Section VI
RELATIONS
1. Interstate Relations 2. Federal-State Relations ./ 3. State-Local Relations
M.
v5ia> (^•V
i•Jl
3-l>H, 1
«^ Interstate Relations
«-.n THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
1. ORGAiNIZATION r I iHE Council of State Governments large are elected annually by the Board I is" a joint agency of all the state govr for two-year terms—two of them nomi . -*^ ernments—created, supported and nated by each of four Regional Confer directed by them. The reasons for its ences of the Council, and the two others- existence are sunfmarized concisely in its representing interstate agencies estab Articles of Organization: lished by c6"mpact. The immediate past "The .purpose of the Council shall be Executive Director of the Council also to strengthen state government arid its serves on the Board, as a life member. public services and to preserve its role in The Board meets annually and at the American federal system; to assist the special call. It controls the Council's States in improving their legislative, ad funds, property and management, and it ministrative and judicial practices; to pro is solely responsible for establishing. mote state-local and interstate coopera Council policy positions. tion; and to facilitate federal-state rela ' An Executive Committee of the Board tions." exercises general .supervision over Coun In brief, the Council exists to serve cil operations between Board meetings. the States in jthe areas of state-local re It includes the Chairman of the Board, lations, cooperation and liaison among who is.-a legislator; the President of the the various States, and federal-state rela Council, a Governor; the Honorary Pres tions. , ident of thCrCouricil; three Vice Chair- men^^ who are legislators; three Vice Pres THE GOVERNING BOARD idents, all Governors; the Auditor, who The Council is controlled by a'-Gov- is a state fiscal officer; four regional iriem- erning Boa^d consisting of state delegate bers; and three . additional - members. members,"C/X officio members and mem (The officers and;. Executive Comrnittee bers at large. E^ach State, Commonwealth for 1969-70.are lifted on page 239.) and Territory.names a delegate member. The Executive Committee appoints the The ex officio members include represent Executive Director.-Heselej^ts all mem atives of the nine organizations affiliated bers of the Council staff, and they operate with the Council and two cooperating under his direction arid supervision. organizations, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws COMMISSIONS ON COOPERATION and the National Conference of State The Council works. closely with Coin- Legislative Leaders. The Honorary Pres missions on Interstate Cooperation or ident of the Council, its founder, is also similar official bodies of the individual an ex officio member. Ten members at state governments. A typical commission 235 236. THE BOOK OF THEtTAjTES consists of ten 'or more legislators; a a riingertients are the Parole and Probation smaller number of administrative officials. Compact Administrators' Association, the The legislation creating the commissions Association of Juvenile Compatt Admin-, customarily designates the Council as a istrators, the Interstate Conference on joint governmental agency of the enact-^ Water Problems, the Adjutants General ihg State and. the other States which co Association of the United States, the Na operate through it. - tional Association of State Mental Health; The commissions play an important Program Directors, the National Confer role in Coiincir activities. They focus ence on Uniform Reciprocal Enforce attention on interstate and other inter ment of Support, the Association of State governmental problems facing the States, and Interstate Water Pollution Controi offer organized channels for communica Administrators, the National Association tion among States and with other levels of State Boating Law Admirirstrators, the of governments, and assist States in pool National Association of State Civil De ing knowledge and resources. (The offi fense Directors, the Association of State cers of the commissions in the individual. Correctional Administrators, the Na- States are listed on pages 248-5L) tionaL Association of State' Units on Aging, the National Association of Ex ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS. tradition Officials, the National Associa-" Along with its responsibility to all the tion of State Juvenile Delinquency Pro state governments in all their branches, gram Administrators, the State Personnel the Council provides secretariat and other, Administrators Association, the National' staff services for a number of affiliated Associatibn for State Information Sys groups composed of separate categories tems, and the Council of State Adminis of officials. trators of Vocational Rehabilitation. It performs such se;^ices for'the>Na-~ Because ..oLiis.^.ctiviiies-iox,„ahd ..w\ith tional Governors' Conference, the Na many state associations, and its day-to-day tional Legislative Conference, the Con work with 'individual state officials and ference of Chief Justices, the National legislators, the Council is able to bring Association of Attorrieys General, jthe to the service of each a wide understand National Conference ojE;,Lieutenant Gov ing of the problems of all. ernors, the NationaLAssociation of State Budget Officers,.the National Association OFFICJES • • of State Purchasing Officials, the National The Council has a headquarters office Conference of Court Administrative Offi in Lexingtoh, Kentucky,.a Washington cers, and the Council of State Planning office and four regional offices. The re Agencies. All of these.are formally affilir gional offices are in the E^st (New York a ted with the Council. . City), the Midwest (Chicago), the South In addition, it cooperates closely with (Atlanta), andv the West (San Francisco). a number of additional organizations that Regional representatives work year-round serve state government. These include with Regional Conferences of the Coun the National Conference of Commis cil, and With state legislators, officials and sioners on Uniform State Laws .and the other state associations and committees National Conference, of State Legislative. in their areas. The Washington office pro Leaders—the Presidents of both of which vides information on developments in the are on the Council's Governing Board. national government that can affect the Among others with which the Council States and assists in facilitating effective niainta.ins continuing cooperative ar- federal-state liaison.
2. ACTIVITIES As the responsibilities of gbvernnient state lines, and foi: improved federal- grow, the States increasingly are working state relations. - together for progress in their internal The Council, as the agency of all the affairs, for solution of problems that cross States, contributes to the reialization of
-i-^i.. I NT ERGO V ERN M E MT AL RELATIONS 237 these objectives by numeroiis means. Council as to action of other States on Thev include: ' similar problems, and the results. It can Conducting research projects on a judge from this shared experience what broad variety of state programs and prob practices have worked best elsewhere. lems and by distributing the resulting Individual States repeatedly obtain such reports widely among the States. ' information from the Council's offices or p, Maintaining an inquiry-and-informa- at its meetings. tion service available to state agencies, Certain intrastate problems, moreover, officials and legislators. are perennial for all States or assume spe- Holding national and regional meet "dal significance for all at certain times. ings, large and small, in which legislators The Council undertakes special studies qf and other state officials survey and deal such subjects. with common problems. Thus the Council over the years has Engaging in other important regioi;ial made extensive studies concerning public activities. ' school and higher educational systems, Issuing publications on many .aspe(/ts highways and highway safety, mental of state affairs. ' ^ heaHh, needs of the agiiig, regional de Assisting in liaison, at state direction, velopment, problems of metropolitan with federal ofiicials and- congressional areas, administration of water resources, committees on ^-matters of federal-state state financing, legislative processes and concern. ^ procedures, central departments of, ad Providing the staff for the affiliated ministration, budgeting methods, plan organizations listed on the preceding ning services, and judicial systems. page, and cooperating with other inter On each of these and other subjects the ns tate bodies. Council has published reports for official ? In addition to research reports on in and public use, ranging from brochures dividual subjects, the Council's publica and handbooks to large volumes. Books tions,include its bienniirr reference work, published have included Higher Educa The Book of ihe States; its quarterly tion in the Forty-eight States, The Mental journal. State Government, with articles Health Programsof the Forty-eight States, on state problems, accomplishments, goals Trai7iing 'and Research in State Mental and methods; a monthly newsletter, 5fa/e Health Programs, The States a7id Their Government N'ewSi Vvhich presents cur Older Citizens, State Responsibility in rent items on developments in all the Urban Regional Development, The States States; ^nd Legislative Research Check a7id the Metropolitan Problem, The Law list, a quarterly, with information on and Use of Interstate Coinpacts, State legislative organization^'^procedures, serv Purchasing: The Essentials of a Modern ice agencies and research. Serpice for Modern Government, State Capital Budgeting, and Budgeting by the SERVICE FOR INTRASTATE PROGRESS States. A number of handbooks issued Most of the work of every state govern in recent years deal with the structures, ment necessarily is concentrated, on its procedures, facilities and staff services of internal affairs. But this does not mean the Legislatures. working in isolation. Almost every intra In some instances stiidies and reports state task of every State has its counter are produced by research specialist§'under part in other States! Through the Coun Council supervision or by individiial cil's meetings, research and publications, authors, in others by members of the and through informal communication Council's staff, in stiJl others by Council aided by-the Council, the experience of committees or committees of Council all States in these matters is shared. affiliates assisted by staff members. If, for example, a State is considering Such fact-finding and study, by and for introduction of a new governmental the States, have contributed to steady in-' technique, or adoptibn of a new public trastate progress in the organization, pro service or improvement of an oldi^ne, it cedures and services of the state govern can V obtain information throiigli the ments. _
fc •' e 238 TH'E BOOK OF THE STATES operated with the United States govern- SERVICE FOR INTERSTATE ACTION meiit and the governments of the States Numerous problems that confront gov in setting up the nationwide system of ern me»| also call for interstate action. civilian defense. Similar cooperation led The States are adding new programs to to state programs for selective service, meet these needs while developing and rationing, conservation and salvage, sol expanding those already in progress. A dier-sailor voting, motor transport regu great deal of the Council's work is di lation and related matters. rected to this broad field. Since then the Council has continued Functional areas of interstate agencies to act for federal-state cooperation and agreements now operative include through numerous means. Repeatedly it education, mental health, civil, defense, .serves the States iii consultation with river basin problems, forestJire preven federal officials on subjects of common ^ tion, coastal fisheries, enforcement of.. concern. These have included education, family support, and problems of crime highways, health, problems of the aging, control, juvenile delinquency, probation natural resources, and many others. and parole. A Council study in 1948, requested by Some of the agencies and organizations the Hoover Commission, served as a basis in these fields represent a large number for that commission's recommendations f \ of States, some two or more States that on federal-state relations. Subsequently adjoin each other. Many have been cre the Council cooperated closely with the ated through interstate compact, others Commission on Intergovernmental Rela through less formal arrangements. The tions which reported to the President and Council has assisted in studies and con- Congress in 1955. In 1957-59 the Council fei"ences that have led to the establish provided staff services to the Joint Fed ment of many of them. It continues to aid eral-State Action Committee, established . them in fulfilling their functions. by the President of the United States and In addition, the Council serves the the Chairman of the Governors' Confer- States continuously in a variety of-com- ence; The Council now is cooperating mon tasks not performed by separate in with the Advisory Commission on Inter terstate agencies. Its work with the Na governmental Relations, created as a tional Conference of Commissioners on permanent body by Congress. Uniform State Laws results in further On a continuing basis the Council's contributions. Each year the Council's Washington oihce prepares and distrib Committee of State Officials on Suggested utes to the States information oh federal ' State Legislation, in consultation with proposals that affect the States, and it other groups, prepares and sponsors a assists in facilitating constructive liaison .series of suggested legislative acts for con betweeri state officials and the national sideration in the States, dealing with sub government. Each monthly issue of State jects on which similar or uniform laws Government News, published by. the . may serve the public interest. Many of Council, contains a "Washington Re these now are on the statute books; port" on federal proposals and actions . that affect or.may affect the.States. SERVICZ IN FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS The strength of our federal, democratic Increasingly, likewise, America's needs system requires self-reliance and strength have required federal-state consultation at each level of government-state, local, • and cooperation; The Council is a princi national. It also requires cooperation pal means through which they have been among all levels. The Council works for fostered and made effective. the efjEective operation of both those prin During World War II the Council co ciples.
r r
JNTERGQVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 239 \
OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 1969-1970 . •
Chairrnnyi of the Governing Board _ SENATOR CHARLES L. DELANEY, Vermont ' V V - President ^ • . GOVERNOR JOHN A. LOVE, Colorado Honorary President •,'•-• HENRY W. TOLL, Colorado . Auditor „ WAYNE F. McGowN, Secretary, Department of Administration, Wisconsin ' '•• ' . Vice Chairmen •>''-•. SPEAKERVWILLIAM. J. LANTING, Idaho SPEAKER REX PRIVETT, Oklahoma SENATOR EDVVLN C. BECKER, North Dakota Vice Presidents GOV£RNOR LOUIE B. NUNN, Kentucky GOVERNOR WARREN E. HEARNES, Missoiiri GOVERNOR ROBERT E. McNAIR, South Carolina Regional Members of the Executive Committee DELEGATE SAMUEL E. POPE, Virginia SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE CHARLES J. SENATOR. THOMAS J. KALMAN, Pennsyl- CONRAD, California vania SENATOR ROBERT A. VANDER LAAN; Michi gan ; Additional Members ofHhe Executive Committee ALBERT J. ABRAMS, Secretary of the Senate, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BEN BARNES, New York Texas SENATOR W. HUGHES BROCK BANK, Utah :
. OFFICES OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS • Headquarters Office Iron Works Pike, Lexington, Kentucky 40505 Eastern Office 36 West Forty-fourth.Street, New York, New York 10036 Midxvestern Office 1313. East Sixtieth Street, Chicago, Illinois 6063.7- Southern Office . '-\ .• 830 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Westei'n Office - 211 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California -94108 Washington Office 1735 DeSales Street, N.W.. Washington, JD.C. 20036 ^INTERSTATE ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE
ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1908, Composed of the Governors of all States of • the United. States and the Governors of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, • ,. .. ._ ,,., ' ^
PURPOSE: To provide a medium for exchange of views and experience on subjects >s of importance to the peopl-^ of the States, to foster interstate cooperation, to promote greater.uniformity of state laws, to attain greater efficiency in state ad ministration, and to facilitate and improve state-local and state-federal relations.
OFFICERS, ES:ECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1968-69: GOVERNOR BUFORD ELLINGTON, Tennessee, C/wzVman of the Conference; GOVERNOR JOHN DEMPSEY, Connecticut; GOVERNOR MILLS E. GODWIN, JR., Virginia; GOVERNOR STANLEY K. HATHAWAY, Wyoming; GOVERNOR WARREN E, HEARNES, Missouri; GOVERNOR HAROLD LE- VANDER, Minnesota; GOVERNOR LOUIE B, NUNN, Kentucky; GOVERNOR RAYMOND P, SHAFER, Pennsylvania; GOVERNOR NORBERT T. TIEMANN, Nebraska.
OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1969-70: GOVERNOR JOHN A, LOVE, Colorado, • Chairman of the Conference; GOVERNOR ALBERT P. BREWER, Alabiama; GOVERNOR KENNETH M. CURTIS, Maine; GOVERNOR WARREN E. HEARNES, Missouri; GOVER NOR ROBERT E. MCNAIR, South CaroHna; GOVERNOR ARCH A. MOORE, JR., West Virginia; GOVERNOR CALVIN L. RAMPTON, Utah; GOVERNOR WI.NTHROP ROCKE FELLER, Arkansas; GOVERNOR DON SAMUELSON, Idaho.
SECRETARY-TREASURER; BREVARD CRIHFIELD, Executive Director of the Council of State Governments. DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS: CHARLES A. BYRLEY,
PUBLICATIONS: Proceedings of the National Governors' Conference (annual), an4 numerous periodic and special reports issued by the Conference's Washington dllice. "•"""'''"'^
OTHER ACTIVITIES: For six decades the National Governors'.Conference has been a strong and constructive force for the improvement of state government, the development of interstat&:.cooperation, and the sound progress of the federal system. At the annual meetings of the Conference, the Governors explore matters of common interest to all of the States! Between the meetings, Conference com mittees study subjects of outstanding importance and prepare extensive reports on them. The Conference participates in many ways in the work of the. Council of State Governments. It makes use of the Council's; informational facilities and . calls upon it for research studies and reports on major state problems. Since .1967 the Conference has maintained a Federal-State Relations Office in \Vashington, D.C. The Executive Committee of the Conference serves on the Council's Gov erning Board. Regional Governors' Conferences in the Midwest, South, West and New England also meet annually and work year round to deal with needs in their areas. The first three of these receive regular staff services from the Council.
\ • . -240 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 241
THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1948. Composed of legislative ofTicialsr members and staff of legislative service agencies, and others designated by the Conference.
PURPOSE: To cooperate for more effective service to the Legislatures, to assist in strengthening the role of the States and their Legislatu'res in intergovernmental relations, and to aid in improving legislative "Organization and procedures. •
OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1968-69: BEN BARNES, Texas, President; LYLE C. KYLE, Colorado, Chairman; W. HUGHES BROCILBANK, Utah, Vice Presi dent; ALBERT J. ABRAMs.New York, Vice Chairman; DONALD C. SAMPSON, Wash ington, /mm 6^f//flk' Past President; JOHN H. CONOLLY, Illinois; ELMER O. FRIDAY, JR., Florida; TIIEODORE ^i[. GRAY, Ohio; WILLIAM S. JAMES, Maryland; GARLAND LANE, Michigan; ALBERT S. SMITH, New Jersey; JOSEPH J. BRIGHT, Miimesota; DEVAN D.. DAGGETF, Louisiana; HARRY GUTIERM'AN, Arizona; GEoiiGE F. Mc- MANUS, Pennsylvania; J. HOWARD. MYERS, West Virginia; WILLIAM R. NELSON, Missouri.
OFFICERS,. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1969-70: iV. HUGHES BROCKBANK, Utah, • President; ALBERT J. ABRAMS, New York, Chairman; WILLIAM S. JAMES, Mary land, Vice President; C. EMERSON MURRY, Nortii Dakota, Vice Chairman; BEN BARNES, Te\'ds, Immediate Past President; LYLE C. J^VLE, Colorado, Immediate Past Chairman; KOMEO BOISVERT, Maine; JOHN H, (CONOLLY, Illinois; ELMER O. FRIDAY, JR., Florida; THEODORE M. GRAY, Ohio; REX PRIVETT, Oklahoma; ALBERT S. SMITH, New Jersey;.JOSEPH J, BRIGHT, Minnesota; DEVAN D. DAGGEIT, Louisiana; HARRY GU'ITERMAN, Arizona; GEORGE F!.MCMANUS, Pennsylvania; EDISON L. THUMA, Indiana; RALPH E. ZARKER, Kansas.
SECRETARIAT: The Council.of State Governments.
PUBLICATIONS: Studies and reports relating to the work of legislators, legislative re search and reference agencies, officials and librarians; and the quarterly Legis lative Research Checklist.
OTHER ACFIVITIES: Conference committees conduct surveys and report their findings and conclusions to the Conference, prepare handbooks and recommencf proce- :^difres for the improvement of th6 legislative process, and develop and sponsor inservice training course£>».for legislators and legislative staff personnel. The Committee and Task Force Committees on Intergovernmental Relations develop . and publicize policy.positions representative of state legislative views on key fed eral-state-local issues. The secretariat performs research and information services for the members. In particular, legislative powers, structures, procedures and , service facilities are surveyed.
The President and the Chairman of the Conference are members of the Governing Board of the Council of State Governments. .
' THECONFERENCE OF CHIER.JUSTICES ORGANIZATION:Organized in 1949. Composed of the Chief Justices of the courts of last resort of the fifty States and Puerto Rico.
PURPOSE: To provide for the exchangex)f information and ideas on the operation of the judiciary and for consultation pointed to improvement of the administra- tion.of justice. / 242 THE BOOK OF THE STATES OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR 1968-69: ROGER J. TRAYNOR, California, Chair man; OSCAR R. KNUTSON, Minnesotai, First Vice Chairman; ROBERT W. CALVERT, Texas, Second Vice Chairman; JOHN B. FOURNET, Louisiana; STANLEY H. FULD, New York; WILLIAM C. PERRY, Oregon; KINGSLEY A. TAFT, Ohio; OBERT C. TEIGEN, North Dakota; CAMPBELL THORNAL, Florida; ROBERT B. WILLIAMSON, Maine. .
OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR 1969-70: OSCAR R. KNUTSON, Minnesota, Chair man; ROBERT W. CALVERT, Texas, First Vice Cliairman; JAMES S. HOLDEN, Ver mont, Second Vice Chairman; ROBERT G.FINLEY, Washington; JOHN B. FOURNET, Louisiana; WILLIAM C. PERRY, Oregon; ROBERT T. PRICE, Kansas; HAROLD F., SNEAD, Virginia; ROGER J. TRAYNOR, California; DANIEL F. WOLCOTT, Delaware.
SECRETARIAT: The Council of State Governments. '^ .
PUBLICATIONS: Proceedings of annual meetings and various special reports.
ACTIVITIES: The Conference provides a forum for the exchange of experience, views and suggestions to improve the organization and procedures of state courts. Special committees study and report on court practices. The secretariat undertakes such research as the Conference requests.
The Chairman and First Vice Chairnian of the Conference are members of the Governing Board of the Council of State Governments.
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL
ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1907. Composed of all Attorneys Genertil of the States, Commonwealths and Territories and the Attorney General of the United States.. . - •
PURPOSE: TO provide a forum, clearinghouse facilities and machinery for coopera tion on problems common to the offices of the Attorneys GeneraL
OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE_EOR 1968-69: ALLAN G. SHEPARD, l<\:\\\o,'Presi- rfe/RJ^ARTHUR^J. SILLS, New Jersey, Vice President; FRANK J. KELLEY, Michigan, Past President; JAMES E. BARRFIT, Wyoming; ARTHUR K. BOLTON, Georgia; FRANCIS B. BURCH, Maryland; DOU6LAS M. HEAD, Minnesota; CL^VRENCE A, H. MEYER, Nebraska; ELLIOT L. RICH.A.RDSON, Massachusetts; WILLIAM C. SENNETT, Pennsylvania; BOSTON E. WiTTj New Mexico. .-^
• \ • • • • • OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE :^OR 1969-1970: DOUGLAS M. HEAD, Minnesota, President; FRANCIS B. BURCH, Maryland, Vice President; JAMES E. BARREIT, Wyoming, Second .Vice President}^K\nv. J. KELLEY,': Michigan, Past President; JOHN B. BRECKINRIDGE, Kentucky; HERBERT F. DESIMONE, Rhode Island; CLAR ENCE A. H, MEYER, Nebraska; GARY K. NELSON, Arizona; RICHARD C. TURNEPV, Iowa. •• '
SECRETARIAT: The Council of State Governments.
PUBLICATIONS: Conference Proceedings of the National Association of Attorneys General (a-nnual); Newsletter (and Digest of-Selected Opinions of State Attorneys General) (bi-monthly), containing news of interest and noteworthy opinions of State Attorneys General, - . ' TNTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ( 243 OTHER ACTIVITIES: Committees conduct studies and report their findings and con clusions to the Association. The secretariat performs research and information services for the members. In addition to tjie National Association, regional groupings of its members, with their own officers, have beeri established in the East, Midwest, South and West.
The President and one other member of the Association are members of the " Qroverning Board of the Council of State Governments.
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF LIEUTExNANT GOVERNORS
, ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1962. Composed of the Lieutenant Governors of the States and Territories of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In States and Territories which do riot provide for the office of Lieutenant Governor, certain other officers are eligible for membership.
PURPOSE: To provide-a medium for exchange of views arid experiences on subjects of importance to the people of the States and Territories, to foster interstate cooperation, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the office of Lieutenant Governor, and generally to improve the efficiency of state and territorial ad- • ministration.
Oi=TicERS, EXECI;TIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1968-69: JOHN A. CHERBERG, Washington, • C/jGzrma7i/-MALCpLM WILSON, New York, Immediate Past Chairman; ATTILIO R. FRASSINELLI, Connecticut, Vice Chairman, Eastern Region; JAMES B. GOETZ, Minnesota, Vice Chairman, Midwestern Region; JOHN C. WEST, South Carolina, Vice Chairman, Southern Region; E. LEE FRANCIS, New Mexico, Fice Chairman,' Western Region; RAYMOND J. BRODERICK, Pennsylvania; JOHN W. BROWN, Ohio; JOHN E. EVERROAD, Nebraska; ED FIKE, Nevada; T?HOMAS P. GILL, Hawaii: FRANK C. GORRELL II, Tennessee; GEORGE NIGH, Oklahoma; GEORGE T. SMITH, Georgia.
OjFFiCERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1969-70: RAYMOND J, BRODERICK, Pennsyl vania, Chairman; GEORGE NIGH, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman; JOHT4 A. CHERBERG, Washington, Immediate Past Chairman; J. JOSEPH GARRAHV, Rhode Island, Vice Chairmn7i, Eastern Region; ROGERW^ JEPSEN, Iowa, Vice Chairman, Midwestern Region; GEORGE T. SMITH, Georgia, Vice Chairman, Southern Region; JACK M. MURPHY, Idaho, F/ce C/2afrmfln,\V^estern Region; WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky; E. D, POTTS, Oregon; THOMAS P. GILL, Hawaii; JACK P. OLSON, Wisconsin; JOHN W. BROWN, Ohio; RICHARD F. LARSEN; North Dakota; RAY C. OSBORNE, Florida.
SECRETARIAT: The Council of State Governments.
PUBLICATIONS: Resumes of meetings and repprts of interest to the members.
OTHER ACTIVITIES: The secretariat performs research services and makes available information for the members. I " '^
• '• •'.••• ••'-•') • • . • The President and one other member of the Conference are members of the Govern ing Board of the Council of State Governments. .
THE JsIATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE. I^UDGET OFFICERS ORGANIZATIOXN: Organjzedin "1945. Composed of budget officers.^chief officers of d/- par.tments ofTinanceaHd'lidm-iniitration, and assistants and deputies qf budget officers of the StP^es, Commonwealths and~T€ixitories. 244 THE BOOK OF THE STATES
: PURPOSE: TO provide machinery for cooperation among state budget officers, to encourage study.and research in state budgeting, and to foster more effective budget adininistration and management.
OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1968-69: ROY M. BELL, California, President; -- WAYNE F. MCGOWN, \yisconsin, President Elect; T. N. HURD, New York; WALLACE; W. HENDERSON, Florida; JOHN C. MURRAY, Rhode Island; JOSEPH V. STEWART, Arkansas; NILS K. UEKI,'Hawaii; JOHN C, VAUGHN, Missouri; WALTER WECHSLER, New Jersey. •
OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1969-70| WAYNE F. MCGOWN, Wisconsin, President; WALLACE W. HENDERSON, Floridii, President Elect; ROY M. BELL, California,/rnmerf/flf • . •*-.«••.• ,'.'•• SECRETARIAT: The Council of State Governments. PUBLICATIONS: Resumes of annual meetin,gs7reports of interest to budget officers, and a. quTtrierly Newsletter. OTHER ACTIVITIES: Committees conduct studies and report their findings and conclusio'ns. to the Association. Committee activities include special budgetary and fiscal research, facilitation bf.professionalulevelopment and training, and cooperation with federal agencies when state-federal problems arise. The secre tariat performs research and information services for the members. In addition to its national activities. Regional Conferences, each with its own Director, have been established, by the National Association in the East, Midwest, South and West. : •'•'-. The President and President Elect of the Association are members of the Gov erning Board of the Council of State Governments. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PURCHASINd OFFICIALS ' . . - • • ••"•;--.•• i -^ '; ; . " ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1947. Composed of purchasing officials, tlieir assistants , and deputies of all the States, Commonwealths and vj^erritories. PURPOSE: To promote cooperation for the more efficient exercise of state purchasing and for greater efficiency in administration. OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1968-69: JOHN N. AYRES, Washington, Presi- i t/6';j/; THOMAS B..BLANCO, Illinois, Vice Preside7it; ]. DOUGLAS CHRISTIANSEN, i Utah; ALFRED C. HOLLAND, Massachusetts; M.-VRio LEWIS, Virgin Islands; E. GUY MARTIN, Louisiana; LOUIS S. MIUDLI^MIST, Colorado; EUGENE N. SANDWICK, North Dakota; HUGH WHITE, South Carolina. OFFICERI, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1969-70: THOMA.S B. BLANCO, Illinois, Presi- dent; JOHN E. SHORT, \yhconsin, President Elect; JOHN N. AVRES, Washington, . Iniiiiediate Past President; CHARLES F. SULLIVAN, Ne\v Jersey; WILLLVM O* CULLEN, New York; AL J. DAY, Florida; G. LLOYD NUNNALLY, Virginia; FRAXNK J. . PENNONI, Michigan; HUGH WHITE, South Carolina. SECRETARIAT: The Council of State Gdvernments. •,iu' INTERGO VERNMENTAL RELATIOJYS 245" t PUBLICATIONS: Resumes of meetings, special reports of interest to purchasing officials, and quarterly A''eii;5/^if(?r of the Association. OTHER ACTIVITIES: Committees conduct studies and report their findings and con clusions to the Association. The President and one other member of the Association arernembers^ of the Govern ing Board of the Council of^State Governments. THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE / OF COURT ADMINISTR.'VTIVE OFFICERS ORGANIZATION: Organize'd in 1955. Mbmbership is open to adTninistrator.s of the state and federal couits, the courts of Piierio Rico, and the courts of mctro- politan coiinties. and other large jurisdictions. •PURPOSE: TO facilitate cooperation and exchange oft information among court adininistrati\(s; officers and to foster the use of rriodern business management methods in judicial administration. OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1968-69: WILLIAM D. RADCLIFF, Ohio, Chair- mayi; JAMES R. JAMES, Kansas, Vice Chairman; T. MACK BLACKBURN^ Tennessee; ERNEST C. FRIESEN, JR., Washington, D-C; HARRY O. LAVVS'ON, Colorado; RALPH . N. KLEPS, California: . OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR 1969-70: JAMES R. JAMES, Kansas, Chairman; • ERNEST C. FRIESEN,^JR., Washington, D.C., Vicjj Chairman; WILLIAM D: RAD CLIFF, Ohio; RICHARD E. KLEIN, Minnesota; HARRY O. LAWSON, Colorado; T. • MACK BLACKBURN, Tennessee. SECRETARIAT: The Council-of Sta^e Governments. PuBLicATiOxN's: Rcsurrics of annual meetings and occasional special reports. ; OTHER ACTIVITIES: The secretariat niakes available information of general iiiterest . to the members of the Conference. Upon request the "secretariat, alone or by arrangement with the Institute of Judicial Administration) undertakes research projects. ' • The Chairman and one other member of the Conference are members of the Gov erning i3oard of the Council of State Governments. THE COUNCIL OF STATE PLANNING AGENCIES ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1964. Composed of the state agencies responsible for providing staff support for the formulation and coordination of comprehensive plans to guide state development. Historically, rriost state plani\ing agencies have Ug,en part of State: Economic Development Departments but recent years have seen a marked trend toward the location of state planning agencies in Governor's Offices, in Executive Departments, in Departments of Administratiori, or in other locations bearing a staff relationship "to the Governor, and/or the Legislature. 05^ -Kfita- 246 THE BOOK OF THE. STATES PURPOSE: TO provide research, analysis and oth^r staff assistance to policymakers in state government; to encourage improved planning of the activities of state governments; to encourage improved coordination and comprehensive develop ment of programs for state governments; to attract to state government.personnel trained in planning and other disciplines which can contribute to improved decision-making in'stale^overnments; and to provide a vehicle for collaboration with other state organizations of state officials. • ,. OFFICERS, EXECUTIVE BOARD FOR 1968-69: D. DAVID. BRANDON, New York, President; RICHARD H. SLAVIN, Washington, Vice Pre^zrff??/; RAYMOND T. OLSEN, Minnesota, Secre^rtry-Tr^jfliurer; IRVING HAND, Pennsylvania; KENNETH C. OLSON^ Utah; SAMUEL CULLERS, California; WILLIAM MCINNis, South Carolina; HAROLD V. MILLER, Tennessee. OFFICERS; EXECUTIVE BOARD FOR 1969-70: D. DAVID BRANDON, New York, President; • RICHARD H. SLAVIN, Washington, President Elect; RAYMOND T. OLSEN, Minne sota, 5f^cr6'/rtr)'-Trcfl>y2^rfr; KENNETH'G-.-OLSON, Utah; WILLIAM MCINNIS, South Carolina; ROBERT H. MARDEN, Massachusetts; CLELL ELWOOD, South Dakota, SECRETARIAT: The Council of State Governments, ACTIVITIES: Committees arrange for the exchange of studies and other data among States; collaborate with budget officers and other state officials to help coordinate planning with other staff activities; cooperate with federal agencies in efforts to improve and simplify the federal grant-in-aid system; and provide- technical assistance as requested by Other organizations of state .officials. ,, . ; / X •-^.-...... „ - •.'-i • w INTERSTATE ORGANIZATIONS COOPERATING WITH THE GdUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS ojs National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws • Natioiial Conference of State Legislative Leaders Parole and Probation Compact Administrators' Association Association of Juvenile Compact Administrators Interstate Conference on Water Problems Adjutants General Association of the United States National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors National Conference on Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators ; National Association of State Boating-Law Administrators \ ' " ..__. NationalAssociation of State Civil Defense Directors - Association of State Correctional Administrators \ National Association of State Units on Aging .- National Association of Extradition Officials \ National Association of State Juvenile Delinquency Program Administrators State-Personnel Administrators Association , v • '•' •..•.••••..••• • -^ ',. . • ^ .-, A . • •.-. ••••• ••:•.. •: ' •'.: - •• Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation. National Association for State Information Systems '\' - ,L..,.- • . 247 i; OFFICERS OF COMMISSIONS ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION OR SIMILAR BODIES ALABAMA (a) (Vacancy); GTzfl/rman; Representative William D. Melton, Vice Chairman; Eloise Stuart, Acii?2gSecreta7y. • ^; ALASKA " Representative CJene Guess, Chairman; Senate President Brad Phillips, Vice CHainfian; John M.= Elliott, Executive Di rector of the Legislative Affairs Agency, Secr^faj!-)?. ARIZONA (b) Senate President William S. Porter, Chairman; House Speaker John H. Haugh, Vice Chairman; Harry Guttermaii, *Ex- ecutive Director of the Legislative Council, Secretary. ARKANSAS . . Representative Ray S; Smith, Jr., Chairman; Senator Thomas A. Penn, Vice Oiairman; Marcus Halbrook, Director of ^the ""Ll^gislative Council, £x o^cjo Secretary. CALIFORNIA 'Houston I. Flournby, State Controller^ Chairman; (Vacancy), Vice Chainnah; ]ohnP. Sheehan, Deputy State Controller, .. Secretary. . COLORAPO Senate President Pro Tempore Fay DeBerard, Chairman; . Riepresentative Ray Black, Vice Chairman; Lyie C. Kyle, : Director of the Legislative Council, 5 CONNECTICUT (C) Senator Edward L. Marcus, C/m/rm/zn; Senator Alden Iveis, Vice Chairman. DELAWARE * Senator Allen J. Cook, Chairman; Senator Margaret R. Mari- • ning, Secretary-Treasurer. • . FLORIDA Senator Elmer O. Friday, Jr., C/m/rmnn; Representative- Ralph Turlington, Vice C/wiVmrtn; Ernest Ellison, Auditor General, Secretary; Howard 0, Walton, Coordinator. - GEORGIA Representative Glenn S. Phillips, Chairman;; Senator RcJnder Tlill, Vice Chairman; Frank H. Edwards, Legislative Coun-, \ st\, Secretaiy. . • , ; HAWAII No commission, ^^ • IDAHO (d) House Speaker W^illiam J. Lanting and Senator Phil Batt, Co-Chairmen;MyTnn H. Schlechte, Director of the Legisla tive Council, Secretary. ' . ILLINOIS (a) Representative William D. Walsh, C/j^i^^an; Senator Richard R. Larson, FjceC/iairmflh; Representative George M. Burditt, Secretary; Edwin L. Sterling, Executive Di rector. • , INDIANA Representative John J,. Thomas, C/jairmaw; Senator Wilfrid . Ullrich, Vice Chairman; Mrs. Pat Banta, Secretary; Edison Thurria, Executive Director of the Indiana Legislative Council, ^/Qj^j^. •,-•• ''248 •• ' ••.. •.•. •: •/•• .^lu r- INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 249 IOWA Senator Vernon H. Kyhl, C/iairman; Representative John Camp, Vice Chairman; Serge H. Garrison, Director of the Legislative Service Bureau, Secre/ary. KANSAS Lieutenant Governor James H. DeCoursey, Jr., Chairman; House Speaker Calvin A. Strowig, Vice Chqirmdn; ¥red J. Carman, Assistant Revisor of Statutes, Si^creiar)'- KENTUCKY (e) Lieu tenant Governor Wendell H. Ford, Chairman; James T. Fleming, Director of the Legislative Research Commission, Director. . : ~ X;^ LOUISIANA (iE) Senator Michael H. O'Keefe, Chairman; Mrs, joe Wood, ' Executive Director.. / . .^ - --; .v, - MAINE Senator Albert W.Hoffses, CAazVman; Representative James T.Dudley, Secretary. •-•--v------. MARYLAND (a) Delegate Paul S. Sarbahes,C/za/rman; Senator James Clark, Jr., Vice C}iair7nan. MASSACHUSETTS Senator Philibert L. Pellegrini, Chairrhan; Representative John'J. Toomey, Vice CAa/rman; Senator Stanley J. Zarod, "'^Executive Director. MICHIGAN (a) Senator Robert A. VanderLaan, Chairman; Representative William R. Copeland, Vice C/jfliVman; A. E.Reyhons, Di rector of the Legislative Service Bureau, Secretary. MINNESOTA Representative Roy Schulz, Chairman; Senator Jerome V. Blatz, Vice Chairman; (Va.ca.ncy), Secretary; Mrs. Ruthl^ind- slY'om, Assistant Secretary. Mississiippi Representative Clarence A. Pierce, Chairman; Senator Edwin Lloyd. Pittman, FiVeC/zfl/rman; Representative Kenneth _, Ogden Williams, Secretary, MISSOURI Senate President Pro Tempore J. F. Patterson, Chairrnan; Senator A. Basey Vanlandingharii, Vice Chairman; William R. Nelson, Director of/Research, Committee on Legislative 'K.eses.rch, Secretary. .'..•••' MONTANA (g) Senator Frank W! Hazelbaker, Chairman; Representative Francis Bardanouve, Free C/wiVman; William Mufich, Ex ecutive Director of the Legislative Council, Secretary. "NEBRASKA (a) Senator Eugene T. Mahoney, C/iatrman; Senator W.H. Hase- broock. Vice Chairman;ymceni D. Brown, Clerk of the Legislature, Secretary. | NEVADA (h) Assemblyman Keith Ashwprth,'] Chairman; Assernblyman William D. Swackhamer, yic^iG/zazrman; Russell W. Mc Donald, Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, 5ecre- tary. ^ .;.: .}.,.-.:"'. ^ '•••• . '~' "••'•'" NEV^T HAMPSHIRE Senator Alf E. Jacobson, C/iairman. • fes, 250; : THE BOOK OF THE, STATES > NEW JERSEY (i) (Vncancy), Chairman. . . "' NEWMEXICO (j) House Speaker David L. Norvell, C/m/rmfiri; Senate: Presiderit .Pro. Tempore R.. C. Morg:in, Vice Chairman; Clay Bu chanan, Director of* the.Legislative Council Service, Execu tive Secretary. • '.'•"' NEW YORK (It) "• "Senator John J.'M^rchi, Chairman; Assemblyman Edwyn E. Mason, f'ice C/jrz/rman; Senator JeremiaiiB. Bloom, 5ccr NORTH CAROLINA Representative Joe E. Eagles, Chairman; Charles L, Wheeler, Director, State Commission on Higher Education, Secretary. NORTH DAKOTA (b) Representative/B.ryce Streibel, Chairman;.Senator Herbert L. ' Meschke, Vice Chairman; C. Emerson Murry, Director of the Legislative. Council, Secr(? OHTO Lieutenant Governor John \V. Brown, C/?fl/r?hwn; Howard L; Collier, Director of Finance, Serrreiary; Donna Salvatore, staff. . .•-;)'•• -.:'',[,'['•'': • .-^ • ' OKLAHOMA . House Speaker Rex Privett, C/zflnman; Senate President Pro Tempore Finis W. Sniith, Vice Chairman; Jack -A. Rhodes, Director of the Legislative Council, Stfcrt'/flr)). OREGON Senate President E.D. Potts, G/wirmfln; Robert K. Logan, In- mm tergovernriiental Coordinator, Office of the Governor, 5ecr^- • ,'" tary. \- ' ' • ''•'/' PENNSYLVANIA Senator Thomas J. Kalman, C/jiJ/rman; Representative H. Joseph Hepford^ Vice C/razrm.an; Representative Robert K. .Hamilton, S6?cr RHODE ISLAND ,_^ Senator Frank Sgambato, Chairman; Senator E, Rex Coman, Fzce.C//a2rmfl;z; Biagio M. Maggiacom.o, &crcia77. . • "*.:>•"'• ••..;>•'•••• Senate President Pro Tempore Edgar A. Brown, Chairman. SOUTH CAROLINA/ Senator Art B. Anderson, C7i«/rman; Ronald G. Schrnidt, SOUTH DAKOTA (a) ' Director of Research; Legislative Research. Council, Sec- • retary. ".. •«• '; TENNESSEE "(a) Harlan Mathews, Finance and Administration Commissioner, C/jflmnan/Lieutenant Governor Frank Gorrell, it/r^/F/ce Chairman; House Speaker William L. Jenkins, Second P'/cc Chairman. ^ :•• , • / TEXAS Governor Preston Smith, Chairman; Lieutenant Governor Ben JSaines, First Vice Chairman; House Speaker Gus Muischer, Second Vice Chairman. • UTAH (b) House Speaker Lorin N. Pace, Chairman; Senate-President Haven ]. Barlow, Vice Chairman; Lewis H. Lloyd, Director of Research, Legislative Council, Secretary. VERMONT Senator Charles h.Delaney, Chairman. f INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS \ 251 VIRGINIA . (Vacancy), Chairman.' • ' WASHINGTON (b) House Speaker Thomas L. Copeland, Chairman; Senator Wil liam A. GissheTg,\Vice Chairman; Senator Walter B. Wil liams, Secretary; Donald C. Sampson, Executive Secretary of the Legislative Council, Executive Secretary. WEST VIRGINIA Senate President Lloyd G. Jackson and House Speaker Ivor F. Boiarsky, Co-Chairmen; Earl M. Vickers, Director of Legis lative Services, 5ecr£?/ary. WISCONSIN Senator Ernest C. Keppler, Chairman; Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Elmer C. Nitschke, Vice Chairman; Earl Sachse, Executive Secretary, Joint Legislative'Council, Secretary; HowRvd ]. Wingren, Staff Attorney. W^'OMING (a) G. Keith Osbofn, State Planning Coordinator, Chairman. (a) Commission on Intergovernmental Co (g) Legislative Council .functions ex officio as operation. -V, . . • Commission,on Interstate Cooperation. (b) Legislative Council functions as Commis (h) Legislative Commission of the Legislative sion on Interstate Cooperation. Counsel Bureau functions as the Commission on (c)^Legislative Management Committee. Interstate Cooperation. . (d) Legislative Council functions as Commis (i) Intergovernmental Relations Commission. sion On Interstate Cooperation on an infprmal (j). Legislative Council fun'ctions ex officio .as basis. the Commission on Intergovernmental Coopera (e) Legislative Research Commission functions tion. as Commission on Interstate Cooperation. All (k) Joint Legislative Committee on Interstate members on the commission are ex officio. Cooperation.' — (f) Commission on Intergovernmental Relar tions: t •v; #- \- /^ % INTERSTATE COMPACTS BY FREJOERICK L. ZIMMERMANN AND MITCHELL WENDELL* THE N^UMBER of interstate compacts limited powers on the interstate body to has now. become large enough so deal with water pollution. The compact that in any given two-year period it procedures call for the setting of water may be difficult to determine whether it quality standards by the commission for is more valuable to report on the develop- particular interstate water bodies. It then ment of entirely new instruments or to becomes the responsibihty of the indi- toncentrate on the new activities initi- vidual member States to apply and en- ated under existing agreements. Another force these standards on the designated considerq^j^ion for the present article is\^watersDurin, g 1968 the commission devoted VI-—pact,that ,th lijce eincujDatio that for na timmajoe rfo statuter a new, oftecomn- much attention to possible expansion of stretdies over several years. This means its responsibilities and developed a pro that a compact reported as under devel- gram in this regard. It included authority i opment in a previous edition of this to conduct training prograrns for waste volume may not merit additional space treatment plant personnel throughout in a brief sui-vey of current activity, even the region; certify such personnel ac- though there has been some further prog- cQrdina to standards, of occupational Tcssr^ Everything considered, it would preparation; and power to taUe adminis appear desirable to devote this edition trative and court action to abate pollu of the biennial story mainly to new au tion occurring at or near a state bound thority, received or contemplated for ary. The commission had previously existing compacts. Briefer mention will functioned in the first of these fields on be made of entirely new compacts. an occasional and modest basis but felt that ihstitutioQ^ of a regular program ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS should have legislative authorization. Environmental and natural resource The other two'activities will be entirely matters have been one of the major fields new for the interstate agency of compact action for more than a gen- Amendment of the New England Inter- eration. Of late there h^as been a sharp state Water Pollution Control Compact upsurge of interest in these subjects, is not involved. A provision of the orig particularly insofar as the improvement inal agreement as consented to by Con of environmental quality is concerned. gress contains authority for the commis Thc'past biennium has seen several inter sion to assume additional, duties, ifl. state developments of this kind. , conferred by supplemental statutes of the The New England* Interstate Water party States. Statutes authorizing the Pollution Control Commission, an agency training program.s and the certification of which %yas originally established about treatment plant personnel were enacted twenty years ago, functions under a com by the 1969 legislative sessions in Con pact among the six New England States necticut, New York, and Maine. The and New York. The compact conferred enforcement statute was enacted bv the same legislative sessions in Connecticut *Profcssor Zimmermann is a member of the and New York. J faculty of the Political Science Department at The Interstate Sanitation Commission Hunter College of the City University of New has functioned for over thirty years in York and Mr. Wendell is a consultant on govern mental affairs. They are the joint authors of The the waters of the Greater New York Interstate Compact Sitice 1925 and The Law and Metropolitan Area under the Tri-State Use of Interstate Compacts. Compact of New Jersey, New York, and * 252 f INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 253 \ \ Connecticut. It has had enforcement and federal character as well as in its subject standards-making powers since its incep- matt'er-^nd much of its language, only \.- tion in the field of water quality. How- joinder by the federal government is^ eyer, its standards-making authority has necessary to place it in operation. The been more rigid than that conferred by Potomac River Basin Compact is in an ""-tn^riy pollution control statutes because advanced stage of development but is not the specific standards applicable to classi- intended for serious consideration by fications of waters made by,the commis^ legislatures until 1970. sion are writt&n, into the compact in The drafting of an Escatawpa. River specific numerical^terms. An amendment "Basin Compact was' an entirely nevfe^de- to the Tri-State Compact adopted by velopment during 1969. The agreement Connecticut and New York in 1969 would is intended for submission to the Legisla- X make it possible for the commission to ' tures in Mississippi and Alabarria. \ employ more custornary administrative The Escatawpa compact resembles the standards-making prxDcedures. It. also Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac refers specifically to conformity vvith instrumeri^^in that it is a comprehensive state water use plans, harmonization of basin management agreement. It differs standards throughout the Interstate Sani from them in that jt is an interstate tation District, and compatibility xvith rather than an interstate-federal com procedures' for water quality standards pact. In place of full participation by the contained in federal law. The amend United States, the Escatawpa agreement ment ^will become effective if enacted by woiildv have a nonvoting federal repre New Jersey. sentative if the United States provides for The Interstate Sanitation Comrais|ion one by administrative or statutory action. also has operated a research and inve^ti- On the other hand, federal activity has gative airr pollution program t*o- "--'assist* been a very important p^irt in the genesis New Jersey and New York in their con- of the compact. The projected Harleston trol activities und^r legislative authoriza- Reservoir of the Corps of Engineers will tion by the two States. The 1969 session provide the major physical facility on .of the Connecticut Legislature enacted whose effective operation a large part of legislation .making that State a partici- the justification for the compact rests.. pant in the commission's air pollution The Escatawpa River Basiia Commission progra'm. Consequently, the Interstate is designed to assume K)perational re Sanitation Commissip^n is now a water sponsibility for the Harleston project and air agency for all three of its member once it is built. States. The compact is notable for its emphasis on stream How regulation and flow aug THE EsCAT.wvPA RIVER BASIN COMPACT mentation. This is intended specifically The past several years have seen im- for poIlutioiT^control, water supply, and portant instances of broadening of'the general river management. Another sig- water compact idea to include the com- nificant accomplishment of the compact prehensive basin management approach will be the interstate settlement by agree Perhaps the examples are still too few ment of the • municipal water supply to constitute a trend, but the line of problem of the City of Mobile. Finally, * influence from one to another of the in it should be noted that the compact au struments is clear. The Delaware River thorizes the interstate body which it cre Basin Compact described in earlier edi ates to enfer the fields of water supply, tions of this article has been followed water quality management, watershed by development of highly similar instru managcme'pt, long -range protection of ments for the Susquehanna and Potomac water availability, and crisis management Rivers. The Susquehanna River Basin of drought shortages, flood plain manage Cornpact was enacted by all three basin ment, arid recreation.- Much of the com States: Maryland and New York in 1967;" pact language has been drawn from the Pennsylvania in 1968. Since it resembles Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac the Delaware compact in its interstate- models, but rnany adaptations have been Nf 254 THE BOOK OF THE STATES made to fit local desires, needs, and condi tivities, at least with respect to the same- tions. subject matter contemplated by the orig inal compact. There is no evidence that REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING the caution exhibited by the Tahoo„con-. A number of compacts have been con sent proviso stems from any unfortunate cerned, either wholly or in part, with experiences with other compacts. Accord regional development, regional planning, ingly, it may be viewed as an unfortunate • or both. Water and related resources have restriction that could unnecessarily im "^gured significantly among the subjects pede interstate cooperation, burden Con involved. The most recent entry in this gress unnecessarily with future legislation categoi7 is the Tahoe Regional Planning in which it has no real interest, and tend Compact enacted by California and Ne to discourage California and Nevada ) vada in 1969 after several years of contro from undertaking an expansion of the versy over the eixact provisions of l^e program for Lake Tahoe. agreement. Although their formative periods have As now consummated, the compact been long enough to attract.attention in • provides for joint planning and a con the past, two other compacts with plan siderable measure of joint land use ning and developmental features merit reerulation of Lake Tahoe and its en- briefi mention. The interstate-federal ':\. ^•ons. The interstate agency established Susquehanna River Basin and Potomac by the compact is notable in the weight it River Basin Compacts have progressed in gives to local interests.'Mostdrthe repre material ways. State action on the Susque sentation on the agency is of the local hanna, compact was completed with adop • . governments ^bordering the lake. Never tion in Pennsylvania during 1968. The theless, the compact is a creation.of state Potomac compact has been completed law and each State has two members oJE and should receive its first serioiis consid the agency administering the agreement. eration by! one or more of the appropriate The basic thrust of the compact is State Legislatures in 1970. conservation and orderly development of The enactment of the Susquehanna a major scenic and recreational resource and Potomac interstate-federal compacts with full recognition of the broad cpm- would result in wider application of the munity implications. To this end, the principles now in operation in the Dela compact provides for planning through ware River Basin. In a country increas the mechanism of comprehensive official ingly in need of effective mechanisms Tor plans that will have the force of law. comprehensive regional policy determi Since the compact provides for "enforce nation and administration, the gaining ment of conformity with such plans, the of more experience with the interstate- powers also are of a zoning character. The federal compact method is of great im -. Tahoe compact would seem a major step portance. "• • in intergovernmental regional zoning. One feature of the congressional con ' OTHER REGIONAL COMPACTS sent legislation for the Tahoe compact Development of regional compacts also deserves notice. It provides that no dealing with functions other than inland additional powers may be conferred upon water management is also growing. The the compact, agency without the further Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commis-,. consent of Congress. A number of earlier sion now includes Alaska and Idaho, in • compacts have contained provisions au addition to the regional membership of thorizing the party States to confer Washington, Oregon, and California; the additional authority on an interstate compact has been amended to provide a agency by .legislative acts of their own, modified formula of state contributions concurred in by the other party States. ' that accommodates Idaho's more limited It.has been taken for granted that in interest. The original transportation consenting to a compact including such planning commissions for the Philadel a provision. Congress has consented to phia and New York metropolitan areas the authorized expapsioii of compact ac established by corripacts are becoming INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 255 - broad gauge metropolitan planning agen tween New York and New Haven by the cies. The Philadelphia agency has evolved transportation agencies of the two States into the Delaware Valley Regional Plan rather than a joint agency, In this regard, ning Commission with responsibilities, its purpose is partially similar to that of including planning for land use, open the Washington . Metropolitan Areas space, water supply and water pollution, Transit agreement which effects coordi in addition to highway and public trans nation of local transportation agencies in portation- planningr'Six plans, one qour each State. However, the latter also cre cerning each of these subjects, have been ates a transit authority. - prepared by the commission to provide A Western Ijiterstate Nuclear Com general guides for the physical develop pact has been ratified by eleven Western ment of the area until 1985. The commis States, two in 1968 and nine in the legis sion states that "these plans represent the lative year of 1969. This agreement is . first steps the^major governments of this similar to the recommendatory Southern region have taken towards establishing a Interstate Nuclear Compact, but its comprehensive regional planning process language does encourage the interstate .-. for the Delaware Valley... the beginning agency to function in a somewhat.broader of what must be* a comprehensive,, con scientific and technological context. tinuous and coordinated effort to develop . A new interstate park agreement, the practical guidelines for the planned and Falls of the Ohio Interstate Park Com orderly growth of the greater metropoli pact, was enacted by Kentucky and In^ tan community." Besides members from diana. It establishes a commission to the two States, the commission embodies "create, develop and operate a, park lo '- voting representatives of the area's local cated along the Ohio River at the Falls governments in ea,ch State—four counties of the Ohio and on adjacent areas . . ." and two cities in Pennsylvania; four coun The arrangement follows the pattern of ties and two cities in New Jersey—and Kentucky's agreement with Virginia for' nonvoting representatives of the appro the Breaks Interstate Park Commission. priate federal agencies. In the New York Its basic purpose is to protect the falls area, the Tri-State Transportation Com "noted for Devonian linjestone contain mission is also issuing plans and recom ing fossils of animal life which existed mendations that go beyond transporta 300 million years ago," and its land ac tion for action by the governments of that quisitions may be limited. urban region. The life of the agency was . recently extended to permit consideration • FACILITATIVE COMPACTS by the Legislatures of Connecticut, New The growing use of compacts, both Jersey, and New York of proposed amend interstate and interstate^federal, to estab ments which would formally broaden its lish regional intergovernrnental agencies \ planning realm. Connecticut and New should not obscure the spreading enact \ York have enacted a railroad passenger ment by the States of facilitative agree Vransportation compact authorizing the ments to provide legal channels for. transportation authorities of the two interstate or intergovernmental action. S\ates "acting individually, but in cooper Such arrangements have been used on the ation with each-other, or as c6-venturers regional level and in some instances have wh)en they, deem it advisable," to act-^bin also included the creation'of agencies. . der \he compact where desirable to con However) most of the leading examples tinue and improve passenger service be are-opeh to membership by all States and tween A^ew York and New Haven. This is frequently to Territories and possessions the latest of several uses of the compact or of the United States. The coriipacts deal compact agencies in. providing interstate ing with parole and probation, juveniles, mass transportation; detainers, driver licensing) libraries, Essentially, the agreement is a vehicle mentally disordered offenders, mental \ for effecting joint operation of the health, civil defense and disaster, and the New Haven Railroad main line and its placement of children are the most no branches in southern Connecticut be table of the interstate agreements which 256 THE BOOK OF THE STATES i could be characterized as national facili- certificate and is forced \o make up the tative agreements. None establish inter "deficiencies," even if it is obvious that governmental agencies. Ithc applicant is we'll prepared. The al In 1968-69 a new facilitative compact ternative is to leave the proiession and to of this type, the Interstate Agreement on be removed from the pool oi manpower the Qualification of Educational Person on Avhich the schools can draw. nel^ was enacted by twenty-three States. Some informal, administrative agree It is scheduled to be considered in a ments among groups of States have been number of others in the. legislative ses tried to alleviate these difficulties These sions of 1970 and 1971. The purpose of agreements have been of very limited the agreement is to produce a convenient utility because of insufficient basis m law system for the interstate recognition of or because their uncertain status anH ob the qualifications of teachers and other scurity have prevented most educational educational personnel whose employ professionals from learning of their exis ment is subject to the. holding of ap tence or, when they do, from relying upo'n propriate certificates. In the absence of theiti. the interstate agreement, there has been The Interstate Agreement on Qualifi considerable acceptance by one State of cation of Educational Personnel is a com the out-of-state preparatory and experi-. pact. Accordingly, it has the force of law ence qualifications of teachers and other and is more easily,madeCknown to those certificated school professionals, but "usu who would benefit from its provisions. ally only after an elaborate process of The agreement is intended to function matching the specifics of such qualifica through contracts among state education tions against the state requirements. A agencies as authorized by the compact. teacher lacking a given number of credits These contracts will set forth the proce in a subject or having a slightly different dures and standards for interstate recog-. course distribution than that specified in riition of particular elements of qualifi the State normally is denied a regular cation. \ \ .] -. / ^r • ...u REPRESENTATIVE INTERSTATE COMMISSIONS " ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1942 under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Com pact. . • ^PURPOSE: To promote the better utilization of the fisheries^marine, shell and \. - anadromous—of the Atlantic Seaboard by the development of a joint program for the promotion'and protection of such fisheries, and by the prevention of physical waste of the fisheries from any cause. - MEMBER STATES. North Atlantic Section: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,', Rhode-Island, Connecticut; Mtdd/e Atlantic Section: Nm\' York, New Jersey,.^:, Pennsylvania, Delaware; Chesapeake Bay 5d?cf/o«." Maryland,. Virginia; South Atlantic Section: North Carolina, South.Carolina, Georgia, Florida. The repre sentatives of the individual States on the commission comprise: ex officio, the executive officer of the State's fisheries agency dealing with marine spcci&s; a member of the Legislature, appointed by the Commission oh Interstate Coopera- . tion; a citizen having knowledge of and interest in. the.marine fisheries, ap pointed by the Governor. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: DAVID H. G. GOULD, Georgia. ._ . - -. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ERNEST MiTTs.- CoMMissiON HEADQUARTERS: P. C). Box 27.84, Tallahassee, Florida 32304. \ ; . -DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 19G1 under the Delaware River Basin Compact. PURPOSE;- To plan, develop and manage the water resources of the four-state Dela ware River Basin for flood control, water supply, pollution control, w'ater-based recreation, fish and wildlife, hydroelectric power, soil conservation, fofestation and watershed management. COMPACT SIGNATORIES: Delaware; New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,- and the United States. Each has one representative. The state_niember^, serving ex of ficio, are the Governors. The federal-representative is appointed by the Presi dent. Each of the five members designates his alternate, who serves.with full voting powers. - . • •. ; .«b CHAIRMAN, 1970-71: WILLIAM T.CAHILL,.Governor of New Jersey. . VICE CHAIRMAN, 1970-71: RUSSELL W^ PETERSON,-Governor pfDelavvare. - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JAMES F.W^RIGHT. ' COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: P.O. Box 360, Trenton, New Jersey08603. - ; ~" ..•. • ••.••• ••••- 257., '•,•.'/ '•'"'- 258 - THE BOOK OF THE STATES DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORfTV ; . ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1952, succeeding the Delaware River Joint Commis sion, under the Delaware River. Port Authority Compact. PURPOSE: The port authority is a public corporate instrumentality of the Com monwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey for public purposes deemed essential to improved governmental functions. It operates and maiQ- . tains the Benjamin. Franklin and W^alt Whitman Bridges across the. Delaware. River, is concerned with port problems and operates the Philadelphia-Linden- wold Rapid Tijansit Line. MEMBER'STATES: Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Their representatives on the port authority are appointed by the Governors and approved by the Senates, except that in Pennsylvania the Auditor General and State Treasurer are members ex officio. - . • • .. . CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: ALFRED R. PIERCE, New Jersey. • "EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: THOMAS H. LIPSCOMB. ' , ' '- \ ' • • • ' • \ • • • .' • . '. • ' AUTHORITY HEADQUARTERS: Administration Building,-Benjamin Franklin Bridge Plaza, Camden, New Jersey 08101. ' - . \ ' EbUC.A.TION COMMISSION OF THE STATES ORGANIZATION: Organized jn 1966 under the Compact for Education. PURPOSE: To serve as an interstate body in which governmental leaders and edu cators can jointly explore means for improvement of education at all levels in each of the States, and to sponsor studies and inake recommendations pointed to those objectives. • • MEMBER ST,\TES: AS of December 1969, forty States and two Territories were mem-, bcrs as a.result of legislative action adopting the compact. The commission is composed of seven members from each of the party States; these include the Gov ernor, in most cases two legislators chosen by the Legislature, and four appointees of the Governor. " / , • . " CHAIRMAN, 1969^70: TOM McCALL.Governolrjof Oregon. ExE<:uTivE DIRECTOR:-DR. W^EiNDELL H.PIERCE. ' . CoMM^siON HEADQUARTERS: Suite 822, Lincoln^Tower, 1860 Lincoln"Street, Den-, ver, Colorado 80203. . . '; GREAT LAKES COMMISSION . ORGANIZATION: Organized.in 1955 under the Great Lakes Basin Compact. • • .. . -• ••• • • ^ . . • PURPOSE: To study the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin and to make recom mendations with respect to their use." MENTBER STATES: IlHnois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York; Ohio, Penn- - sylvania_and-Wisconsin. Each State designates from three to five members of . the commission, and each State has three votes in the commission. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: ATTORNEY GENER..\L FRANK. J. KELLY,-Michigan;' EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; COL. LEONARD J. GOODSELL. ' / IN TERGOVER N MENTAL RELAX IO NS 259 ^ COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: 5104 1ST Building, 2200 North'Campus Boulevard, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. N GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION \ ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1949 under the Gulf States iMarine Fisheries Compact. •S!^ PURPOSE: TO promote better utilization of the fisheries—marine, shell and anadro- . mous—of the seaboard of the Gulf of Mexico, by development of a joint program , for their promotion and protection and for prevention of physical waste of the . fisheries from any cause. MEMBER STATES: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The rep resentatives of each S/ate on the commission comprise the head of the state ad ministrative agency charged with conservation of the fishery resources to which the compact pertains; a member of the Legislature, designated by it or by the Governor; a citizen with knowledge of marine fisheries and interest in them, ap pointed by the Governor... ' . J CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: GEORGE A. BRUMFIELD, Mississippi. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: JOSEPH V.CoLSON. • COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: .400 Royal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1941 under the Interstate Compact on the Potomac River Basin. ,, , -.^J: PURPOSE: TO conserve the, water and land resources of the Potomac River Basin through water pollution control. •' , :, -. MEMBER STATES: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, in addition, to the District of Columbia and the federal government.. The States' representa tives,on the commission arie appointed by the Governors of the respective States. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: NORMAN E.JACKSON, Washington, D.C. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: CARL J. JOHNSON. ' COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: Suite 407, 1025 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, .V. D.C. 20005. :•. .; INTERSTATE OIL COiMPACT COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1935 under the Interstatq Oil Compact. . V PURPOSE: The conservation of oil and gas by prevention of physical waste. MEMBER STATES: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,,Colorado, Florida, Illinois, 'Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Mori^' tana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oliio, Okljj homa, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Vii^inia ai Wyoming. Associate members:'Georgia, Idaho, Oregcin and Washington. Tfle States'representatives on the commission are determined by the member Staffs. CHAIRMAN,. 1969-70: DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Governor of Oklahoma. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: W.TIMOTHY Down, •. •••••••.'..• , ' • • ••• • -•' A : -'^ "'•••' "•, :'-•; .'• •• • <^ Sieb THE BOOK OF THE STATES * ^^ -CoMMrssroN HEADQUARTERS: 900 Northeast.23rd Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma .:,'^\ 73105. .•• ^ ; • •{ • • . : -^ ••:•'.. \ _ INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1936 under the Tri-Stat© Compact. -- PUFLPOSE: Created for the conti-ol of future water pollution and abatement of ex isting pollution in the tidal and coastal waters of the signatory States. In 1961 th^ commission was authorized to engage in certain activities with respect to interstate air pollution of New York and New Jersey. In 1969, Connecticut joined the interstate air pollution activities. A MEMBER STATES: Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. There are five Commis- ' sioriers from each State, appointed by the Governors with the consent of the Senaites, except a few Commissioners who are named ex officio. CHAIRMAN, 1970: DR. NATALECOLOSI," New York;', ^ EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: THOMAS R. GLENM, JR. COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: 10 :Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10,019. / / ^ \ MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION \ /^ ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1967 under the Multistate Tax Compact. \\ PURPOSE: Tb promote uniformity and equityin the administration of state, and /local tax Ipws with respect to multistate business. Tl\e Commission provides a state-level agency'which receives multistate tax problems from both business'•and the States, studies those problems, holds hearings, and adopts and puts into ipp- eratioi? rules and regulations for the purpose of solving those problems. REGULAR MEMBER STATES: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,. New Me-xico, North Dakota, Oregon, Texias, Utah, Washington, and .Wyoming, . ASSOCIATE MEMiJEk STATES: AlaB^ma, Alaska, Arizona, California, Indiana, Louisi ana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennes see, Virginia and West Virginia. ' . CHAIRMAN, 1969-^70: GEORGE KiNNEAR.^Director of Revenuerw^ashington. EXECUTIVE DiREcrbR: EUGENE F. CORRIGAN. ^ COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: 1200:Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203. NEW EIS^GLAND BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1955 under the New England Higher Education Com pact. ' Y . PURPOSE: To provide greater educational opportunities and services through a co ordinated program: for Ihe persons in New England. The board assists the States, institutions and agencies concerned with higher education in efforts to advance the academic, social and economic level of New England. MEMBER STATES: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Is- ' land and Vermont. Members of the board are appointed in accordance with legis- INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 261 lation adopted by tl^fiindividual States. A few are ex officio, others appointed by the Governors. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: MAURICE H. SAVAL, Massachusetts. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND ipiREcroR: ALAN D. FERGUSON. BOARD HEADQUARTERS: 20 Walnut Street, Wellesly, Massachusetts 02181. NEW\ ENGLAND INTERSTATE \ WKTER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION \ ORGANIZATION: yrganized in 1947 under the New England Interstate Watpr Pollu tion Control Compact. Y / PURPOSE: TO coordinate the work of the member States in the control of pollution ' of interstate waters; to establish water quality standards and approve classifi cations for such waters. A MEMBER STATES: Connecticut, Ma^ine/Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island ai^d Vermont. Ther6 are five representatives from each of the signa tory States, appointed in'the manner and for the terms proyide"dby the ratifica tion legislation of the States. ; I CHAIRMAIS|5>196§-70: LEONARD F..WHELAN, Connecticut. EXECUTIVE SECRETAR^: ALFRED E.PELOQUIN. > . > COMMISSION^HEADQUARTERS': 73 Tremont Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. NORTHEASTERN FOREST FIRE PROTECtlON COMMISSION » . •.••,..•.,•--•'••. ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1949 under the Interstate Forest Fire Protection .Com- • pact. '.,•;•'. '•;• •• • '.; '• PURPOSE: TO promote forest fire prevention and suppression^ including mutual aid in time of emergency and uniform training of personheh ' ' MEMBER STATES: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New; Hampshire, New York,* '\ Rhode Island, Vermont, and the Province of Quebec. There arejthree Commis sioners from, each State: (1) the state official in charge of forest fire protection; (2) a repre^^intative of the State'sjoint committee on interstate cooperation; and - (3) a personal representative of the Governor. CHAIRMAN^\1969-770: AUSTIN H. WiLKiNS, Maine.. -'.':• \ ' EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER: MILTON C. STOCKING A , CoMMissidN HEADQUARTERS: 196 Bushy Hill Road, Simst)ury, Connecticut 06070. OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER. SANITATION COMMISSION ; ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1948 under the Ohio River Valley |Water Sanitation Compact. ' v\ ^ ^ PURPOSE: TO control future pollution and to abate existing pollution of the"waters of the Ohio River Valley. ' V MEMBER STATES: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vir ginia and West Virginia. The: States' representatives on the'commission are ap- •••"•• '. •"• • ' •:• ••' :, . •;. .• " •• • A ':•;'' •"••.;. •%' o • V ••. . • :• " •• .• •:• •• -.-. • • . ,"V,_ \..; .-..:,V-. "/ 262 THE BOOK OF THE STATES J . - . •••.•• •.•--•.' • • . . . • \ _, pointed by the Governors of the respective States. Except in Virginia, the head ^ of the health department serves as one of the State's three Commissioners. Com mission membership also includes three Commissiqnm representing the United States government, appointed by the President of theJiJnited States. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: N. H. DYER, M.D., West Virginia.'. "\ . EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF. ENGINEER: ROBERT K. HoRTON. . • : COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: 414 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, bhio 45202. PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1947 under the Pacific Marine Fisheries Compact., - ; PURPOSE: TO inquire into methods for brihging^ about conservation and prevention of waste of the fisheries over which the member States have jurisdiction; to rec ommend legislative or other measures furthering the purposes of the compact; and to consult and advise with the pertinent administrative agencies of the sig natory States. " MEMBER STATES: Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Their-rep- ^'''.-:. rese.ntatives on'the commission are selected on the basis designated in the ena bling legislation of each State.:. * CHAIRMAN, i9G9-70: G.. RAY ARNETTjCaliforniia. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: LEON A. VERHOEVEN. \ COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: 342 State Office Building, 1400 S.W. Fifth AvenuCi . Portland, Oregon 97201. ,» PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK COMMISSION " ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1937 under the Palisades Interstate Park Compact, succeeding the Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park. . PURPOSE: TO exercise jurisdiction over the Palisades Interstate Park in New Jersey and New York, and the Palisades Interstate Parkway in New Jersey and New York, to provide recreational facilities in the park, and- to' preserve its natural • •;••".;.• beauty. ,•,,--..._>.;•••/•. •.•.••_.•. ^. MEMBEH STATES: New Jersey and New York. Tliere are ten members of the com-, mission, five appointed by the Governor and confirmed J)y the Senate o£ each '• ;• • State! ••'.• .. ^_ • , ' •: \ '' . PRESIDENT, 1969-70: ALBERT R.JuBE,iSf.ew Jersey. ' _ ' GENERAL MANAGER: NASH CASTRO. " "T" COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: Administration Building, Bear Mountain, New York • 10911. . - • " • " . • . PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY ' -: •«t : ORGANizATioNiOrganized in 1921-by compact between New Jersey and New York. PURPOSE: TO operate as a self-supporting agency of the two States, which plans, fi- , nances, develops and operates terminal, transportation and cn^her3acilities of commerce in the Port of New York Diitrict^nd promotes and protects the com; merce of the port district. '^x ;v,.v '',• ^: \ INTERGOVERN'M-ENTAL RELATIONS 263 MEMBER STATES: New Jersey and New York. There are six Commissioners froin each State, appointed by the Governors. , - CHAIRMAN, 1969-r-70: JAMES C. KELLOGG III, New Jersey. / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: AUSTIN J, TOBIN. AUTHORITY HEADQUARTERS: 111 Eighth Avenue at 15th Street, NeeV ^York , New YorklOOll. ..; V ••--"-•- ••. SOUTH CENTRAL INTERSTATE FOREST FIRE PROTECTION COMPAdr COMMISSION - ••• • •• • • • .•• . • ' '- . •• .•:••• A ,!•• •• • •• r - ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1954 under the Sbutfi Central Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact, PURPOSE: TO promote prevention and control'of forest fires by the development .of integrated forest fire plans and providing for mutiialaid in fighting forest fires among the compacting States. MEMBER STATES: Arkansas, Louisiana*Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. The com mission is composed of five membei-s from each State: the State Forester, or officer holding the equivalent position, who also serves as Compact Administrator for • the State; and four persons who serve as advisors to the Compact-Administrator, i Advisory members from each State Include one State Senator, one Representative, the Chairman of the State Forestry Commission or comparable official, an COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: Louisiana Forestry Commission,. P.O. Box 15239, Broadview Station, Baton Rouge,.Louisiana 70815. • 'Q* SOUTHEASTERN STATES FOREST FIRE COMPACT COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1955 under the Southeastern Interstate Forest Fire . Protection Compact. • " - PURPOSE: TO promote prevention and control bf fbrest fires by the development of integrated forest fire plans and providing for mutual aid in fighting forest fires among the compacting States. MEMBER STATES; Alabama, Florida;- Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Caro- • lina. South Carolina, Tennessee," Virginia and West Virginia. The commission is composed of the Compact Administrator of each of the member States," who is usually the State Forester, and members of advisory committees in each of these States. • .A " - ' • '\ : CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: RALPH C. WINKWORTH, North Carolina. _; - COORDINATOR-SECRETARY: TAMES E. MOORE. * ,!*, *, COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: The Chairman's office serves as commission head- quarters'during his term of olfice. Mr. Ralph C. Winkworth is State Forester, North Carolina Forest Service, P.O. Box 2719, 318 Adrhinistration Building, Raleigh, North Carolina" 27602. - 264 THE BOOK OF THE STATES '•'• SOUTHERN INTERSTATE NUCLEAR BOARD •,•'-• -I ••'••' ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1961 under the Southern Interstate Nuclear Compact. PURPOSE: TO assist member States and the region in achieving benefits and meeting responsibilities of nuclear, space and related technologies. MEMBER STATES OF THE COMPACH': Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri,-North Carolina, Okla homa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. . * CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: VICTOR S. JOHNSON, JR., Tennessee. / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ROBERT H. GiFFORD. BOARD HEADQUARTERS: Suite 664, 800 Peachtree Street, N.E.', Atlanta, Georgia • -30308, I • \ SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION BOARD ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1949 under the Southern Regional Education Com pact. , ... .. ' - A PURPOSE: To assist States, institutions and agencies concerned/with higher educa tion in their efforts to advance knowledge, and to improve the social and eco- norriic level of the Southern region. MEMBER STATES: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mary land, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, : Virginia and West Virginia. The board is composed of the fifteen Governors and four persons appointed by each of thefn. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: BUFORD ELLINGTON, Governor of Tennessee.' /• DiREctoR: DR. WINFRED L. GODWIN. BOARD HEADQUARTERS: 130 Sixth Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30313. * . - " ' • f UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1949 under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. PURPOSE: TO represent the Upper Division States\of the Colorado River Basin\in interstate matters pertaining to the Colorado Ri\fer. MEMBER STATES: Coloradd,'New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Their representa tives on the commissfon are appointed by the Governors of the respective States. The Chairman is appointed by the President of the United States. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: H. P. DUGAN, Commissioner for the United States. ^ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: IVALV. GosLiN. • dbMMissiON HEADQUARTERS: 355 South 4th East Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 841II, VEHICLE EQUIPMENT SAFETY COMMISSION ">—« ORGANIZATION: Organized in 1963 under the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact. PURPOSE: To study research and other data relative to vehicle equipment.safety, issue reports on equipment studies, hold hearings on proposed-recommendations, dnd make recommendations to the member States for legislative oi administrative action. . 5 • /I \\ ' INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS %hr •A MEMBER STATES: Forty-three States and th^^District of Goluinbia. CHAIRMAN, 1969-70: R. M. TERRr, Virginia. / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: BASIL R. CREipm-ON. COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: Rooqi 412, 1026 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washing ton, D.C. 20036. WESTERN INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION * - ORGANiZATioNf Organized in 1951 under the Western Regional Education Com pact. \ > ^PURPOSE: Regional cooberation to increase educational opportunities; to help col leges and universitieFimprove their academic" programs and institiitional man agement; to aid in expanding Specialized manpower for the West; "and to inform 1 the public on higher educational needs. . , - MEMBER STATES: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaiii Idaho, Montapa, ' Nevada, New Mexico^ Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming."Th'eir repre sentatives on the commission are appointed by the Governors. » - QiAiRMAN, 1969-70: JOHN G.-MACKIE, Colorado. ' ., /•'•' , • • • - • , " ' . " • • ' • EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: DR. ROBERT H.KROEPSCH. » - "<•-.• , •• '• COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS: University East Campus, Thirtieth Street, Boulder, Colorado.'Direct mail to: P.O. Drawer "P," Boulder, Colorado 80302. -- - • ••••' '•• • \- , . ^ . • - •fx. •' / •"•'••-"•"?'S. ,,' ^y 2 ' ,-Eederal-State Relations SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN"; FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS BY ROCHELLE L. .$TANFIELD AND MARGARET J. WEAVER* •<& » NTERDEPENDENCE among all levels df Tbe other illustrative action dealt government continues to accelerate. with the war on poverty. Congress, in De I To meet the growing demands of the cember 1969, rejected a proposal to en people. States and local governments able greater state involvement in plan have had to rely increasingly on federal ning and operating comprehensive revenue sources/Additional funds are re poverty^programs.. Instead, the Office of quired as well as a more effective delivery Economic Opportunity was extended un- system to get increased services itij the ' changed for two yea^i's. Congressional people who lieed them. - consideration of the OEO extensioh'was Dtiring the. 1960s, public officials at marked by acrimonious debate and loud each level of government recogpizedand contrpver$:y throughout • its legislative articulated the need for greater coordina history.. The 1969 action contrasts with a** tion. They exchangeti pledges of coopera 1967 amendment to the Economic Op tion. The fejderal Adminis^tration sub portunity Act to provide fdr greater in mitted proposals^to ease the fiscal burden volvement in the antipoverty program of on States and localities, improve grant ad electe^,^fficials of genepl purpose units ministration and stimulate greater state of government at all levels. responsibility.^HoVvever, real progress has yet to be made. v EASING THE FISCAL BURDEN ' Two federal actions illustrate the con Federal aid continues to grow. It to tradictory nature of federal-state relatiofis taled S 1.8:6, billion in fiscal 1968. The ?t the beginning of the seventies. In 1968, U.S. Bureau of the Budget.estimates: that Congress adopted the Omnibus Crime . the total: for fiscal 1969 was S20.8 billion Cffhj.rol and Safe Streets Act, for the first and. that it would rise to S24.6 billion in time mounting a coordinated intergov 1970, an increase of 18 percent. The 1970 ernmental attack on crime through block total would' be triple the amount for' grants to the States with a rnandated pass- I960.\State efforts have'outpaced the fed through to localities. The Stateis met all eral ai'd. For>'1968, ithe States collected federal deadlines and, in general, ap-. . 336.4. billion in taxes and spent 34'^-3 bil pointed broadly-based lioards and agen lion in di/ect expenditures. The accom- cies to administer the program. Nonethe ;»panying 'tables (pages 271-273) show less, b^ late 1969 pressures wei^ mounting relative state and federal efforts in inter to dilute the block grant provisions aad governmental expenditures for selected provide at least half of the funding major functions. through'project-grants directly to cities. To maintain their increasing level of , services and to match the growing federal •iMiss Stanfield and Miss Weaver are meftibers of the staff.of the Washington office of ihe Coun aid, the" Stat^ have» had to: raise taxes. cil of State Governments. \ In 1969, of the forty-nine Legislatures 266 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 267 that inet in regiilar or special session, penditures. It would also .establish thirty-eightj raised taxes. Of the ten States national welfare standards and place a that did not, nine had enacted major floor on income for those willing to work. revenue-raising measures in 1967 or 1968 The Nationaf Governors' Conference or both, Duririg the previous ten years. and the Advisory Commission on Inter States had to raise taxes 309 times and iiri- governmental Relations called for total pose twenty-four new levies in the six ma federal takeover of welfare expenses. jor taxing fields. The States are in fiscal Substantive congressional consideration distress, in part because the federal gov was planned for the second session of the ernment, with its substantial income tax, Ninety-first Congress. has effectively preempted that most pro One of the difficulties of federal grants gressive form^^of taxation as a primary is their uncertainty over an. extended revenue source. However, every year more period. Congress will authorize a sub States enact income taxes—three-quarters stantial sum over several years, but the 'of the States now levy them. The need to amount of money actually appropriated redress fiscal imbalance is a top priority annually for the program frequently is for the 1970s. much less. One example of this is the The most comprehensive form of. waste treatment construction program in across-the-board aid to States ahd locali the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ties so far suggested has been revenue ' of 1966. For fiscal 1969; 51 billion was sharing. In August 1969, the President authorized but only $214 million appro submitted his proposal for eventual shar priated. Similarly, for fiscal 1970, the Ad ing of 1 percent of the federal income tax ministration requested only S214 million base with States and localities. The funds of the §1 billion authorizatioft; States had would.be allocated to the.States accord advanced the funds to build waste treat ing to population adjusted by tax effort ment plants, but federal reimburserrients and passed through to all general pur f^ll short. It was feared that many proj pose units of governments based on their ects would soon come to a halt. However, relative tax efforts. A somewhat similar ° the House of Representadves ajpproved proposal was developed by the National a $600 million appropriation and the Governors' Conference which called for Senate the full SI billion. A compromise allocation to States with pass-through, to was signed by the President for S800 mil relatively' populous local governments. lion—substantially more than initially re No congressional consideration was given quested, but still less than the amount to the Administration's proposal during authorized. the first session of the Ninety-first Con gress, but hearings were held/on another" IMPROVING GRANT CooRDiNAtioN proposal, submitted by Senators Edmund '•The number of federal grants sky Muski« of Maine and Charles Goodell rocketed during the 1960s. The 1969'edi- of New. York, which" would provide a tionof the Catalog erf Federal Domestic more .complicated formula jtp^include a Assistance,-puhVishcd by the Office of degree of ta.x equalizatiph. Economic Opportunity, listed 581. U.S. ,The majority of Vevenue sharing pro Representative William V. Roth, Jr., of posals^- 1969 would offer "no strings" Delaware, prepared a catalog listing money on top of regular grants-in-aid. 1,050 different federal grant programs^ This is an evolution in concept from the" Most of them have narrow fimctiohal proposals .of the mid-sixties which con goals. They are often duplicative, over ceived of revenue sharing as a successor lapping and in conflict with other federal to grants-in-aid. aid programs. Because many.state execu Another major submission designed to tive structures are fractionated, categori ease the fiscal burden ofi the States was cal grants are administered by asi many the President's welfaire' proposal that as himdreds of different, nearly aut.ono-- would provide for federal takeoverjpf not mous state agencies. Although efforts'a.re less 'than 10 percent nor more than 50 under way to centralize state planning. percent of the States' current welfare ex- • and policy-making, the situation up to > 268 THE BOOK OF THE STATES now has approached chaos. Making the quency Prevention and Control Act of grant structure operate-more efficiently 1968, the Economic Development Act is another major priority for the 1970s. and the 701 Planning Program. " . Seekin'g' to- alleviate a .multitude of On the whole, the substate district sys problems facing States and localities in tem provides a unique vehicle to identify dealing with the federal government— and aid a relatively homogeneous popu primarily the complex gr^nt-in-aid .struc lation group within a State. These dis ture—Congress passed the Intergovern tricts have been established by the mental Cooperation Act of 1968. The . Governor, and in some instances the act, developed in conjunction with the Legislature, after a careful analysis of the Council of State Governments, was physical, economic, governmental and heralded as a significant step toward im sociological aspects of the people. States, proving federal-state-local relations, in also, are making widespread use of sub- the decade of the sixties. Its provisions state districts. Oregon, for example, re were developed to encourage and pro quires its state agencies to record data mote better coopTeration between levels and administer their programs on the of government in many areas dl concern. basis of districts. Pennsylvania, moreover, The grant-in-aid provisions of ithe has established district field offices to pro Intergovernmental Cooperation Act vide better information, technical assist were implemented by tliie. Bureau of the ance arid program coordination, Budget in Circular A-95'm August 1969. e ln,,.l969, the federal government took „ ^ The circular's regulations concern grant- ianother significant step toward easing the in-aid information, project notification problems of States and localities in.apply and review, and coordination of plan ing for grants. President Nixon an ning and development in multijurlsdic- nounced^ the creation of eight adminis tional areas. Under the regulations, fed trative regions with regional offices in eral agencies must supply the Governor the same city for the Departments of and Legislature with information on all Health, Education, and Welfare, Hous grants-in-aid going into a State. To facil ing and Urban Development, Labor, itate access to this information, the Gov Office of Economic Opportunity and' ernors have appointed central clearing- Small Business Administration. This new •• houses, usually in the budget, planning arrangement replaced the jumble of over /or community affairs departments. Met lapping regions and nonsystematic place ropolitan and regional clearinghouses ment of district.offices which each depart have also been established to aid in carry ment had created independently. ing out the Intergoyernmental Coopera The ultimate goal of this dfrective, the tion Act's provisioi^ for consiiitation be President said, is uniform boundaries tween governments beforei/gr^.^t-injaid and field office locations for all social or applications are approved. economic programs requiring inter Another major provision of the Inter agency or intergovernmental coordina:^ governmental Cooperation Act directs tion. X 7 federal agencies to use substate planning At the same time, the President di districts designated by the Governor of a rected the Bureau of the Budget and the . State, These districts, which were estabr nine executive departments to work to lished in all but a few States prior to the. ward decentralization of decision-making passage of this act, will now be used for\ to field officials. administering, most grant-in-aid .pro In another effort to improve intergov- grams. The .Partnership for Health Pro- j.ernniental liaison, President Nixon es • gram and the Omnibus Crime Control tablished the Office of Intergovernmental and Safe. Streets Act—two approaches to Relations within the Vice President's - block grants—are being adrninistered purview. The office is headed by former through the substate districting system in , South Dakota Goyerrior Nils A, Boe. •• most States. The substate district struc This was the first time that the inter ture will be used to administer other aid dependence of all levels of government jprograms, such as the Juvenile Delin was recognized formally. Previous Presi- ^ INTERGOVERNMEATTAL RELA TIONS 269 dents had appointed separate officials as the federal go\ ,."*'-• 270 THE ^BOOK OF THE STATES by the States. To provide for equitable had created a competitive disadvantage division of income for tax purposes, the for state'bariks: ' .\- Multistate Tax Commission was estab lished. By the end of 1969, nineteen PROSPECTUS FOR THE FUTURE States were regular members, with an ad- As' the decade of .the seventies ad-, kditional .thirteen as associate,,Jnembers. vances, the interdependence of the _ Another bill was pending before Con various levels of government will con gress to grant consent to the corripact and tinue to grow at .an increasingly, faster provide a rnandatory alternative for pace. This will necessitate action on the. those States that do riot join. major problems of financing governmen On a more positive note, Congress in tal services and. administering their de,- 1969.adopted a measure to permit States, livery systems. The federal, state and in general, to tax most national banks to local governments will, have to build the, same, degree as they tax state-char upon the foundation established in the tered institutions. The previous limita late sixties to construct a responsive, ef tions on state taxation of national Banks fective, and well-ordered federalism. ;\ -V- INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS' 271 PERCENTAGE OF STATE AND LOCAL GENERAL EXPENDITURE, FINANCED BY STATE GOVERNMENTS, FROM OWN.REVENUE , SOURCES, BY.STATE* •••>s (TOTAL AND FOR SELECTED FUNCTIONS, 1967) Health Total general • Public State expenditure Education Highways Welfare Hospitals All States(a) v...... •r... ^''^^^i* 42.6 71.1 71.5 51.7 Alabama 65.0 71.7 76.8 93.4 53.2 Alaska...-. :.;...' 65.2 59.3 85 3 99.4 84.8 Arlfona '. S.S.2 41.4 , 84.6 • 88.4 39.5 Arkansas .• 60.9 54.7 91.8 96.9 • 55.2 California. 45.8 35.8 71.6 72.3 40.1 Colorado 49.0 25.3, 71.7'; 82.2 66.7 Connecticut 45.7 36.5 67.3 • 87.6 83.3 Delaware 69.9 79.5 , . 46.5 80.0 94.8 Florida.- •. 4.1.0 51.3 . 57.5 58.0 29:5 Georgl^ ..'*.... .'•• 54.6" 69.8 79.9 .76.9 35.1 Hawaii ., .' .'. 42.6 94.0 53;5 99.2 77.6 Idaho...... "54.6 44.8 77.7 75.3 38.9 Illinois. 44.0 -21.7 73.0 90.3 .50.1 Indiana ...- 51.3 • 42.6 88.5 34.2 . 52.9 Iowa ;.. .' 44.6 15.9 69.8 51.9 •39.0 Kansas .;.... 46.9 - 33.5 50.0 58.5 .59.4- Kentucky ...... ; 61.8 59.9 90.6 83.8 .58.9 Louisiana. 66.2 69.7 78.1 98.1 82.9 Maine 52.4 33.-5 - 63.0 8o;i 83.5 Maryland . .49.0 33.2 ' 79.5 . 87.3 62.1 Massachusetts. 41.9 29.6 50.3 79.3 67.3 . Michigan...-. 52.1 50.5 79.4 70.4 . 46.3 Minnesota...... : 42.6 40.5 60.1 o 40.2 - 49.0 Mlssi^ippl 55.7 61.7 71.1 ' . • 91.5 36.5- Missouri 43.5 3 r.9 71.7 91.8 • 48.0 Montana 45.7 29.3 .59.6 42.7 53.8 Nebraska - 35.6 4.3 64.v.- - 97.5 33 jl Nevada. •... '. 43.4 51.2- 46.6 59.7 16.4 New Hampshire "...;. 44.6 10.4 70.0 . ' . 32.5 90.2 New Jersey. . .: • 32.6 31.2 - 49.4 • 51-.6. 40.2 New Mexico 67.9 76.6 82.3 98.4' . '44.8 New York '.. .- 49.9 48.0- 63.3 63.7 48.0 North Carolina.....' : 64.9 74.9 87.8 . 47.4 62.7 North Dakota ./.' ; ...... 54.8 25.8 57.4 66.0 89.4 Ohio. '.:?..: 41.5 28.6 . 79.6 56;9 . 45.6 Oklahoma./...: :'.: .... 60.7 ' 130.2 85.3 97.5 .^ 1^52.9 Oregon....'.:.. .^ 52.2 29.3 82.0 74.2 . '\64.2, Pennsylvania. '. . . 47.0 43.8 82.4 78.9- 79.9 • Rhode Island., .V . 60.8 35.1 80.8 • 99.6 93.2 South Carolina .1.. 68.0 76.3 -i 88.9 ., 80.4 50.5 • i • \ • • • South Dakota. ...,.;..'..;. 46.1 15.6 ,\; • 57:3 • •. 80.5 65.2 Tennessee 50.5 56.^,1 70.4 67.6 38.4' Texas.. -. ., . 45.9 54.4 \ 62.7 . . 85.6 • 47.5' Utah 60.7 53.7- ' 78.9 . • • • 95,7 ' ; 64.9 Vermont. 63.3 24.7 • . 83.9 . • 68.7. 97.2 Virginia. ; ..: :. 54.7: 44.5 • 81.1- 43.5 83.8' •Washlhttton: . 59.5 62.5 78.5 100.0 61.8 West Virginia. 67.5 55.8 94.0 91.7 68.6 Wisconsin ... 56.0 26.9 41.3 .^9.5 52.6 Wyornlnft...... ; , 53.5 38.7 85.8 40.4 41.5. •Prepared by the Advisory Commis-sion on' Intergovern percentages weretlerived from't'stimatetl receipts available for mental Relations from various reports of the Govcrnmerita. expenditure forr current expenses, capital outlay, and debt J^ivision. U.S. Bureau of the Census; and National Education service for public elementary and secondary schools as reported Association. Estimates of School Statistics. 196T-196S, Research by the National-Education .Association. Census data for educa Report 1967-R19. (Copyrfght 1967 by the National Education tion expenditures were not readily available. Association, all rights reserved). - • (a) Ivxcluding the District of CoUiinbia. The totals including Note: Percentages for total-general expenditure, highways, DC. are: Total gcineral expenditure, 49.1; Education, 42.5; ublic •welfare, and health and .hospitals were derived from Highways; 70.8; Public Welfare, 71.1; aiid'Hcalthand Hospitals, B'.S. Bureau of the Census data on cxpcnditures'adiustctl to SI.2. •/ • . • exclude federal aid and'-state-local transfers; The education -)A • •M^. \ ...J \ I •n : • . :.\ • • . -. . • ,. .., ••:•..•••• : ..- .•: .}:,. • • ^ •.,. • •'i ..--•- ' - ' . • • • . • • • , • •• .-^' • • • •• .•.••.-• » PERCENTAGE OF STATE A^[D LOCAL EXPENDITURE FOR, SELECTED FUNCTIONS, . ° .BY GOVERNMENTAL SOURCE OF FINANCING, BY. STATE* . ,. Elementary b" Sriondary Education Highways- Public Welfare Health b- Hospitah Percent financed from Percent financed from PercenLfinancrd from Percent financed from A_-J Federal • State iMcal Federal ^State IjDcal Federal State Local Federal State Local State aidia) funds funds aid funds fu nds aid • funds funds- • aid funds funds All States • 7.3 40.7 52.0 29.1 50.2 20.7 •53.0 33.4 . 13.6 4.8^ 48.7 46.5 Alabama..... 15.9 60.0(b) 24.1 37.6 47.9-=- 14.5' 73.4 24.9 1.8 11.2 47.2 41.5 Alaska.: 25.7 44.7 29.6 82.3 15.r 2.6 22.9 76.0 0.5 11-.2 75.3 13.5 Arizona 8.0 S5.2 36.8 48.8 43.3 • 7.9 62.3 ii.i ' 4.4 8.5" 36.2 55.4 Arkansas .'..-. • 16..9 46.7 •36.4 38.6 56.4 5.0 76.7 22.6 0.7 14.0 47.5 38.5 California...... S.9 .34.3 59.9 26.2 52.8 20.9 56.2 31.7 12.1 3.2 •38.8 58.0 t CoIfM-adp ;.. 7.1 24.0 68.9 32.6 48.3 19.1 51.7 39.7 8.6 6.0 62.7 31.3 Connecticut: 4.4 3J.3 ' 64.3 25.2 50.3, 24.5 46.1 . 47.2-' 6.7 4.9 79.3 15.8 Delaware 7.4 72.7 19.9 21.6 36.5 41.9 43.7 45.0 11.3 10.1 85.2 4.7 Floriaa(c). . . J0.2 56.5 . 33.3 18.2 47.0 34.8 67.3 19.0 • 13.7 6.8 27.5 65.7 Georgia. . . .-. 11.0 63.2(d) •25.7 39.8. 48.1 12.1 73.0 20.7 6.2 6.1 32.9 61.0 Hawaii. ..< "10.0 84.8 ,, 5.2 41.3 31.4 . 27.3 . 48.5 51.0 0.4 ri.4 68.5 19.8 ha Idaho(c).i s» .9.3 40.0 49.7 38.6 47.7 13.7 58.2 .31.5 10.4 10.0 34.8 54.8 ;^ Illinois.. •....,.. ' 5.2 26.1 68.1 24.9 54.8 20.3 41,9 52.4 5.7 2.7 57.5 .39.8 Jndiaria.'. 4.8 34.0 ••61.1 34.0 58.4 7.6 36.6 21.6 41.7 3.5 51.1 45.4 lowa(f)..'...... ,.,.'. " 4.2 32.6 63,2 20.1 55.8 24.1 45.9 28.1 26.0 3.4 37.7 58.9 K-ansaa'..' ;..'. 7.8 29.2 63.0 21.6 39.2 39.2 50.5 29.0. 20.S 6.4 55.7 38.1 , Kentucky... 15.8 51.3 32.8 34.1 59.8 6.2 76.3 10.9 3.8 10.5 52.7 36.8 . Louisiana../.'..... 10.3 62.8 26.9 27.0 57.0 >-l6.0 72.4 27.1 0.5 9.5 75.0 IS.S" Maine... .7...... 7,2 34.7 ' 58.0 26.7 4*6.2 ,-^' 27.1 54.7 36.3 9.0 7.9 77.0 15.2 Maryland...... '6.7 37.3' 56.0 19.1 64.3 ' 16.5 46.8 46.5 •6.7 4.4 59.3 36.2 ^Massachusetts 6.9 22.4 70.7 30:7 34.9 34.4 ' 48.1 41.2 10.8 2.6 65.S 31.8 Michigan 3.9 44.3- •51.7 31.3 54.5 14.2 43.6 39.7 16.7 4.1 44.4 51.5 Minnesota 6.6 43.3 50.1 28.8 42.7 • 28.4 46.8 21.4 31.8 4.7 46.7 48.6 Mississippi.'. 20.0 53.1 26.9 40.6 42.2 17.2 71.2 26.3. •2.4: 9:3 33.1 57.6 Missouri.; .1 6.3 34;3 59.4 36.4 45.6 18.0 63.2 33.8 3.0 4.9 45.7 '49.5 Montana(c).. l.i 27.6 65.4 53.1 27.9 19.0 45.3 23.4 31.3 11.0 47.9 41.1. ". Nebraska .'• ' .'7.6 17.6 74.8 35.0 41.9 23.2 67.7 31.5 0.8 7.1 30.7 62.1 Nevada.'. ..:...'.. • 7.2 38.8 54.0 64.3 16.7 19.1 54.1 • 27.4 18.5 5.8 15.4 7fe.8 , New Hampshire.... 4.9 9.1 («X 86.0 27.1 51.0 21.9 35.6 20.9 , 43.5 6.5 84.3 9.2 - •• Ncw'Jersey 4.6 ' 27.S 67.9 26.1 36.5 37.4 '39.5 31.3 29.3 2.7 39.1 58.2 , • New Mexico 15.1 61.8(h) 23;1 58.3 34.4 • 7.4 67.8 31.8 0.5 8.4 41.1 50.6 New York.' 4.2 47:8 47.9 16.8 52.7 _30.5 43.7 35.9 20.5 0.9 47.6 !51.5 North Carolina 12.9 67.3 19.8 21.0 69.4 9.6 61.6 18.2 20.2 10.7 56.0 33.4 North Dakota.'. 7.9 26.1 66.0 34.7 37.5 27.8 57.1 28.3 14.6- 13.0 77.8 9.3 Ohio. ." S.3: 34.9 59.8 28.9 56.6 14.5 36.9 3Si9 27.2 4.9 43.3 51.8 •\ 7 ;^ r:?r' /. J^ •••Jl- Oklahoma. 11.9 32.7 55.4 • 28.0 61.4 10.6 67.8 31,4r 0.8 • •8.0 48.6 43.3 Oregon.. 6.7 17.7 75.6 /• 29.2 . 58.1 12.7 39.6 44.8 15.6 6.8 59.8 • 33.3 Pennsylvania... 5.5 45.2 49.3 27.1 60.1 12.8 47.7 • 41.3 11.0 • 4.0 76.7 . 19.3 Rhode Island.... 0.7 33.6 . 59.7 ./- 18.3 66.0 • 15.6 48.7 • 51.1 0.2 16.9 .77.5.^ 5.6 South Carolinai. 12.1 . 63.6' ' . 24.3 / 30.2 62.6 .. .7.8-,:-." 72.& 21.8 5.3 . 14.8 43.1 - 42.1 South Dakota. . . 14.9 .. .11.4 73.7'*' .39:0 34.9 26.1 59.3 32.7 > •7.9 8.0 60.0 32.0 Tennessee •.....': 11.9 -, 48.7 39.4; 3417 . 46.0 - - 19.3 . 68.6 21.2 .10.2 6.2 36.0 57.8 TexasCi)...... 11.6 47.1. . 41.3' 26.0 46.4 . . 27.6 71.2 24.7 4.1 9.5 43.0 47.5 Utah...... 6.1, 52.0. 41.9 59.8 31.7 , 8.5 63.6 34.8 1.6 12.0 57.4 31.0 Vermont'...... 4.2 " 29.7 66.2 . . 38.0': •52.0 10.0 52.0 ' . 32.9 15.0 14.3 83.3 2.4 40.7 5.3.8 " .12.5 22, i »^ .2^.7 . , ' 15.4 ho Vlrftlnla.....;.. 9.3 50.0 , 33.7 49.1 5.5 • 79.1 Washington.... 6.7 60.8 .32.5 28.8 55.9 15.3 48.7 S\'^>i^^ •*^ 6.5 • .•57.8 .35.7 .West Virginia... 12.-2 50:2 37:6 40..3 56.1 3.6 64.9 : 32.2 5- 2.9 9.2 62.3 28.5 ' Wisconsin ...... 4.6 26.0 69.4 13.7 35.7. . 50.6 39.3 24.0 36.7 3.4 50.8 • 45.8 Wyoming...... 20.6 25.4 54.0 "51.8 41,4 6.8 . 42.9 23.1 34.1 • 16.4 . 35.0 '49.3 •Figures on highways, public \yelfare, and' health & hospitals for 1967, coinpilc /»•. J- I'-^r •',=•:. I t 3 State-LoGal Rerations i^\ STATE-LOCAL RELATIONSIN 1968-1969 ^ -:•• • ^;' • ••.: • ••:••• •: , ^- . C . • BY GEORGE S. BLAIR* UBSTA.NTiAL ADVANCES in Strengthening trict commission, to "examine physical, local government and in improving social and economic problepis and to pro-' S. state-local relationships were pose solutions." Thecommissions are also achieved durjng'1968 and 19.69, Problems authorized to create servjce districts sub of urbanization received consideration in ject to .votei; approval through a refer a number of States, and progress in ex- endum. This Virginia plan parallels in / tension of home rule was also recorded. large part programs in Connecticut; Another development was the^ continued Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin. growth of councils of goyernrnent for Georgia, the first State to develop and planning and cooperative programs. As implement a system of regional councils, a general trend, the States continued to established eighteen Areawide Planning search for means 'to correct structural, and Development Commissions, while funftional and fiscal weaknesses of their Ohio has fifteen, Texas, twenty-one, and local governments;to enable them to be Wisconsin eight.- Texas legislation desig come stronger partners in serving citizen nates regional planning cbmrhissioris as . needs. . , ' " political subdivisions, and the Governor's office has recognized them as preferred ap REGIONAL COUNCILS , , ; plicant areas for planning i^. siii^Jirareas as While regional government does not water quality, criminal ^justice, and appear to be a real political possibility, healt^.". •; '" • formation of voluntary regional councils In most States, legislation is permissive of local governments to meet areawide rather than mandatory for'establishing needs is a growing phenomenon. In the regional councils. These laws range from year July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969, eighty the establishment of interlocal study com new regional councils were "formed in missions to discover common problems, both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan a's in Montaria and Utah, to the formation areas. • ; ° - •"' of regional councils by cooperating 'com Typical of the legislation requiring munities, as in Maine and Florida, to. the groupings of local governmentg is the creation of multi-purpose districts to per Virginia Development Act df 1968. Under form enumerated functions in Oregon's this act, the Division of State. Planning metropolitan areas. Florida legislation and Gomniunity Affairs will establish authoriizes. local governments to establish planning districts throughout the State. voluntary councils of public officials with Each district will have a planning dis- the power to study area\vide governmen tal problems such as health, safety, wel *Dr.' Blair is Professor of Government 'and fare, education, economic conditions and C^iairnian, Graduate Faculty in' Government, Clareraorit Graduate School, Claremdnt, Gali- area development. The councils will pro fornia. , ^ '. . ' t . mote cooperation and coordinated actipn 274 •v^'. "^ INTERGO VERNMENTAL RELATIONS'. 275 -,\ among members and make recommenda Missouri; King County, Washington; and tions for review and action to members Tompkins and Orange Counties, New and- public agencies. In addition to the York:";- ; •' 'r •••--:-[•:-^ ,\- creation of fourteen-adrninistrative-dis- lowa cities were granted home rule tricts in Oregon to provide greater co- powersexclusive of the right to levy taxes operation and coordination between state unless authorized by the Legislature. Mu- agencies and local'governments, multi- nicipal home rule in/Washington was ex- purpose districts may be formed in metro- panded.to permit thb cxercise|df all pow- politan areas to perform the fpllbwing erk hot specifically reserved to the State, functions: to deal with sewerage, solid and liprne rule for cities was also ex-' and liquid waste disposal, control of sur panded in Tyiontana. Procedures for the face water, and public transportation. adoption of city home rule charters were The National Service to Regional approved in North Dakota in 1969 per Councils reported that thirty-three States mitting charter provisions" to supersede have active programs to develop.regional any conflicting state laws within the limits planning districts and cooperative prJo-_ qfjhe city. An amendment in Maine per graims. In/at least eleven States, these mits cities and towns to a-mend their char-: agencies are receiving financial.assistance ters without prior legislative approval" as , from the State to encourage their efforts, reqifired in the past. ••.",'"_ . ; in Texas, for example, one-half million dollars has "been appropriated to give gen REAPPORTIONME:-JT eral support to its twenty-one regional Legislative actions to implement the councils. "one man, one vote" conceptin local gov ernment were enacted in a number of HOME ROLE Statesr Impetus for stich'activity came in Local home rule was strengthened part from the U;S. Supreme Court deci- through adoption of hew or revised con sion in April 1968, in the Avery v. Mid stitutional provisions in several States land County C2i.st concerning the appor and thrpiigh new or modified legislative tionment of county boards in Texas. The. home rule in others. New constitutions in Court held that "the Constitutioii per^ Florida and Hawaii extended home rule mits ho substantial variation from popu power in those States. Implementing leg lation in drawing districts for units of islation in Florida grants counties and locargovernment haying general govern-. cities all powers of local self-government, mental powers over the entire geographic including governmental, corporate and area served by the body." , ' proprietary powers. These powers enable In Michigan,- for example, county them to conduct county and municipal boards were reconstituted from the old government, perforrri necessary : govern township-based representative system, to. mental functions, and render county and one of equally populated single-member municipalserviceG performed under terms districts. South Dakota counties w'ere re- of contracts negotiated with each locaL apportioned in ]968. Several counties.in jurisdiction. Tqniiessee, including populous Davidson An amendment approved by Pennsyl- an^^^helby Counties, are operating with vaniavoters in 1969 makes all local gov- r}>dwly constituted governing boards. Ala- ernnierits eligible for home rule charters bama county boards were reapportioned arid provides for optional forms of, gov- in 1969. At least twenty counties in New erhriient for all types of local.units. Loui- York have legislative bodies elected by siania in 1968 provided additional home, districts, with.eleven utilizing a system of rule authority for parishes. North Caro- weighted voting. New York legislation lina- legislation granted counties the authorizes .local governments to reappor- power to adopt ordinances,, and repealed tion themselves according to the "one local acts 'fixing salaries and f«es--£ind— man, one vote" principle, and a Perinsyl- granted this power to city and cdimty vahia' amendment adopted in 1969 re- governing boards. New home rule char- quires regular reapportionment. in. its ters were adopted in St.« Louis'Couirty, local governments. • . = •" „ • •<>.-•• •••. •••-.•• . • __ , ...,:• •.,. ••..- -.: r • . • •'• • • •• .•: •.•-.-. .• •:-, ^ - ^'*'. V 276 THE BOOK OF THE'STATES A recent Policy Staterri'ent on Regional • .' _-' OFFICES OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Organizations recommended official rec Offices of Community Affairs or agen ognition of and support for regional cies with similar functions now exist in councils, modifications of state adminis twenty-five States. Specific titles vary from trative • boundaries to conform more Department of Urban Affairs (Ohio), De closely with locally defined regions, co partment of Community Affairs (Florida, ordination of state agency activities with- Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island), regional. planning and programs, and the Department of Local Affairs and Devel elimination of special purpose districts opment (Wisconsin), Department of Lb- wherever possible. cal Governmental Affairs (Illinois), and Interlocal cooperation acts were en Office of Local and Urban Affairs (Min acted in a number of States. rTypical of nesota); In most States, these new offices these were the Urban Cooperation Act in • integrated several separate agencies'into Michigan, which permits any local unit to one with broad powers in the areas of carry out jointly a service function in-co housing, redevelopment, social services, operation with other local units, and the and municipal affairs. Research and plan Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act, ning functions were also assigned respon "which authorizes public agencies.to enter sibilities in a number of States. : into agrei^ments with each other and othd'r. Councils of urban and community af-- public agencies "on a basis of mutual.ad- . "fairs ^were also .established in sbveraL yantage" to best serve the "needs and de- , States. The council in New Jersey is to as velopment of local corriniunities." sist the Governor in the coordination and • - •. ". • • \ " • ..,'-• !--:;, fbrmulation of interdepartmental ufban LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE - '*/>-••• programs and in establishing priorities Consolidation has been an infrequently v'*"'\ for state aid and assistance in urban areas. used device, by Americanx local govern This broad assignment is similaf to that ments in the .past. A merger of Duval of councils, in Florida, Minnesota, New County and Jaeksoriville,' Florida, oc York, and Pennsylvania. curred in 1968- resulting in a city of 827 ' X In New York, an Office for Urban Innor square miles—the largest land area of.any vation was created in the Executive De American city. A second such consolida partment to serve as the center for the tion occurred January 1, 1970, with the development.of creative prograrns to meet merger of IridianapoHs and Marion special problems of urban areas. The five County in Indiana. UNIGOV is the pop major funCl^ions of this office are to serve ular name for this consolidated govern as a clearinghouse of information, coordi- ment which permits incorporated satellite • nate and encourage cooperation, encour- cities in the county to remain indepen , age and undertake research, conduct or dent:. Oregon legislation authorizes city- conxract for derhoristration projects, and county consolidation in cases where the - stimulate effective use of federal, state, city has over 300,000 population^ arid the localj4nd private resources to meet urban Nevada Legislature authorized the merger problems. . ' . of Carson City and Ormsby County. Eden A different pattern developed in Cali became a new city in North Carolina fornia with the creation of the Office of " upon the consolidation of the three com V Intergovernmental Management~within munities of Leaksville, Spray and Draper; -. ; the Lieutenant Governor's office to re and the cities of East and West La:s Vegas place the Council on Urban Growth. This merged to form Grater I^as Vegas in New office is to facilitate'federal, state arid local Mexico. New Maine legislation, estab problem solving, including federal-grants lished pfbcedures for the consolidation of coordination and various informational adjoining cities* and towns with voter ap services. Other functions include evalua- proval. ' • -"*• 1 tion of-State policy as it relates to pending The tr'erid away from the use of cor federal legislation, maintenance of liaison oners continues as Texas authorized all^ v/ith city and county agencies, and im counties to replace the coroner function proved relations with regional councils;. of elective justices of the peace witli ap- INTERGOVERNMENTAL REL^A TIONS 277 pointed medical examiners, and Maine and Ohio. Greater taxing flexibility was . enacted a statewide system of rnedical ex granted local governments in Alaska, Ar-. aminers. The county executive form of kansas,'Georgia, Idaho, New Mexico,^ government, previously limited to Mil Ohio and South Dakota. waukee County, was extended to all -Wis In Massachusetts, the State assumed the consin counties. The structure of lower full administrative costs of the welfare courts was modified in Georgia, Idaho, program. Some 4,000 employees of local Maryland, Pennsylvania and South Da welfare departments were added to the kota. Certain constitutional county row State's employment rolls. offices were repealed in Maine and Penn New legislation in New Jersey will as-- sylvania and the boards of county com sisk its urban areas. One act appropriated missioners in Kansas were empowered to §12 million for the six largest cities to in- . appoint qualified assessors to assume that crease and upgrade programs for the dis function previously performed by elected. advantaged in education, health, safety, clerks. recreation, and libraries. A second act al Procedures for local boundary changes lotted §250,000 for the demohtion of di were modified in Michigan, Oregon, lapidated structures and the securing of Pennsylvania and Washington. Qther urban land for development of low- and changes included the establishment of a moderate-income housing. single board to oversee all public ed\ica- Legislation in Washington earmarks tion from kindergarten through graduate; half the 2 percent state excise tax on auto school in Rhode Island; replacement of mobile ownership for public transporta county jails with a system of regional cor tion purposes. Funds may be used for rection centers in. .Virginia; and proce- operating such-systems, for capital costs - dures for establishing third class boroughs of transit, or be pledged to secure local with limited powers in Alaska. Municipal .bonds for transit capital purchases. • annexation procedures were liberalized in In June 1968; the Governors of Dela Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, South Carolina ware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania • and Washington; and in Tennessee, jointly established a pertnanent commit smailler municipalities were ^powered tee on regional planning and cooperation to annex unpopulated areas., by ordi- to concern itself with problems in an naiice. "l . eleven-county area.'Regional planning For the seven-county Twin CiUes area units were established and strengthened in -Minnesota, the Legislature Cl^^eated a in several t)ther States, arid the first bi- metropolitan sewer board, subordinate to couiity planning organization in Wash rslhe council, to plan, develop and operate ington was established in Cowlitz-Wah . a central sewerage system. Legislation also kiakum Counties. .. established a metropolitan park board, subordinate to the council, to begin ac CONCLUSION - •..••• quisition and preservation of open space. This incompldte roundup of develop The metropolitan councilwasgranted au ments in state-locijl relations in 1968-69 thority to plan a system for disposal of reflects<,a common theme of state concern refuse, and its supervision over the metro for improvement in the structural, fiscal, politan transit commission was strength and functional operations of their .local ened. governments. Few problems were solved, ^but many were ameliorated as States. OTHER pEVELOPME^}Ts . showed a continuing willingness to meet State Legislatures continued to ^ace up^ ' chgillenges as they arise. The. develop to the fiscal problems of their subdivisions . ments as a whole reflect a progressive step by increasing state aid, sharing revenues, in'achieving balance in the vital partnei:- and expanding local taxing powers. A ship of strong conimunities and strong high priority, item in most state budgets States and jtisHfy ^om^optimism that was increased aid for education. Sales tax both levels will be better able to serve legislation was passed or amended in their citizens and meet other problerhs Arkansas, Mississippi, Nprth Carolina with positive actions in tlieyiears ahead. " .f^ •s^ 278 THE BOOK OF. THE STATES Graduate School of Public Affairs. Metropolitan SEX-ECTED REFERENCES Area Digest. Albany; State University of New. Adrian, Charles R; State and-Loeal Governments. York. (Bi-monthly) 2d ed. New York: McGraV Hill, 1967. Grant, Daniel R. and Nixon, H. C. State and The Council of State GovermnentS; State Govern Local Government in America. 2d ed. Boston:" ment News. Lexington, Kentucky: The Council Allyii and Bacon,. 1968. of State Governments. (Monthly) National Advisory Conimission on Civil Disdrd.ers. The-Gouncil of State Governmentsi.. S/afe Offices Report. Washington. D.C., 1968.' - of Community Affairs: Their Functions^ Or National Municipal League. National Civic i?c- ganization, and Enabling'Legislation. Lexing- T/jetf. New York, (Monthly) t ton, Kentucky: The Council of State Govern National Service to Regional Councils. Regional ments, 1969. Review Quari ^ ^ . • f^ r-rr- . 7 .-,^ i?. •> : -v '6^. • / . - • * •.—-«!._ &1- ^ STATE AID TO liOCAL G0VERNME]:>[T;S IN 1968* ' r TATE payments to local governments in . technical phrase "state intergovernmental fiscal 1968 amounted to $21.9. billion, '^expenditure." Such expenditure includes Sor $110 per capita. The 1968 sujn was not only grants-in-aid and state-collected up |2.9 billion, or 15.2 percent, from the locally shared taxes, but also reimburse 1967 amount: This represents a consider ments paid to local governments by States. able; rise in state intergovernmental ex jEor services rendered by them to state penditures since 1957, when the total w^s governments. State intiergovernmeiital ex- $7.4 billion," or $44 per capita. But other . penditure also includes extension of cop'- state expenditure was going up at a simi tingient loans of which the repayment by- lar pace, so that the proportion of total local governments is on ajconditional ba- state general expenditure represented, by ••sis.^;- ••• • . ' . • • . • -v' ••" distributive payments to local govern By definition, state intergovernmental ments was changed relativelynittle—36,3 expenditure involves the actual payment percent in 1968, 35.3 percent in 1957. of money to local governments. It thus .During the twenty-year period from. excludes state transactions or activities 1948 to 1968, the annual amount of state which benefit localities without involving payments to local governments was multi the flow of funds to local governments. plied sevenfold, moving up from $3.3 bil Examples include: r^ lion/o. $21.9 billion. Throughqut these 1. Nonfiscal assistance by a. State to two decades, however, such payments local go;vernnien.ts in the form of advisory made up a fairly consistent fraction of the • or other services or aid in kind (e.g., free annual nationwide total of state general provisions of commodities or textbooks, expenditure. Between 1948 and 1958; this or the loan of equipment) percentage relationship ranged between 2. Contribution by a State to trust 34,4 and 36.8, and since then the per funds* it administers for .financing of re- centage has varied only between 33.4 and -, tirement benefits to local government em- 36.6. In the past decade, also, the propor iployees ff- tion of all general revenue ofl local gov 3. Shares of state-imposed taxes which ernments supplied by state distributive . are collected and retained by local govern pa.yments has shown limited variation, ments. ranging between 28.2 and 34.7 percent.; Table 1 provides a historical nation STATISTICAL FINDINGS ^ ' wide summary of state intergovernmental Individual state governments differ expenditure, showing data for each .:fis{:al widely in the ainounts they pay to local - year from 1^50 oh and for selected'^larlier governrneiits. As indicated by the figures years back to 1942. . ^" . in Table 2, state-intergovernmental ex penditure in 1968 ranged from $213.27 NATURE OF STATE • per capita in New Ydrk to $21.61. in New iNTERGQVERNMENTAL.ExPENDITtJRE-x Hampshire. The terms "state payments to'.local gov The per capita amount of fiscal aid was " ernments" and "state aid" are- used inter higher in 1968 than in 1967 for forty-six p. changeably in) this article witti the more States, biit with considerable variation in the rates, of changp.involved. During the *Adapted.by the U.S. fjureau of: the Census five-year period 1962 to 1967, as Table 2 from its State Payments to Local Governments shows, state aid, per capita doubled, in (Volume 6, No. 4 of the 19.67 Gensusof Goverri- -taents) and annual report, State Government Fi ; New Hampshire, New York, and South nances. ' •' Dakota and rose by more . than tfiree- 279 &^ 280 THE BOOK OF TfiE STATES fourths in ten other States, One State which all or most "categoi^car.' p.ubli^ as- (Hawaii). showed, a decrease during this H sistance programs are adrninistered by period. ~ «-- local governments, ^subject, to state (and .Payments to local governments in the federal) cost-sharing.^ . , Nation as a whole made up 36.3 percent State payments to local governments 'of all state goverrynent general expendir. for highway purposes amounted to $2.0 ture in 1968. This relationship ranged billion in-1968 or nearly one-tenth of total . widely from,less than 10 percent in Ha state :, intergovernmental, expenditure.' waii and New Hanipshire to more than Some of such distributive payments were 50 percent in New York, During the past made by all States except four (Alaska, two decadel there has been a considerable Hawaii, Montana, and West Virginia). decline in. the number of States devoting The per capita amount was $10 for the either a relatively very high or very low median State and ranged up "to more than percentage of their total general expendi ?20 in -Iowa, Michigan, North Dakota, ture to distributive payments. Oregon, and Wisconsin. The bulk of all state intergovernmental The total amount of $1,079 pillion expenditure, as Tables 3 and 4 show, is shown under "Miscellaneous and com made available to help finance particu- bined" in Table 4 includes $141 million . larly designated functions or activities. In .for hospitals, $83 million for housing and 196,8 only §1,993 million, or^9.1 percent urban renewal, $80 million for libraries, of the total, was provided without such and scattering amounts for other funCr- functiona:l designation—i.e., on terms that tions and .combined ot. unallocable pur made funds available for "general local poses. :. government support/' There are five In Table 5, state aid amounts are shown* -States with no .distributive progi"ams of separately for the severar types of local . this kind, and thirteen other States in governments which are distinguished in which only a nominal amount (less than Census Bureau reporting. The 1967 Cen 12.00 per capita) was thus made available sus study, .State.Payments to Local Gov fin 1968. Oh the other hand, general.sup ernments, presented a cross classification port grants are highly significant in a of intergovernmental expenditure, by f' r" number of States, equaling in 1968 $78 States, in terms of major functional cate- . per capita in Wisconsin, $39 per capita in gories and the various types of recipient Minnesota, $34 per capita in Massachu local governments. setts, $24 per capita in Arizona and New York, and between $10 and $20 per capita . iNDivmuAL STATE DETAIL in eight other States. .^ The concluding portion of the 1967 Grants for education make up a major, Census report cited aboVe provides a sum proportion of all state payments to local mary textual description of the distribu governments, in most individual States as tive programs of each.of th^ fifty state well as in the Nation as a whole. How governments, as authorized for fiscal 1967. ever, there is Vide variety in the scale of, For many of the state aid items shown, such state distributions. They ranged in the description will also make evident the 1968 from more than $100~per capita in source of financing; involved,.This is the Delaware, New Mexico, and New York, case, for example, with regard to alloca-"^ down to less than $15 per ciEipita iii. Ha tions of particular earraarJ^ed taxes, and waii, Nebraska, and New Hampshire. (In gran.t'items that are payable distinctively Ha^vaii, h'owever, the state government di- M)m federally provided ^funds. However,. , rectly administfersand finances the public school system.) '. ' •• , *The 14 States are California, Colorado, Indi- . ana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, In the Nation as a whale, public wel Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, fare ranks second to education as a state- Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyomihg. A more com aided function. It accounted in 1968 for plete picture of the diverse patterns of state gov-; ernment expenditure (direct and intergovern Y about one-sixth of all .state payments to mental) for public Avelfare purposes is^provided local governments. This.record'is domi- by Table 9 of the Biireau of the Census report, . . nated,. however, by fourteen States in State Government Finances in 1968. A::.-V.' r^ \- INTERGOVEJ^NMEUTAL RELATIONS fsi it is often impossible to associate a pjirtic- provisions are numierous gradations and ular distributive program with some spe combinations of methods. Thus, a speci cific financing source. This is most obvi fied share of some revenue sbtJPceTliay be ous for a grant payable from a state authorized for a particular fiscal aid pro^ "general y£und" that is fed by numerous gram, but with the total sum for the cur- . revenue sources. An intermediate situa-^ rent period limited also by a specific- tion involves aid payable'from a special amount appropriation. Again, a definite fund which in turn is fed by twQ or more amount may be appropriated as ;amaxi- Earmarked revenue sources. Where the miim, subject to reduction by the opera-, main components of such multiple-source tion of a distributive formula or by ad funds could be readily ascertained and ministrative action. . briefl-y stated (e.g., "highway-user-reve The basis for determining individual nue") they- are often mentioned in the governments' shares of a particular grant description: of, the distributive pyrogram or shared tax are also extremely varied. concerned. Also, items financed in part The term "shared tax" has sometimes from federal resources are commonly been ap^ied strictly to specified portions. described as payable from "state and fed of state" taxes distributed, back to-local eral funds." In many of the latter in governments of origin without restriction stances, the text also shows the amount as to use. On the other hand, some aid of related revenue received from the fed thus distributed on a source basis is lim eral government during fiscal 1967. These ited to particular functions or purposes.^ features of the presentation provide back • More, generally, aid for the support of ground abqiit the financing of many in specific local government'^functioris is dis dividual grant items, biit they do not. af tributed with reference to some measiire ford a basis for comprehensive clasfifica- of local need or activity—for example, for tion of all state intergovernmental ex education, school-age population, enroll penditure by source of financihg. ment or attendance, or actual local ex- ^, penditiire; for "highways, miles of roiids, STATE AID FORMULAS number of vehicles, or particular local Particular programs of state aid to local requirements; for rpub,Iic welfare proi- governments involve various m^ans by grams, actual or estimated local expendi- . which (a) the total amount available for ture. •'•'•.:.'/ a particular fiscal year or biennium is A broad measure of need finds expres established; and (b) the shares payable to sion in formulas based on local popula various individual governments are de tion and applied to the distribution of termined. money for general local government sup- . - The amount of some items of state in port. . • tergovernmental expenditure is set by a: For many aid programs using a mea-, specific appropriation of such a nature sure of local, need, somg^standard of local tJtiat a particular total sum named will be financial ability or effort is also applied, distributed without reduction or change. aiming at a degree of "equalization" as At the other' extreme are aid items, between relatively poor and more pros whose total amount is not explicitly de perous local units. A contrasting principle termined or even limited.in advance. One is applied where a "floor" is pr6vided in . example of this type is the distribution terms "of a rninimum amount of aid pay of a specified share of some particular able to each.local government unit in state revenue source, with the actual cur volved. Finally, some .aid programs pro- >. rent amount of aid determined by the vide an identical amount to all local units yield of that source, Another example is of a particular type. » the "open-end", authorization of whatever' amount is needed to meet the require INTERSTATE COMPARISONS ments of a particular distributive for Tables 2 to 5 afford a basis lor compar mula. « ing amounts of aid to local governments Between the absolutely fixed, and. the provided by individual States. It. is iaii completely indeterminate types of aid portant that such Comparisons take ade- 282 THE BOOK OF THE, ST A TES qiiate account of the aid concept em Hasty conclusions and interpretations tr ployed and of the great variations which . therefore must be avoided in this area. exist in the pattern of state-lofcal responsi Intei^tate comparisons can be made only bility for particular governmental func with caution and, usually, some qualifica tions throughout the Nation. Thus, State tion. A^directly provides public schools, local Additional det-af^on state intergovern highways "or public assistance; State B mental expenditure in. fisjcal 1967, includ- grants to its local governments funds for iAg a descrip)tive table covering all the locarperformance of these functions un- . major state aid programs in that fiscal der state supervision. Total cost to each year, appears in State Payments to Local State, may be siinilar, although involving Governments (Volume 6. No. 4,'of the a different form of state expenditure. 1967 Census of Governments). \ r- ••\, ,. (>'- ;•• •,, •, .•_;.:'..v •; .TABLE'l-'-' . .''V-^ •:'...• ••;••- •.•'•.• SUMNIARY OF .STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT?: 1942-1968* '.::., .• • ••• V\ . Total state payments to "./ • - -. local g(v:rnmenis Amount in millions r • \ As percent of • . c For specif ted' purposes total general 1 For general revenue of. • 1 • r » local govern All other ' stat^ . Fiscal year. • .Total ment support Total- Schools Highways (a) Per capita gmiTrnmenls 1941:...... i...... $ 1.780 t 224 $ 1,556 •$ 790 $.344 $ 422 $ 13.37 34.7 ,• 1944.. 1.84'2- 274 , 1,568 861 ' 298 409 13.95 33.7 357 . . 1,735 953 339 443 15.05 \ 33.3 * * 1948 r ;..... 3.283 428 . 2.855. • 1,554 . 507 794 22.64 - 35.5 19SQ...... 4,217 ,. . 482 . 3.735 2,054 .. 610 1,071 28.11 37.4 1951...... 4.678 513 4,165 • 2,248 667 1.250 . 30.78 3^.7 549 4,495 2.525 728 . 1,244 32.55 37-.6 1953...... 5,384 592 ,4,971 2,740 803 1,248 34.19 •37.1' 1954 .;...... 5.679 660 5,079 2,934 871 1,273 35.42. 37.1- 1955...... -..• 5.986 591 5,.395 3.154 911 1,330 36.62 37.0 vr 1956...... 6,538 631 5.907. ' 3,541 984 1,382 . 39.28 • 35.6 1957...... 7,439 668 6,771 4,212 1.083 1,476 43.86 36.5 1958.. ;...... 8,089 687 7,402 4,598 l,l6r 1>637 46.76 . 37.2 1959...... ;.. 8,689 . , 725 ; • 7,964 • 4,957 1.207 1,800 49.37 35.5 i960...... • 9,443. J 806 •8.637 , 5.461 1,247 l-.9?9 /52.75 34.5 . 1961 ;. 10,114 821 9,293 5,963 1.266 2.064 ^5.51 35.2 1962...... 10,906 844 ' 10,062 1 6,474 1,326 . 2.262 58.94 35.0 1963...... ' 11,885. 1,012 10.87i •', 6,993 • J ,416' 2,464 63.31 35.1 1964 ....;.: . 1,053 11.915' 7.664 1.524 2,727 68.06 • ^4.4 1965...;;...... 14.174 1.102 13,072 8.351 1,630. 3.091 73.43 34.6 1,361 15,567 . 10,177 1.725 3,665 . 86.79 36.2 1967 19.056 1,585 17,474i^ ,. 11.845 1,861 3,765 96.70 36.6 1968...... 21.950 1,993 . 19.957?f?5w^2^21 2.029 4,606 110.27 37.1 *5o«r<:e.-.Bureau of the Census. State Payments to Local Gov- . (a) Principally public wclfaTe. ernments (Volume 6, No. 4, of the 1967 Census of Governments) and annual'lepoit. State Government Finances. «-«•,• #v- INrTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 283 • \ ••..•'• •;• • • • • • •* -••• • TABLE T • . :":-~' ' ,.'• STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE BY STATE: . 1957 TO 1968* ''i . ~ • ' .•, • • '• , •. • • , • > . Percent increase in per capita amount Amount (in thousands of dollars) Per capita antounl 1967 1962- 19S7 > to to to ;. State JP All States $21,949,685 $19,056,380 $10,906,400 $7,439,321 $110.27 $96.70 $58.94 $43,88 ' 14.0 64.1 34.3 --•••• • • • - • • • • • • r • Median State , • 86.64 77.25 ' 49.15 38.02 12.2 .63,2 29.3 317,378 292,510 164,425 136,691 '' 89.00 82.62 48.97 43.05 7.7 68.7 13.'8. Alaska...;.... 32.186 28,523 14;217. (7,531)(a) 116.19 104.86 57.79 (33.03)(a). 10.8 81.5 (75.0)(a) *SouTC$: Bureau of the Ceriaus, Slate Paymertts to Local Gov exhibit data, not included in totals for "All States." ernments (Volume 6, No. 4, of the 1967 Censua of Governments) (b) Not.computed; amounts involved are not directly com- maA annvuil Tcpon,. Slate Government Finances. . parable. •" •'.••. Vv (a) Alaska and Hawaii fisurea appear here for 1957 only as .y 284 THE BOOK OF THE STATES .'..••-• -TABLE-3 •; '••.•.;. %, PER CAPITA STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTION AND BY STATE: 1968* * . specified functions ,1 .*• , • General. r •'• • ^ •r-- Iccal , Miscellaneous government • I •'•Public and Stale Total support Education Highways •welfare combined All States. '$110.27. $10.01 $66.92 $10.19 $17.72 $ 5.42 • . Median State...... ; 86.64 ;. 4.75 • 64.27 8.00 (a) 3-.61 Alabama 89.00 2.43 68.74''. 13.31 4.52 '' Alaska ... .• ' 116.19 9.83 90.27 • 16.09 Arizona . 105.97 24.43 67.64 11.84 2.06 Arkansas...... :. 79.11 ' 4.13 59.29 12>99 .01 2.68. CaUfornia.. 170.95 8.19 79.76 •17.77 53.94 . fl,29 Colorado 104.79 .13 48.95 . 12.93 38.09 . 4.70 Connecticut .- . ._• • • 56.99 .75- • 48.40 2.84 . 1.81 3.20 Delav.are. .H^ " 128.75 122.12 \ 3.85 ...... 2.78 florida 80.34 .20 72.44 2.97 . ' 4.74 Georgia . 89.35 72.26 1,1.20. • 2.54 3.35 Hawaii...... 24.33 14.69 5.66 3.98 Idaho.., 79.12 4.88 57.88 15.55 .81 IIHnols... 74.07 47.05 15.89 8.40 •• .2.73 Indiana. :.. .. 97.80 8.98 • 58.88 16.42 11.11 2.41 Iowa.. 107.04 16.43 63.95 24.27 .60 1.80 Kansas 94.98 4.74 : 53.52 6.59 27.88 2.25 Kentucky , 70.98 .48 • 65.49 , .94 4.08 Louisiana.... 118.14 19.94 . 86.81 0.47 4.91 Maine.. ;.. 46.'JO .53 40.02 3.21 . .65 2.49 '. Maryland 128.95'' 13.81 . , 67.?S 13.05 24.45 9.77 Massachusetts. 13)5.39 33.66 36.77 2.44- . 55.00 10.52 Michigan •...;.... 117.90 14.96. 76.23 20.39 2.47 3.86 Minnesota 166:79 39.40 75.63 14.39 33.23 4.13 Mississippi...... '....;... 95.31 . 6.94, 69.78 13.95 • 4.64 Missouri. . -. :. .C 60.9.6 1.26' 53.88 4:25 .19 • 1.38, r Montana 63.57 57.88 1.02 4.66 .. Nebraska ... 61.13 .86 14.^)2 15.73 27.85 2.12 , Nevada ' 121.20 - 14.52 91.50 : . 11.11 4.07 . New Hampshire 21.61. .4.75 14.38 :73 • .09 . . "1.64 : New Jersey. •• 69.64 ' .. 1.52 . 40.60 2.02 20.42 5.09 ••; New Mexico. 140.04 4.34 126.55 5.69 3.46 New York 21.?:27 24.08 ' .105.25 6.85 64.13 12.96 North Carolina .--112.48 4.94 . 85.68 •• 1.94 . 17.09 2.83 North Dakota 79.87 2.28 52.69 20:42 1.38 • 3.11. Ohio.-...... '..,, 72.34 7.60 41.60. 16^00 5.40. 1.74 .'••!;' • • • • ' ^ . \ Oklahoma.....: 76.17 1.05 54.74 0 18-92 1.46 Oregon. .., 99.00 18.67 57.57 . 20.25 .79. 1.73 • Pennsylvania 82.68 .53 . 68.26 5.52 2.64 5.74 Rhode Island 57.80 7.93 42.62 , .42 6.49 .34 South Carolina. .... ,. 81.70 7.58 66.22 . 3.82 4.08 South Dakota ... 43.61 2.99 • 31.68 3.83 ' . .17 4.95 . Tennessee. ..-....'. .- 78.67 5.92 56.88- 13.29 .04 2.55 . Texas...... ;:... 68.03 .01 - 65.57 .70 . 1.75 Utah... 101.58 .97 .. 93.27 4.32 . . • • f 3.02 Vermont.. ..;. 81.20 .02 62.97 . . 13.27 • 1.19 .' 3.74 Virginia... 84.28 3.03 . 64.58 3.83 . 9.54 * . 3.30 Washington 125..13 10.22 91.36 . 14.57 1.35 . 7.84 West Virginia..; 74.32 ' 70.93 1.24 • .2; 15 Wisconsin.. r..'. " 168.04 •77.55 . 47.47 21.89 13.97 7.16 Wyoming.....:...'. ... 113.50 7.75 77.56 9.15 14.25 4.79 'Source: Burt-au of the Ccnsuo, State Government Finances in . . . Represents zero or rounds to zero, 1968. . ;. . . . (a) Not computed. . INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ' ; * 285 /~ ". -TABLE 4^. . STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE BY FUNCTION / AND BY STATE: 1968* ' , (In thousands of dollars) -t '• General • Specified functions . -• •. local * ' . . % govern Miscellaneous ment Public and State " ' ,. . Total support . Education Highways - velfare combined f All States.. .1 .1... . $21,949,685 / $1,992,747 . $13,321,275 $2,029,264 ., $3,527,154 $1,079,245 Alabama .1 ..... 317.378 8.652 2-^,127 47,472 i6.1f7 Alaska ;.. ., 32.1'86 2,724 . 25.006 4.456 Arizona.. ..;... 176,966 • 40,804 ..112.951 "i9,777 3.434 V.i.:. 159,173 • 8.314 119,296 26.140 '" "24 5.399 157.346 1,533.141 341,596 1,036,782 217.024(a) •A •: • • Colorado .... hi.'.; 214v620 264 100.255 26.482 78,001 9,618 Connecticut...;. .1..;.,.. 168,648i 2,216 143,228 8,395 5.348 . 9.461 Delawate.' ...I;', V--..' 68.753 65,212 2,058 1.483 Florida...... 1.5.',^ 494.913 " 1.229 446.215 18.283 29.186 Georgia ,..!. Hawaii..;...... l..!?Jl 18,926 11.427 4.400 3.099 Idaho. :.]... ^W i 55.783 .3.439 40.808 ' lO.^ii 573 Illinois....;...... ,. ...i J; ' 812.831 • 516.344 174.355 92.155 29.948 Indiana. ...1...;, 'A ••• 495,542 .45.491 298,328 83.217^ • 56,304 ' 12.202 Iowa...... l....t'' •: 294.137 : 45.138 175,7.28 66,693^ 1.645. . , 4.933 Kansas.^.. .t..!... \n • V- 218,748 ' 10,923 123.258 15.176 64,214 5.177 /--Kentucky 1. .. i\\ V 229.209 1,555 211.463 , 3,026 13.165 74.428 323,991 24.132 18,338 Maine '•; 45,915 518 • 39.183 3.142 633 . 2,439 . 51.896 254.920 • • 49,047 91.869 . 36;722 , Massachusetts.. I.. 15 752,430 182,998 199,919 13.261 299.058 • 57,194 Michigan... .. ; 1,030,418 .130.732 666,212 . ><.178,187 21.547 33,740 143,666 • 275;763 ' 52.457 121.172 15,066 Mississippi •.. ;. fey223.210 16.24SV 163,434- 32,673 10,858 Missouri •.... y. 282,056 • 5.844" 249,280 19.657 883 6.392 - Montana.... •. •'l • %f 44,054 .40.114 708 •3.232 "'l.23i 21.01.1 "22,606 40.021 3.048 • Nevada. I. '54,965 6,578 41,451 5.031 . 1.845 -New Hampshire. . . : .1. i'15.167, "' .3,336 10.098 • 514 \"''6i 1.154 . (New Jersey 1. 492;9.27 10,769 287,349 . . 14,297' 144.509 36,003 ! New Mexito ;.. J 142.J44 4.401 128,447 • 5.780 3,516 New York\ ; ;''.'.•...... 1 . 3.863,022 436.136 1.906.312 . 124.142 1,161,636 2,34.802 (b) as>- North Carolina...... ' 577.560 .25.357 439,958 9.959 87.732 14.554 North Dakota 49i921. 1.422 32.929 12.760- : 865 1,945 Ohio. ..^..... 766;i70;:-: 80,479. 440.595 .169,442 . 57,229 18.425 191,801 V 2,643 137,842 . ,47.644 a:672 Oregon. .*... • 198.797 ,' . 37.490 115.598 (40,658 1.577 J.474. . Pennsylvania. 968.391 ^S U 6,168 799.412 '' 64,652 30.955 • 37,204 Rhode Island.. 52.773-,?- ••: • ' 7.242. ,, -38,912 386 . 5,926 307 South Carolina...... ,219.928 •': .;; 20.4 is • 178.263 10.270 10,977 South Dakota, 28,655 le i^- 1,966 20.812 2.516 112 3,249 - Tennessee 312.804 -iV-'- 23.533 226.139 52,846 164 .10.122 . Texas ..... 746,433 • - M'y.. -128' 719.404 . 7,646 19,255^ Utah .:...... ;.. 105,034 1,000. 96.445 4,467 3.122 • Vermont 34.265 • 26,573 . 5.601 ." " 564 US80 Virginia • 387,456 ••. VI 3.942 296-.897 17.612 '43.852 15.153 Washington 410.597 • •:^';33;494 ' 299.285 ,•47,718 4,422 25.678 West Virginia . . 134.151 128,028 2.241 3,882 .• Wisconsin 7(57,942 , '326,717 199.985 '92.236 ^ 58,859 .. 30.145 Wyoming. j : 35.7S3 ;:v'2.441 24.432 2.883 4.488 l;509 *Source: Bureau of the Census, State Government Finances in (b) Includes $50,557,000 housing subsidies, almost entirely to 196S. cities. • (a) Includes $97,658,00^ distribution of motor vehicle'license i?. , fees to cities. %. I •K- - '.r* 286 . - THE BOOK OF THE STATES ^ ,•..'..._, \='' \ •,-..; ' •-•..,.,••.• *'[•':"• '-TABLES.. '• , ••'" .•-'•.•• vf: STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE BY TYPE OF. / J RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AND BY STATE: 1968* . ,, • (In thousands of dollars) ' Tofwnihip! .' ,(^- \ and .. . Combined Munici- 'School New England Special and ' StaU Total Coiitities polities ctistricts "towns" districts • unallocable. All.Statea...... $21,949,685 '$5,229,218 '$4,063,815 $10,420,177 $327,954 $149,062 $1,759,459 Alabama : 317,378 63,270 8,868 245,127 113 Alaska. 32.186 22,006 10,180 ; Arizona, .. .. 176.966 40,049 23,281 112,951 ,"270 415 Arkansas.. 159.173 21,208 18.815 118,951 162 37 California...... 3,285,889 1.356.589 367.465 'l'S50(5,671 55.037 127 Colorado...... : 214.620 75.848 37.842 100.255 481 194 Connecticut...... 168.648 66.474 729 101,323 122 Delaware..., 68.753 • • 58 5.367 63,318 10 Florida...... 494.913 '39.890 451 ' 446.215 8,007 350 Georgia 409,926 55,190 17.288 331.466 5,982 Hawaii.'f;....: 18,926 10.451 8.475 Idaho .; 55.783 11,117 3.858 40.808 . Illinois...... 812.831 ,132.103 84.311 . 513.954 18,804 17,452 46.207(a) Indiana.'...: .. 495,542 142.653 49.015 295.641 1,4 IS 6,817 , Iowa..... 294.137 51.080 24.817 175.728 ,• 762 41,750 .1 >. • • OV Kansas ;.'....,. 218,748 82.122 11,914 121.258 1,365 536 1,553 • Kentucky...... '... 229,209 14.665 5.987 207.201 163 1.193 , Louisiana. 440.889 i27,220 28.118 321.396 . 4,772 59,383 Maine ^. 45.915 192 60 1.528 44,135 Maryland...... 484.454 291,727 190.264 2.46J Massachusetts;..... • 752.430 •2,802 '1,251 30,591. 717.786(b) Michigan.. 1,0.W.418 152.316 153.442' «66.212 35,151 71 23,226 "Minnesota...... ^8.124 176.632 23.725 . 275,763 1,610 78? 129:605 Mississippi... 223.210 54:731 4.964 163.434 r 81- Missouri...... ;.. 282.056 .9,663 19,542 . 249.152 /• •.•••• l'.5Sl7 , 2,112 Montana ,44,054 2,788 • 640 40,114 512 Nebraska:.;...... :87.911 60.560 5.218 > 21,011 •574 . 548 Nevada 54.905 8.563 . 4,860 . 41,-451 31 New Hampshire. ... 15.167 91 2.069 2.894 • 3- io,ii6 New Jersey. .v.. 492,927 . 175.693 35..106(c) •(d) ,(c) 513 281,615(d) X New Mexico. . .-. lai..' 142.144 8.6p.l 5.011 128,447 11 74 New York.'.'. ... 3.863,022 527.810 2.046.819 1,229,152 56.910 . 46 2,285 North Carolina 577.560 554.6.32 22,465 . / 1 . 462 North Dakota 49,921 13.227 3;787 32,767 140 Ohio. .; ...;.. 766,170 155.941 85,316 426,512 21.019 s'.qio 74,312 (a), Oklahoma. 191,801 42.672 10.283 "137,740 ••I.. 349 75'7.- Oregon.. . 198.797 70.953 • 16.712 110.896 236 • .» . • Pennsylvania 968,391 51.318 63,342 799,412 • 33.38(5 9,189 ir,744. r Rhode Island. 52.773 30.893 1.288 20.3J6 276 ' South Carolina. 219.928 33.554 7.991 . . 178.263 120 S-' *South iT^kota. . 28,655 4.061 1.628 20.812 2.078 - Tennessee... 312.804 176.727 126.149 3.228 76 6,700*. „Texas 746.433 16.005 7.609 716.716 3,569 2,534 . • Utah...... 105.034 4.706 3.323 96.445 103 457 Vermont 34.265 . 2,054 26.573 5,(S38 Virginia...... ;.,.. 387,456, 226.096 161,322 •38 Washington.;;.;... 410,597 56.908 53,862 298,706 597 524 C»'- West Virginia.. 134.151 5.449- 667 128,028 T Wisconsin • 707,942 190.862 198,084 426 29,462 289.168(6) WyOmijjg. 35.753. 8.419 .2.831 . 24.432 "n • *Sourct: Bureau of the Censua, StaU Government Finances in (d) Amounts for independent school districts and for schools 1968. operated by cities and towns are shown under "Combined and ' (a) Mainly to counties, cities, and township*. ,, unallocable." ' .• ' . ' (b) To cities and "towns.", ' ' •; • (e) Includes amounts to independent school districts and to (c) Amount for ci (?^