar workers, reflecting cut­ but one of the major Standard Metro­ backs in manufacturing and construction politan Statistical Areas. Developmental activity. work is continuing on a sophisticated sys­ tem of computerized worker/job match­ EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PERFORMANcaE ing using a system of key words to match Despite adverse economic conditions, applicant qualifications with job require­ the U.S. Employment Service (USES) ments. Six experimental sites have performed creditably during the fiscal completed the implementation of em­ year. Nonagricultural placements totaled, ployer-oriented batch matching and ap-. 4.3 million, a decrease of 11.2 percent plicant-priented matching systems. Plans froni the previous year. In relative terms, call for refining the computerized job placements of the poor and veterans did matching systems and further expansion not show similar declines. Placements of during fiscal year 1976. the poor numbered 891,000, an increase USES has undertaken a number of re­ of nearly 1 percent above fiscal year 1974. lated approaches to increase placements'' Approximately 391,000 Vietnam-era vet­ and rekindle employer interest and par­ erans were placed, only 2,000 fewer than ticipation in the Employment Service. 'the previous year. Older worker place­ Among them was the irriplementation of ments totaled 41,000 or 3.9 percent below the recommendations of the National Em­ fiscal year 1974. ployers' Committee for Improvement of Reflecting the shift of counseling re­ the State Employment Services (NEC). sources into direct placement activities, The recommendations are aimed at ini- the number of individuals counseled fell proving the relevance and responsiveness to 885,000 or 9.9 percent below 1974. of the Employment Service to employers. The Apprenticeship Information Cen­ Methods of accomplishing this include ter Program, located in 30 local ofiices, personalizing services to' employers placed nearly 7,000 persons in apprentice­ through account executives, improving ship, including more than 1,700 minority labor market information, improving the planning a:nd budgeting system, and es­ *This chapter was prepared by Sam A. Morgen- tablishing a job placement service similar stein. Assistant Executive Director, Interstate Con­ to the traditional labor exchange func­ ference of Employment Security Agencies, Inc., with the collaboration of the Manpower Adrr^in-.. tion. Evaluation of the project shows an istratipn, U.S. Department of Labor. '^ ' ' increase in placements and job orders at

547 548 THE BOOK OF THE STATES those sites where substantial implementa­ combining the most effective elements of tion has been completed. each project into a further effort which In a similar effort, the Employer Serv­ is called the Job Service Improvement ices Improvement Project (ESIP) was un­ Project (JSIP). The major goal of JSIP dertaken. ESIP is a process model for im­ will be revitalized services to employers, proving the quantity and quality of USES strengthened employer-Employment Serv­ services to employers. Operational prob­ ice working relationships, an improved lems are identified and solutions are Employment Service image, and a hard­ found through close working relation­ hitting, multimedia campaign to publi­ ships developed between local employer cize the improved service and to attract committees and local Employment Serv­ highly skilled jobseekers. ice office task forces. The interaction is begun by a change agent who works as the SERVICES TO VETERANS liaison between the groups. The agent is In the face of declining economic con­ phased out as the working relationship ditions. State Employment Service agen­ is established. The program has now been cies continued to place emphasis on ob­ implemented in 80 communities in 27 taining jobs or training opportunities for States involving 1,800 employers. veterans. The unemployment rate for To dispel the "unemployment" conno­ Vietnam-era veterans increased from 5.1 tation that has long been associated with percent at the end of fiscal year 1974 to a the Employment Service, the Employer high of 9.9 percent in April 1975, and Services and Job Development Public stood at 9.7 percent at the end of fiscal Communications Project was launched year 1975. in fiscal year 1974. The project is designed In spite of this and the difficulty of find­ to develop high-quality, multimedia pub­ ing job opportunities, the Employment lic communications programs and to fa­ Service placed 592,000 veterans (down cilitate the implementation of the new only 2.8 percent from fiscal year 1974), Job Service symbol as the trademark of 391,000 Vietnam-era veterans (a decrease the Employment Service. The effort is of only 0.5 percent), and 76,000 handi­ aimed at increasing job listings, and at capped veterans (an increase of 2.7 per­ registering and placing highly skilled job- cent). seekers. Fiscal year 1975 was the second The Interagency Jobs for Veterans Ad­ year of the three-year project. By the end visory Committee was formed to stream­ of fiscal year 1976, 29 States will have par­ line and combine the activities of the pre­ ticipated. vious Jobs for Veterans program and to Another significant step toward im­ achieve the objectives of the President's provement was the initiation of a project Veterans Program. In addition, 10 re­ for relocation and rehabilitation of local gional veterans employment representa­ Employment Service offices. The project, tives were added to the field staff of the designed to increase placements and im­ Veterans Employment Service. These po­ prove responsiveness to employers, pro­ sitions were created to provide increased vides services to applicants and employers capability in the Manpower Administra­ in their own neighborhoods by making tion's efforts to implement legislative use of improved technology such as Job mandates for producing jobs and training Bank and new concepts such as the Job opportunities for veterans. Information Service. Improvements in­ Mandatory listings of job openings for clude redesign of traditional layouts of of­ veterans with the Employment Service by fices along functional lines, the use of federal contractors continued at nearly modern furniture, and attractive color the level of the previous year. Veterans schemes. Eighty-eight sites in 27 States placed in such job openings remained at have begun efforts to relocate offices or to about the same level over the year—111,- refurbish existing locations to improve 000 in fiscal year 1974 and 110,000 in fiscal the Employment Service image. year 1975. While each of these experimental ef­ Disabled veterans continue to receive forts has shown positive results, USES is special attention. A study commissioned MAJOR STATE SERVICES 549 by the Manpower Administration sug­ also provides staff and liaison services to gested that each category of disabled vet­ a court-appointed committee whose mis­ erans may have unemployment rates sion is to oversee DOL implementation of double those for comparable age groups the order and to report to the court on of nondisabled veterans. To correct this progress being made. the Employment Service instituted action In addition, USES and the state agen­ plans at the local office level to ensure cies have been cooperating with the Inter­ the availability of adequate local office agency Task Force in the Indochina Refu­ services to disabled veterans, development gee Program. Staff stationed at each of of cooperative relationships with other the refugee centers provide technical as­ agencies and community groups, periodic sistance to the voluntary agencies in as­ performance reviews of such services, and sessing refugee occupational skills, pro­ the appropriate follow-up. A special Out­ viding labor market information, and reach Employment Program was con­ determining suitable Dictionary of Occu­ ducted by the Blinded Veterans Associa­ pational Titles codes for job orders and tion under contract with the Department applicant qualifications. The services of of Labor (DOL) to contact blinded vet­ State Employment Service offices are erans and provide them with job search made available to the refugees for job and placement assistance. The project referrals and placement at the location achieved all of its objectives in fiscal year of their final resettlement. 1975 and was renewed for fiscal year 1976. MANPOWER REVENUE SHARING PLACEMENT TOOLS Since the passage of the Comprehensive As the result' of administrative rulings Employment and Training Act (CETA) interpreting the Equal Employment Op­ of 1973, DOL has made intensive efforts portunity Act of 1974 and the Age Dis­ to decentralize program operations to crimination in Employment Act of 1967, state and local governments. Special em­ as amended, a publication has been de­ phasis is placed on assisting prime spon­ veloped to eliminate sex-and-age-referent sors in the development of flexible deliv­ language from the job titles of the Dic­ ery systems capable of responding to the tionary of Occupational Titles, Third needs of both individuals and communi­ Edition. The publication represents the ties. revision of about 3,500 job titles. Since CETA does not provide for a pre­ In cooperation with State Employment sumptive deliverer of manpower services Services, USES continues to develop and in each jurisdiction, the choice of such refine aptitude and proficiency tests used ^n agency is left ultimately to the prime in the selection and counseling of job ap­ sponsor. However, both the act and the plicants. Emphasis is centered on develop­ implementing regulations urge prime ing aptitude test batteries that (1) predict sponsors to consider utilization of exist­ success in specific occupations, and (2) are ing public agencies in their programs. fair for use with minority applicants. The intent of both Congress and the Department of Labor, therefore, was one NEW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR USES of maintaining autonomy of state and In response to a court order (NAACP, local officials while avoiding duplication Western Region et al. v. Peter J. Brennan, of services and promoting the utilization Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of of established public agencies that had Transportation, et al., May 31, 1973), gained valuable experience and expertise USES has begun intensive efforts to im­ under previous manpower legislation. plement provisions requiring consider­ The major objectives of the manpower able improvement in the quantity and revenue sharing concept are: (1) to decen­ quality of manpower services provided to tralize decision-making, insofar as practi­ migrant and seasonal farmworkers. A spe­ cable, to the governmental level closest cial task force has been established to as­ to the citizen; (2) to integrate the appro­ sure that appropriate state agencies com­ priate manpower activities operating in ply with the court order. The task force the area into a unified manpower services 550 THE BOOK OF THE STATES delivery system; and (3) to improve the agencies have done an outstanding job in ability of local manpower operators to meeting this tremendous increase in work match services to client needs. The pas­ load. sage of CETA has moved local govern­ The original objective of the unem­ ment one step further toward decentrali­ ployment insurance program was to pay zation and decategorization of federal benefits for short-time unemployment manpower programs. only. Most state laws limit benefits to 26 weeks. Under pressure of unemployment UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE during the past year, duration has been The unemployment insurance system is extended on a temporary basis to 65 a federal-state program which has been weeks. in operation for 40 years. Under the sys­ Another major deficiency of the pro­ tem, the federal government sets general gram has been the fact that the employers standards, provides all administrative of 12 million workers have not been cov­ financing, and cooperates with the States ered. Again emergency action was taken in all aspects of the program. The States in December 1974 to cover these workers are responsible for the enactment of state on a temporary basis up to 39 weeks. laws and are primarily responsible for ad­ Congress now has under consideration ministration of the program. permanent changes in the federal law de- Unemployment insurance benefits are •• signed to remedy the inadequacies in cov­ given as a matter of right with no means erage and inadequacies in the extended test and with a level of benefits subject benefits program. Major attention is also to a maximum related to the individual's being given to serious financial problems wage. It is by far the most important in­ which have developed during the last come maintenance program for the unem­ year. It is estimated that as many as 30 ployed. It has been successful in providing States may have to borrow from the fed­ benefits for the unemployed and as an eral government before the end of calen­ effective economic stabilizer. In 1973, $4 dar year 1976. The States, through the billion was paid out in benefits; in 1974, National Governors' Conference and the |6 billion was paid out; and in 1975 it is Interstate Conference of Employment Se­ estimated that $20 billion will be paid out curity Agencies, have cooperated with the in benefits. State employment security Congress to improve the program. MAJOR STATE SERVICES 551 SELECTED DATA ON STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OPERATIONS, CALENDAR YEAR 1974, BY STATE*

Average Total Average Funds weekly bene- Average benefit employer available Employers fit amount duration payments contri- for bene- Slate or subject to Initial paid for of (c) (in bution fits at end of other state law claims Bene- total unem- benefits thou- rate during year (in jurisdiction ., (a) (b) ficiaries ployment (weeks) sands) year (d) thousands)

Total 3,896,389 18,898.240(e) 7,729,953 $64.25 12.7(P) $5,974,922 (f) 2.0 $1*0,599,249

Alabama... 54.270 250,076 113,951 $51.63 9.6 $ 54,480 1.1 $ 117,052 Alaska 7,963 40,051 20,105 69.72 16.8 .22,617 2.7 47,748 Arizona 45,969 167,292 67,534 57.36 11.5 43,527 1.4 157,248 Arkansas 40.508 176.586 67,358 54.06 9.8 33,146 1.5 66.042 California 397,375 2,382.709 994,615 64.60 13.2 824,228 2.8 1,147,747

Colorado 48,531 113,862 33,082 74.40 12.3 30,232 0.4 102,201 Connecticut 67.599 433,378 201,491 73.89 11.1 163,258 2.9 11,808 Delaware 11,949 75,254 28,804 71.02 12.6 24,404 2.4 35,091 Florida 161,029 434,711 180,506 67.78 10.7 109,013 0.7 326,090 Georgia 84,056 311.130 174,202 55.75 8.3 75,966 0.9 455,428

Hawaii 16,862 57,826 34,301 72.38 15.9 34,939 1.9 17,484 Idaho 18.248 73.889 27,659 61.31 10.5 16,304 2.3 58,915 lUlnots 190,518 753,624 320.017 66.49 12.1 248,622 1.9 509,032 Indiana 81,655 471,150 197,970 52.60 9.7 98,747 1.0 380,801 Iowa 57,328 107,803 45.019 64.69 11.4 31,940 1.0 125,375 Kansas 45,524 91,202 45,815 61.87 11.9 32,508 2.0 138,993 Kentucky 53,962 208.362 115,290 59.68 9.2 60.226 2.0 222,509 Louisiana 61,042 203,419 92,117 55.56 14.2 66,890 1.9 140,507 Maine 21,620 132,259 55,075 53.78 10.9 28,940 2.7 29,294 Maryland 65.588 265.687 111,288 64.40 11.4(P) 77,537 1.8 160.398

Massachusetts 114,149 666,541 310,556 69.39 15.8 309,481 3.5 150.810 Michigan 141,293 1,586,662 611,638 66.94 11.4 458,362 2.6 394,741 Minnesota 69,813 220,683 117,284 65.75 13.9 102.914 1.9 76,269 Mississippi 35,681 121,029 48.229 40.82 8.5 17,295 1.2 128,637 Missouri 84,251 460,608 171,853 56.44 10.6 96,444 1.6 245,490

Montana 18,863 53,221 22,295 53.72 12.9 15,196 1.7 19,836 Nebraska 31,472 66.467 34,131 59.29 11.7 22,447 1.2 58.718 Nevada 14.313 98,411-- 39,890 67.81 13.1 34,546 2.8 25.563 New Hampshire... 18.849 89.958 43,073 58.65 7.5 17,612 1.3 57,550 New Jersey 141,931 865,808 449,826 72.30 14.3 449,200 3.5 41,056

New Mexico 22.503 66.896 25.432 51.07 15.0 18,695 1.6 42,688 New York 382,231 1,993,810 698,007 65.61 17.6 757,811 2.9 1,299,673 North Carolina.... 92,941 593,522 184.800 46.63 7.5 61,205 1.1 568,703 North Dakota..;.. 14,407 19,752 10,254 56.68 15.1 8,726 2.2 21.230 Ohio 181,353 820,566 305.111 72.55 10.8 235,180 1.3 776.648 Oklahoma 49,649 127,021 50,870 48.32 13.5 31,270 1.2 63,379 Oregon 50,514 320,200 106,143 58.49 13.0 78,666 2.0 108,815 Pennsylvania 193,631 1.326,781 498,426 72.18 14.2 467,503 2.6 529,'435 Rhode Island 22,540 173,445 62,797 65.94 12.9 50,493 3.0 14,222 South Carolina... 43,186 215,497 75,653 54.72 9.7 39,022 1.0 227,051

South Dakota 15,016 16,500 8,472 52.21 11.8 4.846 0.9 24.408 Tennessee 65.312 299,667 147.400 50.67 9.3 67.699 1.6 330,320 Texas 202,621 349.664 140,308 52.00 11.3 79,244 0.4 348.367 Utah •• 23,584 66,762 32,676 62.99 12.3 23,758 1.7 52,826 Vermont 11,625 47,912 20,300 62.81 ' 14.9 17,944 2.2 700

Virginia 74.073 183,345 64,500 58.62 8.8 32.570 0.4 246,214 Washington 73,089 503,030 169,539 65.14 15.0 148,723 3.0 -11,297 West Virginia 26,763 126,190 65,815 48.07 9.9 29,519 1.1 115,906 Wisconsin 83.061 347,840 135,169 70.83 12.1 108,988 1.9 315,719 Wyoming 10.550 9,858 4,531 56.78 10.0 2,820 1.1 28,043

Dlst. of Columbia. 16,510 35,422 24.190 83.83 19.1 34,382 1.3 36,119 Puerto Rico 39,019 274,659 124,586 36.81 15.6 74,841 3.0 12,367 •Prepared by the OfRce of Research, Legislation and Program (c) Adjusted for voided benefit checks and transfers under Policies, Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. the interstate combined-wage plans. P—Preliminary. (d) Estimated for calendar y^ar 1974. • (a) Large increases in number of subject employers due to (e) Includes initial claims filed by interstate claimants in the expansion of coverage required by Employment Security Virgin Islands—253. Amendments of 1970. (f) Beginning with January 1971 excludes payments made (b) Excludes transitional claims in order to reflect more under state temporary extended benefit provisions. nearly instances of new unemployment. SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS, JULY 15, 1975*

Weekly benefit amount Total benefits payable in benefit year(d) Qualifying wages or employment in Computation Employer contribution base period (number (fraction of high- For total Benefit weeks rates for 1974 (per­ times weekly benefit quarter wages, unemployment (c) Proportion for total unemployment (f) centage of wages) (g) State or other amount unless other- unless otherwise of wages in , : ^ ^ jurisdiction wise indicated) (a.) indicated) (b) Minimum Maximum base period(e) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Alabama 1H times high-quarter 1/24 $15.00 $90.00 11+ 0.5(g) 2.7(g) wages, but not less than $S2S Alaska $750 with $100 outside 2.3-1.1% of annual 18.00-23.00 90.00-120.00 34-31%(e) 14 28 1.3(g) 3.8(g) high quarter wages, plus $10 for each dependent up to $30 Arizona 1J4 times high-quarter 1/25 15.00 85.00 12-H 26 0.2 2.9 wages and $375 in high quarter Arkansas 30; and wages in 2 1/26 up to 66%% of 15.00 92.00 10 26 0.3 4J2 quarters state average weekly wage Callfomla $750 1/24-1/31 25.00 90.00 12+-15(d) 26(d) 1.0 4.1 60% of 1/13 of claim- 25.00 108.00 7-1—10 26 0.0 3.6 ant's high-quarter wages up to 60% of. Colorado 30 state average weekly wage 1/26, up to 60% of 15.00-20.00 104.00-156.00 M 26(d) 26(d) 1.4(g) S.O(g) state average weekly wage plus $5 for each Connecticut 40 dependent up to }4 wba 1/26 lOS.OO(h) 26 times wba or 17 26 1.4 4.3 50% of base- period wages Delaware 36 H of claimant's aver- 10.00 82.00 yi weeks of 10 26 0.1 4.5 age weekly wage employment Florida 20 weeks of employ­ ment at average of 1/25 12.00 90.00 H 9 26 0.08 3.36 - $20 or more Georgia 36; with $175 in 1 quar­ ter and wages in 2 1/25 up to 66?^% of 5.00 104.00 Uniform 26(d) 26(d) 1.3(g) 3.0(g) quarters state average weekly Hawaii .; 30;and 14 weeksof em­ wage ployment 1/26 up to 60% of state 17.00 90.00 Weighted sched­ 10 26 1.1 4.7 Idaho IH times high-quarter average weekly wage ule of base pe­ wages, but not less riod in relation than $520.01; with to high-quarter $416.01 in 1 quarter wages and wages in 2 quar­ ters J^ claimant average 15.00 97.00-135.00 Uniform 26 0.1 4.0 Illinois $1,000; with $225 out­ weekly wage up to side high quarter 50% of state aver­ age weekly wage Indiana 1 J< times high-quarter 1/25 up to $60(b) $30.00 $60.00-100.00 M 4+ 26 3.1 wages but not less than $500; with $300 in last 2 quarters Iowa $300; with $200 in 1 1/20 up to 66?^% of 10.00 107.00 Ji 4.0 quarter and $100 in state average weekly another quarter wage Kansas 30; and wages in 2 1/25 up to 55% of state 21.00 85.00 H 10 26 0.0 3.6 quarters average weekly wage Kentucky 1% times high-quar­ 1/23 up to 50% of 12.00 80.00 H 15 26 0.3 3.7 ter wages with 8 state average weekly times wba in last 2 wage quarters and $250 in 1 quarter Louisiana 30 1/20-1/25 10.00 80.00(h) 12 28 1.0 2.7 Maine $600 1/22 up to 52% of state 12.00 74.00 11+-2S 26 1.9 4.S average weekly wage Maryland 1H times high-quarter 1/24 plus $3 for each 10.00-13.00 89.00(c) Uniform 26 26 0.1 3.6 wages with $192.01 dependent up to $12 in 1 quarter and wages in 2 quarters Massachusetts $1,200 1/21 to 1/26 up to 14.00-20.00 95.00-143.00 36% 9-f-30 30 2.3 5.1 57.5% of state av­ erage weekly wage plus $6 per depen­ dent up to i4 claim­ ant's wba(b) Michigan 14 weeks of employ­ 63-60% of claimant's 16.00-18.00(0) 97.00-136.00 % weeks of 11 0.7 6.6 ment at $25.01 or average weekly wage employment more up to $97; variable matximum for claim­ ants with dependents(b>)) Minnesota 18 weeks of employ­ 62% of claimant's aver­ 105.00 7/10 weeks of 13 26 0.9(g) S.O(g) ment at $30 or more age weekly wage 15.00 employment Mississippi 36; with $160 in 1 quar­ 1/26 10.00 60.00 12 26 0.8 2.7 ter and wage's in 2 H quarters Missouri 30 times wba and $300 1/20 15.00 85.00 H 8-13-f- 26 0.0 3.6 in 1 quarter; wages in 2 quarters Montana.-;...... 13 times wba outside 1/26 iip to 55% of 12.00 81.00 (e) 13 26 0.5(g) 3.1(g) high quarter state average weekly wage(h) Nebraska $600; with $200 in each 1/19-1/23 12.00 80.00 H 17 26 0.1 2.7 of 2 quarters Nevada 1J4 times high-quarter 1/25 up to 50% of state 16.00 88.00 H 11 26 2.7(g) 2.7(g) wages average weekly wage New Hampshire $600; with $100 in each 2.3-1.2% of annual 14.00 95.00 Uniform 26 26 0.075 4.0 of 2 quarters wages New Jersey 20 weeks of employ­ 66%% of claimant's 20.00 90.00 5i weeks of em­ 15 26 1.2(g) 5.5(g) ment at $30 or more; average weekly wage ployment or $2,200 up to 50% of state average weekly wage New Mexico 1 Ji times high-quarter 1/26; not less than 10% 15.00 71.00 >i wba 18+ 30 0.3 3.3 wages nor more than 50% of state average weeldy wage New York 20 weeks of employ­ 67-50% of claimant's 20.00 95.00 Uniform 26 26 1.3 5.0 ment at average of average weekly wage $30 or more (i) SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS, JULY 15, 1975*—Concluded

Weekly benefit amount Total benefits payable in benefit year(d) Qualifying wages or employment in Computation Employer contribution base period {number {fraction of high- For total Benefit weeks rates for 1974 {per­ times weekly benefit quarter wages; unemployment (c) Proportion for total unemployment{{) centage of wages) (g) State or othef^ amount unless other- unless otherwise of wages in jurisdiction wise indicated) (a) indicated) (b) Minimum Maximum base period{e) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum North Carolina IH times high-quarter 1/26 up to 66%% of $15.00 $90.00 Weighted schedule of 13 26 0.2 4.7 wages but not less state average weekly base-period wages in than $565.50; $150 wage relation to high- in 1 quarter quarter wages North Dakota 40; and wages in 2 1/26 up to 60% of state 15.00 86.00 (e) 18 26 0.9 4.2 quarters average weekly wage ,(h) Ohio 20 weeks of employ­ J4 claimant's average 10.00-16.00 82.00-121.00 20 times wba 20 26 0.2 3.9 ment at $20 or more weekly wage plus de­ plus wba for pendent's allowance each credit of $l-$39 based on week in ex­ claimant's average cess of 20 weekly wage and number of depend­ ents (b) oi Oklahoma IH times high-quarter 1/26 up to 55% of state 16.00 86.00 10-f- 26 0.4 2.7 •*^ wages; not less than average weekly wage H $500 in base period; $4,200 Oregon 18 weeks of employ­ 1.25% of base-period 26.00 95.00 H 10+ 26 1.224(g) 2.958(g) ment at average of wages up to 55% of $20 or more; not less state average weekly than $700 wage Pennsylvania 32-^-36 with $120 in 1/21-1/25 up to 642^% 13.00-18.00 111.00-119.00 Uniform 0.9 4.0 high quarter and of state average at least 20% of base- weekly wage plus period wages outside $5 for 1 dependent high quarter and $3 for 2nd(h) Rhode Island 20 weeks of employ­ 55% of claimant's aver- 22.00-27.00 94.00-114.00 % weeks of 26 2.2(g) 4.0(g) ment at $20 or more age weekly wage up employment or $2,400 to 60% of state aver­ age weekly wage plus $5 per dependent up to $20 South Carolina IH times high-quarter 1/26 'up to 66%% of 10.00 96.00 M 10 26 0.25 4.1 wages but not less state average weekly than $300 with $180 wage in 1 quarter South Dakota $400 in high quarter 1/22 up to 58% of state 19.00 77.00 H 10-f- 26 0.0 2.7 and 10 times wba, average weekly wage outside high quarter (h) Tennessee 36; with $338.01 in one 1/26 $14.00 $85.00 H 12 26 0.3 4.0 quarter Texas. IJ^ times high-quarter 1/25 15.00 63.00 27% 26 0.1 wages but not less than $500 or % FICA tax base Utah. 19 weeks employment 1/26 up to 65% of 10.00 101.00 Weighted sched- 10-22 36 1.4 l7 at $20 or more but state average weekly ule of base- not less than $700 wage period wages in relation to high-quarter wages Vermont. 20 weeks of employ­ H claimant's average 15.00 91.00 Uniform 26 0.9 5.0 ment at $30 or more weekly wage for high-, est 20 weeks up to 60% of state average weekly wage Virginia 36; and wages In 2 quar­ 1/25 20.00 87.00 H 12 26 0.0S 2.7 ters Washington $1.4000) 1/25 high-quarter 17.00 93.00 H 8+-23-f- 30 3.0(g) 3.0(g) wages up to 50% state average weekly wage West Virginia $700 1.9-0.8% annual wages 14.00 115.00 Uniform 26 26 0.0 3.3 up to 66H% of state average weekly wage Wisconsin 17 weeks employment 50% claimant's aver- 21.00 113.00 8/10 weeks of 1-13-f- 34 0.0 4.7 at average of $40.01 age weekly wage up employment or more with em- to 66H% of state av­ ployer(i) erage weekly wage Wyoming 20 weeks with 20 hours 1/25 up to 50% of state 10.00 84.00 3/10 11-24 26 0.22 2.92 in each week plus average weekly wage $800 in base-period wages District of C!olumbla. IH times high-quarter 1/23 up to 66%% of 13.00-14.00 127.00(c) H 17+ 34 0.7 2.7 wages but not less state average weekly than $450; with $300 wage, plus $1 for each in 1 quarter dependent up to $3 Puerto Rico. 21-f—30; not less than 1/15-1/26 up to 60% 7.00 55.00 Uniform 20(d) 20(d) 2.95 3.53 ' $150 with $50 in 1 of state average quarter and wages in weekly wage 2 quarters

•Prepared by the Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. (e) With exception of Montana and North Dakota, States noted have weighted schedule (a) Weekly benefit amount is abbreviated throughout the table as wba. with percent of benefits based on bottom of lowest and highest wage brackets. In Montana, (b) When States use a weighted high-quarter formula, annual-wage formula, or average- 13, 20, and 26 weeks depending on quarters of employment; and in North Dakota, 18, 22, and weekly-wage formula, approximate fractions or percentages are figured at midpoint of lowest 26 weeks depending on amount of base-period earnings. and highest normal ^vage bracket. When dependents' allowances are provide, the fraction (f) For claimants with minimum wba and minimum qualifying wages. In States noted, applies to the basic wba. In States noted, variable amounts above maximum basic benefits range of duration applies to claimants with miniinum qualifying wages in base period; longer limited to claimants with specified number of dependents and earnings in excess of amounts duration applies with the minimum wba; the shorter duration applies with maximum possible applicable to maximum basic wba. In Indiana, dependents' allowances paid only to claimants concentration of wages in the high quarter, and therefore the highest wba possible for such with earnings in excess of that needed to qualify for basic wba and who have 1 to 4 dependents. base-period earnings. Wisconsin determines entitlement separately for each employer. Lower In Michigan and Ohio claimants may be eligible for augmented amount at all benefit levels end of range applies to claimants with only 1 week of work at qualifying wage; upper end to but benefit amounts above basic maximum available only to claimants in dependency-classes claimants with 17 weeks or more of such wages. whose average weekly wages are higher than that required for maximum basic benefit. In (g) Rate represents minimum and maximum rates assigned to employers during calendar Massachusetts, for claimant with average weekly wage in excess of $66 wba computed at year 1974. Alabama, Alaska, and New Jersey also require employee taxes. Contributions 1/52 of 2 highest quarters of earnings or 1/26 of highest quarter if claimant had no more required on wages up to $4,200 in all States except Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode than 2 quarters of work. Island ($4,800); Oregon ($5,000); Nevada ($5,800); Connecticut ($6,000); Washington (c) When two amounts are given, higher includes dependent's allowance. Higher for mini­ ($6,600); Hawaii ($7,300); and Alaska ($10,000). mum wba includes maximum allowance for one dependent; in Michigan, for one dependent (h) Effective September 1, 1975, $90; September 1, 1976, 66H%. Louisiana; January 1. child or two dependents other than a child. In the District of Columbia and Maryland, same 1976, 66K%, Pennsylvania; July 1, 1976, 60%, Montana; 67%, North Dakota; 62%, South maximum with or without dependents. Dakota; 60%, July 1, 1976, 63%, July 1, 1977, 66J<%, July 1. 1978, Delaware. (d) Benefits are extended under state program when unemployment in State reaches speci­ (i) Or 15 weeks in last year and 40 weeks in last 2 years at average of $30 or more (New fied levels: California, Hawaii by 50%; in Connecticut by 13 weeks. In Puerto Rico benefits York); or 14 weeks in base period and 55 weeks in those 52 weeks plus any base period which are extended by 32 weeks in certain industries, occupations or establishments when a special ended not more than 10 weeks before the start of those 52 weeks (Wisconsin). unemployment situation exists. Benefits may also be extended during periods of high unem- (j) In addition to total wages of $1,400, claimant also must have either (1) 16 weeks of loyment by 50%, up to 13 weeks, under the Federal-State Extended Compensation Program employment with wages or 15% of average wage or (2) 600 hours of employment. and up to 26 additional weeks under Federal Supplemental Benefits Program. 556 THE BOOK OF THE STATES SELECTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICE ACTIVITIES, BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 1975*

Individuals placed Placement transactions State or New applica- , '' • , , '^ ^ other tions and Individuals Individuals Non- Non- jurisdiction renewals counseled tested agricultural Agricultural agricultural Agricultural Total 15,035,431 884.236 710,230 2,966,749 214,908 4,373,911 1.497.597 Alabama 311.681 19.108 25,502 63.120 902 80,584 3.425 Alaska 52.290 1,237 1.426 17,547 151 24.786 159 Arizona 193.441 6.296 6,097 46.947 5.315 72,930 7.543 Arkansas 211.330 10,596 9,139 49,319 1,689 90,018 27.554 California 1.448.136 41.354 26.062 300.731 47,700 440.802 806.386 Colorado 207,880 14.518 8.331 33.268 2.597 55.656 5,667 Connecticut 312.939 8.331 5,648 29.930 3.055 35.340 3.323 Delaware 48.177 2.118 1.363 6.584 297 9.080 2,821 Florida 421,431 24.236 18,530 107.281 5.780 145,557 14,588 Georgia 425,753 28,401 14,294 69.151 869 84.713 926 Hawaii 82.788 4.127 1.949 16.603 703 19.147 723 Idaho 106.232 6,162 7.462 26.856 4.374 37,131 8.349 Illinois 572.337 32,880 18,504 89,831 2.063 143.102 6.428 Indiana 488.304 14,081 16,646 72.386 969 . 91.738 1,237 Iowa 193,702 5.640 8,533 64,017 4.213 88.816 5.856 Kansas 151.595 12,058 5.708 34,845 2.114 53.061 8.143 Kentucky 229.011 25.935 17,123 49,034 829 60,096 2,103 Louisiana 252.956 7.465 18.799 63,067 703 84.895 27,869 Maine 71,400 8,063 1.922 19.707 770 25.021 1,795 Maryland 219,412 25,359 5,404 30,628 483 36,876 12.597 Massachusetts 316,287 23,630 7,133 63,527 5,738 95,380 14,735 Michigan 660,804 32.667 21.415 65,129 4,290 86,422 11.008 Minnesota 269.126 14,151 17.614 60,748 5.686 83.355 11,860 Mississippi 256,547 35,506 27,423 62,905 1,724 84,434 5.957 Missouri 419.253 18,962 29.533 82.362 1.800 114.919 7.464 Montana 100.108 14.059 9,219 24,146 3,602 36,698 7.379 Nebraska 97.783 6.867 4.204 30.221 2.456 45.350 4.880 Nevada 88.183 5,025 4,751 14,670 1,062 24,523 1,425 New Hampshire 82.443 2,177 1,266 11,348 318 13,580 611 New Jersey 344.092 23.681 8.446 60.925 1.247 94.595 11.451 New Mexico 137,038 9,602 5,622 28,968 1.472 45,206 3,246 New York 671.096 64.525 30.216 166.902 3.361 361.781 28.728 North CaroUna 497,352 18,795 31.120 68,635 6.014 80.543 132.751 North Dakota 68.677 5,894 6,091 23,920 2.606 35.318 5.969 Ohio 623.929 21.774 31.415 71.993 3.239 117.678 30.489 Oklahoma 275.183 25.976 18.024 59.390 1.543 125,737 . 31.340 Oregon 273.098 22.263 10.030 51.199 14,794 70.440 36.088 Pennsylvania 456.555 48.011 25,378 128.197 2.006 168.161 3.674 Rhode Island. 76,945 6.160 1.365 13.487 157 23,089 163 South CaroUna 265,033 15.657 16.590 41.013 1.619 53.032 33,854 South Dakota 65.992 8,720 6.536 23.177 1.533 35.297 5,811 Tennessee 254,589 12.050 20.361 S4.930 1.637 69.334 20.421 Texas 1,042,199 49,497 74,667 226,461 9.324 382.581 32.243 Utah 147,742 14,036 17,493 39,390. 2,103 57,280 4,329 Vermont 57,082 3,686 1,639 9,880 748 . 12.135 795 Virginia 371.808 19.930 29,909 61,031 1,686 77,833 5,362 Washington 292.987 8.426 8.666 59.021 36,822 84,491 74,788 West Virginia 149,440 8,838 4,345 34,181 854 40.671 2.626 Wisconsin 309.748 17,509 8,659 53,833 1.364 64,858 1.609 Wyoming 49.781 3.795 2.049 16.024 1,118 23.124 1.365 Dlst. of Columbia 110,146 14.590 6.850 27.659 31 42.499 32 Puerto Rico 209.590 9.812 3.759 40,625 7,378 44.218 17.652 *Source: U.S. Employment Service, Manpower Administra­ tion, U.S. Department of Labor.