[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
7y Coastal Zone information Center 0) P 404"A'58, INEVELOIDA11TANT IN 4114A 40 A S"I'A IA 1,A41111SHANA '0' A S" 40 (A 141 = 13 CA 41 N OtR I CA A% I I A 4, 1 A4 T A S" S' EA S' S' X% 13 N F I I 7P,-Mr J77 I HD FOR THE LOUISIANA STATE PLANNING OFFICE BY 9567 0 0 -L8 M 's t I 14 11 e 6 %1 111 %stol tip te L68 1977 ir"ty of new orleansm 11 sk I 7qy OCS DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL LOUISIANA: q A SOCIOq-6qECONOMqIC !IMPACT ASSESSMENT Lq2 by r2qey, ir., AIP <4 Anthony J. Mumph Assoc. Prof. of Urban and Regional Planning Project Director A Ralph E. Thayer, AIP John K. Wildgen Di0qr. , Urb. S-tudies I4qnst. & Assoc. P4qr8qo-.qE. Prof. of Political Science Fredrick W. Wagner, AIP Alma H. Young Asst. Prof. of U2qfb. & Peg. Planning Research Associate Jane S. Brooks, Assoc. AqIP Gino D. Carlucci-, Assoc. AIP Res. Assoc. & Inst0qr. of U2qfb. 2q& Peg. Plan. Research Associate Cvnthia 2qB. Fromher0qz, Assoc. AqIP Martha J. Landry, Assoc. AIP q6qmiqcqku4qate Re-searcq1a 6q1q@:sqi2qsiqca0qnt Gr4qaqcqtiate Research Asqsqiqsta0qnt, John C. Killer Thomas F. Whalen, Jr Gra(q,0qUqata Research Assistant Gra0qd4qm'lte 6qPq,-qsearcqh Assistant Urban Studies Institute University of New Orleans A 3111embe_q- of the Louisiana State University System The p4qrepa.ratqio0qn of this report was financed in par-, "L through a. grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, This study was completed under Contract- Number 6qSPqO-77-21 Louisiana State Planning Office Patrick W Ryan, Execut.-*v0qe Director qS - q6qEPAqR1'qMEN7 OF CqOMqMEqR1q2F C0qi AqSIAq@q_ q@,IERVICEqS (q"ENTqEE-F 36qN36qOTI 36qC32qE 32qP04qr6qO8qVqOqrtY Of C08qSC Library A 4qv 4qE 0qN Ili D5 6qS 8q2 Jq.q1, qA2qh6qi04qs document- q4Aq.4qS disseminated under the sponsorship of the Louisiana State Planning Office in be interest of ii6qnf00qor- matio00qn ex4qe2qtange. The State of Louisiana assumes no liab4qilitq-32qy for its co4qntenq'q.q-s or qI.q-h0qe use thereof. AUGUST 1q-q9 q44q-7 PREFACE It is obvious to anyone who has visited the area and studied the state that outercontinental shelf oil and gas development activity has had broad social and economic impacts on coastal Louisiana. This study quantifies those impacts in terms of economic production, jobs, population, and public service costs. Related topics concerning the federal Coastal Energy Impact Program, the additional costs of urban development in wetlands (compared to natural drylands), local planning capabilities in the coastal zone and citizen involvement in coastal planning are also discussed. in presenting this expanded information, this study is directed toward facilitating planning for an increase as well as a decrease in OCS activity and its impacts on Louisiana. The Louisiana Information Processing Authority provided the computerized Louisiana Input-Output Model which was used to estimate Louisiana production, by economic sector, due to OCS activity (Chapter 2). Mr. Steve Zerangue of that agency was extremely helpful in facilitatin- the use of the model. Mr. James Verges of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided valuable back- ground information on the Coastal Energy Impact Program (Chapter 4), and Mr. Charles Melancon and his staff at the South Central Planning and Development Commission were very cooperative in supplying information needed for the section on local planning (Chapter 6). The authors wish to thank these people and all the other persons at public and private agencies who helped in the preparation of this study. AJM,Jr. August 'j-977 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. ABSTRACT OF THE STUDY ......................... 1 2. ESTIMATING OCS RELATED COASTAL ZONE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION ..................... 5 INTRODUCTION .................................. 5 INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS ......................... 5 METHODOLOGY ................................... 9 TABLE A.1--Louisiana Input-Output Model Industry Sector Number and Title ........... 27 TABLE A.2--Parish Share of State Employment (SiP) by Sector Group for Various Years .... 32 TABLE A.3--Total Output Due to Louisiana OCS Activity, by Sector Group, by Parish, for Various Years in Dollars, OiP .............. 43 TABLE A.4--Employment Due to Louisiana OCS Activity, by Sector Group, by Parish, for Various Years, Eip ..................... 66 3. PUBLIC SERVICE EXPENDITURES 1N THE COASTAL ZONE .................................. 91 INTRODUCTION .................................. 91 EDUCATION ..................................... 91 HIGHWAYS ...................................... 92 POLICE PROTECTION ............................. 92 FIRE PROTECTION ............................... 98 WATER SUPPLY .................................. 98 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL .......................... 98 SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE ......................... 106 HEALTH AND HOSPITALS .......................... 106 PARKS AND RECREATION .......................... 106 US CONCLU IONS ................................... 113 14. THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF CEIP AND OCS RELATED DEVELOPMENT ......................... 0. 119 INTRODUCTION .................................. 119 BASIS FOR 'FINANCING LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS ........ 121 CAPITAL I.MPROVEMENTS--A CASE ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY ............................ 123 DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL iMPLICATIONS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT .................... 127 POSSIBLE FORMULAS FOR ALLOTMENT OF CEIP FUNDS .................. o... 131 Formula A--Population Based ................ 131 Formula B--OCS Employment based ............ 131 CHAPTER PAGE ANALYSIS OF FORMULAS .......................... 131 Formula Grants ............................. 131 Credit Assistance .......................... 138 NEEDS ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA'S COASTAL PARISHES ...................................... 138 Introduction ............................... 139 Fiscal Capacity ............................ 141 EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS .......................... 144 NEW PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............ 147 CEIP FUNDING IN LOUISIANA ..................... 149 The State Role--Local Role Question ........ 149 Existing Conditions ........................ 153 The State Incentives ....................... 154 THE FORMULA GRANTS ............................ 157 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................ 158 5. ADDITIONAL COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IN WETLAND ENVIRONMENTS ........... 165 INTRODUCTION .................................. 165 COSTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .............. 166 Stages of Development and the Associated Costs ............ 167 Stage 1--Apply for Corps Of**E*n*g*in*e*e*r*s**'** Permit ......................... 167 Stage 2--Build Levee .................... 167 Stage 3--Obtain Loan and Purchase Land.. 170 Stage 4--Drain Site ..................... 170 Stage 5--Clear Site ..................... 170 Stage 6--Fill Site ...................... 171 Stage 7--Submit Plan for Approval ....... 174 Stage 8--Layout of Site ................. 175 Stage 9--Lay Utilities .................. 175 Stage 10- Fill and Grade Roadbeds and Build Streets... 177 Stagell- Fill and Grade Lots ............ 178 Stage 12- Obtain Building Permit ......... 178 Stage 13- Drive Piles .................... 178 Stage 14- Lay Foundation ................. 179 Stage 15- Build Structure ................ 179 Stage 16- Lay Sidewalks, DIriveways, Etc. . 179 Stage 17-Collect and Dispose of Sewage, Storm Water, and Solid Waste... 180 HOMEOWNER COSTS IN WETLANDS ENVIRONMENTS ...... 181 Subsidence Costs ........................... 181 Flood Insurance Costs ...................... 184 PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................... 193 PUBLIC MAINTENANCE COSTS ...................... 196 CONCLUSIONS ................................... 199 APPENDIX 5.1--Alternative Wetlands Reclamation Methods ........................ 200 (iv) CHAPTER PAGE 6. EVALUATION OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COASTAL ZONE PLANNING IN LOUISIANA ............ 207 INTRODUCTION .................................. 207 EVALUATION .................................... 0-8- RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 216 CONCLUSION ............... 221 APPENDIX 6.1--Coastal Louisiana Municipalities With Populations Greater Than 5,000 ........ -2-2 APPENDIX 6.2--Planning Agency Questionnaire ... 223 APPENDIX 6.3--Responding Planning Agency Expenditures and Staff ..................... 224 7. GUIDELINES FOR CREATING A CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ........................... 227 INTRODUCTION ..................... 227 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF PARTICIPATION..... 228 General Discussion ......................... 229 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE .......... 231 BASIC COMPONENTS OF A CITIZEN IN;76L*V'E*M*E*N'T'* ... , PROGRAM ...... 234 Keeping 235 Identifying Affected Publics ............... 236 Mechanisms for Eliciting Citizen Input ..... 246 Governmental Accountability ................ 249 IM1PORTANT VARIABLES FOR DESIGNING LOCAL CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS .................. 251 Characteristics of the Local Community ..... 251 Resources of the Agency .................... 252 CONCLUSION ............................. 253 APPENDIX 7.1--Louisiana Coastal Corrnission Members - 1976 ............................. 260 APPENDIX 7.2--Categories for CZM Local Advisory Committees ........................ 26-0 APPENDIX 7.3--Citizen Involvement Program ..... 264 (v) INDEX TO FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 2.1 Intersector Flow Matrix ....................... 7 2.2 Louisiana Total Production Due to OCS Related Activity .............................. 17 2.3 Methodology for Computing OCS Related Population by Parish .......................... 20 2.4 Louisiana Coastal Zone Total Employment Due to OCS Related Activity ................... 21 4.1 Coastal Energy Impact Program: Primary CP and Secondary Funding Sources ................. 120 4.2 Intrastate Allotment Schemes .................. 152 5.1 Costs of Urban Development .................... 168 5.2 Proposed Repair Reporting Form for Wetlands-Related Damages ...................... 197 5.1.1 (APPENDIX 5.1--Alternative Wetlands Reclamation Methods) Wet Method ............... 201 5.1.2 (APPENDIX 5.1) Modified Wet Method ............ 201 5.1.3 (APPENDIX 5.1) Wet Method with Additional Fill ........................................... 201 5.1.4 (APPENDIX 5.1) Modified Fill Method ........... 202 5.1.5 (APPENDIX 5.1) Fill Method .................... 202 6.1 Louisiana State Planning District 3 ........... 2C9 6.2 Coastal Louisiana Planning Operation Scheme ... 220 7.1 Citizen Involvement Process ................... 256 (vi) INDEX TO TABLES TABLES PAGE 2.1 Value of Production from Louisiana OCS 11 2.2 Louisiana State Production Due to OCS Activity by Sector Group, (0i) ................ 14 2.3 Dollar Per Employee (Mi) by Sector Group and Year for Louisiana ........................ 18 2.4 Implicit Price Deflators ...................... 19 2.5 Population Per Employee by Parish (PP), 1967, 1972, and 1974 ................................ 22 2.6 Employment and Population in Louisiana Coastal Parishes Due to OCS Activity, 1967.... 23 3.1 1972 State and Local Education Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...... 93 3.2 1972 Education Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............................... 94 3.3 1972 Highway Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ....................... 95 3.4 1972 Highway Expenditures for the OCIS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............................... 96 3.5 1972 Police Protection Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............. 97 3.6 1972 Police Protection Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ....................... 99 3.7 1972 Fire Protection Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............. 100 3.8 1972 Fire Protection Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............................... 101 3.9 1972 Water Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ....................... 102 (vii) TABLES PAGE 3.10 1972 Water Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish .................................... 103 3.11 1972 Solid Waste Disposal Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ........ 104 .3.12 1972 Solid Waste Disposal Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...................... 105 3.13 1972 Sewerage and Drainage Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ........ 107 3.14 1972 Sewerage and Drainage Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...................... 108 3.15 1972 State and Local Health and Hospital Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish .............................. 109 3.16 1972 Health and Hospital Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...................... 110 3.17 1972 State and Local Parks and Recreation Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish .............................. ill 3.18 1972 Parks and Recreation Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...................... 112 3.19 1972 State and Local Expenditures in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............ 114 3.20 1972 State and Local Expenditures for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...................... 115 3.21 1972 State and Local Revenues in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ............ 116 3.22 1972 State and Local Revenues for the OCS Related Population in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, by Parish ...................... 117 (viii) TABLES PAGE 4.1 South Central Parish Water Projects Relative to Bonding Capacity ................. 4.2 South Central Parish Sewer Projects Relative to Bonding Capacity ................. 126 4.3 Debt Analysis of South Central Louisiana Parishes ..................................... 128 4.4 Analysis of OCS Population in Coastal Louisiana, 1972 .............................. 132 4.5 Distribution of CEIP Funds to Coastal Parishes Based on OCS Population ............. 133 4.6 Analysis of OCS Employment in Louisiana, 1972 ......................................... 134 4.7 Distribution of CEIP Funds to Coastal Parishes Using OCS Employment Formula ........ 135 4.8 Difference in Distribution of Formula Grants Using Two Formulas .................... 136 4.9 Differences in Distribution of CEIP Credit Assistance Using Two Formulas ................ 137 4.10 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures of Louisiana Coastal Parishes, 10-72 ............. 140 4.11 Debt Analysis of Louisiana Coastal Parishes, 1972 ............................... 143 4.12 Per Capita Expenditures for Selected Services in Louisiana Coastal Parishes, 1972. 145 4.13 Comparison of Per Capita Expenditures, 1972.. 146 4.14 Spending Effort, 1972 ........................ 148 4.15 Comparison of Per Capita Expenditures, 1972 ... 1 15 0 4.16 State Interest Subsidies for Balanced State-Local Scheme ........................... 156 (ix) TABLES PAGE 5.1 Summary of Land Development Alternatives and Associated Costs ......................... 172 5.2 Subdivision Regulation Costs in the Coastal Zone ................................. 176 5.3 Costs and Problems Associated with Maintenance of Homes in Areas of Both Organic and Mineral Soils .................... 183 5.4 Repair Items Requiring Additional Homeowner Expense--The Overall Best Estimate of Repair Cost .................................. 185 5.5 FIA Subsidized Rate Table .................... 187 5.6 FIA Zone Rate Table .......................... 189 5.7 FIA Elevation Rate ........................... 192 5.8 Public Improvements Financing ................ 194 6.1 Summary of Expenditures and Staff by Jurisdiction and Population Group, 1976 ...... 210 6.2 Median Salaries of Professional Planners, by Qualifications and Region, 1976 ........... 212 6.3 Range of Salaries at Professional Position Level, by Number of Levels in Agency, 1976 ... 213 6.4 South Central Regional Planning and Develop- ment Commission Expenditures and Staff ....... 214 6.5 South Central Regional Planning and Develop- ment Commission Professional Planner Salaries ..................................... 215 6.6 South Central Regional Planning and Develop- ment Commission Expenditures Needed for Upgrade ...................................... 217 6.7 South Central Planner Salary Allocation ...... 218 7.1 Publics Affected by OCS Activity ............. 239 7.2 Key Issues and Potential Impacts of OCS ...... 243 (x) CHAPTER 1 ABSTRACT OF THE STUDY In the seven chapters which comprise this study, various impacts of outercontinental shelf (OCS) oil and gas development on thT Louisiana coas-Cal zone and related topics are discussed. Chapter 2 deals with the OCS related production, employment, and population impacts. It begins with a discussion of input-output analysis. Louisiana economic sector production related to OCS production for the years 1956, 1959, 1964, 1967, 1972, and 1974 is computed using the Louisiana Input-Output Model. This Louisiana OCS related production is then allocated to the coastal zone parishes, and transformed into employment. From OCS related employment, OCS related parish populations are computed for the years 1967, 1972, and 1974. What are felt to be maximum and minimum estimates of Louisiana OCS related sectoral produc- tion are computed for the years 1972 and 1974 so that the maximum and minimum employment and population estimates due to OCS activity may be presented. Because 1972 was near the peak year 2 for OCS oil and gas production and, therefore, related population, it is used as the basis for computing state and local public service costs for the OCS related populations in the coastal zone parishes. The public service sectors analyzed in Chapter 3 are education, highways, police protection, fire protection, water supply, solid waste The Louisiana coastal zone is made up of all or parts of the following parishes as defined by the State Planning Office's Coastal Resources Program: Ascension, Assumption, Calcasiel.4 Cameron, Iberia, Tberville, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, 3t. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa., Terrebonne, and Vermilion. Because of data availability only on a whole parish basis, this study will use the total areas of the parishes listed above as the coastal zone. The peak year was 1971 according to the New Orleans Cp States-Item of July 10, 1977 (section 1, page 13). disposal, sewerage, health and hospitals, and parks and recreation. Also total expenditures and revenues for all governmental activities for both the entire state and the coastal zone populations are presented. Using the maximum and minimum OCS related population estimates presented in Chapter 2, a range of costs and revenues made up of high and low estimates are computed. It may be argued that because of the state's inability to place a severance tax on OCS oil and gas production, OCS activity and related population have caused public service levels in Louisiana to be less than they could or should be. To improve the quality of public service in the coastal zone, more state and local revenues must be generated. One potential source of increased revenues would be the federal Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) which was designed to mitigate onshore impacts in coastal states of OCS activity. Chapter 4 analyzes local needs, expenditures, and fiscal capabilities. It presents two possible allocation for- mulae for the potential CEIP grants and credit assistance, and the formulae impacts on spending in coastal parishes. This chapter also presents three "intra-state allocation schemes" for obtaining and using the CEIP credit assis- tance (loan guarantees). Finally the relationship between CEIP, Louisiana state and local government expen- ditures, and OCS impacts are discussed. Since the coastal zone's topography is predominantly wetland, the urban development there due to OCS activity (or any other activity) is influenced by the coastal environment. Chapter 5, presents the stages of develop- ment, and the basic problems associated with development in this environment. it also identifies additional costs incurred in both intial wetlands development and continued maintenance of the developed areas (as compared to natural drylands). The material presented considers both the public and private sectors. Since OCS activity directly and indirectly stimulates population changes in environmentally sensitive coastal areas, local areas should have the planning capability to monitor and evaluate the socio-economic and environmental effects of growth or decline and take appropriate action. The task of Chapter 6 is to assess the effectiveness of the planning and management capability of the local governments in Louisiana's coastal zone and recommend potential improvements. Used properly, this assessment 2 can pinpoint areas of probable concern indicating the need for more or different planning/management resources to cope with the energy-related activity. The socio-economic and environmental impacts brought about by OCS activity affect the people of the coastal zone--both new and old residents. It is an accepted notion that people should be involved in planning for their future. Chapter 7 provides a discussion of citizen participation at both the theoretical level and the practical level through an examination of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program's Public Participation Program. A discussion of the basic questions of citizen involvement, the components of a citizen involvement program and means for their accomplishment, and the relationship of questions and components are presented. Rather than developing a specific citizen participation program to be used state-wide, guidelines are formulated to assist planners in creating programs tailored to the needs and characteristics of their local communities and to the budget and time constraints of their agencies. This study, then, considers the impacts, from OCS production through the provision of public services, of OCS development on coastal zone parishes. Associated with these impacts are additional costs of urban develop- ment in a coastal environment, local planning capabilities, and citizen participation in planning. The study is intended to help state and local officials plan for increased or decreased OCS activity with more informa- tional resources at their disposal. 3 CHAPTER 2 ESTIMATING OCS RELATED COASTA T ZONE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION INTRODUCTION The key variable in determining the impact of OCS activity on Louisiana is OCS related population. In this chapter, that population by parish for various years is computed. In accomplishing this, the chapter begins with a general discussion of input-output analysis which is the key tool in the computation methodology. Input- output analysis is used to compute OCS related production for various years in Louisiana by sector. This produc- tion is then allocated to coastal zone parishes, trans- formed into employment, and finally converted into OCS related populat-ion. INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS The input-output framework is a technique developed by Leont-Jef (1951, 1953, 1974), Isard (1960), and others for representing and analyzing a regional or national economy usually in terms of dollar flows. The basis of the 1/0 formulation is the 11intersectoral flow matrix" in which the economy is seen as a set of interdependent producing and consuming sectors. Each sector is repre- sented by a row and a corresponding column in this mat-rix. The total output of each sector i is distributed across all sectors. Hence the equation: Xi = kil + xJ2 + ... + xii + ... + X. + ... + X + Yi ki) Jj in represents the distribution of the total outDu-';-,, X., across all consuming sectors, where x., is the sales from Lsector i to sector 1 xi2 is the sales rom sector i to sector 2, etc. Y- is tLat portion of sector i's output sold to households, government, export and other final demand sectors of the economy. When all sectors of the economy are represented in this format, the following equalCion syst'em results: 5 2qX qx + qx + + X + + X + 2qY q1 q1q1 12 qiqj l4qn q1 X2 qX21 4q' 0qX22 + + 0qx2qj + + x2n + 6qY2 (2) 2qXqi qXqiql + 0qXi2 + + 0qx ij + -''.0q+ xin + 2qYqi 6qXn+ 0qxnl + 0qxn2 + + 0qx nj + ... + 0qxnn + 6qYn This system portrays not only the distribution of the output of each sector, but also the total inputs to each sector. Put simply, the sum (column) of xlj + x2q1 + Y3j + + xiq, + +sxnqj iqs the total of purchases from all sectors which e0qc or j uses to produce and distribute its output. Figure 2.1 is the intersector flow matrix representation of this equation system for a four sector economy. The row labeled F.P. (qi n Figure 2.1) is "final payments" which includes imports, payments to labor (households), and other final payments sectors. It is equal to the difference between total sectorqal inputs and outputs. Hence the summation of the elements of row i and column i is an identity. That the sum of the final payments row is equal to total consumption by all final demand sectors ($365) is also an obvious identity. In the national economy, total final demand is commonly known as Gross National Product. Any equation from (2) can be rewritten as qYqi = 0qX qi q- qxqiql q- 8qx i2 q- *** 4qxqiqj - --- - 4qx ln (3) When each term on the right hand side is both multiplied and divided by the X2qi corresponding to the consuming sector, the following equation is derived: 2qY. 32qX 2qX0q16q1 36qX 00qXi2 X 0qx 2qi4qj 32qX 00qxin Xqn .2q(4) 32qX6q1 6q1 q- X2 2 32qX 8qXa 6 FIGURE 2. 1 INTERSECTOR FLOW MATRIX Final Total Sector (x ij) Demand Output 2 3 4 Y i xi Manufacturing 1 $200 $ 75 $ 25 $ 50 *150 $ 500 Services 2 $100 $ 50 $ 10 $ 40 $100 $ 300 Agriculture 3 $ 20 $ 5 $ 10 $ 0 $ 65 $ 100 Transportation 4 $ 50 $ 15 $ 10 $ 25 $ 50 $ 150 Final Payments F.P. $130 $155 $ 45 $ 35 $365 --- Total $500 $300 $100 $150 --- $1050 Source: authors. We can assume linearity and constancy over time and across scale changes to write: 2qY 2qXqi q- aqiqi6qXq1 ai2 2qX2 aqijXqi a in6qXn (5) qX.. where a.. IJ iqj 2qXqi The a. Is in this formulation are the dollar requirements 0q&n of in ustry j from industry i per dollar of j Is output. They are called "technical coefficients" because they represent direct engineering magnitudes which may be derived from the production process. For instance (from Figure 2.1) a.12 = xq12 = 75 .25, X2 q:6q@Oq-O a43 q1, and so on. When the entire set of equations are transformed as in equation (5), a set of final demands (Y.'s) is specified, and aiqi 's are known from past relations0qAips and assumed constant over time, the system reduces to a set of n equations with n unknowns q(Xis) and hence can be solved to yield total sectoral outputs q(X iIs) necessary to supply the given final demand structure. Yq1 2qXq1 q- aq112qX1 a126qX2 aljXj - a 16qA - a a a a X0qn 6qT2 X2 21X1 22X2 2jXqj q- .2n (6) qYqj Xqi - aiqlXl ai2X2 aiqjqXqi - a i6qA 6qYn 8q@0qn q- anlqXq1 an20qx 2 a. nj6qXqi a nn6qXn In matrix terminology system (6) may be represented as: Y = q(X-AX); where the A matrix is known as the input- output matrix and contains the technical coefficients, a aij ... a X in 1 FY 1 A aii aii ain X Xi and Y Yi (6 a a a X Y L ni ni nn n n __j @_ L The total output vector (X) may be factored out to yield: Y - (1 - A)X which may be rearranged as X = (1 A)-lY. The matrix (1 - A)-l is defined as the Leontief inverse; its computational value stems from the fact thatt given a final demand, total output may be calculated directly In the same system, AX and AY may be substituted for X and Y to yield a change in total output given a change in final demand. The ratio of the change in total output to the change in final demand yields a multiplier that- summarizes the effects of the sectoral linkages (production interdepen- dencies) in the economy. Note that because of these sectoral linkages an increase in final demand in sector i will cause an increase in total output in several other sectors besides i (Isard, 1960: 327-332). The 1/0 matrix for the U. S. economy in 1967 is available in an 85 sector disaggregation (Office of Business Economics, Survey of Current Business, 1974) and a 367 sector disaggregation on computer tape from the U. S. Office of Business Economics. For Louisiana, a computerized 93 sector 1/0 matrix for 1967 has been constructed (Louisiana Information Processing Authority, 1976). METHODOLOGY The total production (output) by sector in Louisiana due to OCS activity was determined by using the input- output model of the Louisiana economy (L.I.P.A., 1976) in a fashion suggested by Isard and Kuenne (19153). First., the entire set of inputs absorbed directly by O'C"S produc- tion or the "bill of goods" was determined, This "bill of goods," Di, was constructed by multiplying the cents worth of every input from each sector, i, required per dollar output of oil and gas production (column vector A of the technical coefficients matrix A where j=8, Mining of Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas) by the dollar value c. (see Table 2.1) of the OCS Production activity for thg year in question (equation (1)). aij A aij Ai ej = D 1 (7) D Direct requirements of Sector j, OCS production, j=8. LajJ This "bill of goods" or "pseudo final demand," D., was multiplied by the Leontief inverse to derive chaAge in total output by sector required by the Louisiana economic system to support OCS production, vector 0 in equation 8. -1 New (I - A) x Dj Total 0 (8) Output This change in total output includes both direct and indirect effects. This means that not only are the goods and services used directly in OCS production included, but also the goods and services used in the production of the direct goods and services and in the production of these indirect goods and services and so on. Such goods and services include boat and drilling platform building, food catering services, etc. No induced effects, however, are included. A good example of an induced effect would be a refinery built to process OCS oil. Vector 0 is comprised of the value of total produc- tion required from each of 77 sectors and households (Sector 86) in the Louisiana economy. A listing of the 93 sectors in the Louisiana input-output model are included in the Appendix, Table A.!. However, since employment data (which are used to later allocate state sectoral production to each.of the coastal zone parishes) for each sector are not available separately, the 77 sectors were combined into the following nine sector groups: 10 TABLE 2.1 VALUE OF PRODUCTION FROM LOUISIANA OCS Year Oil and Condensate Natural Gas (Total (cj) 1956 32,462JI552 609953PO60 39.0457)1612 1959 1132068JI516 37$403,164 150IP4710680 1964 375,604,795 118$377,080 493,981,875 1967 673,249,350 210,606,727 883.08560077 1972 1)3770229,217 636)164,978 2)1013,394.*195 1974 2.*310,968,112 844,9519,248 3)155JI487$360 Source: U. S. Geological Survey, 1976. Sector Group Sectors Sector Group Name 1 1-4 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 2 5-10 Mining (excluding Sector 8) 3 11- 12 Contract Construction 4 13-64 Manufacturing 5 65-68 Transportation, Commiini- cations, & Utilities 6 69 Wholesale & Retail Trade 7 70-71 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 8 72-77 Services 9 5-10 Mining (including Sector 8) Sectors 78 and 79 represent state, local, and federal government business enterprises and since the output of these exotic sectors are small, their impacts are not included in the analysis. Sectors 80-85 had zero produc- tion due to OCS activity. Sectors 87-93 would have to be independently estimated since they are final demand (final payments) sectors and not included in I-0 impact analysis. Thus the resulting production, employment and population estimates are conservative. Sector 86, households (labor) which is normally included in final demand, was included in the technical coefficients matrix and I-0 impact analysis to get the full expansion of the economy (see Isard and Kuenne, 1953: 296). For each of the six years, Sector 8 (Mining of Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas) was deleted from the A matrix, Aj, Dj and (therefore) 0 to avoid double counting since OCS activity is included in Sector 8. .However, since Sector 8 includes other mining activity which may be affected by OCS activity, Sector 8 was included in the above in determining total output for the years 1964, 1972, and 1974, as part of a new Sector Group labeled 9. Sector Group 9 includes all of Sector Group 2 12 plus Sector 8. This resulted in a high and low estimate of production (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2) due to OCS activityfor those years. As indicated in equation (1) of Figure 2.3 the total state production due to OCS activity was allocated to each of the 22 parishes by multiplying the production in each sector group (0 ,in Table 2.2) by the correspon- ding parish share of stite employment (S.P in Table A.2 in the Appendix) for that sector group. iThis step resulted in the value of total output that is due to OCS activity in each parish for each sector group (0 iP in Table A.3, which is included in the Appendix). ln order to translate O.P into employment, it was necessary to determine a ratio of dollar output per employee. A study done by Rice (1976) shows 1967 total output values by sector for the state of Louisiana. These were aggregated into the nine sector groups (see Table 2.3) and each of these output values was divided by the number of employees in the corresponding sector group to get dollar/employee for 1967. The implicit price deflators shown in Table 2.4 were used to transform 1967 values to the other years assuming productivity remained the same. Employment by sector in each parish due to OCS activity (EiP) was then' determined by dividing produc+J on (OiP) by dollars per employee (M ), as shown in Equation (2) of Figure 2. 3 (Table A. 4 in the Ap]@endix and Figure 2.4). Since households represent labor, it would have been doublie counting to find the employment in the household sector and the other 77 sectors. This, then, was not done. Parish population due to OCS activity was dtermined by first summing the employment in each sect. or group due to OCS activity to get total employment (E t-) (Figure 2.3 Equation (3)). Then, a population to employment ratio (PP) was derived by simply dividing -'Cotal popula- tion (from U. S. Bureau of the Census) by the total employment for each parish in 1967, 1972, and 1974 (see Table 2.5). Finally E P was multiplied by PP to get total population due t18 OCS activity in each parish for 1967, 1972, and 1974 (Table 2.6) (see Equation (4)). Ncte -t-hat high and low estimates are given, depending on whether or not Sector 8 (mining of crude petroleum and natural gas) is included (1972 and 1974 only). 13 TABLE 2.2 LOUISIANA STATE PRODUCTION DUE TO OCS ACTIVITY BY SECTOR GROUPP (0j) Year 1956 1959 1964 Sector 1 2 .Group OUT IN 1 586,748.60 20237p566.98 7,360)555.19 7,6740467.07 2 692735.99 265,938.35 874,813.55 NA 3 1,222,387.19 4t6610576.00 15,334,f417.80 15,988)397.00 4 5,116,025.47 19J,509P973.10 64,178,741.63 66$915,834.11 5 2,369,012.45 9,0340233.63 29,7181428.72 30,985,854.78 6 2,227,017.00 8)492,733.75 27,937,145.80 29J28.1607.00 7 6,875,843.53 26,221,042.66 86,225,042.00 89,933)634.00 8 1,783,046.65 .6)799,651.88 22)367f693.59 233321,628.32 9 NA NA NA 22.1022$021.33 TOTAL 20,249,816.88 77,222,716.35 253p996,838.28 285997OP443.61 NA = Not Applicable 1Sector 8 excluded. 2sector 8 included. (CONTINUED) TABLE 2.2 (CONTINUED) Year 1967 1972 Sector 1 2 Group OUT IN 1 13)143)1251.79 29JI939p882.25 31,216,754.00 2 1)562)096.13 3,558$402.05 NA 3 27,3811645.50 62,374,459.50 65.40341595.00 4 11014391292.82 260,150P704.97 272)1187,647.08 5 531066Y213.01 120P883)035.53 126)038,431.97 CA 6 49)885p495.50 113)637#469.00 118,483,871.00 7 154)019)866.30 [email protected] 36508151125.50 8 39,940.1496.42 60)886,405.36 94JI863p333.90 9 NA NA [email protected] TOTAL 449#438)357.47 1,002,"82,399.1.6 1P163,216P794.98 NA = Not Applicable 1Sector 8 excluded. 2Sector 8 included. (CONTINUED) TABLE 2.2 (CONTINUED) Year 1974 Sector 1 Group OUT IN 1 46.*9232210.66 4809241385.32 2 5$576JI897.26 NA 3 9717560227.00 .101)9251315.00 4 409,1361614.60 426,585P456.50 5 1890453t655.40 197)533,440.93 6 178,098PO58.00 185P693,572.00 7 549,872P035.00 573,322,900.00 8 1420593,048.00 148P674P339.'60 9 NA 140)3890400.50 TOTAL 1,619,4091745.92 1)1823,048JI809.85 NA = Not Applicable 1Sector 8 excluded. 2Sector 8 included. Source: Computed by authors. FIGURE 2.2" LOUISIANA TOTAL PRODUCTION DUE TO OCS RELATED ACTIVITY X10 9 (BILLIONS OF DOLLARS) SECTOR 8 OUT SECTOR '8''IN lots 19?0 to?$ Source: authors. TABLE 2.3 DOLLAR PER EMPLOYEE (M BY SECTOR GROUP AND YEAR FOR LOUISIANA (IN MILLIONS) 1967 $/Employee x Yearly Deflator Value $/Employee Sector Group 1967 1967 1956 1959 1964 1972 1974 3.967 Employees $/Em2loyee (.7960) (.8545) (.9201) (1.2655) (1.4732) (1) 750.32 3,651 .206 .164 .176 .190 .261 .304 (2) 226.80 3,322 .068 .054 .058 .063 .086 .100 (3) 2572.459 93,364 .028 .022 .024 .026 .035 .041 (4) 7785.05 166,216 .047 .037 .040 .043 .060 .069 (5) 2144.70 75,434 .028 ..022 .024 .026 .035 .041 (6) 2179.90 212,895 .010 .008 .008 .009 .013 .015 00 (7) 2044.20 45,308 .045 .039 .038 .041 .057 .066 (8) 2595.10 125,160 .021 .017 .018 .019 .027 .031 (9) 3704.20 46,775 .079 .063 .068 .073 .086 .116 Source: Rice, 1976; authors. TABLE 2.4 IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATORS Year Deflator: 1972 Base Deflator: 1967 Base 1956 .6290 .7960 1959 .6752 .8545 1964 .7271 .9201 1967 .7902 1.0000 1972 1.0000 1.2655 1974 1.1641 1.4732 Source: Council of Economic Advisors, 1976. 19 FIGURE 2.3 METHODOLOGY FOR COMPUTING OCS RELATED POPULATION BY PARISH (1) 0qS 6qP x 0q, Production in parish p in. sector group i due t qi activity (6q0qi6qPq). (2) 0qi2qp Mqi Employment in parish p in sector group i due t activity (EqiP). 8 or 9 (3) qE qE0qi P Total employment in parish p due to OCS activi (EqtP). (4) E 2qP x PP Population in parish p due to OCS activity. qt q0 qS 6qp Parish p share of state employment in sector group qi. 0 Value of production in sector group i in Louisiana due activity. 2qM Dollar output per employee in sector group i for Louisi 2qP2qp Population per employee in parish p. Source: authors. mmm m m m m m@ m = FIGURE 2.4 LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT DUE TO OCS RELATED ACTIVITY SECTOR 8 OUT SECTOR 8 IN tQ T Source: authors. TABLE 2.5 POPULATION PER EMPLOYEE BY PARISH (PP), 1967, 1972, AND 1974 1967 1972 1974 (1) (2) Pop/ (3) (4) Pop/ (5) (6) Pop/ Parish Population Employed Employee Population Employed Employee Population Employed Employee Ascension 34,200 7,492 4.56 39,200 6,156 6.37 39,800 8,180 4.87 Assumption 19,800 2,167 9.14 20,100 3,215 6.25 20,200 1,423 14.20 Calcasieu 140,700 31,418 4.48 148,300 32,870 4.51 150,000 37,573 3.99 Cameron 7,800 1,523 5.12 8,900 2,494 3.57 9,100 1,874 4.86 Iberia 59,700 10,391 5.75 58,900 11,798 4.99 59,500 12,516 4.75 Iberville 31,700 4,143 7.65 30,700 5,511 5.57 30,100 5,497 5.48 Jefferson -303,700 56,935 5.33 366.300 74,858 4.89 388,700 111,594 3.48 Jefferson Davis 28,200 3,720 7.58 29,600 4,000 7.40- 30,100 4,628 6.50 Lafourche 66,100 11,440 5.78 72,300 11,916 6.07 71,900 13,622 5.28 Livingston 33,600 1,996 16.83 38,300 2,537 15.10 41,000 2,748 14.92 Orleans 648,900 229,523 2.83 593,700 236,785 2.51 569,100 216.985 2.62 Plaquemines 26,800 9,689 2.77 25,900 11,686 2.22 25,900 11,668 2.22 St. Bernard 46,500 7,330 6.34 55,000 8,266 6.65 57,500 9,388 6.12 w St. Charles 27,100 7,877 3.44 30,800 6,404 4.81 31,800 6,777 4.69 St. James 20,300 4,242 4.79 19,000 3,485 5.45 19,500 3,699 5.27 St. John 21,800 1,875 11.63 24,800 2,419 10.25 24,600 3,076 8.00 St. Martin 32,400 2,454 13.20 33,700 3,562 9.46 34,100 4,540 7.51 St. Mary 59,500 17,216 3.46 62,200 17,904 3.47 60,100 19,374 3.10 St. Tammany 62,000 6,606 9.39 67,100 7,447 9.01 73,400 10,225 7.18 Tangipahoa 69,100 8,268 8.36 68,000 9,497 7.16 69,100 11,392 6.07 Terrebonne 75,700 15,754 4.81 78,800 20,033 3.93 81,100 26 331 3.08 Vermilion 41,600 6,348 6.55 43,900 5,736 7.65 44,200 6:546 6.75 TOTAL LOUISIANA 3,671,000 776,383 4.73 3,738,000 852,793 4,38 3,762,000 934,628 4.02 1 1 1 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1969 (4) U.S. Bureau of'the Census, 1973 (2) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1968 (5) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1976. (3) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974 (6) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977. TABLE 2.6 EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION IN LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES DUE TO OCS ACTIVITY., 3.967 Parish Employment Population Ascension 123 561 Assumption i9 174 Calcasieu 581 2,603 Cameron 12 61 Iberia 179 1,029 Iberville 76 581 Jefferson 1P021 5)442 Jefferson Davis 72 546 Lafourche 182 1,052 Livingston 38 640 Orleans 5P186 14,676 Plaquemines 95 263 St. Bernard 116 735 St. Charles 114 392 St. James 58 278 St. John 26 302 St. Martin 39 515 St. Mary 245 848 St. Tammany 132 it258 Tangipahoa 167 11396 Terrebonne 249 1j,198 Vermilion 104 681 TOTAL 8,836 35,231 Source: authors. 23 TABLE 2.6 (CONTINUED) EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION IN LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES DUE TO OCS ACTIVITY, 1972 Sector 8 IN Sector 8 OUT Parish Employment Population Employment Population Ascension 150 955.50 135 859.95 Assumption 78 487.50 73 456.25 Calcasieu 11099 4,956.49 986 4f446.86 Cameron 61 217.77 30 107.10 Iberia 390 1)946.10 319 10591.81 Iberville 170 946.90 155 863.35 Jefferson 2,379 11,633.31 2)108 10,308.12 Jefferson Davis 141 1.1043.40 125 925.00 Lafourche 414 2P512.98 362 2,197.34 Livingston 85 1)283.50 79 1 192.90 Orleans 9$017 22.*632.67 80074 20:265.74 Plaquemines 313 694.86 206 457.32 St. Bernard 253 10682.45 235 IP562.75 St. Charles 321 1,544.01 299 1)438.19 St. James 93 506.85 87 474.15 St. John 82 840.50 77 789.25 St. Martin 103 974.38 80 756.80 St. Mary 554 1$922.38 439 1,523.33 St. Tammany 251 20261.51 229 20063.29 Tangipahoa 332 2)377.12 304 2,176.64 Terrebonne 610 2$397.30 486 1P909.98 Vermilion 204 1.1560.60 177 11354.05 TOTAL 17,100 65)278.08 15)065 573,720.17 Source: authors. TABLE 2.6 (CONTINUED) EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION IN LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES DUE TO OCS ACTIVITY, 1974 Sector 8 IN Sector 8 OUT Parish Employment Population Employment population Ascension 317 119544 303 1)476 Assumption 54 767 52 738 Calcasieu 1)510 6,025 1.9434 51722 Cameron 49 238 24 117 Iberia 510 20422 452 2)147 to Iberville 204 1,118 189 1,036 01 Jefferson 4,396 151298 4)092 14P240 Jefferson Davis 184 1.1196 170 1)105 Lafourche 559 23-952 516 2JI724 Livingston 260 3,879 247 3)685 Orleans 9)411 24P657 8,833 233142 Plaquemines 333 739 240 533 St. Bernard 376 2,301 357 2)185 St. Charles 245 1$149 232 1#088 St. James 131 690 125 659 St. John 125 1,000 120 960 St. Martin 169 1,269 151 1,134 St. Mary 733 23,272 660 2,046 St. Tammany 438 30145 421 3)023 Tangipahoa 476 2,889 454 2.0756 Terrebonne 941 2,898 760 2.9341 Vermilion 258 1$742 213 1,438 TOTAL 21)679 80,190 20)045 74P295 Source: computed by authors. As might be expected, parishes with more diversi- fied economies which are strongly linked to mining activity, such -as Orleans, receive the greatest employ- ment and population impacts. 26 TABLE A.1 LOUISIANA INPUT-PUTPUT MODEL INDUSTRY SECTOR NUMBER AND TITLE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES 1. Livestock and Livestock Products 2. Other Agricultural Products 3. Forestry and Fishery Products 4. Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishery Services MINING 5. Iron and Ferroalloy Ores Mining 6. Nonferrous Metal Ores Mining 7. Coal Mining 8. Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 9. Stone and Clay Mining and Quarrying 10. Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining CONSTRUCTION 11. New Construction 12. Maintenance and Repair Construction MANUFACTURING 13. Ordnance and Accessories 14. Food and Kindred Products 15. Tobacco Manufactures 16. Broad and Narrow Fabrics, Yarn and Thread Mills 17. Miscellaneous Textile Goods and Floor Coverings is. Apparel 19. Miscellaneous Fabricated Textile Products 20. Lumber and Wood Products, Except Containers 21. Wooden Containers 22. Household Furniture 27 TABLE A. 1 (CONTINUED) 23. Other Furniture and Fixtures 24. Paper and Allied Products., Except Containers 25. Paperboard Containers and Boxes 26. Printing and Publishing 27. Chemicals and Selected Chemical Products 28. Plastics and Synthetic Materials 29. Drugs,-Cleaning and Toilet Preparations 30. Paints and Allied Products 31. Petroleum Refining and Related Industries 32. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products 33. Leather Tanning and Industrial Leather Products 34. Footwear and Outer Leather Products 35. Glass and Glass Products 36. Stone and Clay Products 37. Primary Iron and Steel Manufacturing 38. Primary Nonferrous Metal Manufacturing 39. Metal Containers 40. Heating, Plumbing and Structural Metal Products 41. Stampings, Screw Machine Products and Bolts 42. Other Fabricated Metal Products 43. Engines and Turbines 44. Farm Machinery and Equipment 45. Construction, Mining and Oil Field Machinery 46. Materials Handling Machinery and Equipment- 47. Metalworking Machinery and Equipment 48. Special Industry Machinery and Equipment 49. General Industrial Machinery and Equipment 50. Machine Shop Products 51. Office., Computing and Accounting Machines 52. Service Industry Machines 28 TABLE A." (CONTINUED) 53. Electric Industrial Equipment and Apparatus 54. Household Appliances 55. Electric Lighting and Wiring Equipment 56. Radio, Television and Communication Equipment 57. Electronic Components and Accessories 58. Miscellaneous Electrical Machinery, Equipment and Supplies 59. Motor Vehicles and Equipment 60. A-ircraf t and Parts 61. Other Transportation Equipment 62. Scientific and Controlling Instruments 63. Optical, Ophthalmic and Photographic Equipment 64. Miscellaneous Manufacturing TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES 65. Transportation and Warehousing 66. Communications, Except Radio and TV Broadcasting 67. Radio and TV Broadcasting 68. Electric, Gas, Water and Sanitary Services WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE 69. Wholesale and Retail Trade FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE 70. Finance and Insurance 71. Real Estate and Rental SERVICES 72. Hotels, Personal and Repair Services Except Auto 73. Business Services 74. @ Research and Development 29 TABLE A.1 (CONTINUED) 75. Automobile Repair and Services 76. Amusements 77. Medical, Educational Services and Nonprofit Organizations GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES 78. Federal Government Enterprises 79. State and Local Government Enterprises DUMMY INDUSTRIES 80. Empty 81. Business Travel, Entertainment and Gifts 82. Office Supplies 83. Scrap, Used and Secondhand Goods SPECIAL INDUSTRIES 84. Government industry 85. Rest of the World Industry FINAL DEMAND 86. Households 87. Exports 88. Gross Private Fixed Capital Formation 89. Net Inventory Change 90. Federal Government Purchases Defense 91. Federal Government Purchases Nondefense 92. Education 93. Other State and Local Government Purchases FINAL PAYMENTS Households 87. Imports 88. Inventory Valuation Adjustment 30 I I I TABLE A.1 (CONTINUED) 1 89. Indirect Business Taxes 1 90. Property-Type Income I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 31 TABLE A.2 PARISH SHARE OF STATE EMPLOYMENT (S-P) BY SECTOR GROUP FOR VARIOUS YEARb Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 Ascension 0 .0036 .0014 .002 -- 2 0 0 3 .002 .002 .0089 .034 .007 .013 4 .005 .008 .009 .01 .017 .0175 5 .0007 .001 .004 .003 .002 .0064 6 .005 .005 .005 .0067 .001 .0073 7 .003 .004 .0048 .007 .003 .0051 8 .002 .002 .002 .022 OQ7 .002 9 -- -- .002 -- .0009 .0019 Assumption 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 -- .001 -- -- .002 .001 4 .004 .008 .005 .004 .012 .0029 5 .0007 -- -- .0002 .0003 .005 6 .002 .002 .0015 .0014 .001 .0014 7 .001 .00086 .0011 .001 .001 .0016 8 .002 .0024 .0014 -- .001 .0003 9 -- -- .005 -- -- (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 Calcasieu 1 .025 .0043 .026 .028 .02 -- 2 3 .04 .056 .037 .064 .039 .047 4 .05 .06 .052 .046 .054 .0564 5 .046 .04 .04 .037 .026 .0269 6 .04 .038 .036 .036 .038 .0412 7 .037 .037 .032 .03 .03 .0353 8 .04 .038 .035 .03 .034 .0176 9 -- -- .024 -- .032 .011 Cameron 1 .01 .00036 .009 -- 2 . 0 0 0 3 .008. .003 .0018 .002 -- -- 4 .00067 .000769 -- .002 -- 5 .0007 .000324 .0011 .001 .002 .0013 6 .002 .0008 .0008 .0009 .0008 .0009 7 -- .0006 .0005 .0007 .0006 .0005 8 .002 .0009 .001 .001 .001 .0006 9 -- -- .012 -- .029 .0208 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector, Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 Iberia 1 .02 .005 .009 .008 .007 -- 2 3 .01 .0114 .012 .01 .009 .011 4 .009 .009 .01 .01 .012 .0125 5 .01 .008 .014 .013 .015 .0149 6 .015 .0145 .0137 .014 .013 .0144 7 .008 .0085 .009 .009 .01 .011 8 .013 .012 .015 .01 .01 .0043 9 .006 -- .047 .0323 Iberville 1 .006 .03 -- 2 0 0 3 .005- .00698 .008 .008 .011 .006 4 .004 .007 .008 .009 . 01.1 .0134 5 .003 .0029 .003 .003 .004 .0032 6 '.004 .004 .004 .005 .005 .0038 7 .003 .004 .002 .003 .003 .0034 8 .003 .003 .003 .003 .004 .0017 9 -- -- .008 -- .004 .0048 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group_ 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 Jefferson 1 .02 -- .016 .027 .04 -- 2 3 .05 .051 .097 .08 .108 .163 4 .07 .08 .084 .08 .10 .105 5 .029 .032 .033 .04 .06 .1039 6 .035 .053 .076 .087 .10 .1384 7 .01 .018 .028 .04 .04 .0856 w 8 .028 .054 .054 .058 .07 .053 9 .06 -- .097 .1078 Jefferson Davis 1 .03 .048 .03 -- -- 2 0 3 .008 .0057 .0046 .004 .003 .0025 4 .003 .0019 .001 .002 .003 .005 5 .008 .0065 .006 .006 .003 .0039 .007 .0076 .007 .006 .007 6 .0063 7 .004 .0039 .003 .004 .004 .0037 8 .006 .00477 .004 .004 .005 .0021 9 -- -- .009 -- .007 .0066 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 19'56 1959 1964 1967 1972" 1974 Lafourche 1 .03 .112 .10 .08 .058 -- 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 .01 .01 .0096 .007 .009 .0089 4 .01 .0087 .013 .01 .01 .0154 5 .018 .018 .019 .025 .028 .0315 6 .013 .0139 .0135 .01 .013 .0129 7 .008 .008 .008 .009 .01 .0098 8 .01 .01 .013 .01 .01 .0049 9 .05 -- .027 .017 Livingston 1 0. 2 0 -- -- -- .0012 3 .003.*- .003 .003 .004 .008 .0047 4 .037. .0037 .002 .003 .002 .0028 5 .0007 .0009 .0009 .0007 .0011 .0315 6 ..002 .0003 .002 .003 .004 .004 7 .001 .0013 .0015 .002 .002 .0026 8 .0008 .00151 .0012 .002 .002 .0008 9 -- -- .001 .0007 .0012 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 Orleans 1 .10 .13 .088 .145 .196 -- 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 .26 .229 .275 .204 .1.89 .138 4 .24 .22 .244 .23 .18 .141 5 .47 .45 .475 .47 .44 .4108 6 .36 .34 .31 .29 .265 .2085 7 .48 .45 .42 .40 .37 .3029 8 .42 .50 .417 .39 .37 .1674 9 -- .13 -- .167 .1665 Plaquemines 1 .024 .024 .023 .02 .017 -- 2 3 .007- .0012 -- .016 .03 .017 4 .006 .01 .005 .005 .006 .0089 5 .004 .0077 .007 .012 .01.3 .0148 6 .003 .0026 .005 .005 .006 .0046 7 .0005 .0006 .001. .002 .002 -- 8 .002 .00077 .004 .006 .007 .0051 9 -- -- .07 -- .088 .0695 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 19 56 1959 1964 1967 1972 .1974 St. Bernard, .0065 -- 2 0 3 .007 .0067 .01 .012 .016 .008 4 .025 .01 .025 .02 .02 .023 5 .002 .002 .0028 .003 .004 .0056 6 .006 .0046 .006 .006 .008 .0092 7 .001 .0021 .0037 .004 .004 .0069 8 .002 .0023 .004 .004 .005 .0022 00 9 .004 .002 .0019 St. Charles 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 .006 .004 .0077 .037 .013 .0074 4 .01 8. .053 .01 .013 .016 .0159 5 .008 .0074 .011 .009 .011 .0089 6 .002 .002 .003 .0036 .003 .0031 7 .0006 .0011 .001 .002 .022- .0034 8 .001 .002 .0025 .003 .004 .0031 9 -- -- .007 -- .004 .0027 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 St. James 2 3 .001 .015 .00014 .019 .002 .0004 4 .006 .01 .0103 .01 .012 .0132 5 .0001 -- .0007 .0005 .002 .0003 6 .003 .0017 .002 .002 .002 .0022 7 .0008 .0009 .0009 .0009 .001 .0018 8 .002 .0019 .0011 .001 .001 .0008 9 St. John 2 0 3 .0006 .0015 -- .003 .002 .0015 4 .006 .0068 .01 .003 .006 .0071 5 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .0021 6 .002 .0022 .003 .002 .003 .0034 7 -- -- .001 -- .001 .0024 8 .001 .0013 .001 .002 .002 .0008 9 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 St.*Martin 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 .007 .0036 .005 .004 .01 .005 4 .003 .0029 .002 .002 .002 .0089 5 .0008 .0007 .0005 .0004 .0004 .0007 6 .004 .003 .003 .004 .004 .005 7 .001 .0015 .001 .002 .002' .0022 8 .002 .0011 .001 .001 .002 .0012 9 .01 -- .018 .010.2 St. Mary 1 .129 .10 .083 .082 .045 -- 2 0 3 .035. .024 .025 .02 .022 .019 4 .013 .012 .014 .016 .019 .0268 5 .014 .014 .023 .03 .024 .0261 6 ..01 .012 .013 .014 .015 .0172 7 .004 -- .007 .008 .01 .0113 8 .008 .007 .009 .015 .017 .0081 9 -- -- .08 -- .076 .0361 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 St. Tammany .001 .0068 .015 -- 3 .02 .0046 .009 .008 .009 .01.1 4 .008 .008 .009 .01 .009 .0112 5 .004 .0044 .0048 .005 .005 .0077 6 .006 .0064 .009 .01 .01 .0132 17 .004 .0034 .006 .008 .008 .0133 8 .004 .005 .007 .009 .009 .0054 9 -- -- .001 -- .015 -- Tangipaboa 1 .036 .03 .0276 2 3 .004.- .0073 .008 .008 .008 .008 4 .016 .017 .016 .01 .013 .0147 5 .006 .006 .003 .004 .005 .0082 .015 .015 .0159 .016 .016 .0173 7 .005 .005 .006 .008 .009 .0103 8 .009 .0076 .0079 .01 .009 oo42 9 -- -- .004 -- .002 .0016 (CONTINUED) TABLE A.2 (CONTINUED) Sector Parish Group 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 1974 Terrebonne 1 .07 .028 .047 .038 .044 -- 2 0 3 .01 .0095 .017 .011 .012 .018 4 .01 .013 .012 .01 .016 .021 5 .016 .018 .022 .02 .027 .026 6 .015 .0157 .0179 .019 .02 .0251 7 .007 .0095 .01 .014 .014 .0153 8 .01 .01 .0148 .017 .017 .0103 9 -- -- .07 -- .083 .3.22 Vermilion 1 .023 .016 .027 .02 2 . 0 0 0 3 .01 ..0038 .007 .014 .0045 .0067 4 .003 .0026 .005 .'004 .004 .0035 5 .006 .006 .006 .006 .005 .0041 6 .002 .0085 .008 .0086 .008 .0078 7 .002 .0045 .004 .004 .008 .0051 8 .027 .001 .01 .007 .006 .0047 9 -- -- .03 -- .013 .029 Source: Computed from data contained in U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1958, 1961, 1965, 1968, 1973, 1977. TABLE A.3 TOTAL OUTPUT DUE TO LOUISIANA OCS ACTIVITY, O.P BY SECTOR GROUP, BY PARISH, FOR VARIOUS YEARS IN DOLLARS, LEGEND ASCEN = Ascension AGRI = Agriculture, Forestry, ASSUM = Assumption & Fisheries CALCA = Calcasieu MININ = Mining (excluding CAMRO = Cameron Sector 8) IBERI = Iberia CONST = Contract Construe- IBVLL = Iberville tion JEFSN = Jefferson MANUF = Manufacturing JEFDV = Jefferson Davis TRANS = Transportation, Com- LAFUR = Lafourche munications, LIVIN = Livingston Utilities ORLEA = Orleans TRADE = Wholesale & Retail PLAQU = Plaquemines Trade STBER = St. Bernard FINAN = Finance, Insurance STCHS = St. Charles & Real Estate STJAS = St. James SERVC = Services STJON = St. John TOTMN = Mining (including STMRT = St. Martin Sector 8) STMRY = St. Mary STTAM = St. Tarnmany TANGI = Tangipahoa TERRE = Terrebonne VERML = Vermilion 11-911 means "no entry" due to missing data because of private foi= disclosure problems or because total output. was not computed. "IN" means sector eight was included in Sector Group 9. "OUT" means sector eight was not included in Sector Group 2. Source: Ccm@puted by authors. See text. 43 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT AsCEN AGRI .9. .9. .9. 27628, 26498, .9, 18401, 62434. 59880. ASCEN,141NIN .90 -9. ag. -9. _g" .9, .9, 0, .9, -9. ASCEN CONST .9. 2445, -9. 9323, 142297. .136476, -9, 930976. 455242, 436621, ASCEN MANUF .9, 25580, -9. 156090. 602243. 577609, .9, 1104393, 4627190, 4422562. ASCEN TRANS w9,l 1895, .9. 9034. 123943. 118874, .9, 159199, 252077, 241766. ASCEN TRADE .9. 11135, .9. 42464. 145643. 139686. 09. 334233, 118464, 113637, ASCEN FINAN .9. 20628, wg. 104884. 431681. 414024. -9, 1078139. 1097445, 1052556, ASCEN SERVC .9. 3566, .9. 13599. 46643. 44735. .9, 79881, 664043, 426205. ASCEN TOTMN .9. .9" 90 .9, 44044, .9, 80619, 1974 IN-OUT ASCEN AGRI -9. -.9, ASCEN HININ 0. 0. ASCEN CONST 1325029. 1270031. ASCEN MANUF 7465246. 7159891. ASCEN TRANS 1264214. 1212503* ASCEN TRADE 1355563. 1300116. ASCEN FINAN 2923947. 2804347, ASCEN SERVC 297349. 295186, ASCEN TOTMN 266740. 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-011T IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT ASSUN AGRI age 409, .96 6, 9, A350H HlqIN Mg a as M90 .9" 0, 090 "go -9. ASSUR COUST -90 Mg, "go 4662, 0, ago W90 130069, 124749, ASS"" HANUF .98 20464, .9, 156080. 334579, 320894, -9, 441757. 3266252. 3121809, ASSUH TRANS .90 166, "9, .9" 09, ftg, .9, 10613, 37812, 36265, ASSUR TRADE Mg, .9. 4454. 16ges, 43693, 41906, .9, 698400 Ilb464, 113637, ASSUR FINAN .90, 6076, .9. 22550, 98927, 94801. .9, 154020,. 365815, 350652. ASSUM 3ERVC 09. 3566o Mg. 16319, 32650, 31315a Mg, Mg, 94863, 60996, ASSUH TOM go 0, "go 09, '09, 09, ago -9, lul 1974 IN-OUT ASSUH AGRI -90 ASSUR "JOIN -9. ASSUH CONST 101925, 977@6. ASSIM 14ANUF 123709a. 1196496. ASSUR TRANS 96767, 94721, ASSUN TRADE 259971, 249337, ASSUM FINAU 911317, 079795. Assum SERYC 44602, 42770, ASSISM TOM -9, -9, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT INwOUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT CAbCA AGRI .9, 14669o -9. 9622, 199536. 191374. -9, 368011, 624335. 598798, CAl.CA MININ .9, -9. -9. .9. -90 .90 -9, .9, -96 -9. CA(jCA CONST .9, 4RR95, .9. 261048. 591571. 567373. .9, 1752425, 2536349. 2432604. CAljCA MANUr -9. 255801. -9. 1170598, 3479623. 3337295. -9, 5080208. t4698133. 14040138, CALCA TRANS .9. 108975, -9. 361369. 1239434, 1188737. -9, 1963450, 3276999. 3142959. CAGCA TRADE .9. 89081, .9, 322724, 1048630, 1005737, -9, 1795870, 45o2387. 4318224. CAbCA FINAN wg. 2544062, .9. 970179, 2877876, 2760161, .9, 4620596. 10974454. 10525561, CAbCA SERVC .9. 71322o .9. 250387. 816257, 792869. -9. 1198215, 3225353, 2070138. CAL,CA'TOTMN -9, wg. -9. .91 528529, -9, 09. 2866465, aj 1974 IN-OUT CAbCA AGRI .9. -9, CAGCA MININ -9. -91 CALCA CONST 4790490. 4594543. CAl,CA MANUF 24059420s 23075305o CALCA TRANS 5313650.- 5096303. CAbCA TRADE 7650575. 7337640o CALCA FINAN 20238298. 19410483. CALCA SEW 2616668. 2509630, CAbCA TOTMN 1544283o 1956 1959 1964 1967 197.2 IN-Ouv IN-OUT IN-OUT 10-OUT IN-OUT CAMPO AGRI 09. 5667, "9, M9, 2763, 2650, mg, W9, 280951, 269459, CAMPO MININ -90 06 09, mg, M90 .9, -9, -9, 0, all CANDO CONST .9. 976, W9, 13995, 26779, 27602o. .9, 54763, Mg, .9, CAMPO MANUF -9, 3428, W99 15903. -9,1 .9, "9, 09, 544375o 520391, CAMPO TRANS -9. 1658, "g, 2927. 34064, 31690, .90 $3066, 252077, 241766, CANDO TRADE W9, 4454, Mg. 6794, 23303, 22350o 0.90 44097a 94787, 90910, CAARO FINAN 9. ag, .9. 157311, 44967, 43128, .9, 107814o 219489, 210511. CAARO BERVC ag, 3566, .90 6120, 23322, 22368a .9'. 39940, 94663, 60006, cxkno TOTHN aq, 0, 09, .9" 264264, 09" .9, 2597734, 1974 Ili-OUT CAN[to AGRI -9, .9. CAMPO MININ 0, 0, CAMPO CONST -9, -90 CAMPO MANUF .9, .91 CANDO TRANS -&56793, .246290, CAMPO TRADE 167124. 160289, CAMPO FINAN 206661. 274936, CAMPO SERYC 89205, 85556, CAMPO TOMI 2920100. 1956 1959 t964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IDERI AGRI .9. 11735. .9. tiles. 69070. 66245. -9, 105146. 218517, 209579. ISERI MININ .9. -9. -9. -91 _9* .9. .9, .9, -9, .9. IDERT CONST -9. 12224, .9. 53142, 191861. 184013. -9, 273816. 585311, 561370,' THERI MANUF .9. 46044. .9. t75590. 669158. 641787, .9, 1104393, 3266252, 3121809. IBERI TRANS -9. 23690. -9. 72274. 433802. 416058. .9, 689861, 1890576. 1813246. IBERI TRADE .9. 33405. _9" 123145, 399062, 382739. .9, 698397. 1540290. 1477287. moi rINAN -9. 55007. -9. 222879. 809403. 776295, -9. 1386179, 365915t, 3508520. IBERI SERVC .9. 23190, .9. 81596. 349824. 335515, .9. 399405. 949633, 600664. IDERT TOTMN wg, .9. -9. -9. 132132. -9, .9. 4210121. 00 t974 IN-OUT TBERX AGRI .9. .9. IBERI MININ -91 -91 IBERI CONST 1121170, 10753t9, IDERI MANUF 5332319. 5114208. IBERI TRANS 2943248. 2B22859, IBERT TRADE 2673987. 2564612. IDERI FINAN 6306552. 6048592. IBERI SLAVC 619300. 60150. IBERI TOTMN 4534570. mm m = m.m m m m m m m m - 1964 1967 19 2" IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IBvl,b AGRI 09, 3520,i -9, .9. .9, .9, .9, 936503, 896196, IBVGIS MINIM ftq, -9, a 9, .9* aq, mg, .9, aq, 0, 0, lbvl.b CONS? aq, 6!l2v -9, 32631, 127907, 122675, -9, 219@534 71536t, 666119, I8VLh NANUF ago 20464, .9, 065700 535327, 513430o .9. 993954, 2994064. 2061659, 1BYLIs TRANS' -9. 7197, 0.9, 26199. 92956. 89155, "9, 159199, .504154, 493532, iovi,b TRADE ftq, 8909, aq, .33971. 116514, 1117499 W9, 249427, 592419, 560137, IbVbb FINAN age 20620, W9, 104964, 179867, 1725100. mg, 462660, 1097445, 1952556, IBVGII BLRVC -9, 5349, 09, 20399, 69965, 6103. ftg, t19821, 37945.3, 243546, IBVbh TOTHM W9, aq, -90 09, 176176. 09, .98. 350108, t974 IN*OUT IBVbG AGRI .90 .90 lovbts MINIM 0, Do IBVLb CONST M552, 5665'i*7. ISYLI, MANUF 5716245, 5482431, IflVLL TRANS' 632107, 606252. IBVLG TRADE 705636, 676773, iBVhb FINAM 1949298. 10695bS-. lovilb SEPVC 252746, 242400o IRVI,b TOTMN 673969, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN.OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT JErsN AGRI .9. 11735, -9. .9. 322791, 117769, .9. 354868, 1248670. 1197595. JEFSN MININ .9. -9. .9. .9. .9, .90 .9, .9. -9, .9. JEFSN C ONST .9. 61119, .9. 237740. 1550975. 1497439, .9, 2190532. 7023736, 6736442. JErsN MANUF .9. 35R122, -9. 1560799. 5620930, 5391014. .90 8835144. 27218765. 26015070. JEFSN TRANS .9. 68701. .9. 289095. 1022533. 980708, -9, 2122649, 7562306. 7252992. JEFSH TRADE .9. 77946. -9. 450115. 2213774. 2123223, .9, 4340038.. 11848387, 11363747. JEFSN FINXN .9. fi8758, -9. 471979, 2518142, 2415141, .9. 6160795. 14632605, 14034082. jErsm sEttvc -9. 49925. -9. 367181. 1259360, 1207655, -9. 2316549, 6640433, 4262048. JFFSN TOTAN .9. -9, -9. .9. 1321321, wg. .9, 0609973, 1974 IN-OUT JEFSN AGRI -9. wg, JEFSN MININ -90 -90 JEFSH CONST 16613826, 15934265o JErSN MANur 44191473, 42959345, JErsN TRANS 20523725, 19684235o JEFSN TRADE 25699990, 24648771o JEFSN FINAN 49076440. 47069046a JEFSN SERVC 7879740. 7557432, JEFSN TOTMN 15133977, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT 10-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-011T JEFOY AGRI .9, 17602, -9, 107403, 230234. 220917,. .90 .9, ftg, JEFDV RININ og, 09, age -9, mg, -9, 09, 09, 090 mg, JEFDV CnNST W9. 9779, _g, 26571, 73547, 70530, 09, 190527, 1951040 187123, JVf0V MAMUF "g, 15348, .9, 37069. 66916, 64179, ago. 220979, 816561, 790452, JEFDV TRANS mg, 19952. _90 50723. 105915, 178311, "g, 310397, 378115, 362649. JEFDV TRADE .9, 15569, W9, 64545. 203900, 195560i 09, 399313,. 0293870, 795462. JEFDV FINAM 090 27503, .9, 102262. 269801, 250765, mg, 616079,. 1463261, 1403409. JErDV SERVC .9, 106ge, -9. 32434, 93297. 69471. ft9, 159762. 4743170 304432, JCFDV TOTHM .9, ag, ag. 198198, .-9, - 09, 2687318. 1974 IN-OUT jerDV AGRI 09" JEFDV MINIM o" 0, JEFDV CONST 254613, 24439*1,0 JEFDV MANur 2132927. 2045603, JEFDV TRANS 770300. 738869, %IEFOV TRADE 1169670. 1122010. JEFDv rINAN 212t295. 2034527, JEFDV SEHVC 312216, 299445. JCFDV TOTAN 926570. 1956 1959 t964 1967 1972 IN-OUT Iti-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT bArUR AGRI .9. 76277. .9. 250608, 767447. 736056, -9, 1051460, 1910572, 1736513. hAFUR MININ .9. (4, .9. .91 0, 0, -9. 0, 0. 0. bAFUR CONST .9. 12224. -9. 46616, 153489.. 147210. .9. 191672. 585311, 561370, bAFUR MANUF .9. 51160. -9. @ 169737, 869906. 034324. .9, 1104393. 2721976, 2601507, hAFUR TRANS -9. 42642. -9. 162616, 586731, 564650. .9, 1326655, 3529076, 3304725, 6AFUR TRADE .9. 28951, .9. 118049. 393236. 377151, .9, 498855 1540290. 1477287. bAFUR FINAN .9" 55007, .9. 209768. 719469. 690040, .9. 1386179. 3659151, 3508520. bAFUR SERVC .9. 17830. -9. 67997. 303181, 290780. -9, 399405. 946633, 608964. bAFUR TOTMN .9. 0, .9. .9. 1101101, .9, 2418590. CA 1974 IN-OUT bAFUR AGRI -9. -9. bAFUR MININ 0, ol bAFUR CONST 907135. 870030. LAFUR MANur 6569416. 6300704. LjAFUR TRANS 6222303, 5967790. UAFUR TRADE 2395447. 2297465, bAFUR FINAN 5610564. 5388746. bAFUR SERVC 728504. 690706. UAFUR TOTMN 238662o. 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OU? IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT hIVIN AGRI ego 0, "90 -9, 09, ago ago 091" -9, ago UVIN HINIM ago 0, -9, ago ago "go "go ago ago W9, IsIVIN CONST 09, 3667, ago 13985, 47965, 46003, .9ft 109527o 520277, 496996. LIVIN NA"lif, .9, 189293, "96 72187, 133832, 128357, W9., 331116o 544375, 529301, bIVI" TRANS ago 1658, -9, .8 13 t 278117, 26747, of) 37146, 136642, 13297t, hTYIN TRADE .9, 4454o =90 2549, 50257, 55974o 09, 149656s' 473935, 454550, LIVIN rjNAm .9, 6076, mg, 34087, 134900, 129303, .9, 306640, 731630, 701704, LIVIN BERVC age 1426, 0-9. 10267, 27986, 26841, 09, 79801, 109727, 121773, lJVIN TOTH" .9, 00, "go -9, 22022, ago .90 62704, 1974 IN-OUT hIVIN AGRI .9, 4.9, hIVIN HININ 168467o 6692o UVIN CONST 479049, 45944. 141VIN HAHur 1194439, 1145563, MIN TRANS 6222.303, 5967790, GIVI" TRADE 742774o 712392o IJIVIN riHAN 1490640, 1429667, t1XVIN SEIM 1189390 114074. MIN TOTHU 168467, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT ORGEA AGRI -9. 58675, -9, 290094. 675353, 647729, .9, 1905772. 6119484, 5868217. ORl,EA MININ .9" . -90 .9. .9. .9" .9, .9. .9. -9, -9. ORt,EA CONST -9. 317821, .9. 1067501, 4396809. 4216965, -9, 5585856. 12291530. 11788773. ORbEA MANUF .9. 1227846. .9. 4292194, 16327464, 15659613. -9. 25401038. 48993777, 46827127, ORbEA TRANS -9. 1113436, .9, 4065405. 14718261, 14116254, .9, 24941120, 55456910. 53188536. ORUEA TRADE .9. 801726. .9. 2807529, 9029860. 8660515, .9. 14466794. 31390226.' 30113929. ORbEA FINAN -9. 3300405, -9, 11799469, 37772127, 36227118, -9. 61607946. 135351596, 129815256. ORbEA SERVC .9. 748900, .9, 3399826, 9725119, 9327328, .9, 15576794, 35099434, 22527970. ORUEA TOTMN -9. -90 -9. 09. 2862863, .9, -9. 14959365. CA 1974 IN-OUT ORGEA AGRI -9, -9. ORbEA MININ -9. -91 ORljEA CONST 14065694o 13490359, OPbEA MANUF 60148550, 576e8263. OPI.EA TRANS 81146738, 77827563, ORLEA TRADE 39717110, 37133445. ORbEA FINAN 173659506. 166556240, ORhEA SERVC 24080005, 23970076, ORLEA TOTMN 23374835, M,956M M "959M M M1@96)= M M19bPM M 19@ IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT PbAGU AGRI M9, 14002, "g. 53702, 176513, 169293, "9" 262965, $30665, 506979, PLAOU MINIM .9, W9, -9, -9, .09, 09, 09, P9@ mg, -9, PLAQU CONST mg, 8557,. 09, 5594, 00 0, .9, 430106, 1951030, 1871234, PhAQU mA"ur "9, 36696, "g. 195100, 334579.- 320994, 09, 552196, 1633126d 1560904, PLAQU TRANS '90 9476, -9, 69564, 216901, 200029, "96 636795, 16365UO, 1571479, PLAOU TRADE ag, 6661, .9, 22081, 145643, 139606. -90 249427, 710993, 681825. PbhQU FINAN 09, 1430. mg, 15733* 09914, 96255,- .91 309040, 731630, 701704, PLAOU SERVC -99 3566, "9, 5236,, 93207, 69471, W9, 239643o 664043, 426205, PbAOU TOTHN "g" .9, .9, .9, 1541542, M9, 09" 7082779, Cil 1974 IN-OUT PLAOU AGRI -90 -9, PbAOU HININ "g, -9, PGAOU CONST 1732730, 16619wfi. PhAOU mANur 37;6611. 3641316o PLAOU TRANS 2923495. 2901914, PLAOU TRADE 854190, 019251, PLAOU FINAH _9" -90. PGAOU SEAVC 758239, 727225* PLAOU TOTHN 9757063, 195b 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STRER AGRI 09" 0, .9. 0. -9, -9. -9, .9. 202909, 194609. STBER MININ .9. .9. -9. .9. .90 .90 .9. -90 0, 0. STBER CONST -9. 9557. .9. 31233. 159894. 153344. .9. 328580, 1040554. 99799t. STBER MANur .9. 127901, .9. 195100. 1672896. 1604469, .9, 2208786. 54437S3, 5203014. STBER TRANS .90 4739, .9, 18068. 86760, 83212, .9. 159199, 504t54. 483532. 3TBER TRADE .9. 13362, .9. 39067. 174772. 167623. .9, 299313, 947871, 909100. STBER riNAN -9. 6976. .9, 55064, 332754. 319144, .9, 616079, 1463261, 1403408. STBER SERVC _g" 3566, .9. 15639. 93207. 69471, .9, 159762, 474317. 304432. STBER TOTHN .9. -90 -9, -9. 80080. .9, .91 179154, C.B 1974 IN-OUT STBER AGRI .9. -90 STBER MININ .9. .9. STBER CONST 815403, 782050, STBER MANUF 9811466, 9410142, STBER TRANS 1106167, 1060940. STBER TRADE 1708381, 1638502, STBER FINAN 3955929. 3794lt7, STBER SERVC 327084. 313705. STBER TOTMN 266740. mm w mmmm mm-m m m m = m = m 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-ORT IN&OUT STCHS AGRI ..go "go W9, "go 01@ 0, W9, ago -9, -9, s7clls MINIM 09, 0, .9, ftg, 0, 0. 09, 0, 0, 0, STCH8 CONST ..go 7334, ."go 16646o 12311le 1168756 -go' 1913121* 845450, 010068, STCHS MANur .09, 92008, W9, 1934029. 669150, 641787, 09, 1435711, 4355002, 4162411, STCHS TRANS ago 16952, W9, 66853. 340844, 326903, mg, 477396, 1386423, 1329713, 3TC113 TRADE "go 4454, 09. 16985. 0386, $3611, 09, 179530, 355452, 340912, STCHS FINAN Q,9e 4126o 28843. 89934, 66255, mg, 388040, 8047933, 7719145, STC113 SERVC W9, 1783, 09. 13599'. 50304, 55919". mg, 119021* 179453, 243546. 3TCHS TOTNN @q o go ftg, -91 154154, 09, 350308, 1974 IN-OUT STCHS AGRI .9, STCHS MINIM 0, STCHS CONST 754247, 7233i6. STCHS MANUF 6702709. 6585272, STC115 TRAH3 1758040. 1686130. STCHS TRADE 575650, 552104, STCHS FINAN 1949290o 1969565, STCHS SERVC 460090, 442039, STCH3 TOTHN 379051. 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN.OUT IN-OUT INaOUT IN-OUT SWAS AGRI .9, .94 .90 .9, .9. .9, 0-9. 09, -9, .9. STJAS MININ -90 .9, -90 .90 -9. 09, .9. ftg, .9, .9" STJAS CONST .9. 1222, .9. 69924. 2238, 2147. .9, 520251, 130069, 124749, STJAS MANUF .9. 30696, -9. 195100. 689233, 661041, .9. 1104393, 3266252, 3121808. STJAS TRANS -9, 237s -9. -9. 21690. 20803, .9, 26533. 252077, 241766. STJAS TRADE -90 6681. mg. 14438, 58257, 55974, .90 99771. 236966, 227275, STJAS FINAN .9, 55010 -9. 23599, 60940, 77630, .9. 138618. 365915, 350952. STJAS SERVC .9. 3566, -9. 12919. 25654, 24604, .9, 39940o 94863, 6069fi. STJAS TOTMN -9, -9, -9. -9* .9. -91 -91 .9, -9, .9, c.n 00 1974 IN-OUT STJAS AGRI -9, .90 STJAS MININ .9. -9. STJAS CONST 40770, 39102o STJAS MANUF 5630929, 5400603, STJAS TRANS 59260, 5603fi, STJAS TRADE 408526o 391016, STJAS FINAN 1031901, 989770, SWAS SERVC 119939, 114074. STJAS TOTMN -9, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1973 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STJON AGRI mg, 0, 0-9, 0. 8, 0, W9, 0, 09, -90 3TJOH MINIM age ag, tog, _g'. M90 .9, 09, 0, aq, "g, STJON CONST .90 733s .90 6992, age .9, 09, 62145, 130069, 12474ge sTum mANur 09, 30696, 132660,. 669158. 641787, "g, 331319e -16331269 15609040 .STJON TRANS 09, 2169. -9, 9034. 30996, 29719, 09, 53066, 37911ge 36264ge STJON TRADE .9. 4454, mg, 16684, 97386, Blatt, W9, 99771* 355452, 340912* STJON 01NAN ftq, -90 mg, .9. 09934, 86255, .9, ag: 365815, 350952, STJOR SERVC .9, 1703, sag, 88'40. 23322, 223@0. -9, 79801, 109727, 121773, 3TJOH TOTNH .9, age 09" 09, 09, .9" .09, 9 -9. 1974 IN-OUT 8TJON AGRI .9, ATJ6N HININ .9, STJON CONST 152888, t4fi6i4. STJON MANUF 1029757. 2964870. STJON TRANS 414820, 397053, STJON TRADe 631359, 605533, STJOH FIHA4 1375975, 1319693, STJOH SERVC 118939* 114074, 3TJO3 TOTNU -9, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STMRT AGRI .9. -9. .90 .9. .9, .9. -9, .9, .9, -9. STMJiT MININ .9. ol .99 .9, 0, 0, .9. ol 0, 0. STMRT CONST .9. 8557. .9, 16782, 79942. 76672. .9, 109527. 650346. 623745. STMRT MANUF -9. 1534R, .9. 56579. 133832. 128357. -9. 220879. 544375, 520301. STMRT TRANS .9. 1895, .9. 6324. 15493. 14859. -9. 21226, 50415. 48353, STMAT TRADE .9. 6908. .9. 25470. 87306, 83811. -9, 199542 473935. 454550. STMHT FINAN .90 6876, -9. 39332, 89934. 66255, .9, 308040* 731630. 701704. STMPT SERVC .9. 3566. .9, 7490. 23322, 22368. .9, 39940, 189727. 121773, STMHT TOTMN .9. 00 .9. .9. 220220. .9, 1612387. 0 1974 IN-OUT STMRT AGRI -90 .91 STMRT MININ 0, 0, STMRT CONST 509627. 408701. STMRT MANUF 3796611. 3641316, STMRT TRANS 138273. 132610, STMRT TRADE 928460. 890490, STMRT FINAN 1261310. 1209718. STMRT SERVC 178409. 171112, STMRT TOTMN 1431972. m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STNRV AGRI age 75691, 09. 223757, 636961, 6tO926, .9, 1077747. 1464754s 134729S, BYHRV Mimi" .9" 0, .9, -90 age 1-90 -9, 090 M9, 0-9, fiTHftV CONST Mgt 427114, M9, 111878, 3997100 383360, 09, 547633s 1439761., 1372230. sTmflv mor 09, 66508, M19, 234120, 936022, 096502, MO.- 1767029. 5171565. 4942663, STHRY TRANS 6,9, 33166, Mgt 126479. 712675, 683524, mg, 1591906o 3924922, 2901193, ST14RV TRADE Mgt 22270, M90 101911, 378672, 363183, ft9,, 698397 1777258* 1704562, STHRY I'THAN W9, 27583* W9, 09, 629535, 603165, _9, 1232159: 3658161, 3566520, STHAV SERVC M9, 14264, 09, 47590,@ 209095, 201309,. -09, 599107o 1612677, 1035069, STHRI TOTHN 09, 0, 09, MO. .1761762, .094 W9, 6807855, 0) 1974 IH-OUT STNAY AGRI 09, mg, STNRY KIRIN .90 STHRY CONST 1936581a 1057160, STHRY HANUF 11432490t tO96406to STHRY TRAHS 5155623, 4944740, STHRY TRADE 3193929, 3063287, STHRY FINAN 6470549, 6213554a 5THRY SERVC 1204262* 1155004* STMRY TOTHN 5068057o 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STTAM AGRI .9. -9. .9. .9. 7674, 7361. .9. 89374. 468251, 449090. STTAM MININ .90 -90 -9. .91 .9. .9. .99 -9. .9. .9. STTAM CONST .9, 24448. -9. 21443. 143096, 138010. .9, 219053, 585311. 561370. STTAM HANUF .9" 0928, .9, 156080. 602243, 577609, .9. 1104393, 2449609. 2341356. STTAM TRANS -9, 9476. .9, 39751. 148732. 142648, .9, 265331, 630192, 604415. STT.AM TRADE .9. 13362o .9. 54353. 262157, 251434, .9, 498855. 1184839. 1136375. STTAN FINAN -9. 27503. .9, 89152. 539602. 517530, wg. 1232159, 2926521, 2906016. STTAM SERVC -9, 7132, .9. 33998. 16325t. 156574, ftg. 359464. 853770, 547978, MAN TOTHN .90 .9, -9, .9. 22022, .9, 09, .9, -9, 1974 IN-OUT STTAM AGRI .9. -9. STTAM MININ .9. -9. STTAM CONST 1121178. 1075319, STTAM MANUF 4777757. 4582330, STTAM TRANS 1521007. 1456793. STTAM TRADE 2451155. 2350094, STTAM FINAN 7625195. 731329R. STTAM SERVC 802841. 770002. STTAM TOTMN -91 .9. m m m m m m m = m m m = M19ME 1956 1964 1967 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT TANGI AGRI .9, .9, -9, .9, 276281, 264900, 394298, Bb1582. 826341, TANCI KININ ag, .9, W9, 090 .09, ftg, -9, ftg, mg, .9, TANGI CONST 09 4990, .9. .34018, t27967, 122675, "g, 219053, 520277a 496996o TAROT mAmor 09, 91856, W9, 331670, 1070653o 1026960, W9, 1104393, 3538439a 3381959o TAROT TRANS .90 14214o "9. 54205, 92950, 89155, mg, 212265o 630192a 604415, TANGI TRADE W9, 33405., .9, 127391, 463145, .444201, @9, 799169,- 1095742a 1818200, TANGI FIHXM g. 34379, .9, Imes, 539602, 517530, .9, t212169, 3292316* 3157666, TANCT SERVC "g, J6047* .9. 51677, 19424to 176705, W9, 3994059 953770, 547978p TAROT TOTAN .9, mg, ftg, .9, sooes, "g, 09, 179154a 0) ta 1974 IN-OUT TANG1 AGRI -90 TAROT KIRIN -9. TAROT CONST 915403, 78205'@. TAROT HANur 6270006* 6014308, TAROT TRANS 1619774. 1553520, TAROT TRADE 3212499, 30@1096, TANGI FINAM 5905226. 5663692, TAROT SERVC 624437, 590991, TAHGt TOTHN 224623, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT TERRE AGRI .9. 41072, .9. 62652, 360700, 345946. .9, 499444, 1373537. 1317355. TERRE MININ -9. -9, .9. .9. -91 .9. .9. -9, 0, 0. TERRE CONST .9, 12224, -9. 44285. 271H03, 260685. .9. 301198, 780415. 748494. TERRE MANUF .9. 51160, .9. 253630. 802990. 770145, .9, 1104393. 4355002. 4162411. TERRE TRANS -9, 37904, -9. 162616. 681689, 653805, -9, 1061324, 3403038. 3263842 TERRE TRADE .9, 33405o .9. 133336, 521402. 500075. .9. 947824. 2369677, 22727496 TERRE FINAN .9. 48131* -9. 249100. 899336. 662550. .9. 2156270. 5121412. 4911929. TERRE SERVC .9. 17830, .9. 67997. 345160, 331042, .9, 670900. 1612677, 1035069. TERRE TOTHN -9. .9. .90 .9. 1541542, .9. .9. 7434894, 1974 IN-OUT TERRE AGRI -9. .9. TERRE MININ -9, .9, TERRE CONST 1834656* 1759612a TERRE MANOF 8958295, 8591869. TERRE TRANS 5135869, 4925795o TERRE TRADE 4660909, 4470261* TERRE FINAN 8771940. 6413042, TERRE SERVC 1531346, 1468700. TERRE TOTMN 17J27507, t956 1959 1964 i9fi? 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT YEamG AGRI 09, 13495o 09, .35001. 20721t, 198735, @9,* mg, 624335, 590799, VERMI, MINI" 09, 00 09, 0, W9, .9'. -9, 09, 0, 0, Vtflkh CONST mg, 12224o 09, 17714, 111m, 107341,. W9, 303343, 292656i 280685, VERNG NANUF 4-9, 15346, 09, 50726,. 334579, 320094, eq, 441757, 1088151, 1040603, VCR14G TRANS eq 14214a 09, 54205, 165915, 170311, 31B397, 630192, 604415, VEANG TRADE -9, 4454, age 72180. 231029, 223497, -9, 429015 947071, 909100, VERMh FINAll .9, 13752, -9, 117995. 359735, 345020, -9, fit60790 2926521, .2806816, VERNG HERVC eq, 40142* eq. 6000, 233216, 221677, .094 279563, 569160, 365319, VERNG TOTHN ftq, 0, .9. ol 660661. .9, -9, 1164501, Cil 1974 IN-OUT VERNb AGRI .90 .9, VERMb HININ -90 .9, VERNG CONST 682900, 654967, VERKG 9ANUF 1493049, 1431978, VERNG TRAMS 809987. 776760. VERMh TRADE 1449410. 1389165, VERNG FINAM 2923947* 2004347, VERNG SERVC 698769, 670107, VERX6 TOTAN 4071293, TABLE A.4 EMPLOYMENT DUE TO LOUISIANA OCS ACTIVITY, BY SECTOR GROUP, BY.PARISH, FOR VAR,IOUS,YEARS,.E ip LEGEND ASCEN = Ascension AGRI = Agriculture, Forestry, ASSUM = Assumption & Fisheries CALCA = Calcasieu MININ = Mining (excluding CAMRO = Cameron Sector 8) IBERI = Iberia CONST = Contract Construc- IBVLL = Iberville tion JEFSN = Jefferson MANUF = Manufacturin g JEFDV = Jefferson Davis TRANS = Transportation ' Com- LAFUR = Lafourche munications, & LIVIN = Livingston Utilities ORLEA = Orleans TRADE = Wholesale & Retail PLAQU = Plaquemines Trade STBER = St. Bernard FINAN = Finance, Insurance STCHS = St. Charles & Real Estate STJAS = St. James SERVC = Services STJON = St. John TOTMN = Mining (including STMRT = St. Martin Sector 8) STMRY = St. Mary STTAM = St. Tammany TANGI = Tangipahoa TERRE = Terrebonne VERML = Vermilion 11-911 means "no entry" due to missing data because of private firm disclosure problems or because employ- ment was not computed. "IN" means sector eight was included in Sector Group 9. "OUT" means sector eight was not included in Sector Group 2. Source: Computed by author. See text. 66 m 19mm m m top IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT TH-OUT IN-OUT WEN AGRI -9, mg, -90 0, ol 0, @90 0, 0, ASCEN MININ W9. "g, 09, 094, 09, 09, .9, 0, W94 mg, ASCEN CONST W90 9, -9, 0, 51 5, .9, 33, 139 12, ASCEN MANUF -9, 1* 0-9, 14,, 14, 13, .9, 73, 76, 73, ASCEN TRANS .94 0, 5, 5, ftq, 6, 71 7, ASCE11 TRADE -90, .9, 50 16* 16, @96 33, 01 9, Ascem rjmANi -9, 31 lie to, .9, 24* 19, is, WEN SCRYC M9, go "g, 2a 2, 0-90 4* 35.1 16. ASCCN TOTMtJ W9, ftg, ago @91 to W9, 14 1974 IN-OUT ASCEN AGRI ftq, W9, ASCEM HIMIN ol 0, ASCEN CONST ASCEN WARUF too, 1@4. *ASCEN TRANS 31. 30. ASCEN TRADE gi. 07, ASCEN FINAN 44. 42, ASCE" SEAVC 10, 9, ASCE" TOTMN 2, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT Ili-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT ASSUM AGRI .9. -9. -9. 0, 0. 0, .9. 0. 0, 0, ASSUM MININ .9. 0, .9. .9. 0, 0, -9. 0, .9. .90 ASSUM CONST .9. -9. .9. 0. 0, 0, .9. .9, 4. 4. ASSUM MANUF .9. 16 .9. 4. a. 7, -9. 91 54, 51, ASSUM TRANS -9. 01 -9. .9, -9. -9, .9, 0, 11 1. ASSUM TRADE .9. to .9. 2, 5. So .9. 7, 9. 9, ASSUM FTNAN .9. 0, -9. 11 2, 2. -9, 6, 6. ASSUM SERVC -9. 0, .90 to 2, 2, -9, -9. 4, 2, ASSUM TOTMN .9. 0, -9. .9. .9. .9, .9, .9, .9. 1974 IN-OUT ASSUM AGRI .9. -9. ASSUM MINI" -9. .9, ASSUM CONST 2, 29 ASSUM MANUF Ia. 17, ASSUM TRANS 2, 2, ASSUM TRADE 17, 17. ASSUM FINAN 14. 13, ASSUM SERVC 1. 11 ASSUM TOTMH .9. .9. IN-OUT IN-OUT III-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT CAhCA AGRI 09, 0, ag, 6, to to "go 2* 24 2, CAhCX MINIM .9, 409, -9, -9, age '9' W9, W90 09, ft9' CALCA CONS? ft9' 2a ..g' it, 23, 23, 09, 639 12, 79, CALCA HANur W9, 7* 09, 29" 79, 76, 09, 106, 241o 230, CALCA TRANS W9, so 0-9, is, 4i, 46, mg, 709. 94, 90, CAVA TRADE 09, Its .9" 40, 117, 112, 09, ISO, 346, 332, ckIXA Fink" @9' 71, mg, 26, 70, 67, .9, 183, 193, M, CALCA SERVC 069, 4,. 09, 14, 43, 41, .9, 57, 119, 77, CAI,CA -TOTH,N 409, 9-90 ftq, 09, .9, .9, _g" 32, 1974 Ili-OUT CAI,CA AGRI ftg, ftq, CAIXA. HIHIN .9, 02, CALCA CONST 1170 112. CALCA MANUF 349, 334, CALCA TRANS 130. 124. CALCA TRADE 5100 409, CALCA FINAN 307, 294, CALCA SERVC 04* ale CAbCA TOTH11 13, t956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUr CAMPO AGRI .90 0, -90 .9, 0, .0, .9, -91 11 11 CAMPO MININ .9, 0, -90 .9, .96 09, -9. .91 0. 0, CAMPO CONST .90 0, -90 1* to to .9, 2, -9. -90 CAHRO MANur .9. 0, -9, 0. .9, .9, .9. .91 9, 9. CAMPO TRANS .9. @1 .9, 0, 11 1, .9, 2, 7, 7. CAMPO TRADE -90 .9. 3, 2, -9. 40 7, 7, CAMPO rINAH .9. .9. .0, to .9, 2 4, 4, CAMPO SERVC -9. -9, 0, to to .9, 2o 4, 2, CAHRO TOTHN -9.1 .9, .9. 4, .9, .9, 29, 1974 'IN-OUT CAMPO AGRI .90 -9, CAMPO HININ 01 0. CAHRO CONST -90 .9. CAMPO MANur -9. .9, CAMPO TRANS 6. 6. CAMPO TRADE it, it, CAHRo rINAN 4, 4. CAMPO SERVC 31 3, CAHRO TOTMN 25. 196" IN-OUT lit-OUT IU-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT 18FRI AGRI W9, 00 W9, 9, 0. 0, age IDERI MINIM .9, 09, Mg, W90 Mg, 09, 09, -9, Mg, Mg. furni CONST "g. a9' 2, 7* 7e Mg, 1@, 170 16, IHER I MANUF @9' -9, 4, is, is, Mg, 23s 54, 51, ISIERI'TRANd .90 -9, 3. 17, 16, "g, 250 54, 52, IDERI TRADE Mg. 40 Mg. is. 44, 43, 09, 700 Its, 114, IDERI FINAU W9, -29. Mg, 6, 20, 19, "1) 310 64, 62, IBERI 3CRVC @9' 1* .9" 5, to, to, .9, 19, is, 21, IPFRI TOT14N Mg, wq'. .9, -9, 2a .9, .9, 47, 1974 IN-OUT IDERI AGRI -90 09, ISERT MINI" .9, W9, IDERI CONST 27, 26, IBERI MANUF: 77, 74s IBERI TRANS 72. 60. IDERI TRADE 176, IOERI rl"A" 96, 92* IFIERI SERVC 210 20, IBERY TAOTMH 39, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT I8VLL AGRI .9. es ;g" .9, .9, -9, .9, .9" 4, 31 IBVLL MINIM .9, -9. -9. .9, .9, W9 9. .9. .9, 0, 0, IBVLL CONST -9. 0, .90 10 5. 5, -09, Be 20. 20. I6VLL MANUF .9. la .9. 31 12, 12, .9, 21, 49, 47, IDVLL TRANS .9" 0, -9. 1, 4, 31 .9, 61 14. 14. IBVI,to TRADE .9. 09, 4. i3l 12, .9. 25,- 46, 44. IBVLL rINAN -9. .9, 3. 4, 4. .9,* to, 19, is. IBVLL SERVC -9. 00 .9, to 4, 4, .9, 6. 14, 9, ISYLL TOTMN .90 "g, .91 09. 3, .9, .9, 4, 1974 IN-OUT IBVLL AGRI .9. .91 IBVLL MINIM 0. 0, IBVLL CONST t5@ 14,, lBvtlfj HANUF 03. 79. IBVLL TRANS 15. is. IBVLL TRADE 47. 45. IUVLL FINAN 30. 28. IBVLL SFRVC 8, 8. IBVLI, TOTMIJ 6. m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m @ 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT jEr3H AGRI 09, 00 "g. "g, to 090 .2, 5, 5, jersm RINI" mg, tog, .9, a9' ago ago ago age 09, ago jeram CONST -94 3. 09" to, 60, 57, "91, 79, 281, 192, JEFSH MANUF 09, 91 ftg. 30, 129o 123, 09, 184, 4469 426, JErSM TRANS "go 30 W9, 12, 39, 38, .9, 76, 216, 207. JErSli TRADE -9 , to, W9" 56,, 246, 236, W90 434 0 9110 874, JEFSM FINAN .90 2* 09, 12, 61, 59, "go 1370 257o 246, JEFSU SERVC .9, 30 .9" 20, .66, 64, 09, 110.. 246, 150., JEFSH TOTPH @90 ago ftg, W9, 20, .09, ago 97o. 1974 IN-OUT jcrsm AGRI ago, -90 jErs" mimin -9. ag, JCFSN CONST 405e 389, jErSN MAuur 649, 623, JEFSH TRANS 501. 480. JEFSH TRADE 1711, 1643, jErsm riNAN 744, 713,, JEFSH SERVC 254, 244, JErsN TOTMN ale. 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT JEFDV AGRI .9. 0, .9. 11 11 1, -9, .9, .9. .9. JEFDV HININ .9. .9, .90 -9. .90 .9, .9, 09, .9. .9. JEFDV CONST -90 0, -9, 11 3o 3, -90 4o 6, 5. JEFDV HANUF .9. 0, -9. 11 2, to -90, 5, 13. 1]. JEFDV TRANS .9, to .9, 2, 7, 70 .9, it, 114 to, JEFDV TRAD13 -94 2o .9. so 23. 22, ago 30,- 64, 61. JCFDV FINAN .9. to .9. 30 7, 6, .90 14, 26, 25o JEFDV SERVC .9, 11 -90 2, 51 so -9, 8, to, ill JFFDV TOTMN 090 .90 .9. .9, 3, .90 .9, 31 1974 IN-OUT JEFDV AGRI -go .90 JEFDV MININ 0. 0. JEFDV CONST 6. 6, JEI'DV 9AIJUF 31, 30, JEFDV TRANS 10; 18. JCFDV TRADE 70. 75. JEFOV FINAN 32o 31.1 JEFDV SERVC to, JEFDV TOTPN m m m m m m m m Mm m m m m m @ 1956 lg!ig 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT hAruR AGRI 409, 0, =90 10 4, 4, 09, 5, 71, 16Af OR HIMIN ag, 8, ag" 09. 9, 0, ago 0, 04 114FUR CONS? ago is 1094 2o 6, 6, ago 70 170 16, bArUR NAuur W9, to ago 4, 20'. 1 go .09, 23, 45, 43, hArUR TRANS 2, .90 7, 23'. 22, -49, 47, isto 97, LAruR TPADE W90 4, "go is, 44. 42, 09, 50. liso 1140 LAFUR FINAN ago 2o ago 6, 10, 17o -90 64s, 62o Gun Sun ago to ago 4, 16, 15, -9, 19* 33, 23, 6krun Tom .96 0, mg, ago 17, -9, 27, 1974 IN-OUT 16ArUR AGRI .9.1 ago GAFUR HININ 01 go hArUR CONST 22, 21, t#AFUR HAHUF 95, 91, 6AFUR TRANS 152. 146. LAFUR TRADE 160o 1530 LAFUR FINAll 05, 02, GAFOR SERVC 24, 23, LAM TOTHN 211, 0 1956 3959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT I"-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT LIVIN AGRI .9. 91 .9. 09, -90 .9. .9, .9e .49. .99 LIVIN MINIM .90 0, .9. .9, .9. -9, .9, .9. .9, -!94 LIvIN CONST -90 81 .9. 11 2, 2, 09, 4, 150 14, GIVIN MANUF .9. 58 .9. 2, 3. 31 _9* 7, 9, 9, LIVIN TRANS .9, 0. _9" 0, 11 to -91 to 4, 4. LIVIN TRADE -9. to -9, 0, 6o 6, .9, Is 36, is. LIVIN FINAN -91 0, .9" 1*, 3, 31 09. 76 13, 12, LIVIN SERVC .9. 01 .9. 11 1, .9, 4, 7, 5, LIVIN TOTMN .9. -9, .9, 0, .9, .9. 1, -4 1974 IN-OUT LIVIN AGRI ftg. .91 LIVIN MINIM 11 0, LIVIN CONST 12o if, LIVIN MANUF 17, 17, LIVIN TRANS 152. 146. LIVIN TRADE so. 47. LIVIN FINAN 23, 22o LIVIN SERVC 4. 4. LIVIN TOTMN 11 m = m = m m m = = 1956 1959 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT ORGEA AGRI Mg. so -96 2, 4, .9,0 90 23s 22a ORGEA 9ININ .9, -9, 09, 0-9, .9, 4-9, ago .90 ORhEA CONST Mg, l4s 09, 44, 169, 162, -90 199, 351 337, ORGEA HANUF -9, 32* -96 105, 371, 356, .9, 529, 803: 769. OPIXA TRANS Mg, 51, -9, 169, 566, 543* Mg, 89t, 1584, 1520o ORIjEA TRADE Mg, loss .9, 361.. 1003, 9629, mg, 1447 2415, 2316, OR6EA riNAN 09" 92, .90 3110 921q e64, Mg, 1369: 2375, 2277* OPIAEA BERVC Mg, 44, W90 169, 512, 491 Mg, 742*0 1360, 634, O11hEA TOTHN Mg, .9, Mg, Mg, 44, 09, .9, 166, 4 1974 IN-OUT ORLEA AGRI -90 .9, ORLEA HININ -90 Mg, ONLEA CONST 34.3, i2,9. ORLEA HANUF 872. 036, ORLEA TRANS 19io. 1,098. ORGEA TRADE 2581, 2476, OR6EA FINAN 2631. 2524. OphEA SEFIVC OU3. 770, ORGEA TOTMN 202, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT PLAOU AGRI -9. 0, -91 0, 11 .9, Is 2, 2, PLAOU MINIM -90 .9. ge 09, .9, 09, .9, -9. .9, .9. PlAAQU CONST -9. 0, -90 0, 0, 0, .91 16. 56, 53. PLAQU MANUF .9. 11 .9, So 8, 7, .9, 12o 27, 26, PLAOU TRANS -9. 01 .9, 3, el 9, .91 23, 47, 45. PIjAQU.TRADE .9, 09, 1 16, 16, .9, 25' 55. 52, PLAou rINAN -9, 01 .9, 0, 2, 2, .91 70 13, 12, P14AOU SERVC .90 00 .9, 0, 5, 5, .90 ill 75, 16, PLAOU TOTMN .9, 09. .9. 09, 24. 09, .9, ago 1974 00 IN-OUT Pl*A0U AGRI -9. PLAOU MINIM .9. -90 PLAOU CONST 42. 41o PLAOU MANUF 55. 530 PLAOU TRANS 71. 68. PLAOU TRADE 57. 55o Pl,AOU-FINAM -9. -9, PLAQU SERVC 24. 23, PLAOU TOTMN 84. M WW56 M M MR959M M M396PM m m Ignm m lop IN-OUT INwOUT IN-OUT IN-*OUT IN-OUT STUER AGRI 409, 0, ftg, 0, Mg* ftg, 09, Mg, to to ATOER MINIM ftgo "g, Mg, 09, ago 09, "g, Mg, 0, 0, STBER CON6.T --9, 0, 09, 1 60 6, W90 12* 30, 29, STBER mAmur 09, 36 @9' 5, 3es' 36, .91 46, 69, vs, STOER TRANA W9, so ftg. to 30 3, mg, 6, 14. 14, 3TBER TRADE 09, mg, 5. 191, 19, Mg, 300 70, STBER FINAN age 0, W9, 1 Be I I ago t4e 26, 25, STUER 8CRVC Mg, 0, W9, 10 5, 5, 409, a., too Its STUER TOTHM 0-90 609, 09, 0099 to ;.go ago 2, 1974 IN-OUT STBER AGRI 09, STBER MINIM Mg. 0 -91 STOER CONST 200 Ag' STBER MANur 142, 136, STBER TRANS 27. 26. STBER TRADE 114, tog. STBER FINAN 60, 57, STBER GEAVC to, STOER TOTMH 2, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT INoOUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STCHS AGRI -90 .9. .90 .9. 0. 0, -9, .9, -9. -9. STCHS 91MIN .9, 0, .9, .9, 0, 0, .9. STCHS CONST .9. el 09, 11 5, 51 .9, 36, 24, 23. STCHS MANUF -9, 2, .9. 25, 15. 15, .9, 30. it, 68. STCHS TRANS .9. 09, 3. 13, 13, .9, 17* 40. 30, STCHS TRADE .9. is .9, 2, to, 9. 09" is 27, 26, STCHs rINAN -91 a* .9, 1 1 2, 2, -9, 70 141, t3S, STC11S SERVC -90 06 -9, 11 31 3, .9, 6. 14s 9, STCHS TOTMN .9, .9. -9. 2, 4, 00 1974 IN-OUT STCHS AGRI -90 -91 STCHS AININ 00 0. SMIS CONST Is, Is. STCHS MANUF go. 94, STCHS TRANS 43. 41. STCHS TRAnE 39. 37o STCHS FINAN 30. 28o STCHS SERVC 15, 14. STC113 TOTHN 3. 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT Im"OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT 3TJA3 AGRI -9, .9, @9, ag, 090 "90 09, mg, mg, 09, BTJAS Hl"IN "g, '"g, "g, 0.9, mg, .9, .9, mg, 09, 09, STJA3 CONST "g, es .9, 3, 0, 09, 19, 4, 4, STJAS mANur -9, Is- -9, 5. 16, 15, .9, 23, 54, 51, SWAS TRANS 009, 00 .90 W9, I* to aq, 11 7, 70 STJAS TRADE .9, 09, 2, 6* 6, 09" le, Is# t7, STJA3 FINAN mg, 2o 2, -19, 39 60 6, STJAB SERVC ftg, 0, @9, 1, it to mg, 29 4, 2o STJAS TOTHM 09, 0-9, 090 09, 09, '09* 09, .9, mg, mg, 1974 IN-OUT SiJAS AGRI "g, W-9, STJAS HININ -90 -9, STJAS CONST 11 STJAS MANUF 82. STJAS TRANS 11 to STJAS TRADC 27. 26, STJAS FINAN 16, 15, STJAS SERVC 4, 4, STJAS TOTM14 -90 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STJON AGRI -91 0. .9. 0. 0, 0, .9, 0. 09, .9, STJON NINIH W9, .9. .91 09, .9, -9, 0. 09. .9. STJON CONST -9. .9. 0, .9, -96 -9, 3, 4, 4, STJON MANUF .9. .9. 11 15, 15, -9, 7, 27, 26, STJON TRANS .9, .90 0, 11 1, -9, 2, Its to, STJON TRADE .9, to -9. 2s too 9, .9. too 27, 26, STJON rINAN .9, .9. ftg, -9, 2, 2* 09, .9, 6, 6. STJOH SCRVC -9. 0. -9, 0. to to -9, 4, 7, 5, MON TOTMN -9. .9. .9. .91 .9. .9, -9, .9. -9, 00 1974 IN-OUT STJON AGRI -90 -9. 5TJON HININ .9, -9. STJON CONST 4. 4, STJON MANUF 44. 42, STJON TRANS 10.. 10. STJON TRADE 42o 40. STJON rINAN 21. 20. STJON SERVC 41 4, STJON TOTMNI -9. low IN-OU? III-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT START AGRI @9' 09, "go "go W9 @91 ftgo -09, ftq, STNRT WIN]" W9, so 09, "go 00 0'. -9, of 0, so START CONST -9, 0, ago 11 39, 31'. .9, 4o 19, STMRT MANUF ago 00 -9, ]a 3a ag" 5, 9, START TRANS -9, 0, -mg, to to ago If to START TRADE .9, to . 09, 3, Is* go -9, 20i 36e 35a STNAT FINAN .19, Do 09, is 2a 2, 09. 7, 13, 120 START AERVC ago 0, -49, 0, to to "go 2, 7, 5, START TOTHN 09, 0, mg, 4096 31 "g, C4 1974 lU-OUT START AGRI -9, ftq, ,STNRT KIRIN so STORT CONST 12s 120 STHRT HAHUF 55, 53* START TRANS 3. 3. START TRADE 62. 59. START riNAR 19, 19, STRUT SERVC 6, 6, STHRT TOYMN 12* 1956 1959 1964* 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT STMRY AGRI -94, ol .9. 11 39 3, -9, 5, 5, 5. STHRY MININ -9, 0, .9, .98 .9. "g, .9, .9, .9. .9, STMRY CONST .9. 2e .9, 5, Is, 15, -9, 20, 410 39, STMRV MANur .9, 2. .9, 6, 21, 20, 09, 37, 85, 01, STMRY TRANS -9, 2. .9, S. 27, 26, .9, 57, 96, 83, STMRY TRADE .9, 3, .9. 130 42, 40, ..96 70.0 131, STNRY FINAN .9. to -9. .91 15, 15, mg, 27, 64, 62, STHRY SERYC .90 1 1 .9. 3, 11. it, 09, 29o 60. 36. STMRY TOTMN .9, 0, .9. .9, 27, .9, .90 76, 00 1974 IN-OUT. STHRY AGRI -9,, -9, STMRY MININ -9, -9. STHRY CONST 47. 45. STMRY HANUF 166, 159., STHRY TRANS 126. 121. STMRY TRADE 213, 204, -STMRY rINAN 98, 94, STNRY SERVC 39. 37. STMRY TOTHN 44. 19"m m IN-OUT 114-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN.OUT 3TTAH AGRI at, ago 09, 09, 0, 0, ago 00 20 2, 3TTAM MINIM ago 0-9, ago ago mg, -90 _4j" 09, 09, -90 3TTAN CONST -9, -09, 61. 5, .9, 0, 170 16, STTAN HANUF "go -9, 4. 14, 11, W9, 23, 40, 39, STTAH TRANS -90 04 mg, 2, 6. 5 9-9, 91 17, STTAK TRADE 09, 20 W9, 7. 29, 20, .9, 50, 91, ell, 3TTAH rINAM ago is age 2, 134 13, -9, 27, 51, 49, 3TTAM SERVC ago 00 age. 2, 9 0, ago 17o 32* 20, 8TTAM TOTNM -91, .09, -90 90. 04 "go ago ago 09, or) 1974 IN-OUT 3TTAM AGRI -91 -9, STTAH NI NIN -90. .9, 3TTAH CONS? 27, 26, STTAX mANur 69, 66, STTAH TRANS 37. 30. STTAK TRADE 161, 5TTAH FINAH 116, STTAH BERVC 26. 25, STTAH Tom -90 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT lN-OUT lW-OUT TANGI AGRI .9. -9. -91 -9. .9. 21 3, 3, TANGt MININ .94 -9, .90 09, .9, .9, 09. .9. .9, .9, TANG1 CONST "9" 0. 5, 5, .9, as 150 14, TANGI mANur "g. 2, .9. 0, 24, 23, .91 23, so, 55. TANGI TRANS -90 is -9. 2. 4, 3". .9, a, Is, 17. TANGI TRADE 090 4, .9. 16. sts 49, .9, 00 146, 140, TANGi riNAN .9. 31 -9. 3. 13, 13, .9, 274 so, 55, TANGI SERVC .9" 1, .9. 3. to, 9, 09, 19, 32, 20, TANQI TOTHN ftq. W9. 09, .9. .9, .9, 2, Oo 0-) 1974 IN-OUT TANGI AGRI -9. -9, TANGI MININ -90 .91 TANGI CONST 20. 19, TANGI MANUF 91, 87, TANGI.TRANS 40. 38. TANGI TRADE 214, 205, TANGi rINAN eq. 96, TANGI SERVC 20o 190 T.ANGI TOTMN 2, mlv " " " " " " " " m " " IT972 1959 1967 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT TERRE NGRI -90 0. -90 0, 20 2, 09, 2a 5, 5, TERRE KIRIN _q* 09, @9' 0.9, 0-9, 619, W9, 9, 0, TERRE CONST 09, .9" 2, 10, to, "96 fit 22, ?16 TERRE HANUF w9e 09. 6, to, Is, -9, 23* 71, 68, TERRE TRANS ago 20 W9. 7, 26, 25, ago 36* 97, 93, TERRE TRADE W9, 49 age 17, 59i '56. ftg, 950 162, 175, TERRE rjHAH "go to .9. To 22, 21. -9, 406 90, 86, TERPE BERVC -90 to @90 4, to, 17, "go 320 60, 38, TERRE TOTMH .-go 09, 09, .09, 24. ag., 09, 63. 00 1974 IN-OUT TERRE &GRI -90 mg, TERRE KIRIN -.90 .9, TERRE CONST 45, 439 TERRE mAtiur 139, 1250 TERRE TRANS 125. 120. TERRE TRADE 111, 290* TERRE ri"AN 133, 127, TERRE SERVC 49, 47o TERRE TOTHN 140, 1956 1959 1964 1967 1972 IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT IN-OUT VElimb AGRI .9. 00 -9. 0. 11 11 .9, -9. 2. 20 VERMb NININ .90 ol .9. 0, .9, .96 -91 .9. 0, 0. VERMI, CONST -9. 10 .90 11 4* 4& .9. 14, 8, 0. VERMb NANUF -9. 0, .9. 16 a, 7. .9, 9, to. 17, VERMIj TRANS .99 11 .90 2, 7. 7. 09, 11, to. 17. VERMG TRADE .9, to .99 9. 26. 25. .9. 43'* 73, 70, VERMG FINAN .9. 0. .9. 3, 9. 8, -9, 140 51, 49, VERML, SERVC -90 3, 09, 0. 12, 12. .9. 13, 21, 14, VERMI, TOTMH .9. 0, .9, 0. to. .9, .9, 13. 00 00 1974 IN-OUT VERMts AGRI .9. .9, VERMb HININ -9, -90 VERML CONST 17. 16. VERNG MANUF 22o 21, VERMb TRANS 20. 19. VERMLs TRADE 97. 93. VERMb FINAN 44, 42, VERMh SERVC 23, 22, VERMb TOTMN 35. REFERENCES Council of Economic Advisors (1976) "Economic Report of the President," Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Isard, W. (1960) Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press. Isard, W. and R. E. Kuenne (1953) "The Impact of Steel Upon the Greater New York-Philadelphia Region: A Study of Agglomeration Projection," Review of Economics and Statistics, Volume 35, November. Leontief, W. W. (1951) The Structure of the American Economy, New York, N. Y.: Oxford University Press. (1953) Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, New York, N. Y.: Oxford University Press. (1974) "Structure of the World Economy," American Economic Review, December. Louisiana Information Processing Authority (LIPA) (1976) Unpublished Louisiana Input-Output Model, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Office of Business Economics, U. S. Department of Commerce (1974) "Input-Output Structure of the U. S. Economy: 1967,11 Survey of Current Business, February. Rice, G. R. (1976) A Catalogue of Techniques and Data Sources Used in Estimating Louisiana Economic Output, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Depart- ment of Conservation, U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce (1958) County Business Patterns 1956, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 89 Washin (1961) County Business Patterns 1959, gton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1965) County Business Patterns.1964, Washing-ton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1968) County Business Patterns 1967, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office (1969) Current Population Reports: Popula- tion Estimates, Series 10-26, No. 3, "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes, July 1, 1967 and 1968.11 Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1973) County Business Patterns 1972, Washiniton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1974) Current Population Reports, Popula- tion Estimates and Projections, Series P-26, No. 54, "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1972 and 1973,11 Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1976) Current Population Reports: Population Estimates, Series P-26, No. 75-18, "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes and Metropolitan Areas: July 1, 1974 and 1975," Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1977) County Business Patterns 1974, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Geological Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior (1976) Outer Continental Shelf Statistics, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 90 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC SERVICE EXPENDITURES IN THE COASTAL ZONE INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the state and local expenditures'i-n coastal zone parishes for selected public services are presented. The public service sectors included are education, highways, police protection, fire protection, water supply, solid waste disposal, sewerage, health and hospitals, and parks and recreation. For each public service sector, state and local per capita expenditures for 1972 in each coastal zone pa-rish are discussed. These costs are then attributed to the estimated 1972 OCS related coastal zone parish populations to show total OCS population related costs by sector and parish. They include both capital and operating expenditures. None of the expenditures shown for the various public service sectors include interest on debt, unemployment compen- sation, or retirement benefits paid to former employees. Other fringe benefits, however, are included. To give a range, from maximum to minimum, of OCS related costs, the OCS related parish populations are given with sector 8 included and not included (see Chapter 2). Finally, in the conclusions, the total expenditures and revenues for all governmental activities in Louisiana are discussed for both the entire state and the OCS related coastal zone populations. EDUCATION Under the category of education are included expen- ditures for higher education (mainly state supported) which refers to all post high school education and local schools (mainly locally supported) which includes all education excepting higher education. Expenditures are for both capital and operating expenses. For local schools costs include school construction (including land),operation, and maintenance expenses; textbook purchases; school bus purchases; personnel salaries; school lunch program. expenses; health, recreation, and library service costs; equipment; etc. Expenditures under higher education, besides personnel salaries, facilities construction, operation, and maintenance, include auxiliary activities expenses such as the costs 91 of operating dormitories, dining halls, and bookstores. Higher education costs do not include agricultural experiment station and extension expenditures. Interest payments on school related debts and retirement benefits paid to former employees are not included under education expenditures (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974:* 6). The per capita expenditures for education in 1972 in each coastal zone parish are shown in Table 3.1. The individual local per capita costs were added to the average state per capita cost to obtain total figures (Table 3.1). These total per capita costs were then multiplied by the 1972 estimated OCS related parish populations (Table 3.2) to yield education expenditures for the OCS related populations in the coastal zone parishes. The coastal zone cost figure based on the low OCS related population estimate (without sector 8) is $14,245,406; on the high OCS related estimate (with sector 8), $16,257,074. HIGHWAYS Highway expenditures are for provision and maintenance of highway facilities including bridges, tunnels, ferries, regular roads, highways, and city streets. Included are expenditures for salaries, equipment, construction, and land. Highway policing costs are classified.under "police protection" and interest on highway related debt is not included (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 7). Table 3.3 presents per capita expenditures for high- ways in 1972 in each coastal zone parish. The individual local costs were added to the average state per capita cost to obtain total figures (Table 3.3) and these costs were attributed to the 1972 estimated OCS related parish populations (Table 3.4). Highway costs in the coastal zone based on the population estimate without sector 8 are $5@876,191; with sector 8 included, $6,662,168. POLICE PROTECTION The per capita expenditures for police protection in 1972 in coastal zone parishes are shown in Table 3.5. Police agencies include local police departments, sheriffs' offices, and state police,but not corrections agencies. These costs include both capital and operative (basically construction, land, salary, and equipment) expenses and they were attributed to the estimated 1972 OCS related 92 TABLE 3.1. 1972 STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 2 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 Capita Capita ($1000) Population Expenditures Expenditures scension 7,627 39P204 194.55 269.718 Assumption 4,873 20,115 242.26 317.49 Calcasieu 29,133 148,328 196.27 271.50 ameron 2,372 8)907 266.31 341.54 Iberia 11,227 58,859 190.74 265.97 Iberville 8t604 30)667 280.56 355.79 efferson 57)944 366JI324 158.18 233.41 eff. Davis 6JI262 29)622 211.40 286.63 afourche 14,001 71,958 194.57 269.80 ivingston 7,793 38,330 203.31 278.54 rleans 84,737 593,717 142.72 217.95 laquemines 5)337 25,893 206.12 281.35 t. Bernard 9,624 55,043 174.85 250.08 t. Charles 6)488 301782 210.77 286.00 t. James 3,672 191008 193.18 268.41 t. John 4,567 24.*830 183.93 259.16 t. Martin 8,093 33,701 240.14 315.37 t. Mary 13,435 62,172 216.09 291.32 t. Tammany 14.1372 67,092 214.21 289.44 angipahoa 11)687 680017 171.82 247.05 errebonne 161840 78)835 213.61 288.84 ermilion 82026 43Y930 182.70 257.93 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 1 State Expenditure ($1000) 281,211. State Population 3,737,7712 L L 0 P S S S S S S 9 r r V State Per Capita Expenditure 75.23 93 TABLE 3.2 1972 EDUCATION EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cost for OCS Capita Population2 - Related Population - Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8- Ascension 269.78 955.5 859.95 257,774.79 231,997.31 Assumption 317.49 487.5 456.25 154,776.38 144,854.81 271.50 4,956.49 4,446.86 1,345-687.04 1,207 322.49 Calcasieu Cameron 341.54 217.77 107.1 74)377.7 36)578.93 Iberia 265.97 1,946.1 1,591.81 5171604.22 423,373.71 Iberville 355.79 946.9 8 63.35 336,897.55 307,171.30 Jefferson 233.41 11,633.31 101308.12 2,715,330.89 2,406,018.29 Jeff. Davis 286.63 1,[email protected] 925. 299)069.74 265,132.75 Lafourche 269.80 2,512.98 2,197.34 6781002.00 -592,842.33 Livingston 278.54 1,283.5 1,192.9 357.1506.09 332,270.37 Orleans 217.95 22,632.67 20,265.74 4,932,790.43 4,416,918.03 Plaquemines 281.35 694.86 457.32 195.1498.86 1281666.98 St. Bernard 250.08 1,682.45 1,562..75 420,747.10 390,812.52 St.. Charles 286.00 ly544.01 13.438.19 441)586.86 411,322.34 St.. James 268.41 506.85 474.15 136,043.61 127,266.60 St. John 259.16 840.5 789.25 217,823.98 204,542.03 St. Martin 315.37 974.38 756.8 307)290.22 238)672.02 St. Mary 291.32 1)922.38 1,523.33 560)027.74 443,776.50 St. Tammany 289.44 [email protected] 2)063.29 654)571.45 597P198.66 Tangipahoa 247.05 2.1377.1 2,176.64 558,706.05 537,738.91 Terrebonne 288.84 2,397.3 1,909.98 692)436.13 551,678.62 Vermilion 257.93 1,560.a 1,354.05 402t525.56 249,250.12 TOTAL 279.24 65,278.01 57,720.17 6,257,073.86 1.4,245,405.62 (Inweighted average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.1 (2) See Chapter 2. 94 TABLE 3. 3 1972 HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE.. BY PARISH - F- 3 1972 Local' 2 1972 per Total per Expenditures 1972 Capita Capita ($1000) Population Expenditures Expenditures scension 1,111 39,204 28.34 109.60 Assumption 214 20,115 10.64 91.90 Calcasieu 3,840 148,328 25.89 107.15 Cameron . 375 8,907 42.10 123.36 Iberia 1,289 58,859 21.90 103.16 Iberville 597 30)667 19.47 100.73 Jefferson 15,424 366)324 42.10 123.36 Jeff. Davis 532 29,622 17.96 99.22 Lafourche 950 71,958 13.20 94.46 Livingston 449 38,330 11.71 92.97 Orleans 6,401 593,717 10.78 92.04 Plaquemines 995 25,893 38.43 119.69 St. Bernard 869 55tO43 15.79 97.05 t. Charles 557 30P782 18.09 99.35 St. James 372 19,008 19.57 100.63 St. John 385 24,830 15.51 96.77 t. Martin 469 33,701 13.92 95.18 St. Mary 751 62,172 12.28 93.54 St. Tammany 1)414 67,092 21.08 102.34 angipahoa 1,109 68,017 16.30 97.56 errebonne 1P416 78,835 17.96 99.22 ermilion it333 43,930 30.34 111.60 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau, of the Census, 1974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 1 State Expenditure ($1000) - 303,733 State Population - 3p737,771 State Per Capita Expenditure 81.26 95 TABLE 3.4 1972 HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cost for OCS- Capita Population2 Related Population - Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8- Sector 8 Sector 8 Ascension 109.60 955.5 859.95 104,722.80 94,250.52 Assumption 91.90 487.5 456.25 44,801.25 41,929.-38 Calcasieu 107.15 4,956.49 4P446.86 531)087.90 476,481.05 Cameron 123.36 217.77 107.1 26)864.11 130211.86 Iberia 103.16 1,.946.1 1.*591.81 200)759.68 164,211.12 Iberville 100.73 946.9 863.35 951381.24 86,965.25 Jefferson 123.36 111633.31 10,308.12 1)435,085.12 lp271,609.68 Jeff. Davis 99.22 1,043.4 925. 1031526.15 91,778.50 Lafourche 94.46 2,512.98 2,197.34 237,376.09 207,560.74 L Con 92.97 1P283.5 1,192.9 119 327.00 110 903.91 ivings-A Orleans 92.04 22P632.67 20,265.74 2PO83,110.95 1,865,258.71 Plaquemines 119.69 694.86 457.32 83,167.79 54)736.6'u: St. Bernard 97.05 1,682.45 1,562.75 1632281.77 151,664.K St. Charles 99.35 1,544.01 11438.19 153)1397.39 142,884.lE St. James 100.63 506.85 474.15 51,004.32 47,713.71 St. John 96.77 840.5 789.25 - 81)335.19 76,375.72 St. Martin 95.18 974.38 756.8 92,741.49 72,032.22 St. Mary 93.54 1,922.38 1,523.33 179)819.43 142,492.2@ St. Tammany 102.34 2,261.51 2,063.29 231P442.93 211,157.1( Tangipahoa 97.56 2P377.12 2,176.64 231,911.83 212,353.0( Terrebonne 99.22 2,397.3 1,909.98 237,860.11 189,508.2-9 Vermilion 111.60 1,560.6 1,354.05 174P162.96 151,111.9@ TOTAL 102.31 65,278.OE 57)720.17 6,662,167.50 5,876,190.6( l nweighted average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.3. (2) See Chapter 2. 96 TABLE 3. 5 1972 POLICE PROTECTION EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 2 Capita Capita ($1000) Population Expenditures Expenditures scension 643 39,204 16.40 19.78 Assumption 194 20,115 9.64 13.02 Calcasieu 3,554 148,328 23.96 27.34 Cameron 318 8,907 35.70 39.08 Iberia 1,162 58,859 19.74 23.12 Iberville 579 30,667 18.88 22.26 Jefferson 7P692 366,324 21.00 24.38 Jeff. Davis 485 29,622 16.37 19.75 Lafourche 785 71)958 10.91 14.29 ivingston 443 38,330 11.56 14.94 Orleans 171587 593,717 29.62 33.00 Pla.quemines 915 25)893 35.34 38.72 t. Bernard 10 55,043 .18 3.56 St. Charles 725 30,782 23.55 26.93 St. James 211 19,008 11.10 14.48 t. John 235 24,830 9.46 12.84 St. Martin 129 33,701 3.83 7.21 St. Mary 1,600 62,172. 25.74 29.12 t. Tammany 490 67,092 7.30 10.68 Tangipahoa 792 68,017 11.64 15.02 Terrebonne 921 7 8 , 8 3 %5 11.68 15.06 Vermilion 805 43,930 18.32 21.70 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census., 1974: 94P 410-15. (2) Denton., 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus 'Local expenditures- State Expenditure ($1000) 7- JJ2,633 State Population - 3,737, 7 1 State Per Capita Expenditure 3. 38 97 parish populations (Table 3.6). The total police protec- tion cost in the coastal zone based on the low population estimate is $1,,433,997; and based on the high estimate is $1,626,965. FIRE PROTECTION The 1972 state and local per capita costs for fire protection in the coastal zone, which include construction, land, salaries, and equipment expenses, are shown in Table 3.7. These costs were attributed to the estimated 1972 OCS related parish populations (Table 3.8) resulting in a coastal zone fire protection cost, based on the low population estimate of $623,984 and, on the high estimate of $703,686. WATER SUPPLY The per capita expenditures for water supply (puri- fication and distribution) in 1972 in each coastal zone parish are presented in Table 3.9. There were no state expenditures in 1972 for water supply. These costs., which include both capital and operating expenses, were attributed to the estimated 1972 OCS related parish populations (Table 3.10). The coastal zone water supply with sector 8 out (low population estimate) is $849,782; with sector 8 in (high estimate) it is $981,021. It should be noted, however, that supply of'water does generate revenue through sales which sometimes exceeds or falls short of the cost of supplying the water. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Table 3.11 presents the per capita expenditures for solid waste disposal (sanitation other than sewerage) in 1972 in each coastal zone parish. Only local expendi- tures were made in 1972 and the expenditures include both capital and operating expenses. These expenditures were attributed to the estimated 1972 OCS related parish populations (Table 3.12) and the coastal zone solid waste disposal cost based on the low population estimate is $366,796; and on the high estimate is $416,802. 98 TABLE 3.6 1972 POLICE PROTECTION EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cost for OCS Capita Population2 Related P ulation Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector '8 Sector 8 Ascension 19.78 955.5 859.95 .18 900. 170010. Assumption 13.02 487.5 456.25 6:347. 5$940. Calcasieu 27.34 4JI956.49 4)446.86 135,510. @121,577. Cameron 39.08 217.77 107.1 8,510. 4,185. Iberia 23.12 1,946.1 1,591.81 44,994. 36,803. Iberville 22.26 946.9 863.35 21.1078. 19,218. Jefferson 24.38 11,633.31 10,308.12 283,620 251)312. Jeff. Davis 19.75 1,043.4 925. 20,607 18,269. Lafourche 14.29 2,512.98 2,197.34 35)910. 31,400. Livingston 14.94 1,283.5 1,192.9 19,175. 17,822. Orleans 33.00 22)632.67 201265.74 746y878. 668,769. Plaquemines 38.72 694.86 457.32 26,905. 17,707. St. Bernard 3.56 1,682.45 1,562.75 5,990. 5,563. St. Charles 26.93 1,544.01 1,438.19 41,580. 38,730. St. James 14.48 506.85 474.15 7,339. 6P866. St. John 12.84 840.5 789.25 10,792. 10,134. St. Martin 7.21 974.38 756.8 7,025. 5,457. St. Mary 29.12 1,922.38 lj,523. 33 55$980. 44P359. St. Tammany 10.68 2,261.51 2,063.29 24,153. 22,036.. Tangipahoa 15.02 2,377.12 2,176.64 35,704. 32,693. Terrebonne 15.06 2,397.3 1,909.98 36,103. 28,764. Vermilion 21.70 1,560.6. 1,354.05 33,865. 29,383. TOTAL 20.29 65,278.08 57,720.17 1,626,965. 1)433,997. (Inweight'ed average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.5. (2) See Chapter 2. 99 TABLE 3.7 1972 FIRE PROTECTION EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 2 Capita Capita ($1000). Population Expenditures Expenditures Ascension 58 39)1204 1.48 3.02 Assumption - 20.9115 - 1.54 Calcasieu 1,179 1483,328 7.95 9.49 Cameron 23 8.9907 2.58 4.12 Iberia 478 58.1859 8.12 9.66 Iberville 39 30P667 1.27 2.81 efferson 2,159 366,324 5.89 7.43 eff. Davis 60 29P622 2.03 3.57 Lafourche 87 71,958 1.21 2.75 Livingston 59 38$330 1.54 3.08 Orleans 1OP658 5931717 17.95 19.49 Plaquemines 157 253%893 6.06 7.60 St. Bernard 369 553043 6.70 8.24 t. Charles 58 301782 1.88 3.42 St. James 2 19P008 .11 1.65 St. John 2. 243,830 .08 1.62 St. Martin 32 33,701 .95 2.49 St. Mary 321 62.1172. 5.16 6.70 St. Tammany 60 673.092 .89 2.43 Tangipahoa 339 68)017 4.98 6.52 Terrebonne 429 78,835 .5.44 6.98 Vermilion 182 43.*930 4.14 5.68 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Cen sus, 1974: 942 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures-- 4 State Expenditure ($1000) - 5,767 State Population - 3,737,7712 State Per Capita Expenditure - 1.54 (4) Office of the Governor, 1973: 08-28, 08-30. Includes expenditures f or Firemen I s Supp lement al Pay and Group Insurance, and'State Fire Marshal's Office. 1972-73 budget is used as a good indica- tion of 1972 expenditures. 100 TABLE 3.8 1972 FIRE PROTECTION EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH . Total Per] OCS Related Cos t for OCS- Capita Population2 Related Po ulation Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector *8 Sector 8 Ascension 3.02 955.5 859.95 2,886. 2,597. Assumption 1.54 487.5 456.25 751. 703. Calcasieu 9.49 4,956.49 4,446.86 47,037. .42,201. Cameron 4.12 217.77 107.1 897. 441. Iberia 9.66 1,946.1 1,591.81 18,799. 15Y377. Iberville 2.81 946.9 863.35 2)661. 2,426. Jefferson 7.43 11,633.31 10,308.12 86,435. 76,589. Jeff. Davis 3.57 1,043.4 925. 3,725. 3,302. Lafourche 2.75 2,512.98 2,197.34 6,911. 6,043. Livingston 3.08 1,283.5 1,192.9 3Y953. 3,674. Orleans 19.49 22,632.67 20,265.74 441 111. 394,979. Plaquemines 7.60 694.86 457.32 5:281. 3P4706. St. Bernard 8.24 1,682.45 1,562.75 13,863. 12,877. St. Charles 3.42 1,544.01 11438.19 5,281. 4,919. St. James 1.65 506.85 474.15 836. 782. St. John 1.62 840.5 789.25 1,362. 1,279. St. Martin 2.49 974.38 756.8 2)426. 1,884. St. Mary 6.70 1.1922.38 12523.33 12P880. 10,206. St. Tammany 2.43 2,261.51 21063.29 5,495. 5,014.. Tangipahoa 6.52 2,377.12 2,176.64 15P499. 14,192. Terrebonne 6.98 2,397.3 11909.98 16,733. 131332. Vermilion 5.68 1,560.6. 1,3354.05 8.*864. 7,691. TOTAL 5.47 65,278.08157,720.17 703,686. 623,984. (Inweig ted average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.7. (2) See Chapter 2. 101 TABLE 3.9. 1972 WATER EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 2 Capita Capita ($1000). Population Expenditures Expenditures Ascension 121 39,204 3.09 3.09 Assumption 639 20,115 31.77 31.77 Calcasieu 347 148,328 2.34 2.34 ameron 282 8.%907 31.66 31.66 Iberia 14 5 58,859 2. 46 2.46 Iberville 171 30,667 5.58 5.58 efferson 8,599 366,324 23.47 23.47 Jeff. Davis 244 29,622 8.24 8.24 Lafourche 2,349 71,958 32.'64 32.64 Livingston 107 38JI330 2.79 2.79 Orleans 7)332 593,717 12.35 12.35 Plaquemines 708 25,893 27.34 27.34 St. Bernard - 55,043 0 0 St. Charles 352 30,782 11.44 11.44 St. James 469 19,008 24.67 24.67 t. John 58 24)830 2.34 2.34 St. Martin 503 33,701 14.93 14.93 St. Mary 1,455 62,172. 23.79 23.79 St. Tammany 512 67,092 7.63 7.63 Tangipahoa 236 68JI017 3.47 3.47 Terrebonne 4,336 78,835 55.00 55.00 ermilion 546 43,930 12.43 12.43 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 1 State Per Capita Expenditure None 102 TABLE 3.10 1972 WATER EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cos t for OCS Capita Population2 Related P pulation Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8' Sector 8 'Sector 8 Ascension 3.09 955.5 859.95 2)952.50 2,657.55 Assumption 31.77 487.5 456.25 15,487.88 14,495.06 Calcasieu 2.34 4Y956.49 4,446.86 11)598.19 101405.65 Cameron 31.66 217.77 107.1 6,894.60 3,390.78 '2.46 1,946.1 1,591.81 4,787.41 3 916.02 Iberia Iberville 5.58 946.9 863.35 5,283.70 4,817.49 Jefferson 23.47 11,633.31 10)308.12 273$033.79 241)931.58 Jeff. Davis 8.24 1,043.4 925. 8,597.62 7,622.00 Lafourche 32.64 2P512.98. 2,197.34 82,023.67 @71,721.18 Livingston 2.79 1,283.5 1,192.9 3,580.97 3,328.19 Orleans 12.35 22,632.67 20,265.74 279,514.71 250,281.89 Plaquemines 27.34 694.86 457.32 18,997.47 12,503.13 St. Bernard 0 1,682.45 1,562.75 0 0 St. Charles 11.44 1,544.01 1,438.19 17,663.47 16P452.89 St. James 24.67 506.85 474.15 12,503.99 11,697.28 St. John 2.34 840.5 789.25 11966.77 1,846.85 St. Martin 14.93 974.38 756.8 14)547.49 11,299.02 St. Mary 23.79 1.*922.36 1.1523.33 45,7133.42 36,240.02 St. Tammany 7.63 2$261.51 2,063.29 17,255.32 15,742.90 Tangipahoa 3.47 2,377.12 2,176.64 8,248.61 7,552.94 Terrebonne 55.00 2.1397..3 1;909.98 131,851.50 105)048.90 Vermilion 12.43 1,560.6 11354.05 19,398.26 16,830.84 TOTAL 15.43 65,278.OE 57,720.17 981,921.34 849,782.16 (unwe ght6d average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.9. (2) See Chapter 2. 103 TABLE 3.11. 1972 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 2 Capita Capita ($1000). Population Expenditures Expenditures scension 106 39,204 2.70 2.70 Assumption - 20P115 0 0 Calcasieu 769 148,328 5.18 5.18 ameron 20 8P907 2.25 2.25 Iberia 75 58,859 1. 27 Iberville 48 30.1667 1.57 1.57 Jefferson 2JI702 366,324 7.38 7.38 Jeff. Davis 156 29)622 5.37 5.37 Lafourche 339 71)958 4.71 4.71 Livingston 89 38)330 2.32 2.32 Orleans 5,324 593,717 8.97 8.97 Plaquemines 345 25P893 13.32 13.32 St. Bernard 383 55,043 6.96 6.96 St. Charles 30,782 0 0 St. James 47 19,008 2.47 2.47 t. John 1 24,830 0 0 St. Martin 82 33,701 2.43 2.43 St. Mary 608 62,172 9.94 9.94 St. Tammany 144 67,092 2.15 2.15 Tangipahoa 240 68,017 3.53 3.53 Terrebonne 400 78)835 5.07 5.07 ermilion 161 43,930 3.66 3.66 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census.. 1974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- State Per Capita Expenditure - None 104 TABLE 3. 12 1972 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH . Total Per] OCS Related Cos t for OCS- Capita Population2 Related Population Expen- With Without With Without ditures jSector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8 Ascension 2.70 955.5 859.95 2,579.85 2,321.87 Assumption 0 487.5 456.25 0 0 Calcasieu 5.18 4,956.49 41446.86 25,674.62 23,034.73 Cameron 2.25 217.77 107.1 489.98 240.98 Iberia 1.27 1,946.1 1,591.81 2,471.55 2)021.69 Iberville 1.57 946.9 863.35 1,486.63 1,355.46 Jefferson 7.38 11,633.31 10,308.12 85)853.83 76J.073.913 Jeff. Davis 5.37 1,043.4 925. 5,603.06 4,967.25 Lafourche 4.71 2P512.981 2,197.34 11,836.14 10,349.47 Livingston 2.32 1,283.5 1,192.9 2,977.72 2,767.53 Orleans 8.97 22)632.67 20,265.74 203,015.95 181,783.69 Plaquemines 13.32 694.86 457.32 9,255.54 6,091.50 St. Bernard 6.96 1P682.45 1,562.75 11,709.85 10,876.74 St. Charles 0 1,544.01 1,438.19 0 0 St. James 2.47 506.85 474.15 1,251.92 1)171.15 St. John 0 840.5 789.25 0 0 St. Martin 2.43 974.38 756.8 2,367.74 1,839.02 St. Mary 9.94 10922.38 1-523.33 19,108.46 15,141.90 St. Tammany 2.15 2.1261.51 2,063.29 4,80-2.25 4,436.07 Tangipahoa 3.53 2,377.12 2JI176.64 8,391.23 7,683.54 Terrebonne 5.07 2.-397.3 1,909-98 12,154.31 9,683.60 Vermilion 3.66 1P560.6 11,354.05 5Y711.80 4)955.82 TOTAL 4.15 65,278.01 57,720.17 416,802.43 366.795.94 nweighted average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.11. (2) See Chapter 2. 105 SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE Sewerage and drainage activities includes disposal of both sanitary sewage and rainwater runoff. The local per capita capital and operating expenditures for sewerage and drainage in 1972 in the coastal zone parishes (Table 3.13) were attributed to the estimated 1972 OCS related parish populations (Table 3.14). In 1972 there were no similar state expenditures. The OCS related sewerage and drainage cost based on the low population estimate is $544,617; on the high estimate, $613,788. HEALTH AND HOSPITALS Health and hospital care in Louisiana includes,besides the operation of general hospitals, services and facilities involving mental health; mental retardation; alcoholism; tuberculosis; the elderly, youth, and the handicapped; health maintenance; veterans affairs; and partial support for some private institutions. Health maintenance services are usually delivered at the parish level and deal with environmental hazards, communicable and. chronic diseases and problems of special populations such. as mothers and children, persons in hazardous occupations, and the indigent. The 1972 capital and operating expenditures by the state and local governments in coastal zone parishes are shown in Table 3.15. Attributing these expenses to the estimated 1972 OCS related parish populations results in Table 3.16 where the total health and hospital cost in the coastal zone with sector 8 included is $4,3719,088 and without sector 8 is $3,834,765. PARKS AND RECREATION For 1972,, the expenditures by the state and local governments for programs involving parks and recreation are presented in Table 3.17. When the per capita expenditures are applied to the estimated 1972 OCS related parish populations (Table 3.18), the cosit of parks and recreation programs in the coastal zone is shown to be $871,085 with sector 8 included and $768,660 without sector 8 included. 106 TABLE 3.13 1972 SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 2 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 Capita Capita ($1000) Population Expendituresi Expenditures Ascension 762 39.1204 9.43 9.43 ssumption - 20,115 0 0 Calcasieu 2,193 148,328 14.78 14.78 Cameron - 8,907 0 0 Iberia 112 58)859 1.90 1.90 Iberville 42 30,667 1 .37 1.37 efferson 2,740 366P324 7.48 7.48 Jeff. Davis 49 29,622 1.65 1.65 afourch 98 71,958 1.36 1.36 Livingston 73 38)330 1.90 1.90 Orleans 10,182 593,717 17.15 17.15 laquemines 375 25,893 14.48 14.48 St. Bernard - 55,043 0 0 St. Charles 141 30,782 4.58 4.58 t. James 31 191008 1.63 1.63 St. John 241,830 0 0 St. Martin 20 33,701 1.0 0 1.00 t. Mary 208 62,172 3.40 3.40 St. Tammany 51 671092 1.00 1.00 Tangipahoa 44 68,017 1.00 1.00 Terrebonne 272 78,835 3.45 3.45 Vermilion 152 43,930 3.46 3.46 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 94) 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 1 State Per Capita Expenditure - None 107 TABLE 3.14 1972 SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cos t for OCS Capita Population2 Related Po ulation Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 -Sector 8 Sector'8 -Sector 8 Ascension 9.43 955.5 859.95. 9,010.37 8,109.33 Assumption 0 487.5 456.25 0 Calcasieu 14.78 4JI956.49 4.9446.86 73,256.924 65,724.60 Cameron 0 217.77 107.1 0 Iberia 1.90 1,946.1 1,591.81 3,697.50 3,024.57 Iberville 1.37 946.9 863.35 1,297.215 1,182.79 Jefferson 7.48 11)633.31 10*308.12 87,017.1115 77)104.74 Jeff. Davis 1.65 1,043.4 925. 1P721.61 11526.25 Lafourche 1.36. 2.4512.98 2,197.34 3P417.65 2.9988.38 Livingston 1.90 1,283.5 1P192.9 2,438.65 2,266.51 Orleans 17.15 22,632.67 20,265.74 388,152.01 347,557.44 Plaquemines 14.48 694.86 457.32 10,061.58 6,621.99 St. Bernard 0 1,682.45 1,562.75 0 St. Charles 4.58 1,544.01 1,438.19 7,071.57 6,586.91 St. James 1.63 506.85 474.15 826.17 772.86 St. John 0 840.5 789.25 0 St. Martin 1.00 974.38 756.8 974.38 756.80 St. Mary 3.40 1,922.38 11523.33 6)536.09 5,179.32 St. Tammany 1.00 2,261.51 2,063.29 2,261.51 [email protected] Tangipahoa 1.00 2,377.12 2,176.64 2 19 2,176.64 .1377.12 Terrebonne 3.45 2JI397.3 [email protected] 8,270.69 61589.43 Vermilion 3.45 1,560.6a 1,354.05 5P399.68 4JI685.01 TOTAL 4.14 65,278.01 57,720.17 613,788.00 544,916.86 (unweightbd average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.13. (2) See Chapter 2. 108 TABLE 3.15 1972 STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH AND HOSPITAL EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1972 per Total per Expenditures 1972 2 Capita Capita ($1000) Populat-ion Expenditures Expenditures scension 771 39,204 19.67 59.25 Assumption - 20,115 - 39.58 Calcasieu 2,488 148,328 16.77 56.35 ameron 460 8$907 51.64 91.22 Iberia 2,173 58)859 36.92 76.50 Iberville 49 30,667 1. 60 41.18 efferson 161457 366.1324 44.92 84.50 Jeff. Davis 71 29,622 2.40 41.98 afourche 1,627 71,958 22.61 62.19 Livingston 78 38,330 2.03 41.61 Orleans 4,875 593,717 8.21 47.79 laquemines 1,549 25,893 59.82 99.40 St. Bernard 398 55,043 7.23 46.81 St. Charles 806 30,782 26.18 65.76 t. James 1,378 19,008 72.49 112.07 St. John 6-0 24,830 2.61 42.19 St. Martin 491 33)701 14.57 54.15 t. Mary 8,333 62,172 134.03 173.61 St. Tammany 5)251 67)092 78.27 117.85 Tangipahoa 3,766 68)017 55.37 94.95 Terrebonne 197 78,835 2.50 42.08 Vermilion 3,085 431930 70.23 109.81 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 94.1 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 1 State Expenditure ($1000) 7-1 147,926 State Population - 3,737, 7 State Per Capita Expenditure - 39.58 109 TABLE 3.16 1972 HEALTH AND HOSPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cos t for OCS Capita Population2 Related Po ulation Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 'S - Sector 8 Ascension 59.25 955.5 859.95 562613.38 50IV952.04 Assumption 39.58- 487.5 456.25 l9j295.25 18,058.38 Calcasieu 56.35 41956.49 4,446.86 27911298-21 250,580.56 Cameron 91.22 217.77 107.1 19.9864.98 9.1769.66 Iberia 76.50 1)946.1 1,591.81 148J876.65 1211773.47 Iberville 41.18 946.9 863.35 38,993.34 35P552.75 Jefferson 84.50 11.4633.31 101308.12 9832014.70 871)036.14 Jeff. Davis 41.98 1,043.4 925. 43,801.93 381?831.5 Lafourche 62.19 2P512.98 2P197.34 156 282.23 136,652.57 Livingston 41.16 1,283.5 1,192.9 52'828.86 49,099.7E Orleans 47.79 22,632.67 20,265.74 lpOKP615.30 968,499.71 Plaquemines 99.40 694.86 457.32 69)069.08 451457.61 St. Bernard 46.81 1,682.45 1,562.75 78)755.,18 73,152.3-1: St. Charles 65.76 1,544.01 12438.19 101,534.10 94,575.3-1 St. James 112.07 506.85 474.15 5.6,802.138 53P137.9E St. John 42.19 840.5 789.25 35,460.70 33.*298.4E St. Martin 54.15 974.38 756.8 52,762.138 40,980.7-9 St. Mary 173.61 1,922.38 1)523.33 333,744.39 264,465.314 St. Tammany 117.85 2.*261.51 2PO63.29 266,518.95 243Y158.71 Tangipahoa 94.95 2P377.12 2,176.64 225,707.54 206,671.9', Terrebonne 42.08 2,397.3 1)909.98 100)878.:38 80)371.9( Vermilion 109.81 1,560.6 1,354.05 171)369.,19 148,688.2'.: TOTAL 72.70 652278.01 57,720.17 4P373,088.30 3,834,765.2 nweightbd average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.15. (2) See Chapter 2. 110 TABLE 3.17 1972 STATE AND LOCAL PARKS AIM RECREATION EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH ii . 3 1972 Local 1 2 1972 per S, Total per Expenditures 1972 Capita Capita ($1000)@ Population Expenditure Expenditures Ascension 66 39,204 1-68 4.30 Assumption 1 20,115 .05 2.67 Calcasieu 41421 148 %.0 .9328 29.80 32.42 ameron - 8.9907 - 2.62 Iberia 14,01 58.1859 3.41 6.03 Iberville 17 30.1677 .55 3.17 efferson 11831 366,324 4.150 7.12 Jeff. Davis 38 29.*622 1.28 3.90 La-APourche 162 71,958 2.25 4.87 ivingston 25 38.1330 .65 3.27 Orleans 10j'989 593;717 18.51 21.13 Plaquemines 1,149 25)893 44.307 46.99 t. Bernard 302 553-043 5.49 8.11 St. Charles - 30J.782 - 2.62 St. James 41 19)008 2.16 4.78 St. John 8 24JI830 .32 2.94 St. Martin 53 33,701 1.57 4.19 St. Mary 237 62,172 3.81 6.43 St. Tammany -55 673-092 .8@ 3.44 Tangipahoa 134 68$017 1.97 4.59 Terrebonne 177 78,835 21.25 4.87 Vermilion 56 43,930 1.27 3.89 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census.. IL974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 4 State Expenditure ($1000) - 9,819 State Population - 3,737,7712 State Per Capita Expenditure - 2.62 (4) Operating Exp. ($1,000) $3,990 (from Office of the Governor, 1973: 29); Capital Exp. ($1,000) $5,829 (from La. Div. of Admin., 1973: 2-, 12). Includes expenditures for parks, recreation, and culture. 1972-73 budget is used as a good indicator of 1972 expenditures. TABLE 3.18 1972 PARKS AND RECREATION EXPENDITURES-FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE - LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cost for OCS Capita Population2 Related Population Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8'' Sector 8 *Sector 8 Ascension 4.30 955.5 4,109. 859.95 3,698. Assumption 2.67 487.5 1)302. 456.25 1,218. Calcasieu 32.42 4P956.49 160,689. 4,446.86 144,167. Cameron 2.62 217.77 571. 107.1 281. Iberia 6.03 1,946.1 11,735. 1,591.81 9,599. Iberville 3.17 946.9 3,002. 863.35 2,737. Jefferson 7.12 11,633.31 82)829. 10,308.12 73)394. Jeff. Davis 3.90 1.1043.4 4$069. 925. 3,608. Lafourche 4.87 2,512.98 12)238. 2,197.34 1OP701. Livingston 3.27 1)283.5 4,197. lJ1192.9 3,901. Orleans 21.13 22,632.67 478,228. 20)265.7,1 428,215. Plaquemines 46.99 694.86 32J.651. 457.32, 21,489. St. Bernard 8.11 1,682.45 13.$645. 1,562.75 12,674. St. Charles 2.62 1,544.01 4.1045. 1,438.19 3,768. St. James 4.78 506.85 2$423. 789.25 2,266. St. John 2.94 840.5 2,471 789.25 2,320. St. Martin 4.19 974.38 4.*083. 756.8 3,171. St. Mary 6.43 1,922.38 12,361. 1,523.33 9,795. St. Tammany 3.44 2,261.51 7,780. 2j063.29 7.*098.. Tangipahoa 4.59 2,377.12 10,911. 2,176.6.1 9,991. Terrebonne 4.87 2,397.3 11,675. 1'909.9@3 9,302. Vermilion 3.89 1,560.6 6,071. 1,3554.05 5,267. TOTAL 8.39 65JI278.01 871,085. 57,720.17 768,660. (unweight'ed average) Sources: (1) From Table 3.17. (2) See Chapter 2. 112 CONCT UUSIONS For the nine programs considered in this chapter, the 1972 cost to state and local governments in coastal zone parishes for the estimated 1972 OCS related population with sector 8 included (65,278 people) is $32,506,577. For the estimated population without sector 8 (57,720) the total expenditures are $28,544,497. However, state and local governments make other services and function expenditures which are not discussed here. These expenditures include interest on debt, unemployment compensation., retirement benefits to former employees, housing, welfare, corrections, libraries, financial admin- istration, etc. costs. The total expenditures for all activities by all Louisiana state and local government in 1972 was $2,905,402,000 or $777 per capita. Revenues were 3,008,745, or $805 per capita (U.S. Bureau of the Census., 1974: 94). The cost of providing all public services to the 1972 estimated OCS related population in coastal zone parishes was $50,962,119 with sector 8 included and $44,954,182 without sector 8 included (Tables 3.19 and 3.20). The revenues generated by these people was $52,964,115 (with sector 8) and $46,669,513 (without sector 8) as shown in Tables 3.21 and 3.22. For the parishes of Ascension, Iberville, St. James, St. John, and Terrebonne total state and local per capita expenditures exceeded per capita revenues (Tables 3.19 and 3.21) which means that the OCS related populations in these parishes (and the parishes' total populations, in general) did not generate enough revenue in 1972 to pay for public service expenditures brought about by them (Tables 3.20 and 3.22). For Ascension, Assumption, Iberville, Jefferson, Lafourche, St. James, St. John, SIZ. Martin, St. Tammany, Terrebonne, and Vermilion Parishes, local expenditures exceeded local revenues (Tables 3.19 -and 3.21). The Coastal Energy Impact Fund discussed in Chapter 4 might be used to diminish such deficits and enhance the provi- sion of public services in all parishes. 113 TABLE 3.19 1972 STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 2 Capita Capita ($1000). Population Expenditures Expenditures Ascension 13,801 39,20.4 356.62 738.16 Assumption 20,115 336.71 718.25 Calcasieu 611623 1481328 415.45 796.99 Cameron 4,338 8)907 487.03 868.57 Iberia 19)802 58,859 336.43 717.97 Iberville 52,608 30,667 1,715.46 2,097.00 Jefferson 146,505 366,324 399.93 781.47 Jeff. Davis 9,210 29,622 310.92 692.46 Lafourche 25,200 71JI958 350.20 731.74 Livingston 10,198 38,330 266.06 647.60 Orleans 220,394 593,717 371.21 752.75 Plaquemines 18j,191 25,893 702.55 12084.09 St. Bernard 15,1765 55JI043 286.41 667.95 St. Charles 10,387 30,782 337.44 718.98 St. James 11,921 19,008 627.16 1,008.70 St. John 9,798 24,830 394.60 776.14 t. Martin 11j,851 33,701 351.65 733.19 St. Mary 31,117 62,172 500.50 882.04 St. Tammany 24,911 67,092 371.30 752.84 rangipahoa 20P913 68,017 307.47 689.01 Terrebonne 28,276 78)835 358.67 740.2 1 Vermilion 16,687 43,930 379.85 761.39 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- 1 State Expenditure ($1000) - 1,426,115 State Population - 3,737,7712 State Per Capita Expenditure - 381.54 114 TABLE 3.20 1972 STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE. LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cost for OCS Capita Population2 Related Population Expen- With Without With Wit1lout ditures Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8 'SeezLor 8 Ascension 738.16 955.5 859.95 7051311.88 634-780.69 Assumption 718.25 487.5 456.25 3501146.88 327,701.51 Calcasieu 796.99 4,956.49 4,446.86 3,950,272.97 3,544)1102.9 Cameron 868.57 217.77 107.1 189,148.49 9-0,023.81 Iberia 717.97 1,946.1 1P591.81 1,397,241.42 1,142,871.8 Iberville 2,097.00 946.9 863.35 1,985,649.30 1P810,444.9@ Jefferson 781.47 11.1633.31 10,308.12 9,091,082.77 8,055,486.54 Jeff. Davis 692.46 1,043.4 925. 722)512.76 640,525.5( Lafourche 731.74 2.1512.98 2,197.34 1)838,847.99 1,607)881.5' Livingston 647.60 1,283.5 1 1,192.9 8311194.601 77#2,522,0 11' Orleans 752.75 22,632.67 20,265.7417,036,742.34 14255,035.7@ Plaquemines 1,084.09 694.86 457.32 753,290.78 495,776.0@- St. Bernard 667.95 1,682.45 1,562.75 1,123,792.48 1)043,838.8E St. Charles 718.98 1,544.01 1,438.19 1,110,112.31 1)043,029.81= St. James 1)008.70 506.85 474.15 511,259.60 478,29-5.11 St. John 776.14 840.5 789.25 652,345.67 612,568.5C St. Martin 733.19 974.38 756.8 714,405.67 554,878.1 St. Mary 882.04 11922.308 1,523.33 1.1695,616.06 1,343,637.9 St. Tammany 752.84 2 261.51 2,063.29 1,702,555.19 1j'553 327.2 A L Tangipahoa 689.01 2.*377.12 2)176.64 1,637,859.45 1,499)726$71-: Terrebonne 740.21 2,397.3 1,909.91 1,774,505.43 1,413,786.3( Vermilion 761.39 1,500.6 1,354.0 1,[email protected] 1,030,960.1r, TOTAL 834.43 65)278.01 57,720.11[550,962,119.24 4j 954,182.2i (Inweighted average) I Sources: (1) From Table 3.19. (2) See Chapter 2. TABLE 3. 21 1972 STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES IN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH 1972 Local 1 2 1972 per Total per 3 Expenditures 1972 Capita Capita ($1000) Population Expenditures Expenditures scension 11,912 39,204 304 728 Assumption 6,465 20.1115 321 745 Calcasieu 62JI196 148P328 419 843 ameron 4)887 8)907 549 973 Iberia 21,088 58.1859 358 782 Iberville 20,592 30,667 672 1,096 Jefferson 144)790 366JI324 395 819 Jeff. Davis 9,273 29P622 313 737 Lafourche 24,954 71,958 347 771 ivingston 101610 38,330 277 @701 Orleans 234,083 593,717 394 818 Plaquemines 20P431 25,893 789 1,213 t. Bernard 16Y130 55)043 293 717 St. Charles 111114 30J.782 361 785 St. James 5,653 19,008 297 721 t. John 7,503 24,830 302 726 St. Martin 11,083 33,701 328 752 St. Mary 31,231 62)1-12 502 926 t. Tammany 24,839 67,092 370 794 Tangipahoa, 21,258 68PO17 313 737 Terrebonne 24.9822 78)835 315 739 ermilion 16,255 43)930 370 794 Sources: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1974: 94, 410-15. (2) Denton, 1974: 3-4. (3) State plus local expenditures- State Expenditure ($1000)- 1.1584,'9233 State Population - 3p737,771 State Per Capita Expenditure- 424 116 TABLE 3.22 1972 STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES FOR THE OCS RELATED POPULATION IN THE - LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE, BY PARISH Total Per] OCS Related Cost for OCS Capita Popul tion2 Related Population Expen- With Without With Without ditures Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8 Sector 8 Ascension 728 955.5 859.95 695.604 626.044 Assumption 745 487.5 456.25 363,188 339,906 Calcasieu 843 4JI956.49 4,446.86 4,178.321 3,74SP703 Cameron 973 217.77 107.1 211,890 104,208 Iberia 782 12946.1 1,591.81 .1,521,850 1,244,795 Iberville 1PO96 946.9 863.35 1,037,802 946,232 Jefferson 819 11,633.31 10)308.12 9,527,681 8,442,350 Jeff. Davis 737 1,043.4 925. 768,986 681,725 Lafourche 771 2,512.98 2,197.34 1,937)508 11694,149 Livingston 701 1,283.5 1,192.9 899,734 836.223 Orleans 818 229632.67 20)265.74 18,513Y524 16P577P375 Plaquemines 11,213 694.86 457.32 842,865 554,729 St. Bernard 717 1)682.45 1P562.75 1)206P317 1,120,492 St. Charles 785 1,644.01 1,438.19 li,212,048 1,128,979 St. James 721 506.85 474.15 365.439 341,862 St. John 726 840.5 789.25 610,203 572,996 St. Martin 752 974.38 756.8 732,734 569,114 St. Mary 926 1,922.38 1,523.33 1,780,124 1,410,604 St. Tammany 794 2)261.51 2.*063.29 1 795,639 1,638)252 Tangipahoa 737 2,377.12 2,176.64 1,751,937 1,604.*184 Terrebonne 739 2,397.3 1P909.98 1,771,605 1,411,475 Vermilion 794 1,560.6 1,354.05 lp239,116 1,075,.116 TOTAL 8 14 65)278.01 57,720.171 52,964,115 461669)513 (Inweightedl average) 1 1- Sources: (1) From Table 3.21. (2) See Chapter 2. 117 REFERENCES Denton, Barbara H. (1974) "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes--July 1, 1972 and 1973.11 The Louisiana Economy, Vol. VII, No. 3, February. Louisiana Division of Administration (1972) Capi ol Outlay Report, Fiscal Year 1972-1973. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Office of the Governor. Office of the Governor (1973) State of Louisiana: .Executive Budget 1973-74, Vol. 1. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Executive Department. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1974) Government Finances Vol. 4, No. 5 Compendium of Government Finances. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 118 CHAPTER 4 THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF CEIP AND OCS RELATED DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S. Code 1541, et seq.) created a Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) to assist states and eligible units of local government in dealing with "new or expanded OCS energy activity." There is a definite funding sequence established for assistance under Section 308 (CEIP). Louisiana is presently receiving monies under Section 305 of the CZM Act for the purpose of planning for coastal zone management including new or expanded OCS energy activity. In order to qualify for formula grants, loan guarantees, or repayment assistance under CEIP, the state must first have a "coastal management program" which has been approved under Section 306 or by making satisfactory progress toward the development of such a program (Federal Register; Interim Final CEIP Guidelines, 1977).' Currently, the State of Louisiana does not have an approved program (Ryan, 1977). Assuming that Louisiana continues to "make satis- factory progress" toward adopting a coastal zone manage- ment plan, the state will be eligible to receive funds from the CEIP fund (Figure 4.1). The first year allot- ment for Louisiana is as follows (Murphy, 1977): 1. Formula Grants $ 5)458,584 Louisiana* 2. Planning Allotments 125,522 Louisiana *$120,,020 is being withheld pending resolution of a boundary dispute between Louisiana and the United States Government. $35,882 is being withheld pending resolution of a boundary dispute between Louisiana and Mississippi (Murphy, 1977). 119 FIGURE 4.1 COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FUNDING SOURCES Purpose Primary Source Secondary Source Planning Fund: 308 (c) Formula grants: for all energy facilities planning grants fo OCS energ 308 (b) (4) (B) activity planning grants Public Fund: 308 (d) (1) Formula grants: facilities for coastal-dependent and 308 (d) (2) for OCS energy 308 (b) (4) (B) and services energy activity loans and activity public facilities guarantees and service grants Inability to Fund: 308 (d) (3) Formula grants: meet loan or for coastal-dependent (A) through (d) for coastal- 308 (b) (4) (A) guarantee energy activity (3) (C) refinancing dependent bond retirement obligations or modification of energy terms activity and, if insufficient Fund: 308 (d) (3) (D) repayment grants 0 Unavoidable Formula grants: Fund: 308 (d) (4) environmental) for coastal-dependent 308 (b) (4) (C) for coastal- environmental/ recreational energy activity environmental/ dependent recreational losses recreational energy grants grants activity Source: Federal Register, Interim Final CEIP Guidelines, 1977. 3. Credit Assistance 19Y4123574 Louisiana 4. Environmental Grants 264Y717 Louisiana The credit assistance is available for individual project award until September 30, 1979. The planning funds are available for award until September 30, 1978, and the environmental grants until September 30, 1977. The formula grants are available through FY 1984 (Murphy, 1977). While the CEIP funds are provided to help communi- ties deal with the effects of new or exDanded coastal energy activity, the guidelines clearly establish that the primary responsibility for funding the necessary facilities and services to support such activity rests with state and local government. The Coastal Resources Plan being developed by Louisiana officials must meet this assigned responsibility by identifying what facili- ties and services will be needed, where, and how they will be financed. The federal government expects to provide funds only to supplement--not supplant--state and local efforts. This chapter begins by discussing the -financing of local parish capital improvements. Following -'Chat,* %.wo formulae for allocating CEIP funds among the parishes in the state are put forth. Next ! a discussion of local needs and fiscal capabilities is presented along with a discussion of state and local government expenditures compared to the nation and other states. After that, three schemes for using CEIP funds are discussed. Finally, the relationship between CEIP, Louisiana state and local government expenditures, and OCS impacts are summarized in the concluding section. BASIS FOR FINANCING LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS The Louisiana Constitution (Article VI) of 1974 requires the legislature to fix by statute the limits of municipal bonded indebtedness payable solely from ad valorem taxes. The first Extraordinary Session of the 1975 Legislature re-established the previously set limit of 101/6 of assessed value of taxable property within the municipality dedicated to any purpose (Louisiana 121 Revised Statutes (L.R.S.) 39:562).1 The local governing body is required to impose and collect annually, or cause to be levied and collected, a property tax in excess of all other taxes that would be sufficient to pay principal, interest, and redemption premium if any, on such bonds as they mature (Article VI, Part II. Section 33, Louisiana State Constitution of 1974). General obligation bonds, because they are secured by ad valorem (at value) property taxes, are underwritten Fy-The full faith and credit of the municipality. They may be issued only after an affirmative vote of the majority of all qualified electors voting in an election called for that purpose (L.R.S. 39:551 et seq.). No bonds issued by any subdivision shall run for longer than a forty.(40) year period, or bear a greater rate of interest than eight (8) per cent per annum (L.R.S. 39:561 et seq.). The approval of the State Bond Commission must be obtained prior to the issuance of any bonds. Under certain circumstances, local governing: bodies may also issue certificates of indebtedness for periods up to twenty (20) years to cover that portion of the'cost of public improvements which are to be borne and paid out of subsequent fiscal years' revenues. These certificates may bear no interest in excess of nine (9) per CE.,nt per annum, payable in annual or semi-annual installments (Act 19 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1975). Because such-pledges may create general obligations without providing compensating tax revenues to meet their fixed repayment schedules, local governing bodies should use caution in pledging their credit to them. Sound fiscal policy would dictate the establishment of a "sinking fund" to which some general fund revenues might be allocated annually (L.R.S. 33:3307). The most common use of such certificates has traditionally been for municipal and parish.streets and sidewalks although no specific limi- tation to this use is found.2 'This has been interpreted to mean that each specific improvement--water, sewer, etc.--is a separate "purpose" Houssiere V. Jennings, 195 La. 1042, 197 So. 750. Specific procedures involving a public hearing raust be followed when such certificates are issued as front-foot assessment obligations to fund street improvements (L.R.S. 33-3301-3318, 3689-3689.19). 122 As part of the local budgetary process, a five (5) year capital improvements budget should be prepared by local officials (e.g., Planning Commission, Municipal Clerk). (There appears no actual statute requiring such a budget.) Good fiscal practice would dictate adoption of a capital budget, however. Certainly, if CEIP funds were to be channeled to public improvement projects at the local level, the existence of an approved local budget (capital and operating) in proper form would seem to be a minimum condition for fund receipt. A substan- tial number of parishes and small municipalities in Louisiana's coastal area have no approved capital budget at present or have only the most minimal information published on projected capital improvements. This condi- tion serves to make comprehensive review of proposed projects quite difficult. The state's capital budgeting procedures have also come in for criticism by the Public Affairs Research Council in 1977. As is evident in this discussion, procedures and regulations do exist that serve to direct local govern- ment capital improvement expenditures. Since the primary thrust of the Coastal Energy Impact Program is to assist state and local governments by way of loans and bond guarantees, rather than a heavier reliance on grants, the discussion of local procedures for debt management is impor- tant. The application of those procedures is presented in the next section which discusses analysis of fiscal capacity. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS--A CASE ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY A most urgent need of local governments in the Louisiana coastal area is for upgraded water and sewer facilities. For example, the proposed Louisiana Superport and the continued upgrading of Port Fouchon in Lafourche Parish to accomodate energy-related activity must cope with the difficulty of getting drinkable water to support. the activity (Mumphrey, et al., 1976a: 250). A project, to upgrade this water supply, including the water supply of nearby Grand Isle which comes through Lafourche Parish, has been :given the highest priority by the Honorable "Lindy" Boggs (D-La.). A recent visit to the area by Ms. Joellen Murphy,who oversees the CEIP program, brought a pledge to help deal with this need (personal communi- 123 cation; Ms. Boggs, 1977). The Houma-Terrebonne Regional Water and Sewer project has also been given a top priority by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.) but appears delayed by the need for a complete Environmental Impact Statement (Abrams, 1977: Sec. 2, p. 4). These examples are cited to illustrate the need for water and sewer projects. . Although a definite need is seen for water and sewer projects in the Louisiana coastal zone, few studies have been made as to the financial capacity of local government to meet the cost of such projects. Using the model of the South Central Planning and Development Commission, (six parishes), a test of comparison of legal bonded indebtedness to project cost was made (T. Baker Smith, 1975). The 1972 total assessed valuation (before Homestead Exemption) was multiplied by 10% (the Constitutional debt limitation) to obtain maximum allowable debt. Current bonding capacity was then calculated by subtracting from maximum allowable debt the current bonded indebtedness. The Smith study then calculated costs of providing wa,ter/sewer projects as needed in the South Central area. Those costs were next compared to the bonding capacity of the Darishes in the district. (Municipalities would have !heir separate bonding capacities, but EPA regulations and funding eligibility call for regional efforts. There- fore, a parish debt'capacity is a reasonable estimate of actual capacity.) See Tables 4.1 and 4.2. With respect to these two selected critical areas-- sewer and water--the South Central parishes, exCE@pt Assump- tion, are projected to be able to carry the bonded indebed- ness needed to upgrade their environment. HoweVE,,r, two cautions appear in order: 1. Local taxation in Louisiana consists primarily of the property tax, and certain other specific excise and license taxes. Under the provisions of the 1974 Constitution, all property in Louisiana is to be re-assessed in 1978 OLnd trienially thereafter. -The rate of assessment is 10% of fair market value for residential property and 15% of fair market value for non- residential property. The effect of this reasses- sment--which affects debt limitations--is not known-at this time. Legal bonding capacity could be reduced if the total level of assessments decreases. 124 TABLE 4.1 SOUTH CENTRAL PARISH WATER PROJECTS RELATIVE TO BONDING CAPACITY Lower- Current 10 year of Total 1972 Maxinum Water 2 Banding Water2 Excess Total Cost Assessed Allowed Existing Capacity- Project Capacity That Local Parish Valuation Debt (10%) Debt (1974) Water Costs (1974) Over Costs Could Runish Assuaption $ 27,444,440 $ 2,744,444 $1,282,000 $1,472,444 $2,11-6,000 - 643,556 Lafourche 95,214,800 9,521,480 1,530,000 7,991,480 3,319,000 +4,672,480 2.87 St. Charles 65,&98,091 6,585,809 2,892,000 3,693,809 2,440,000 +1,253,809 1.19 St. Jams 41,390,300 4,139,030 274,000 3,865,030 3,270,000 + 595,030 1.18 St. John the 24,652,904 2,465,290 271,000 2,194,290 2,206,000 11,710 .99 Baptist Cn Terrebonne 132,520,600 13,252,060 7,655,000 5,597,060 3,398,000 +2,199,060 1.65 Sources: 1Louisiana Tax Cc=dssion, M4. 2T. Bakr Smith & Son, Inc., 1975. .TABLE 4.2 SOUTH CENTRAL PARISH SEWER PROJECTS RELATIVE TO BONDING CAPACITY Sewer- Current 10 year Of IW2 Maximum Sewer 2 Bonding Semer2 Excess Thtal Cost Assessed Allowed Existing Capacity- Project Capacity That Local Parish Valuation Debt (10%) Debt (1974) Sewer Costs (M4) Over CostQ Could Furnish Assunption $ 27,444,440 $ 2,744,444 0 $ 2,744,444 $ 3,822,000 -$l,(Y77,556 .72 Lafourche 95,214,800 9,521,480 0 9,521,480 6,898,000 + 2,623,480 1.38 St. Charles 65,858,091 6,585,809 892,000 5,713,809 3,628,000 + 2,085,809 1.57 St. James 41,390,300 4,139,030 0 4,139,030 2,709,000 + 1,430,030 1.53 St. John the 24,652,904 2,46.5,290 805,000 1,293,000 1,660,290 + 367,290 1.28 Baptist Terrebonne 132,520,600 13,252,060 177,000 12,631,000 13,075,060 + 444,060 1.04 Sources: 'Louisiana Tax Comnission, 1974. 2T. Baker Smith & Son, Inc., 1975. 2. L.R.S. 39:563 provides that no bonds issued by any subdivision..."shall.bear a greater rate of interest than eight per cent per annum." The effect of this limitation will be discussed more thoroughly in another part of this chapter. DISCUSSION OF FINA'NCIAL IMPLICATIONS IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT While the simple analysis preceding indicates that the model South Central coastal parishes could support the debt load of at least two major improvement functions, a pertinent question is whether they would so choose. L.R.S. 39:501 et seg. provides -that: "no subdivision may incur any debt, issue any bonds, levy any special tax, or assume any indebtedness unless it has been authorized by a vote of a majority of qualified voters." A reasonable hypothesis is that Louisiana voters would react cautiously to major tax increase proposals beyond their current level of effort. Table 4.3 depicts the 1972 debt obligations of the South Central parishes along with their assigned millage for water purposes and a projection of millage to support allowed debt. The average 1972 millage for water projects only in the six parish area is 7.75. Projecting what millage would be necessary to support the maximum allowable debt capacity for one purpose alone (water) would cause the average millage to jump to 28.5 or 36876. This is no indication that the maximum allowable debt capacity would have to be used to build or re-build water projects. However, to meet the water requirements outlined in the Smith study would require an average parish capital expenditure of $2,791,500 over a ten year period. The current average millage (7.75) supports an average debt of $2,317,333. The millage levy would have to roughly double (83% increase) to 14.18 mills on the average to finance the water improvements needed.3 A similar analysis 3No attempt was made to calibrate for bond issues that might be paid off.in the ten year (1972-1982) study period. Inclusion of this factor could adjust down- ward somewhat the projected millage increase but over a long period increase and decrease would even out. 1-27 TABLE 4.3 DEBT ANALYSIS OF SOUTH CENTRAL LOUISIANA PARISHES Capital Debt1 Allowed Millage Required 1974 1974 1972 To Support Parish Debt/Water Millage/Witer Debt/Water 1972 Maximum Debt Assumption $1)2820000 5.00 $ 2,744,444 10.70 Lafourche 135300000 7.00 9)521,480 43.56 St. Charles 2,892,000 8.50 6,585,809 19.36 co St. James 274)000 4,139,030 11.33 St. John the 721)000 5.75 2,465,290 52.31 Baptist Terrebonne 7,655tooo 19.50 13P252,060 33.76 Source: Derived from Louisiana Tax Commission, 1974. -(See Table 4.1.) can be made of other purposes (e.g. sewer, roads) and for other regions or parishes. There is no precise way of calculating, however, local willingness to tolerate tax increases for improvements. Lafourche Parish, for example, in 1972 levied 140.25 mills (exclusive of an acreage tax of $2.50/acre for drainage) on its tax base. Assuming no major change in the value of its tax base resulting from the ongoing re-assessment, an increase of approximately seven mills for a capital improvement might not be viewed as alarming. However, Assumption Parish has the bonding ability to carry only 70% of its Drojected 10 year water needs and 72% of its projected 10 year sewer needs. No adjustment to millage would allow them to circumvent the legal debt limit. Their tax base is simply not up to the task. A cooperative financing arrangement will have to be devised. (A suggested model will be developed later in this chapter.) Problem #1 is thus identified as a lack of knowledge as to what level of taxation 'Local residents in Louisiana's coastal zone parishes will accept to build thepublic improvements projected as needed to support OCS activity. Problem #2--OCS Impact is projected to be in specific areas of any parish, but in order to get support for passage of bond issues or other debt instruments, improvements may have to be provided to adispersed population. This is the political feasibility problem. Using Lafourche Parish as an example, it is clear that impacts of oil and gas OCS activity are mainly on the southern portion of the parish (below Highway 90-- especially Ward 10) (Mumphrey et al., 1976a). About 50% of the assessed valuation and property taxes for Lafourche Parish are provided by oil and gas related industries and Ward 10 alone provides over 257o of the parish's assessed valuation and property taxes (Mumphrey et al., 1976a: iii). While the area of most direc! impact from OCS is obviously in one portion of the parish (Ward 10), only 27% of the parish population lives in that area (1970 Census). Further, the population of Lafourche and the entire South Central region is not concentrated in a few areas but is spread rather thinly over a considerable area. Most of the rural and small town population is located along major roads and bayous in the "Lower -three parishes of Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne, and 129 along major roads paralleling the Mississippi River in .-the upper three parishes of St. Charles, St. James, and St; John the Baptist. The net result of this population dispersal, which is predicted to continue,is that the per capita cost of installing facilities or providing public services is considerably higher than in more densely settled communities. Two questions thus arise relative to CEIP funding: (a) Should investment be made contingent on less disperal of population into the wetland areas the state is trying to protect? This would involve an intervention of some sort into the current and projected population patterns- and would be resented and resisted. (b) If the higher per capita costs for public facilities are acceptable, should expenditures from CEIP funds be channelled in the main to the areas of direct OCS impact? A dispersed popula- tion living directly or indirectly from energy- related activity can hardly be said not to qualify for CEIP assistance even if they are not all in the direct impact zone. Problem #3-- How and on what basis should CEIP funds be distributed in the State? The first year CEIP allotment for Louisiana was detailed earlier. If the state received the total allot- ment and distributed all of the formula grants ($5.45 million) and apportioned all the credit assistance $19.41 million) to local government, these funds would have to be distributed among 22 coastal parishes, However, there needs to be devised a formula upon which to base the allotment of grants and credit assistance. The basis on which a formula is computed will likely be a contro- versial topic but a formula must be adopted to allow for sensible programming of funds to local government projects. If no formula exists, it is likely that "laundry lists" of projects will be submitted to the state. When added up, these lists could request funding far in excess of what is likely to be available for allotment. Someone is bound to be very disappointed. 130 POSSIBLE FORMULAS FOR T ALLOTMENT OF CEIP FUNDS Formula A--Population based Table 4.4 lists all 22 coastal parishes in Louisiana, their OCS related population, and the part of total coastal OCS population that their OCS population represents. Assuming the total amount of CEIP funds is allocated directly to coastal parishes, the 1977 CEIP allotment would be distributed as shown in Table 4.5., using an OCS population-based formula. Formula B--OCS Employment based Table 4.6 lists all 22 coastal parishes in Louisiana and the part of coastal OCS employment which their OCS employment is. Assuming that the total amount of CEIP funds is allocated directly to coastal parishes, the 1977 CEIP allotment would be distributed as follows (Table 4.7), using an OCS employment based formula. The difference between population and employment based parish allotments is depicted in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. ANALYSIS OF FORMULAS Formula Grants Under an employment based formula, over half the credit assistance (53%) and the formula grants (5176) go to Orleans Parish alone. Three parishes (Orleans, Calcasieu, and Jefferson) would receive 73"ilo of all the formula grant monies using an employment-based formula. The situation changes considerably under a popula- tion based formula. Orleans Parish, for example, receives 31% less (a decline of $876,000), but Jefferson gets a 3076 increase ($218,343) and Calcasieu goes up 25110. Plaquemines Parish is the other big loser with-a popula- tion based formula ( 44% or $43,640), although St. Mary declines slightly (67o). The same three parishes (Orleans, Calcasieu, and Jefferson) that received 73% of 131 TABLE, 4. 4 ANALYSIS OF OCS POPULATION IN COASTAL LOUISIANA, 1972 Part of C.Z. Part of C.Z. 1972 1972 OCS Pop. OCS Pop. 1972 OCS Pop. OCS Pop. (High Estimate) (Low Estimate) Parish Population Total (High Estimate), (Low Estimate), Rounded Rounded Ascension 39,204 956 860 .010 .010 Assumption 20,115 488 488 .010 .010 Calcasieu 148,328 4,957 4,447 .080 .080 Cameron 8,907 218 107 .003 .002 Iberia 58,859 .1,946 1,592 .030 .030 Iberville 30,667 947 863 .015 .015 Jefferson 366,324 11,633 10,308 .180 .180 Jefferson Davis 29,622 1,043 925 .016 .016 Lafourche 71,958 2,513 2,197 .040 .040 Livingston 38,330 1,284 1,193 .020 .020 Orleans 593,717 22,633 20,266 .350 .350 Plaquemines 25,893 695 457 .010 .010 St. Bernard 55,043 1,682 1,563 .030 .030 St. Charles 30,782 1,544 1,438 .023 .024 St. James 19,008 507 474 .010 .010 St. John 24,330 841 789 .013 .013 St. Martin 33,701 974 757 .015 .013 St. Mary 62,172 1,922 1,523 .030 .026 St. Tammany 67,092 2,262 2,063 .035 .036 Tangipahoa 68,017 2,377 2,177 .036 .038 Terrebonne 78,835 2,397 1,910 .037 .033 Vermilion 43,930 1,561 1,354 .024 .023 Source: Population figures from Denton, 1974. OCS populations derived in this study. See Chapter 2. TABLE 4.5 DISTRIBUTION OF CEIP FUNDS TO COASTAL PARISHES BASED ON OCS POPULATION Formula Grants ($) Credit Assistance ($) Parish OCS High OCS Low OCS High OCS Low Ascension 54JI585 543,585 1941PI30 194,130 Assumption 54JI585 54,585 194P130 1941J30 Calcasieu 436,687 4360687 1)530,006 1)530)006 Cameron 161376 10.*917 58JI237 38)825 Iberia 1634758 1633,758 582,377 582.*377 Iberville 81,879 81,879 291,189 2910189 Jefferson 982)545 982,545 3)494,263 3,494,263 Jefferson Davis 87JI337 87JP337 310,601 31OV6'01 Lafourche 218,343 218P343 7761503 776,503 Livingston 109,172 109,172 388)1251 388)251 Orleans li,910,504 10910#504 6)794P401 6P794P401 Plaquemines 54,585 540585 194,130 194.9130 St. Bernard 163,758 163,758 582,377 582JI377 St. Charles 125)547 125,547 446)489 446,489 St. James 54,585 54,585 194,130 194,130 St. John 70)961 700961 252,363 2521363 St. Martin 81,878 70,961 291,189 2520363 St. Mary 163,758 141)923 582,377 504)727 St. Tammany 191,050 191,050 679,440 .679.0440 Tangipahoa 196,509 207)426 679JI440 737,678 Terrebonne 201,968 180)133 718,265 640.*615 Vermilion 131,006 125P547 465,902 465,902 TOTAL* 50458p584 5,458JI584 19)412,574 19)412J,574 Source: CEIP information provided by Murphy (1977). Computed by authors. *For all tables in this chapter, columns may not add to totals because of rounding. TABLE 4.6 ANALYSIS OF OCS E MPLOYMENT IN LOUISIANA, 1972 1972 OCS 1972 OCS Part of C.Z. OCS Part of C.Z. OCS 1972 Empl. Empl. Empl. Empl. (High) Empl. (Low) Parish Total (High) (Low) (Rounded) (Rounded*) Ascension 6,156 150 135 .009 .009 Assumption 3,215 78 73 .004 .004 Calcasieu 32,870 1,099 986 .064 .065 Cameron 2)444 61 30 .003 .002 Iberia 11,798 390 319 .022 .021 Iberville 5,511 170, 155 .009 .010 Jefferson 74,858 2,379 2)108 .140 .140 Jefferson Davis 4,000 141 125 .008 .008 Lafourche 11,916 414 362 .024 .024 .Livingston 2,991 85 79 .004 .004 Orleans 236,785 9,017 8)074 .527 .534 Plaquemines 11,686 313 206 .018 .014 St. Bernard 8,266 253 235 .015 .015 St. Charles 6)404 321 299 .019 .019 St. James 3,485 93 87 .005 .005 St. John 2JI419 82 77 .005 .005 St. Martin 3)562 103 80 .006 .006 St. Mary 17,904 554 439 .032 .029 R-t--- Tammany 7,447 251 229 .015 .015 Tangipahoa. 9,497 332 304 .019 .020 Terrebonne 20,033 610 486 .036 .032 Vermilion 5,736 204 177 .011 .012 TOTAL 488,992 17,100 15,065 Source: Employment figures from County Business Patterns,_1972. OCS Employment figures derived in this study; see Chapter 2. TABLE 4.7 DISTRIBUTION OF CEIP FUNDS TO COASTAL PARISHES USING OCS EMPLOYMENT FORMULA Formula Grants Credit Assistance Parish OCS High OCS Low OCS High OCS Low Ascension 49,127 49,127 174,713 174 713 Assumption 21,834 21,834 77,650 77:650 Calcasieu 349,349 349$349 1,2421404 1,261,817 Cameron 16,376 :.10,917 58,237 38,825 Iberia 120,089 114,630 427,077 407,664 Iberville 49,127 54,586 174)713 194)125 Jefferson 764,202 764,202 2,717,760 2$717,760 W Jefferson Davis 43)669 43,669 155,300 155,300 Lafourche 131,006 131,006 465,901 465,901 Livingston 21,834 21,834 77,650 77,650 Orleans 2,876,674 2,914,884 10,230$426 10,366)315 Plaquemines 98,225 76,420 349,426 2711776 St. Bernard 81,879 81,879 291,189 291)189 St. Charles 103,713 103,713 368)839 368,839 St. James 27,293 27P293 97,063 97,063 St. John 27,293 27,293 97,063 97,063 St. Mar-tin 32,752 32,752 116,475 116,475 St. Mary 174,675 158,299 621,202 562,964 St. Tammany 81,879 81,879 291,188 291,188 Tangipahoa 103,713 109,172 368,838 388,251 Terrebonne 196,509 174,675 698,852 621,203 Vermilion 60,044 65,503 213,538 232)950 TOTAL 5,458,584 5,458,584 19,412,574 19,412,574 Source: CEIP information provided by Murphy (1977). Computed by authors. TABLE 4.8 DIFFERENCE IN DISTRIBUTION OF FORMULA GRANTS USING TWO FORMULAS OCS Empl. OCS Pop. Difference Parish (High) (High) ($) Difference Ascension 49,127 54,585 5,458 11 Assumption 21,834 54,585 32,751 150 Calcasieu 349)349 436,687 87,338 25 Cameron 16,376 16P376 -- -- Iberia 120,089 163)758 43,669 36 Iberville 49,127 81,879 32,752 67 Jefferson 764,202 982,545 218,343 29 Jefferson Davis 43,669 87,337 43,668 100 Lafourche 131,006 218,343 87,337 67 Livingston 21,834 109,172 87,338 400 Orleans 2,786,674 1,910,504 876,170 31 Plaquemines 98,255 54,585 43,640 44 St. Bernard 81,879 163)758 81,879 100 St. Charles 103,713 125f547 21,834 21 St. James 27,293 54,585 27,292 100 St. John 27,293 70,961 43,668 160 St. Martin 32,752 81,878 49,126 150 St. Mary 174,675 163,758 10,917 6 St. Tammany 81,879 191;050 109;171 133 Tangipahoa 103)713 196,509 92,796 89 Terrebonne 196,509 201,968 5,459 3 Vermilion 60,044 131,006 70P962 118 Source: Computed by authors. TABLE 4.9 DIFFERENCES IN DISTRIBUTION OF CEIP CREDIT ASSISTANCE USING TWO FORMULAS OCS Employment OCS Population Difference Parish (High) (High) % Difference Ascension 174,713 194,130 19,417 11 Assumption 77,650 194,130 116,480 150 Calcasieu 1,242,404 1,530,006 287,602 23 Cameron 58,237 58,237 -- -- Iberia 427,077 582,377 155,300 36 Iberville 174,713 291,189 116,476 67 Jefferson 2)717)760 3,494)263 776,503 29 Jefferson Davis 155,300 310,601 155,301 100 Lafourche 465,901 776,503 310,602 67 Livingston 77,650 388,251 310,601 400 Orleans 10,230,426 6,794,401 3,436,025 34 Plaquemin.es 3490426 194,130 155,296 44 St. Bernard 291,189 582,377 291,188 100 St. Charles 368,839 446,489 77,650 21 St. James 97,063 194,130 97,067 100 St. John 97,063 252,363 155,300 160 St. Martin 116,475 291,189 174,714 150 St. Mary 621,202 582,377 38)825 1 6 St. Tammany 291,188 679,440 388,252 133 Tangipahoa 368,839 679,440 310,601 84 Terrebonne 698$852 718,265 19,413 3 Vermilion 213,538 465P902 252,364 118 Source: Computed by authors. the total grant monies with an employmen@t-based formula get 61% of the total shifting to a population-ba.sed formula. The loss from Orleans and Plaquemines goes to all other parishes which except for St. Mary, gain by the population based form'ula. Credit Assistance Once again, Orleans gets 53% of the total credit assistance if an employment based formula is used and the "big three" of Orleans, Jefferson and Calcasieu take 737o of the total credit assistance allotment. Shifting to a population based formula drops the Orleans allocation by one-third while cutting Plaquemines Parish 44%. All others, except St. Mary, gain at their expense. It is., obviously, possible to disaggregate the components such as "population" or "employment" and give. weights to different factors. Then, those factors most associated with OCS impact could-be weighted.more heavily and the result would be to direct CEIP monies most accurately in accord with the aims of the law. However, precise as this formulation sounds,- it is not possible to operationally define OCS impact adequately and completely, apart from related impacts. Few impacts are likely to be clearly and unarguably OCS-related or not as the case might be. As a starting point, however, projected needs mi@,-ht be analyzed and compared to the ability of the impacted local governments to meet them. If gaps are identified, it may then be possible to use CEIP funds to make up the deficiencies. With that information, it may also be possible to develop a better formula for distributing CEIP funds to areas in relation to documented OCS.-related need. NEEDS ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA'S COASTAL PARISHES Any projection of "need" will suffer from being overly general. - Using average costs and anticipated demand levels derived fran on-going activities can easily lead to underestimation of expenses. However, it is necessary to project need in certain critical areas in order -to have vital services in place when needed. Certain crucial points must be made relative to the financing of "needs" however: 138 1. Needs arise when population or employment or botH-increase. In some cases., needs arise in one area when another area has a surplus (or excess capacity) of a particular service or facility. You can justify--or not--building new facilities in an area when a surplus exists elsewhere but this should be a conscious policy choice and not allowed to occur by accident. 2. Needs are often predicated on the basis of the "nuclear" family idea and using existing technology. A large number of single males or single females relative to the remainder of the population can skew the "mix" of needs toward activities sympathetic to the dominant group. Most local governments are reluctant to plan for in-migration of other than "nuclear" families, so facilities for families are likely to be oversupplied in many areas relative to need. There is no fOOlDroof way to correct for this phenomenon even if-the population I'mixf? is accurately projected. Introduction The primary "need" is to insure that the OCS popula- tion is receiving equivalent or better services and has access to equivalent or better facilities as the existing coastal population. One component of need, therefore, is to know existing per capita public expenditures. Table 4.10 summarizes the existing per capita levels of local expenditures in 1972. If there existed an "official" figure for OCS population by parish, updated annually, the actual calculation of OCS "need" would be simple: multiply per capita expenditure figure by OCS population. However, there are several major reasons why this would be an over-simplification of OCS need: (1) in part, need is to make up deficiencies and not just insure that everyone shares equally in inadequate services and facilities. An "improvement factor" is needed; (2) CEIP funds seem more targeted to the "expected to residell OCS population rather than past and current uncompensated impacts, as inLouisiana; and (3) the actual difference between 11OCS11 and "non-OCS't needs is simply not known. Another caution: because a need exists does not mean that the local government will act to satisfy this 139 TABLE 4.10 SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OF LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES, 1972 Intergovernment Per Capita Expenditures Per Capita Revenue Total Revenuel Local Revenue --Local Funds Debt Parish (Millions $ )l (Millions Per Capita Excluding Capital Outlayl Outstanding2 Ascension 6.4 4.00 $ 173 $ 152 $ 151 Assumption 3.3 2.19 168 139 198 Calcasieu 36.7 15.70 252 215 657 Cameron 2.7 0.53 330 304 183 Iberia 11.3 5.71 197 191 411 Iberville 7.5 4.37 244 188 198 Jefferson 62.0 28.95 184 490 196 Jefferson Davis 7.7 4.37 261 230 288 Lafourche 15.1 7.26 219 192 425, Livingston 6.5 4.60 178 175 156 Orleans 153.5 46.05 259 193 578 Plaquemines 9.8 2.63 389 181 266 0 St. Bernard 9.8 5.54 191 173 479 St. Charles 6.4 2.90 217 203 274 St. James 4.4 2.60 223 218 531 St. John 3.6 2.76 151 128 181 St. Martin 4.8 2.91 148 130 234 St. Mary 14.4 5.80 237 206 281 St. Tammany 12.9 7.70 203 190 209 Tangipahoa 11.7 8.13 178 163 249 Terrebonne 15.4 7.15 203 190 518 Vermilion 10.2 4.82 237 202 244 TOTAL 416.10 176.23 AVERAGE 18.91 8.01 $ 220 189 $ 327 1City-County Data Book, 1972. 2Derived by authors using City-County Data Book and 1970 Census Data. need or that CEIP funds could be so expended. Until the CEIP program has existed for a few years and the NOAA has interpreted f unded requests, it must be assumed that all local needs are potentially valid and therefore eligible for CEIP consideration. Thus, in this analysis all needs of OCS population--such as for public protec- tion, recreation, sewer and water, etc.--are considered equally valid and of similar priority. Obviously, this may not be true in real life. But, as suggested earlier, the state must adopt a rating scale to evaluate eligibility and urgency before any "need" can be legitimately down- graded or disqualified under CEIP. Local and state govenrments, however, must use their budgets to sort out their actual priorities and arrange to satisfy some needs, reject others, and defer still others. If CEIP is to be a success, it must be factored into the local and state budget process an an extension of existing fiscal capacity and therefore available for expenditure in line with local and state needs. To be so viewed, CEIP funds must first be incorporated into the funding stream available to state and local government in Louisiana. Then, those funds must be targeted at jointly agreed upon areas of OCS related need. Fiscal Capacity The definition of fiscal capacity is partly related to the economic base of an area and is partly related to the willingness of an area to tax itself and raise revenues for public projects. Table 4.10 summarizes the revenue and expenditures for Louisiana's coastal parishes in 1972. Local revenue per capita (Column 3) is estimated at an average of $220 per person in the coastal parishes. Column 4 then notes the per capita expenditure of local funds exclusive of capital outlays. This is estimated at $189 per capita. A government is not a profit-making enterprise; revenue should equal expenditures. Since we know $220 per capita is the local revenue (Table 4.10), the diffe- rence between $220 and $189 ($31) should equate to local government capital outlays (or debt service) for public projects. For Louisiana's coastal parishes, using an unweighted average, the per capita debt outstanding is $327. For the State of Louisiana, the parish average is $362 (City-County Data Book, 1972). Roughly then, about 141 $345 per capita debt existed in Louisiana's coastal zone in 1972- It appears that the per capita debt service amount at the local level ($31) can be used as a crude predictor of per capita debt outstanding using the ratio of' 1:11 (31/345). If we thus know, or can project, future popula- tion,, we should be able to project local tax revenues and even estimate debt likely to result from any giVE!n popu- lation. At that point, it is possible to comparE@ Maximum expected debt to current debt outstanding. If a parish is above the expected debt level, it is likely that there will be some reluctance to go still further in dE@bt. A parish below expected debt levels may be willing to incur some additional debt although the local factors would have to be examined very closely to determine.if the likelihood was high or just barely possible. Table 4.11 shows, however, that eight coastal parishes, including all the larger OCS parishes, are carrying debt outstanding in amounts greater than we might predict. Many factors will doubtlessly enter into their judgment as to whether and in what amount to incur additional debt. The coastal parishes are carrying signficant debt; loads now. For comparison, Louisiana coastal parishes average of $345 debt per capita is measured against the U. S., the region, and the northeast U. S. Jurisdiction Debt Per Capita Louisiana (coastal) $345 U. S. !0 317 South* 272 Northeast* 424 *City-County Data Boo 1972. The conclusion is that Louisiana's coastal parishes have not been lagging in capital expenditures relative to the country, the region, or other regions. In fact, weighting the higher income and tax base of the northeast against that of Louisiana's coastal parishes indicates the actual level of effort in Louisiana to be higher than in most of the country. Further, capital improvements are being paid for from revenues largely derived from current oil and gas activities. These revenues are decli 'ning as the natural resources are deplet.ed. As those revenues decline) so will the expected level of capital indebtedness, 142 m now WWX M@Mmm M TABLE 4.11 DEBT ANALYSIS OF LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES, 1972 Total Debt Parish Difference Between (Local) 1972 1 Population Maximum Expected Debt Maximum Expected Parish (Millions (1972)2 (Millions $)2 Debt and 1972 Debt Ascension 5.6 39,204 13.5 7.9 Assumption 3.9 20,115 6.9 3.0 Calcasieu 95.6 148,328 51.2 44.4 Cameron 1.5 8,907 3.1 1.6 Iberia 23.6 58,859 20.3 3.3 lberville 6.1 30,667 10.6 4.5 Jefferson 165.4 366,324 126.4 39.0 Jefferson Davis 8.5 29,622 10.2 1.7 Lafourche 29.3 71,958 24.8 4.5 Livingston 5.7 38,330 13.2 7.5 Orleans 342.9 593,717 204.8 138.1 Plaquemines 6.7 25,893 8.9 2.2 St. Bernard 24.5 55,043 19.0 5.5 St. Charles 8.1 30,782 10.6 2.5 St. James 10.5 19,008 6.6 3.9 St. John 4.3 24,830 8.6 4.3 St. Martin 7.6 33.701 11.6 4.0 St. Hary 17.0 62,172 21.4 4.4 St. Ti.Lmmany 13.3 67,092 23.1 9.8 Tangipahea 16.4 68,017 23.5 7.1 Terrebonne 39.4 78,835 27.2 12.2 Vermilion 10.5 43,930 15.2 4.7 TOTAL 846.4 1,915,424 600.7 185.7 Sources: ICity-County Data Book, 1972. 2Denton, 1974. 3Population times average per capita parish debt ($345). roughly in the ratio of 1:11 (a $1 decline in revenue $11 decline in per capita debt obligations). This decline will not occur immediately but is predicted over a long period. Unless OCS activity generates a visible increase in state-local revenues, the willingness of local gcvern- ments in Louisiana's coastal zone to use CEIP credit assistance is open to question. Most of Louisiana's coastal population is near their expected debt level at present. CEIP funds must be factored into the revenue projection to be used by local government. EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS Table 4.12 is an analysis of the per capita expen- ditures in Louisiana's coastal parishes in 1972. The total depicted in the table ($512.11 per capita) was derived from studies of individual functions such as education., health, etc. which are discussed in dE@tail in another chapter of this study. This figure is then compared with Louisiana's state and local per-capita- total expenditures given in the Census publication, Governmental Finances in 1972-1972 which is $723.36. Since the census figure is on a fiscal year basis and this study's data are oriented to a calendar year basis, the-census figure is inflated by 3.15% to make the data comparable in periods covered. (The implicit price deflator for GNP, Government Purchase of Goods and Services) is used and halved for a partial year adjustment.) Thus, the census figure for Louisiana per capita expenditures in 1972 is estimated at $746.15. The difference ()f $234.04 per capita) is attributed to such items as interest, housing, welfare, corrections, libraries, financial administration, general control, etc., which are local government functions but not covered in this study. (See Governmental Finances in 1971-72.) LouisialLa coastal parish expenditures per capita are then compared to the U. S., the median state, two major ore and gas activity states (California and Texas), and two states where drilling is expected to occur (New Jersey and Ma:t. -yland). These figures are adjusted as cited earlier to MCILke the 1972 data comparable. (See Table 4.13.) Louisiana's total per capita expenditure in 1972 is 90% that of the United States average while per capita 144 TABLE 4.12 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR SELECTED SERVICES IN LOUISIANA COASTAL PARISHES, 1972 Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Health and Parks and Police Fire Sewerage Water Solid Waste Parish Education Highways Hospitals Recreation Protection Protection & Drainage Supply Disposal Ascension 269.78 109.60 59.25 3.99 19.78 3.02 9.43 3.09 2.70 Assumption 317.49 91.90 39.58 2.36 13.02 1.54 0.00 31.77 0.00 Calcasieu 271.50 107.15 56.35 32.11 27.34 9.49 14.78 2.34 5.18 Cameron 341.54 123.36 91.22 2.31 39.08 4.12 0.00 31.66 2.25 Iberia 265.97 103.16 76.50 5.72 23.12 9.66 1.90 2.46 1.27 lberville 355.79 100.73 41.18 2.86 22.26 2.81 1.37 5.58 1.57 Jefferson 233.41 123.36 84.50 6.81 24.38 7.43 7.48 23.47 7.38 Jefferson Davis 286.63 99.22 41.98 3.59 19.75 3.57 1.65 8.24 5.37 Lafourche 269.80 94.46 62.19 4.56 14.29 2.75 1.36 32.64 4.71 Livingston 278.54 94.97 41.61 2.96 14.94 3.08 1.90 2.79 2.32 Orleans 217.95 94.04 47.79 20.82 33.00 9.49 17.15 12.35 8.97 Plaquemines 281.35 119.69 99.40 46.68 38.72 7.60 14.48 27.34 13.32 r-n St. Bernard 250.08 97.05 46.81 7.80 3.56 8.24 0.00 0.00 6.96 St. Charles 286.00 99.35 65.76 2.31 26.93 3.42 4.58 11.44 0.00 St. James 268.41 100.63 112.07 4.47 14.48 1.65 1.63 24.67 2.47 St.John 259.16 96.77 42.19 2.63 12.84 1.62 0.00 2.34 0.00 St. Martin 315.37 95.18 54.15 3.98 7.21 2.49 1.00 14.93 2.43 St. Mary 291.32 93.54 173.61 6.12 29.12 6.70 3.40 23.79 9.94 St. Tammany 289.44 102.34 117.85 3.13 10.68 2.43 1.00 7.63 2.15 Tangipahoa 247.05 97.56 94.95 4.28 15.02 6.52 1.00 3.47 3.53 Terrebonne 288.84 99.22 42.08 4.56 15.06 6.98 3.45 55.00 5.07 Vermilion 257.93 111.60 109.81 3.58 21.70 5.68 3.46 17.43 3.66 Total AVERAGE 279.24 102.31 72.70 8.38 20.29 5.47 4.14 15.43 4.15 512.11 (Non-weighted) source: See Chapter 3. TABLE 4.13 COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES, 1972 1972 Per Capita 1972 Per Capita 1972 Per Capita Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Jurisdiction (Total) (Capital) (Other) Louisiana 746 159 587 United States 827 155 672 Median State 764 150 619 0) California 1)011 131 879 Texas 641 144 498 New Jersey 828 140 688 Maryland 863 182 680 Source: Governmental Finances in 1971-72, Table 22, p. 45; adjusted for inflation. low so an ow 4M so income was 79% that of the U. S. average. Louisiana, however, spends 10376 of the per capita national average for capital outlays, but only 87% of the per capita national average on non-capital (service or operating) items. In that same year, 1972, Louisiana's per capita income ($3,543) was only 79% that of Texas, the neigh- boring state with oil and gas activity while per capita expenditures were 116% those in Texas. A crude measure of level of spending effort is shown in Table 4.14. It appears that Louisiana, adjusted for income to reflect level of effort., is spending a greater proportion of its income for public services and facilities than the average state. Louisiana is able to sustain this level of effort partly because the state takes the bulk of the responsibility for services (welfare, health, highways) that are more locally financed elsewhere. In turn, the state is able to sustain the level of effort because it receives such a great proporation of its revenues (50% of tax receipts in 1972: State Government Finances in 1972) from severance taxes on oil and gas extraction. Absent this source of financing--which was only developed in the 1920s--and Louisiana would not have been able to generate the requisite revenues to construct and maintain the infrastructure needed to sustain the coastal energy activity that she does. The oil and gas population has had their needs met by revenues from onshore severence tax sources. NEW PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The question then arises as to what new facilities and services will be required in Louisiana's coastal parishes to offset the effects of accelera-IL-led OCS activity. As discussed earlier, a rough estimate of fiscal "willingness" to incur more debt was derived. No attempt was made then to determine in what functional categories the additional funds would be directed. Obviously, citizens are often unwilling to support more expenditures in some areas despite the obvious signs of need (e.g. education). In other areas, the citizenry supports capital expenditure almost automatically since taxes are collected specifically for a single purpose not subject to referendum (highways). The only way to predict--however clumsily--what categories will receive public support is to look at how Louisiana currently 147 TABLE 4.14 SPENDING EFFORT, 1972 Per Capita Per Capita Income (1972) Per Capita Expenditures Capital Expenditure M As % of Income As 76 of Income Louisiana 3,543 21 4 U. S. (Average) 4,492 18 3 Source: Statistical Abstract of Louisiana, 1974. 00 mom spends its money, compared to the national average. Chapte-r 2 of this study deals in detail with the specifies of various "need" areas such as education, sewer, etc. A general analysis of expenditure trends is thus sufficient if used as an llindicator"--not anything more--as to where Louisiana's spending desires be. The pattern is that Louisiana is spending about 85% of the national per capita average in most categories except in highways where Louisiana. is spending $12 more per capita than the average state (Table 4.15). Apart from welfare, which is not an eligible CEIP expenditure anyway, Louisiana appears to need to upgrade sewer/water, parks and recreation, and education by increasing the expenditures in those categories to closer to the national. average. Whether the coastal parishes or the state choose to upgrade areas of deficiency such as recreation or to spend on services such as highways is not known. The state may be helped to make this decision by the Coastal Zone CEIP regulations. CEIP FUNDING IN LOUISIANA The four purposes for which CEIP funds can be used (public facilities and services,repayment assistance, environmental and recreational amelioration, plan@ning) were cited earlier in this chapter. The OCZM regulations also make it very clear that "the federal role should be complementary in nature" to the state-local efforts. It is now important to discuss what the state and local roles might be and how the CEIP funding process might operate. The State Role--Local Role Question Current OCZM regulations provide a good deal of flexi- bility to the state in shaping its role in coastal zone management. There are also several major assigned respon- sibililLies, the most compelling of which is to devise an intra-state a-location formula for CEIP funds which correlates with areas of expected OCS "need" (impact) (Sect. 931.112 of Interim Final CEIP Guidelines, Federal Register, 1977). As noted earlier, the selection of a distribution formula based on either OCS population or employment has ce.-tain distributional characteristics. Louisiana should move to experiment with disbursement 149 TABLE 4.15 COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES 1972 Educa- High- Health & Parks & t ion ways Welfare Hospitals Police Fire Sewer Recreation Nat'l. Avg. $312 $ 91 $101 $62 $29 $12 $15 $11 Louisiana 262 103 83 61 22 8 9 7 Source: Governmental Finances in 1971-72, Table 22. 01 0 formulas even though NOAA-OCZM is supposed, under law, to provide annual data on a "need factor" for each (OCS) impacted area ( 931.46; esp. (b) (c) (e) (1) (2)). On the basis of that NOAA date, a rough estimate of OCS need will be determined; the intra-state allocation formula used should be sensitive to the "need" so calculated. However, the "need" factors have not yet been calculated for intra-state need areas a state could be in a better position to comment on these factors once derived if an independent estimate of need areas were available). Beyond the establishment of an intra-state allotment scheme, the state is expected to designate a lead agency for NOAA-OCZM application (931.26) and then arrange to pass the credit assistance through to state agencies and units of general purpose local government. The "pass- through" provisions (9331.113(c)) can be exercised in one of the following ways: 1. State agencies may borrow to provide public facilities and services necessary to meet either state or local needs; (Option 1) 2. State agencies may borrow to reloan or to grant this assistance to units of general purpose local government for public facilities and services; (Option 2) 3. State agencies and units of general Durpose local government may submit applications to the state to borrow from the fund to provide needed public facilities and services. (Option 3) In effect, the state is given its choice of three methods of operation or roles that she might play. The model is as follows in Figure 4.2. In determining how the needed OCS related public facilities and services will be provided and financed, the question of the appropriate sta"Ce-local role is central. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to each option. Selection of a particular cou.-se of action will go a long way to determining the method used as the primary means to finance OCS improvements. Rather than delving deeply into each of the three cited options, the more productive approach is to analyze that role model most likely to be developed and adopted. It is likely that the "balanced state-local" option (2) will be chosen, even though a good case could be made for option (3), given the existing political climate. 151 FIGURE 4.2 INTRASTATE ALLOTMENT SCHEMES Strong Local Role Balanced State- Local IRole ong State Role (Option 3) (Option 2) (Option 1) Local Government State borrows State borrows applies to state total CEIP total CEIP allotment allotment State either ini- State tiates project thru State initiates revibws/approves state agency or projects with local allows local reViE!W/approval initiative CEIP funds go to CEIP funds split between state-local CEIP funds spent local governments government directly by state Source: Authors. le 152 Existing Conditions As noted in Chapter 6, which discusses planning and management capabilities in the Louisiana coastal zone, the level of planning and evaluation expertise below the regional level is very low and, in many areas, virtually non-existent. A review of the CZM regulations clearly establishes that the state is required to assign priority to projects partly based on "the establishment of resource or fiscal management capacity of units of local government" (931.112 (g)). Since OCS funds are not inl[ended to be used for the development of a long term planning/fiscal management capability at the local level, maximum use will have to be made of the existing levels of proficiency. Realizing this, it is best that CEIP funds be made avail- able in a manner very similar to, if not identical with, the current funding vehicle used by local governments. This is particularly true when considering credit assis- tance. The state should consider borrowing the entire CEIP credit assistance allotment direct from NOAA and then re-lending it to agencies of state government or units of local government. Such a procedure would allow use of the existing procedures of the state and local government with respect to bonded indebtedness. Prudent fiscal management would caution against the possibility of a separate category of bonded indebtedness operating in an ad hoe manner. The similarity in proposed debt review procedures could act as a deterrent to the possibility of the unplanned evolution of a category of "second-order debt" not ranking on a par with other state-local obligations. Another concern relative to the relatively low level of local planning/management capacity is "project initia- tion and monitoring." Statements have been made that the CEIP credit assistance program is of absolutely no benefit to Louisiana; CEIP simply replicates funds that are avail- able at competitive rates in the bond market. Whether this sentiment is true or not remains to be determined. What is apparent is that there is no overwhelming senti- ment to make use of the credit assistance program which is the main thrust of CEIP. To offset this inertia will require an initiative by the state to motivate the submis- sion of projects for CEIP funding. Finally, the formula grant provision of CEIP is likely to be seriously misunderstood and heavily over- 153 subscribed. To take but one 'example: the formula grant allotment for the entire state of Fiscal Year 1977 is $5.48 million. A New Orleans City Councilman has already proposed that the entire amount could be used to build a badly needed additional water intake for the city. It is not even clear that this proposed project would qualify under 308 (b) (4) (c) even if the other local areas and the state were agreeable to this apportionment of grant monies. The State Incentives 1. The Loan Subsidy The "balanced" state-local role will not evolve unless the state can provide strong incentives to cooperate in the framework required for CEIP. Since the agency to be designated the administrator of CEIP funds in Louisiana is not likely to be large enough to provide technical assistance on any grand scale or to be powerful enough to direct other state agencies to provide additional or "tailored" services ' the creation of an incentive will be difficult. The financing provisions of CEIP may, however, provide at least a mild incentive. Section 931.113 (c) (2) of the CEIP guidelines provides that: "state agencies may borrow to reloan or to grant credit assistance to units of general purpose local government for public facilities and public services." As mentioned earlier, there are advantages inherent in a designated state agency borrowing the entire allocation of CEIP credit assistance. The precise interest rate to be charged is likely to vary according to conditions of the market. Assume that the current rate of interest which the state would have to pay is 617o. To get local governments to participate in the spirit of the program, it might be possible for the state to subsidize -the interest rate charged local governments down to a lower level which would make local participation more attractive (e.g. 5J%). The amount of the subsidy might be made to vary -to moti- vate projects in areas, or of such function, as deemed necessary to cope with OCS need. Since the full faith and credit of neither the statenor the local government would be pledged -(Public Law 94-370: Section 308 (d) (1)), a loan at this interest rate with a repayment schedule tied to additional OCS projected revenues (308 (d) (3)) could be attractive. (It is really impossible to predict how attractive or whether "additional" revenues iffill be 154 forthcoming.) The magnitude of t-he state appropriation to subsidize the interest rate to an attractive level would not be overly large. For example: assume that the state were able to borrow CEIP funds at 67o and re-lend them at 5% for local projects. If the state borrowed the entire $19 million credit assistance allotment for FY 1977, the annual cost of the subsidy over a 20 year period would E-e-7-132,000. The figures in Table 4.16 show subsidies that would be required at representative interest rates and based on a total loan amount of $19,000,000 over a 20-year period. Subsidizing the interest rate charged on debt monies would allow local governments to borrow at less than market interest rates which would be a real incen- tive to undertake projects. The amount of the subsidy could vary (a "deep" subsidy to, e.g. 3% in the first years and then have the subsidy phase out over the life of the project) or could be tied to a priority system to encourage spending on a function such as recreation/ T leisure wherein "ouisianals per capita expenditures fall well below the national average. Loans made under this provision might be viewed as a source of "risk capital" since the intent is to install facilities and services prior to the need reaching acute proportions. The facility can then be capitalized over its life span with the federal government through its repayment assis- tance provisJ ions of CEIP (309 (d) et seg.) serving as a J de facto insurance policy against the facility or service provided not reaching projected user levels.- 2. Coordination With Other Fund Sources It is clear that CEIP funding will not be allowed where it @LuRli(@,.ates other sources of federal funds (Federal Register, V. 42, No. 3, 931.98 (a) (21). However, it is permissable to use CEIP funds in addition to (931.98 (fT)- (1) or to augment (931.98 (b) T2-)) otner federal funds. These provisions should be used to cre@ate a state initiated incentive for local participation in CEIP. What local planning and management capacity that X4St does e J.- in Louisiana's coastal parishes is particularly sensitive to federal fundin g sources and procedures. Major programs such as the Environmental Protection Agency's 11208" water/sewer programs and the Economic Development Administration e--'L'forts in building industrial parks and related facilities are already operating in the coastal parishes and are, to some extent, surviving many of the needs that CEIP will be aimed to cover. 155 TABLE 4.16 STATE INTEREST SUBSIDIES FOR BALANCED STATE-LOCAL SCHEME Period Interest Rate Annual Repayment Due Annual Subsidy to 5% 20 years 576 $ 1,524,617 20 years 6% $ 1,656,515 $ 131,898 20 years 7% $ 1,793,467 $ 268,850 20 years 8% $ 1,935,188 $ 410,571 20 years 970 $ 2,081,374 $ 556,757 Source: Authors. Since there are other programs operating, it will be necessary in drawing up the application for CEIP funds to consider other federal sources (as above) (931.47 (a) (3)) and how the proposed project will be paid off (931.47 (b) (2) (ii)). The only way such information can be derived is through a knowledge of the present and projected usage of related facilities and services. The amount of technical computation in such a projection is considerable; the other factor to consider is that the regional level is the first place wherein information on other facilities might be available. However, absent some assistance to increase the size of regional staffs, it is unlikely that they could provide more than slight assistance to the CEIP program. (See Chapter 6.) The state agency designated to administer the CEIP program will have to develop (or adopt the use of) a procedure to determine what other federal funds are being used or anticipated for a particular area. It is but another step to offer coastal parishes--through the regional planning bodies--assistance in determining what sources of funds might be available and how the CEIP funds might be best incorporated into the funding stream to local govern- ment. As was noted earlier in this report, the CEIP funds must be incorporated carefully into local spending plans to reach maximum effectiveness. The state CZM agency will have a "selling job" to do to get CEIP funds used properly and aggressively. State assistance in formulating and packaging the financing in accord with local pr.-Loritlies would be an incentive to local governments to participate in CEIP. Combined with the use of the subsidy incentive cited in the preceding section, the state agency admini- stlering the CEIP funds would be on more solid ground to promote usage of the credit assistance. THE FORIMULA GRANTS As is the case in virtually any program wherein money .Ls given--not lent--theire is little need for incentives to Lret participation! Certainly lChis will be true in Louisiana. @here the 1977 allotment of $5.45 million in formula grants equates to about $1.40 per capita for the existing population, as it does in Louisiana, the result is likely to be either severe disappointment in some areas or spreading the funds over too wide an area to have any im-pact. The projected effects of distribution formulas 157 based on either population or employment were discussed earlier. To use grant funds effectively in line with CEIP objectives and regulations will require that; the state agency take an active partner role in promoting the subsidy incentive cited earlier to get more usage of federal credit assistance loans and loan guarantE.@es. To develop this role will call for the state CZM agency to help develop the financial management schedule which will allow allocation of formula. grant monies to the projects most pressing and eligible for CEIP assistance. The combination of credit assistance and a formula grant to achieve a jointly agreed upon objective will magnify the impact of CEIP funds if the attractiveness of such a package can be established. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The CEIP program is not tailored to Louisiana's needs but no major changes are likely so long as we are outvoted by other areas with projected needs congruent with the CEIP program. Many major pitfalls exist which will have to be overcome before this program is aviable funding source for coastal zone improvements. One vexing question is how does one provide for funding of additional population apart from_exisi:ing. Without getting into very elaborate formulations of different types of need and being more specific than is possible about the timing and magnitude of OCS impact, it is only possible to calculate in rough terms what the additional persons will cost '. The need calculation is based on per capita expenditures at present compared with national averages or, if standards exist, compared with national standards to achieve a "deficiency rating." Standards, however, are promulgated by organizations which benefit from more attention to one area of expenditure over another (e.g., health v. recreation). As a result, standards are often artificially high partly to encourage additional expenditure. The generalist finds it inordi- nately difficult to debate such "standards." Even specialists disagree with levels and methods of provision. From a local perspective, the standards are secondary at best to the willingness of local citizens to reach those levels by authorizing expenditures. Because a standard exists does not mean that it will be reached or even that it will be taken seriously, this uncertainty factor makes needed calculation very subjective. 158 Second, it is apparent that Louisiana spends approxi- mately the national average per capita on capital projects but somewhat below the average in the per capita expendi- ture, on services. In part, the deficiency is attributable to lower than average salaries. (See Chapter 6 for example.) This raises two important considerations. (1) A capital expenditure almost always involves a companion expenditure in the operating budget. CEIP funds are largely allocated to capital expenditures but local governments will have to make provision for increments in their operating budgets to insure that the facility or service will be safely and continuously available to the public. The state agency procedures to disburse the CEIP funds will have to insure that this consideration is made by local governments in some form or another. There are considerations relative to civil service, pension obligations, etc. that need to be answered. (2) On a "level of effort" basis, adjusting Louisiana's per capita expenditures for income, the state and local governments spend more than the national average at present in providing facilities. The 1975 per capita income of the 22 Louisiana coastal is $4,744 (Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1977) while it is $4,904 for the entire state and $5,902 per capita for the entire United States (Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1975). Thus, the Louisiana coastal parishes' per capita income is only 801,1o that of the United States. What kind of a debt structure this level of income can/should carry is a question -that defies easy answer. Another concern is that the identification of additional '10CS related revenues" that will be forthcoming as a result of accelerated OCS activity (for determining repayment schedules) is very difficult in Louisiana. The state's coastal zone already supports a massive oil/gas related industry that services OCS activity nationwide and similar activity on an international scale. In Louisiana, where OCS activity is declining at present, it is unlikely that there will be additional O%C'S related revenues. The determination of what additional revenue will be forthcoming will be very open to error. It does not seem particularly advisable for a relatively unsophis- ticated local government to attempt to develop a financial 159 plan that essentially treats people in different categories depending on what "revenue-stream" they are assumed to generate.. Local governments in Louisiana (if anywhere) simply do not have the capacity or incen- tive to have a fund tracking mechanism of this complexity. It would be exceptionally difficult to establish when the "projected OCS revenues" had not measured up to predicted levels and the community was therefore eligible for some form of repayment assistance as provided in the law. Either the local, the state, or the federal government, will end up absorbing the payments but it is likely that considerable bad feeling will result. A final matter for consideration.is that of the role of T Louisiana's coastal zone. Ln contrast to states with relatively unspoiled coastlines and well developed economies otherwise., Louisiana is currently living largely from the proceeds of its coast. Oil and gas revenues from state wells are declining at a rate of about 57o per year, a decline that is predicted to continue and, indeed, accele rate. Louisiana's need appears to be the development of alternatives to the oil/gas based economy so that some of its coastal population can be shifted to other occupa- tions. New jobs--in other than the oil and gas industries-- must be developed in preparation for the day when oil/gas reserves no longer can support the employment St3*Ucture they now carry. Any investment made by state-local govern- ment in Louisiana's coastal zone should be grounded on a comprehensive economic development strategy. Obviously, CEIP was not created to, nor should it assume the sole burden of, economic development. However, if the CEIP credit assistance idea is no-IC. to ripen into a series of expensive public facilities or public services beyond the local ability to support them, new revenues related to new economic development must come on stream. If economic growth and incentives to use credit assistance to foster it are not developed, the bulk of the CEIP program in Louisiana may prove to be of no value. It is clear that Louisiana's per capita expenditures compare favorably to national levels. However, with Louisiana's smaller 1975 per capita personal income ($4,094) when compared to the nation ($5,902), one must search to find how this is accomplished. The answer, as pointed to above, is that the on shore severance tax provides for facilities and services for the entire population of Louisiana, including the OCS related population. As this revenue source declines, so will Louisiana's ability to 160 finance necessary services and facilities. CEIP, where not tied to new OCS activity, may be useful to fill in the gap occasioned by declining revenues. On a statewide basis, Louisiana's per capita expenditures compare reasonably well with the nation's. In high growth areas, however, such as the OCS impacted coastal zone, needs for facilities and services still exist as discussed earlier in this chapter. Creative use by the state of CEIP grants and credit assistance may help to alleviate this need somewhat. For many years, Louisiana almost solitarily bore the brunt of OCS activity. Surely for the coastal zone population to enjoy facilities and services comparable to the rest of the nation, additional impact funds programs are necessary to make up for past OCS impacts which resulted in inadequate planning, services, and facilities. 161 REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL Abrams, Tom (1977) "Environmental Question Halts Sewerage Project," The Times-Picayune (New Orleans), June 12. Bardwell, Donald (1976) Coastal Zone Management,_St-.--James Parish, Thibodaux, Louisiana: Nicholls State University. Boggs, Honorable "Lindy" (1977) Personal Communication. New Orleans, Louisiana. Cooper, S. K., et al. (1975) Capital_Budget Programming, State of Louisiana, Prepared for the Division of Administration by the State Planning Office and the Government Services Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Government Service Institute, Louisiana State University. Davis,'Donald (1976a) Coastal Zone Management, Lafourche Parish, Thibodaux, Louisiana: Nicholls State University. (1976b) Coastal Zone Mana.geme t, St. John the Baptist Parish, Thibodaux, Louisiana: Nicholls State University. Denton, B. H. (1974) "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes," The Louisiana Economy, Volume VII, Number 3 (February). Denver Regional Council of Governments (1975) Capital Improvements Programming for Local Governments, PB-245897, National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Division of Business and Economic Research, University of New Orleans (1974) Statistical Abstract of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana: Division of Business and Economic Research) University of New Orleans. Gary, Don (1976a) Coastal Zone Management, Terrebonne Parish, Thibodaux, Louisiana: Nicholls State University. 162 (1976b) Coastal Zone Management, Assumption j@arish, Thibodaux, Louisiana: Nicholls State University. Louisiana Department of Public Works (1974) Directory of Basic Dal.-a for Local and Regional Areas: Louisiana, GPA-LA-06-48-1023, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Department-of Public Works. Louisiana Municipal Association (1975) Louisiana Municipal Clerks' Handbook, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Municipal Association. Louisiana Office of State Planning (1977) Louisiana 1.77: State of the State, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Office of State Plannin g. Louisiana Offshore Terminal Authority (1977) Superport Environmental Protection Plan, New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Offshore Terminal Authority. Louisiana Tax Commission (1974) Sixteenth Biennial Report, Baton Rouge. Mumphrey, A. J., et al. (1976a) The Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Development on Lafourche Parish, New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. Mumphrey, A. J., et al. (1976b) Urban Development in the Louisiana Coastal Zone: Problems and Guidelines, New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. Murphy, J. (1977) Staff Memorandum. Office of Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D. C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,, U. S. Department of Commerce (1917) Coastal Energy Impact Program: Interim-Final Regulations for Assistance to Coastal States, Federal Register, Wednesday, January 5. National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce (1975) Metropolitan Fiscal Analysis: Methods of Financing Areawide Facilities and Services, Volume 4, PB-262684, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 163 Ohmer, Merlin (1976) Coastal Zone Management, St. Charles Parish, Thibodaux, Louisiana: Nicholls State University. Ryan, P. (1977) Personal Communication. Louisiana State Planning Office, Baton Rouge. Southern Growth'Policies Board (1977) Southern Growth Trends, 1970-1976, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Southern Growth Policies Board. T. Baker Smith & Son, Inc. (1975) Area Wide Water Sewer Study, Phase II, for South Central Planning and Development Commission,, Houma, Louisiana: 7'. Baker Smith & Son, Inc. U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce (1973a) County and City Data Book, 1972, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1973b) County Business Patterns 1972, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1973c) State Government Finances in 1972, GF 72, No. 3, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1973d) Government Finances in 1972-72, GF 72, No. 5, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. U. S. Congress (1972) The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1,972, Public Law 92-583, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. (1976) The Coastal Zone Manageaent Act Amendments of 1976, Public Law 94-370, Wash-JLngton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 164 CHAPTER 5 ADDITIONAL COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IN WETLAND ENVIRONMENTS INTRODUCTION In many instances, the population related to OCS a.ctivity will require the development of wetlands to support their housing and other needs. The additional steps necessary for development in a wetlands environ- ment versus natural drylands were documented in a recent study, Urban Development in the Louisiana Coastal Zone: Problems and Guidelines (Mumphrey, et al., 1976). Maintenance problems associated with wetlands development were also discussed in the study. This chapter expands on the basic problem areas presented in the previous report through identification of additional costs incurred in both initial wetlands development and continued maintenance of the developed area. Both the public and private sectors are considered. Material detailing additional wetlands development costs which are not normally incurred in drylands develop- ment are presented on the following four areas: (1) Costs associated with each stage of urban development in a wetland which a,re predomi- nantly borne by the developer and passed on in the price of a house (or lot) to the purchaser; (2) Additional costs which are directly borne by homeowners following home occupancy (e.g., repair of subsidence-caused damages and flood insurance); (3) Public capital costs required to meet the special needs of communities built on former wetlands (e.g., storm water pumping stations, extensive sewage collection and treatment facilities, etc.); 165 (4) Public maintenance costs necessary for the upkeep of.public services and facilities and their repair when damaged through subsidence, flooding, or other wetlands-related causes. Information presented on each of these four areas of concern includes the most current cost figures @Lvailable for each given item. Unless otherwise indicated, cost figures are for the New Orleans region. However, after some adjustment for the cost of living differences, these costs are applicable to other coastal Louisiana urban areas. COSTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Preparation of wetlands for development and actual construction on the reclaimed lands involve a number of additional steps which are unnecessary in natural drylands. The costs ofeach of these additional land preparation and construction steps illustrate the greater cost of developing wetlands over drylands for urban uses. While most of these wetlands development costs are paid for by the developer in the initial cost of land preparation and construction, ultimately the a,dditional price is passed down to the homebuyer. Taxpayers bear a large part of the financial burden of levee construction and other public capital improvements which the federal and state governments subsidize. Homeowners also pay indirectly for additional utility construction costs through the utility rates (Earle, 1975: 12). The costs of variyus stages.involved in the conver- sion of nonfast lands, fast lands and natural drylands 1For the purposes of this study, a distinction is made between the terms nonfa.st land and fast la.nd. Nonfast land is defined as an area in its wetland state subject a former to tidal inundation. Fast land is defined as , I wetland which has been separated from the estuarine system by means of a levee or floodwall and is no longer subject to frequent flooding (Mumphrey et al., 1976: 3). 166 into a residential subdivision are illustrated in Figure 5.1. For nonfast lands., the development process begins at Stage 1. For fast lands which are already protected by a levee syst-em, t-he process starts at Stage 3. Cost for developing natural drylands can also be determined from Figure 5.1- through elimination of certain identi- fied stages. The costs associated with these unnecessary stages comprise the difference in price of initially developing wetlands over drylands. For natural d-rylands, the development process starts at Stage 3. Stages of Development and the Associated Costs Prior to the first stage of development., the subdivision project is conceived by a developer and a determination is made as to whether or not a levee must be constructed. If the proposed project area is currently nonfast land, then levee construction is necessary -k-.o meet subsequent subdivision ordinance and flood insurance requirements. (See Mumphrey et al., 19716: 12-34 for further explanation of these requirements.) Development to be placed on natural dryland need not incur levee permitting and building expenses. Stage 1 -- Apply for Corps of Engineers' Permit Regu"J'Latory cos4k-,s are incurred in Stage 1 as Dart of the levee permit application and review procedure for development proposed on nonfast land. T@is process is currently handled through the U. S. Army Corps of g 41 Engineers, makin .1.6 a federal expend-iture payable to taxpayers (see Mumphrey et al., 1976: 34-41, 69-70 for further description of this procedure). Stage 2 -- Build Levee The maJor-ity of land area of coastal Louisiana is subJect to inundation by high tides and/or wind-driven waters. Hence, extens-ive flood and storm protection systems are necessary to help protect existing and projected urban developments. Adequate drainage and flood --cntrol systems involve costs JL-or the ins-tCallation and maintenance of protection levees, canals, and pumps. Stage 2 of the development process shows the cost of building an earth levee to I-e $39 per linear foot (Kaiser Engineers, 19144: 47). 167 FIGURE 5.1 COSTS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT* Me - mv0L0rH"",- 6TA41 0 1 + Hwu"%, MY &"p FA-0 LAMP 9c"" mcgive ag"p rAw r fu 9AfL FLA" -1c Low L"Ap -c-Mr. FVSRUJH 040 OIL mar "0 ... ... . ... F;.ft mvkh:rlo", r-#A,-r "up (I 4FTS rL iv, Mew Irlow Ab4t' w9n.) .p @tic t.@p a um" AL�YL - - - - - - - J L Xey. *4"Aar pv&4,., v4rnt (VV9L4W9r- tAANY VV- 13 A&-riovA neg MY x3v94646, L*64P j7vvaL-0r64v*kT maAtacp it) fug"we Actia" kwpwr@ La"noi, ib mi"Anom ft-04 ,uw1-.cAmA FOR. d*4 zutra"T "Hv e4fkv-r- rew"11 it, kJV4DVJkL. MAY CXCAAF- We-TLAMM 4 wV00 CZ44"TrAAcno" To &VCH eacc I L-A-m- F-Y MIJAIV CCVre- +1,00/1-41490- FT.* j.-j5/".yptQ FOIL 6,064 AL. V109-1-4p, py eAWAL, aU4WAAC*4 rOA-r 9X-4 txmKfi 00 c zHeAlU 4CTI C44 mvrAlomr- row- Fv,%1t4p&e i.6L,1cu-,tpP (CpVr I" VAA-A@v CW it) WOT HPMAC)v -elpla Txvt@v !5.21 FUr_"b.46,aV C@p HOAS- FT. (-b MLic;> Wmcyvm@ *5.6 r4tL-@-Ijlwum@ For- L4-,nmi. or- "4" CzH4V4WXJ014 removAll OF 'Lux"e-6u -L.Ii. 4AAp"v1,.jOw FD@ MINNA" rVALIS164 f 4An4,4&A,'-- s "&UL-X-rmy CO.-T-61 cu*w- t 114'jv"vvp 114 wli@r H9*wp4- fjA" COSTS Psm@*,L-y WOOPOP APPITio@4AL- FIL-4- 4t,94000,000 # 14 & Fiw- mxmtmk.@ 0"@Y 11-14 t'.5 FL*4p%"u eauir. Ccw@l- OF, LAV-e 4?,000 T&- .7 #r MAINAZIO RAMP "u"my WOOmp vic-l" ITY uurl!v Me- MOPIF-19P FILA-MMUOP f9oftex" Mm * 11'.2. FILA- Haw,"", (10% F:V.P. FUWpWUo Z-@ nowimrwQue %.,ooo Ac- -ro " IS.-I -rorp- Fvtnvxa" x9a M@uwtg- P9,43"A&O 4 to -:@A- L.%v,@ FIL.1, mcri4op eAWAL. 61pp, -4A4Fw- I rVAC. FQ41FW 1 4Z. 2. rkL.L. miawm- I: ?I Aw Perm 1-5 er. Z' I ftsw*4& eQwr. WITU Tor(Irm,14 nTkL- C* 12.0 f1r. , iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilifilililI (4)MumFW"YfTAk-, I'll +: +1 H-16: Iw-5- A06. el-rop 1w mi+:Hwo 4. Ito-Ill. Mul-11`1400Y fT04-- SOURCES Pll-5@ IL05- FIGURE 5.1 (CONTINUED) &0.&0 10 [email protected]:r I I le;,TAkvl 12, &rA&-F- 1* evm&e- 14- cprAZP, 10 ISXA&41@- 1 (0 6im-r-- FILA- NA ftAIL-P 64W;11" 6"t-1-0 f;AmiLY -@Vwma WAP PAbO txv-#-L@ 11,rl- C-v&,ua.-*-rvr-Y 1@,Ibe-uvp- 4.0e,41- -- rAvjj4&.- e rxr 4v-a-,ov-T. L-r44vru r-Qmr reve"ff-f- %V.- vVVVL-L)Frv- WAjMf--@4,frrtY "0, 1 eq DVrAIW, e"441r If 000,0CIP&rp. mi *1-,lr2-v/A4,y4 44pr -&6 1 so, 15b4i Ab 1w/111crr mxitpw @;-Amo A& t4 Pr. 11 Zj, t9!- 64up @)rrlt&o 14 e,"4c"m P.Aw- rCwfW-- +* Pr Kic. t1jU44MV- 6CK,0') 7 tw. fbiwv* K-swk-# Y)rTo t0o P r"AT' C)OV, -A*A.* C'r VIVIE-r-OW Aca P VWfV4e;trVi TvwwwLkir- vr- -fnor-H *ZtP L-ar + 116/ [email protected] er pot. Ar FCC- -4v-sorr "wou &Jkgp" me-%% C"Mar-e-ul-4, rgjt,@Tii 14cxr pervT n f-ts/14w IISOVL-IM-PT. pau"pomci-I (0 9*11,111,09-ZAW& *4 601pr I'll p 11."/14i-V1 Ica - -MICAL 41".r. Im!%CCV 1% VF 94011? co pj@"v_ 41 toyl."Ap AL46 -6-Afe-IMSP -44rr. #Zcc@c 1.16 e-OAV Q . Fr. tvmf@t, 44-k4 .5r. # L-Orr 114 FLA" VF, - e4 -7- (21 I'lleocaar- Iw A -141:415-T, Lllbl,rr@-,M L-4MI ItA0104- rr. 4 IKA. - 4Y cvc-r- --wwjL-4A1-6 X;- -11 it, v-wvlv-C6-amv44Tt1 "'AM004MA, vr- oxe 25-04 MY (P@mv wii-646*- k" 0, WWII-win HIL-t- Lt. (5) (P) KAK-Fw- ro - Fp. eyvjveme@ A6, e-kivp V44wmwef-, 19-1+'. 44-45. I'll,+: A- 1 -4 @k 4 Lo. fill: to-li. fill*. Z'.%. 1"I"Mirm"Irsy 111-14:46. 14114 4.4 - (-')Fv-4vp,r0 0) MVATV, lilts * 1+6. mc4q*w ML01- C'"4141.11,11 e-ommul,11( x-now, FrX4*47 Ft@,tp (I) r-. W. vmo 114R). e,*91Y44S, LOCAL- I-or-M, fill: m4 w-ccw t64 fill: Ie. In 1974, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the cost of the.Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan would be $327 million, with the federal government paying about 70 percent. At least 56,000 acres of the area to be protected with levees by this plan were undeveloped wetlands (Earle, 1975: 89). Stage 3 -- Obtain Loan and Purchase Land Stage 3 involves application by the developer for a loan in order to purchase the land. In most cases, the developer will apply for a loan from a federally insured lending institution and will then be subject to the construc- tion requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. (See Mumphrey et al., 1976: 24-34 and later in this chapter for further explanation of these requirements..) The developer's cost in this stage, consisting of the interest on financing the property, is the same for both wetlands and drylands. Stage 4 -- Drain Site Drainage of the site in Stage 4 involves the dredging of drainage canals and installation of pumps to lower the water table. The cost of canal excavation for drainage was estimated at $60.20 per linear foot with swale construc- tion estimated at $2.50 per linear foot (Mumphrey et al., 1975: 165). Once canals have been dredged to a depth of 4 to 6 feet, lift pumps must be used to pump the water up and over the levee. The price for adequate drainage has been quoted as $2,000 per c.f.s. (cubic feet/second) pumping capacity required (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 45). Following the initial drop in the water table, land protected within the levee subsides to an elevation below its natural state (see later in this chapter). Therefore, pumps must be used regularly to remove storm water which falls on lands within the perimeter levee. Stage 5 -- Clear Site Clearing and grubbing, or brush removal, for the site follows in Stage 5 and may be necessary in natural drylands or reclaimed wetlands. Estimates range from $1,294 per acre for clearing of densely wooded areas such as former swamp lands to $393 per acre for the grubbing of brush and scrub growth (McGraw-Hill Information Systems, 1977: 17). More involved clearing practices in wetlands 170 such as peat removal (at $.75 per cubic yard) and mud removal (at $.56 per cubic yard) neglecting disposal cost may also be necessary in preparation of -the land for development (TAMS, 1972a: 5, as cited in Mumphrey et al., 1975: 165). Peat removal is normally necessary in the construc- tion of highways that are subject to repeated heavy live loads. However, due to the cost of removal of large quantities of humus, disposal problems once removed, and the cost of replacing the humus with sand, the practice is rarely employed in general development work. Cost calculations involving peat removal also should consider the monetary value of the developable land lost in dredging the necessary sand fill (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 14, 21). Stage 6 -- Fill Site Stage 6 covers the filling methods* employed in wetlands reclamation. Two very different methods of land preparation are available to the developer, along with variations of each method. Differences are in terms of the overall cost based on the amount of fill added to the site, and the flood hazard potential of the filled site as well as the amount of subsidence each includes. Table 5.1 shows the comparative features and costs of variou's land preparation methods for a 5,054 acre site in eastern New Orleans. This was a part of the now defunct Pontchartrain New Town development. Development methods and cost comparisons for this sample site are detailed below. The "Wet Method" or "Water Drawdown Method" of land preparation is the most commonly used technique by developers. It involves lowering of the water table by means of drainage canals and pumps which work to maintain the depressed water -table level. Water removed from the site is pumped from the canals into some large water body (e.g., a lake). Some fill is placed on the site to offset subsidence (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 6). For the sample site, 7.7 million cubic yards of fill would be required to produce a finished first floor elevation of +0.6 feet mean sea level (M.S.L.) for structures. Fill cost with the "Wet Method" was estimated at $5.8 million. 171 TABLE 5.1 SUMMARY OF LAND DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (for proposed Pontchartrain New Town) DRAINAGE DISTRICT 2 1 2 3 4 5 Wet 1 Modified Wet Method Modified Fill Item Method Wet Method + Addit. Fill Fill Method Method Free Water Surface Elev. (MSL) -71 -91 -71 -3.51 0.01 First Floor Elev. (MSL) +0.61 -1.41 +2.61 +3.11 +7.61 Total Area in Districts (acres) 5,054 5,054 5,054 5,054 5,054 Lagoon Area. Available for Drainage (acres) 140 353 140 353 140 New Lagoons Required for Drainage (acres) 160 20 160 282 -- Developable Area. for PNT (acres) 3,200 3,,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 Depth of Fill (inches)2 1811+611 1811+6t' 4411+611 5011+611 13211+611 Predicted Ultimate Settlement 3.11 2.41 3.21 2.21 4.11 Fill Borrow Required: Acreage 170 1.70 420 480 1,250 Cubic Yards (M.C.Y.) 7.7 7.7 18.9 21.6 56.3 (CONTINUED) TABLE 5.1 CONTINUED DRAINAGE DISTRICT 2 1 2 3 4 5 Wet 1 Modified Wet Method Modified Fill Item Method Wet Method + Addit. Fill Fill Method Method Fill Sources: Blind Lagoon (orig.200 ac.) 86 ac 86 ac 86 ac 86 ac 86 ac Blind Lagoon (expanded) 84 ac 84 ac 200 ac 200 ac 200 ac New Lagoon Areas -- -- 134 ac 134 ac 134 ac Off Site Sources -- -- -- 60 ac 830 ac Sub-tota.1 170 ac 170 ac 420 ac 480 ac 1250 ac Pumping Capacity Req1d. (CFS) 1,250 1,250 1,250 1)250 11050 Estimated Costs: (millions) Fill Material 3 5.8 5.8 14.2 16.2 42.2 Pumping Equipment 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 Total $8.3 $8.3 $16.7 @718.7 $44.3 1The wet method includes an average fill of 2 ft. placed 3 years prior to construction. Placement of a surcharge will accelerate land consolidation. Later, the excess fill can be relocated to other areas within the district. 2The additional 611 of fill is to be placed by builders after construction activities. 3Estimate does not include pumps for area N. of U.S. I-10 or area S. of U.S. 90. Source: Kaiser Engineers, 1974: Figure 4. The "Fill Method" or "Dry Method" dictates that the water table be maintained at mean sea level and several feet of fill be placed upon the site. With this method, land is drained through a system of artificially created swales and surface runoff into a canal system (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 6-7 and Villavaso, 1975). The New Town site would require 56.3 million cubic yards of fill at a cost of $42.2 million if the "Fill Method" was employed. This would achieve a first floor elevation of +7.6 feet M.S. L., providing the greatest safety from f loodin g of all the proposed methods. Other reclamation systems include the "Modified Wet Method" using the same amount of fill at the same cost as the "Wet Method" but lowering the finished grade elevation by two feet. The "Wet Method with Additional Fill" would require 18.9 million cubic yards of fill at a cost of $14.2 million for the sample site. The first floor elevation would be +2.6 feet M.S.L. Use of the "Modified Fill Method" would lower the water table more and reduce the amount of fill material required as compared to the "Fill Method." For a finished floor elevation of +3.1 feet M.S.L. with the "Modified Fill Method '11 21.6 million cubic yards of fill would be required at a cost of $16.2 million (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: Figure 3). Appendix 5.1 includes further definition and diagrams of the alternative reclamation methods herein discussed. Fill costs for each of these land preparation methods include dredging the required fill material at a unit cost of $.30 to $.50 per cubic yard for a total of $.75 per cubic yards, with the mobilization cost for equipment included (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 40). This does not include transpor- tation to site costs. The estimated costs of pumping equipment are also taken into consideration in the cost totals for the various methods listed in Table 5.1. The major fill processes presented in Stage 6 are unnecessary for development on natural drylands, thus reducing development costs substantially. Stage 7 -- Submit Plan for Approval Regulatory costs involved in Stage 7 are common to both wetlands and drylands development. Governmental regulatory fees paid by developersinvolved in dovelopment processing are imposed to guarantee the essentials of public health, safety and welfare. The costs detailed 174 in Table 5.2 for New Jersey2 are intended to ensure that roads are properly aligned, fire equipment can maneuver, storm water does not cause frequent flooding or pollution, traffic is not impeded by individual property access to major thoroughfares, etc. (Richardson, 1976: 110). Regulatory costs are shown for various phases of subdivision regulations including the conceptual plan or sketch plat ($58 per single family unit); the preliminary plan ($127 per single family unit) with more specific street and lot arrangements; and the engineering plan or final plat ($127 per single family unit), showing exact dimensions for streets and lots, placement of underground utilities, etc. in accordance with current applicable zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations (Richardson, 1976: 110). Stage 8 -- Layout of Site .Stage 8, site layout, involves the actual staking out of streets, lots and utility rights-of-way on the site prior to commencing improvements. The developer employs surveyors for this task which involves the same costs on both wetlands and dryla,nds. Stage 9 -- Lay Utilities Utility installations in Stage 9 do present certain additional costs in wetlands environments. The standard procedure for laying water and sewerage pipes in former wetlands includes trench excavation, placement of several feet of shell fill, and construction of board frames to support the sewer tiles or water mains. These board structures or "cradles" help to balance out local settling and prevent pipes from sinking or floating toward the surface (Earle, 1975: 87). Soil-related engineering problems such as high water table and unstable trench walls due to fluid soils result in a substantial increase for utility installation charges. Additional measures such as pumping to reduce ground water levels at installation sites, shoring to prevent collapse of trenches,and excavation of large trees and other buried swamp debris in preparation for underground utility lines increase the price of utilities substantially. 2Dover Township, New Jersey (sample during the 1972- 1975 period). 175 TABLE 5.2 SUBDIVISION REGULATION COSTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE (Dover Township, N.J. - 19 75) Single Family Multi-Family Typical Profect cost Regulation Per Unit (100 du.) Per Unit (100 du.) Sources Township: Sketch Plat 58.00 5,800.00 E Preliminary Plat 127.00 12,700.00 ELg Final Plat 127.00 12,700.00 Elg Inspection Fees 188.00 18,800.00 G Cash Improvement Bond 515.00 51,500.00 G Performance Improve- ment Bond 54.00 5,400.00 - G Site Plan Review 2&00 2,500.00 E Site Plan Approval 107.00 10,700.00 ELg Zoning Variances 30.00 3,000,000 eLg Performance Improve- ment Bond 28.00 2,800.00 G Preliminary Sewer Plan 9.00 900.00 7.00 700.00 eG Tentative Sewer Plan 11.00 17,100.00 6.00 600.00 eG Final Sewer Plan 20.00 2,000.00 11.00 1,100.00 eG Sewer Connection 250.00 25,000.00 250.OD 25,000-00 G Sewer Inspection 50.00 5,000.00 30.00 3,000.00 G Cash Sewer Bond 69.00 61900.00 53.00 5,300.00 G Performance Sewer Bond 11.00 11100.00 8.00 800.00 G Water Company Telephone Company Electric Company Fire Commission Review 7.00 700.00 3.00 300.00 E Soil-land Disturbance Permit 20.00 2,000.00 8.00 800.00 EG Tree Removal Permit 16.00 1,600.00 7.00 -700.00 EG Floodplain Permit* Wetlands Permit* 8.00 800.00 E Shade Tree Bond 12.00 1,300.00 cG- County: Preliminary Plans Review 2.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 E Final Plans Review 2.00 200.00 1.00 100.00 E Drainage Assessment* 61.00 6,100.00 G 'Sewer System Permit 2.00 100.00 1.00 100.00 G State. CAFRA Permit 50.00 51000.00 33.00 3,300.00 EL Stream Encroachment Permit Riparian Rights Permit* 14.00 1,400.00 ELg Wetlands Permit Road Access Permit* 3.00 300.00 2.00 200.00 Eg Road Drainage Permit* 3.00 300.00 2.00 200.00 Eg Water System Review Series Sewer System Review Series TOTAL $1,600.00 $160,000.00 S609.00 S60,400.00 E, e -major, minor contribution of engineer or consultants L, I -major, minor contribution of legal counsel G, g -major, minor contribution of government fee -special permits not included in total Source: Richardson, 1976: 110-112. 176 The cost of sanitary sewers in a former wetland area has been estimated at $4,820 per acre with a $2,620 per acre cost for water supply. Underground electric power distribution costs of $4.60 per linear foot of road are estimated for former wetland areas (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 44-45). Installation of natural gas and telephone utilities along with water and sewerlines may be expected to incur additional costs of 25-84% in a wetlands environ- ment over a drylands environment.(private communication, local contractor, 1976). Maintenance problems caused by subsidence and flooding increase wetlands utility costs over time. Stage 10 -- Fill and Grade Roadbeds and Build Streets Street construction in Stage 10 involves a number of additional steps due to the need for increased road base preparation, additional drainage capacity and the neces- sity for bridging numerous small water bodies and canals in wetlands. Construction normally involves "mucking" or removal of the top several inches of organic material and placement of a sand and shell base course, but not pilings. For larger streets and highways, the base preparation may be more extensive, including removal of the top several feet of organic matter and laying of a much thicker base course. Costs for peat removal when necessary are estimated at $.75 per cubic yard (TAMS, 1972a: 5). Base course installation consisting of six inches of water-bound macadam is estimated at $4.57 per square yard, including labor (McGraw-Hill Information Systems, 1977: 27). Concrete paving costs run $579.12 per linear foot for a 48 foot width roadway down to $23.04 per linear foot for a 24 foot width (nonmajor) street. Road drainage charges are estimated at $56.10 per linear foot for a 48 foot width arterial and $19.46 per linear foot for smaller streets. In addition, bridge costs for one 48 foot width span are approximately $375,000.00 (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 41-43, 46). Costs for these additional street construction measures increase the price of initial roadway installation by 25-84'10 over drylands (Private communication, local contractor, 1976). Higher maintenance costs over the life of the roadway due to subsidence and other soil problems can also be expected in former wetiands versus natural drylands. 177 Stage 11 -- Fill and Grade Lots To achieve the required minimum lot grade before- piles can be driven and construction can begin, fill must be brought onto the site in Stage 11. While some fill is normally required prior to construction on drylands, a much larger amount is necessary in former wetlands, especially if some organic material has already been removed. Site borrow from local pits costs approximately $1.46 per cubic yard for labor and machinery for a 1,000 y-ard one-way haul and up to $2.12 for a three mile haul. The cost of the fill itself at $.25 per cubic yard for earth and $.66 per cubic yard for sand must be added to these prices. Site grading to achieve the minimum lot grade as specified in the local buildi-ng code and/or federally insured flood insurance program qosts from $.39 per square yard for sites less than one acre to $.26 per square yard for sites greater than five acres, including both labor and equipment, but not fill materials costs (McGraw-Hill Information Systems, 1977: 18-19). Stage 12 -- Obtain Building Permit Stage 12 consists of obtaining a building permit from the proper parish and/or local authorities before actual improvements on each house lot can begin. Regulatory charges involved in this stage are assessed equally without regard to the environment in which the development is taking place. (See Stage 7 for further discussion of this type of regulatory cost.) Stage 13 -- Drive Piles The driving of pile foundation supports in Stage 13 is a sizeable expenditure necessary for construction in former wetlands. Treated wood piles 12 inches in diameter and 40 to 60 feet in length cost approximately $2.80 per linear foot for materials and an additional $1.97 per linear foot for installation labor (McGraw-Hill Information Systems, 1977: 23). These piles are driven to a specified depth or until they reach "refusal" and cannot be driven any deeper. "Skin friction" or the cohesion between the pilings and the soil particles actually creates the supporting capability. Steel sheet piling driven and left in place along canals and other water bodies is frequently necessary to stabilize construction on the bank. 178 Costs for this type of piling amount to $9.37 per square foot for labor and $1.57 per square foot for materials (McGraw-Hill Information Systems, 1977: 23). Stage 14 -- Lay Foundation These pile support expenses in wetlands increase the cost of structural foundations as installed in Stage 14. For a single family residence foundation, the cost difference is $2.27 per square foot for a pile-supported foundation versus $1.00 per square foot for a slab on sand foundation. For townhouses or garden apartments, the difference is $3.36 versus $1.93 per square foot for pile-supported and slab on sand foundations respectively 4 (TAMS, 1972a as cited _Ln Mumphrey et al. , 1975: 145). Similar cost differences were noted in the F. W. Dodge publication, Costs and Trends in Current Building Projects (1974 as cited in Mumphrey et al., 1975: 139). In that source, piling founda-t-ion co-sT-s-Tor a small doctor's clinic were reported at $2.40 per square foot with costs for a similar building slab on natural dry ground at $1.28 per square foot. These costs include the costs of piles. Stage 15 -- Build Structure It is these additional piling foundation costs which comprise the major cost difference in building in wetlands environments. The remainder of the charges for Stage 15, actual building construction, are the same in wetlands as in natural drylands. However, maintenance costs for structural repairs due to wetlands-related problems make the overall cost for this step greater in wetlands. Stage 16 -- Lay Sidewalks, Driveways, Etc. Stage 16, the laying of sidewalks and driveways in a development, is normally carried out to the same specifications in both wetlands and drylands. A shallow sand bed is usually the only base preparation provided, with reinforced concrete as a surface treatment. Cast- in-place concrete walks with steel mesh reinforcement are estimated at $2.07 per square foot for material and labor on a five inch thick finished walk (McGraw-Hill Information Systems, 1977: 28). Overall development costs for sidewalks and paths run approximately *315.00 per acre (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 46). Due to the fact 1-79 that no special base support preparation is made for land- scape features such as sidewalks and driveways in former wetlands,, they are subject to warping and cracking with continued subsidence of the land surface. Stage 17 -- Collect and Dispo'se* -of Sewage, Storm Water, and Solid Waste With completion of the development and sa.le of the houses, local government and private companies assume responsibility for the roads and utilities in the commu- nity. -During occupancy in Stage 17, costs are incurred to deal with the collection and disposal of sewage, storm water,and solid waste which cause special problems in former wetlands. Because of the extremely poor soils of former wetlands with the accompanying high water table, use of septic tanks for sewage disposal is not allowed in most urban develop- ments. The soils cannot perform an adequate job of filtering sewage effluent, and bacterial contamination of ground water is the inevitable result. Even in low density developments where septic tanks are marginally allowable, there is a constant problem of system back-ups and actual floating to the surface of waste materials during periods when the water table is particularly high. A sanitary sewerage system with primary and possibly secondary treat- ment of effluent is usually necessary with any type of urban development in former wetlands (Stocks, 1974). The cost for an 11,000,000 gallons per day (g.p.d.) capacity sewage treatment plant has been estimated at $5,725,000 (Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 44). Waste water collected as street runoff during periods of heavy rainfall must be pumped from the numerous collec- tion canals into a larger.body of water which is -usually at a. higher elevation. This necessitates costs for pumping and lift station facilities (see earlier in this chapter). Treatment of this waste water may be required at additional expense before it is pumped. If not treated, receiving water bodies are likely to be highly polluted by this effluent. Solid waste disposal poses another problem for communities built on former wetlands. Again, the poor soils and h1gh.water table make the use of sanitary land- fills undesirable. Unless greater expense is outlaid for sealing the landfill site with*an impermeable material 180 such as clay, there is always the danger that leachate will escape and contaminate the groundwater (Brunner and Keller, 1972: 19). The most commonly used method of solid waste disposal in coastal communities is open dumping, which is cheap but undesirable for health reasons. Incini- ration is sometimes used and this not only adds to the public tax burden because it is an expensive disposal method, but also contributes to air pollution and resulting health hazards. Normal costs (excluding transportation) for sanitary landfill disposal of solid waste range from $1 to $5 per ton (Liptak, 1974: 515, as cited in Landerkin, 1977: 79). In coastal Louisiana, landfill costs usually exceed $5 per ton due to the need for expensive site improvements and for cover material which is not available on site (Landerkin, 1977: 79). However, incineration costs in coastal Louisiana were reported at $6 per ton in 1968 and have risen steadily since then due to general increases in labor, materials, and replacement costs (Bureau of Environmental Health, 1972: 42). It was estirziated to cost between $15 and $25 per ton to incinerate the solid was-Les from a city of 100,000 in 1974 (excluding transportation ) (Liptak, 1974: 194, as cited in Landerkin, 1977: 80). HOMEOWNER COSTS IN WETLANDS ENVIRONMENTS In addition to the increased costs of converting areas within the coastal wetlands to urban lands, certain main- tenance costs must be met by private individuals as well as the public sector. Those added costs which are paid directly by homeowners living in former wetlands include the repair of subsidence-caused property damages and the payment of flood insurance. Subsidence Costs Strongly associated with the reclamation of Louisiana's coastal wetlands for urban use is the problem of land subsidence. Subsidence is a term used to describe a negative land surface change. In the context of urban expansion in coastal Louisiana, it is generally a regional or area-wide lowering of surface elevation due to local factors (Earle, 1975: 77). These factors include lowering of the water table during the reclamation process with dredging of canals and pumping to reduce the water level 181 in the area. This, in turn, causes wet mineral soils to dry out and shrink and organic soils to decompose, oxidize, and shrink. Oxidation of organic material plays a very important role in urban coastal subsidence problems. As oxygen levels in the organic soils of drained wetlands are increased with lowering of the water table, bacterial decomposition of the organic materials is accelerated. Wetland mucks high in organic matter can undergo as much as an 85 percent volume loss when dried, and continue to shrink-at a fairly uniform rate through oxidation until a subsurface mineral layer or the water table is reached (:U.S. Soil Conservation Servi-ce, 1976: V-3). For further discussion of subsidence'causes, see Mumphrey-et -al., 1976: 72-86. Various costs-to homeowners result from property deterioration associated with subsidence conditions. These involve the following elements: (1) landscape related elements such as step, sidewalk and driveway repairs, as well as landfill costs; (2) architectural related elements such as structural tilting, floor, wall and roof repair costs; and (3) utility related elements such as water, sewerage, electric and gas system repair costs (Earle, 1975: 237). Table 5.3 describes the types of problems and their associated costs for two of the soil conditions found in wetlands. Organic soils.containing.organic surface layers (made up of decomposed or partially decomposed plant remains) are characteristic of reclaimed marsh areas. These soils subside through a process of drying, shrinking, and oxidation of*organic matter which is a biochemical decomposition process (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1976: V-1, V-4). Mean yearly costs related to subsidence in organic soils equal approximately $120 per household (Earle, 1975: 294). 182 TABLE 5. 3 O4qXTqS AND P4qW 0qU0qn4qf4qi ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE OF 0qH4qMqS 1q1q4 AREAS OF qB4q= 0qU0qT0qMIC AND MINERAL q(qXq)4qM LANDSCAPE qOqO0qMITIqOL-q4q9 BUILDING q0q00qMqITqIqCtqIS UqrqILrrq1EqS CONDITIONS LAND BASE CONDITI MAJR0q@qIq' mean yearly high incidence of yard, floor and wall All utilities systans qTqhe in--@st serious costs related walk, and driveway damage frequently except gas highly sidence condition qWqX4qUqIqL0qO.) to subsidence sinkage. Widespread reported conditions affected by subsidence. the Earle study AUqGq1 qi4qNqi0qr = $120 qper problem of space under Couposed of prima 3 household foqmdation where land 8 or mDre feet of (IGANqIC SOIL has sunken away from organic soil (0qLaf piling supported slab covered by a surf (which settle rela- of sandy loam fil tqiveqly little). brought in by t8qhe licratuyNner. SWAMP man yearly high incidence of very high incidence All system affected Majority of soils 0 qmsts related reports of a variety of building tilt and by subsidence. made up of Shar4qke CA) S%VAqMqQ q1,q1q1INGqE to subsidence of- problems: driveway associated floor and Clay. Subsidence UNqIq7" = $80 per warping, general land wall damage. problem associat qSqOIqL3 household sinking, soil pot Extreimqly high reports with mineral soi KIN 0qU1q1AqL holes, and extensqiva of need for slab Shrink/sweql.l char street cracqkqtng. Jacking and addition terqitics of clay Problem of a qmro of piling supports. thought to cause subtle nature, thus, some observed ay be missed by an dewaterqng of sat untrained observer. rated clays at dqe is thought to be linked to the qmqcq) serious damage. 1) Soil Conservation Service (qSqCqS) terminology (see Soil Association Maps). (2) Earle study terminology. (3) In all cases soil ussociations I-ibeqleqd "Marsh" on the qSCqS maps contain such phrases as "consists of organic material.. (21 to8l).11 In every description of soil associations labeled "Swaap" on the SCS maps, terms such as "Clayey soils" are used. 'Iqllese are both mineral soils which can cause problem for future develoqpmait. Srce: Earle, 1975: 293-299, as cited i qMLarphrey et al., 1975: 150155. Mineral soils dominated by fine rock fragments of sand or silt size along with still smaller particles of clay minerals are characteristic of swamp areas. Subsi- dence in mineral soils is due to the process of consoli- dation which is removal of water due to loading of the soil (U. S. Soil Conservation Service, 1976: V-1, V-4). Yearly mean costs related to subsidence in mineral soils amount to approximately $80 per household. There is a definite relationship between soil type and repaIr cost in coastal Louisiana.. Both organic and mineral soils are involved in causing damage and subsequent costs (Earle, 1975: 274, 293-299). The overall best cost estimates for repair items requiring additional homeowner expense are listed in Table 5.4. Landfill is the most frequently reported repair needed with an overall best estimate of $162 per job. However, the cost of labor is not considered in -this item since much of the labor is supplied by the homeowner or paid for in addition to the fill cost (Earle, 1975: 243). The most expensive repair item listed in Table 5.4 is that dealing with major structural damage from tilting of the house slab due to uneven subsidence. The best estimate for foundation repair to correct house tilt was calculated by Earle (1975: 243) to be $1906--a very sizeable home- owner investment. Earle determined the average yearly repair cost mean per homeowner to be $61 for subsidence-caused damage in the East New Orleans area. For the segment of other New Orleans areas surveyed by Earle, the mean repair cost was even higher $92 per year (Earle, 1975: 317). Flood Insurance Costs Flooding is a constant threat to many urbanized areas within Louisiana's coastal zone, and the necessity for flood insurance provides an additional expense to home- owners. Under the National Flood Insurance Program, flood insurance is required for homebuyers in flood risk areas by lending institutions with federally insured deposits as a condition for obtaining a loan. This requirement is made by federally insured lending institutions for identi- fied special flood hazard areas within communities under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (U. S. Congress, Senate, 1966). 184 TABLE 5.4 REPAIR ITEMS REQUIRING ADDITIONAL HOMEOWNER EXPENSE-- THE OVERALL BEST ESTIMATE OF REPAIR COST ESTIMATED ESTIMATED MEAN COST MEAN COST ESTIMATED (AVERAGE) FROM REPORT FROM REPORT COST OVERALL OF HAVING OF ITEM FOR REPAIRS 'BEST' HAD EXPENSE AS SINGLE NEEDED MADE ESTIMATE OF PARAMETER SET REPAIR ITEM TOPICS BIGGEST EXPENSE BY HOMEOWNERS MEAN COST LANDSCAPE land fill $204 $116 $166 $162 ELEME14TS steps 90 NA NA sidewalk 154 combined as paving driveway 505 560 667 629 00 cil ARCHITECTURAL house tilt $1872 $1835 $2007 $1906 ELEMENTS floor 203 NA combined as building walk 264 175 570 636 roof 517 178 UTILITY water system $80 ELEMENTS sewerage system 182 combined as utilities $171 $400 $328 electric system 111.1 gas system 40 OTHER $80 other $150 $115 Source: Earle, 1975: 243. Many wetland areas within the coastal zone lie at elevations below sea level in their natural state. When such areas are developed, there is constant danger of flooding by subtropical rainfall, river flooding, and frequent hurricanes. Depending upon the method of land preparation utilized in converting a wetland for develop- ment, the area is elevated relative to mean sea level to meet specific first floor levels in order to minimize this flooding danger (Kaiser Engineers, 1973: A-10). The first floor elevation 3of a structure above or below the 100-year flood level determines the a 'ppropriate flood insurance rate. A land preparation or building construction method which raises the first floor elevation significantly higher above this base flood level would require much smaller insurance payments. (Additional discussion of flood insu@rance regulations is found in Mumphrey et al., 1976: 23-34). Table 5.5 represents the Federal Insurance Administra- tion subsidized rates applicable to all types of structures and contents in existence or under construction before December 31, 1974 or prior to the effective date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), whichever was later. These subsidized rates are also available for all structures and contents outside of special flood hazard areas regard- less of the date of construction (National Flood Insurers Association, 1975: B-2). Zone rates listed in Table 5.6 apply to all buildings in a community except those located in special flood hazard zones. Elevation rates apply to buildings located within the special flood hazard zones. An example of an elevation rate table for one story residential structures is presented in Table 5.7 (National Flood Insurers Association, 1975: B-3, B-5). It should be noted that flood insurance rates differ not only according to the zone in which a structure is built and the first floor elevation, but also are based on whether the structure is residential or nonresidential, and whether the coverage is for the structure itself or for contents. 3The 11100-year flood" or base flood level is the highest level of flooding that is estimated to have a 1-percent chance of occurring each year in a given location (U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1974: 47). 186 TABLE 5. 5 FIA SUBSIDIZED RATE TABLE (Rates per $100 Insurance) Under the Emergency Program, Subsidized Rates apply to all types of structures and contents which were in existence, or on which construction or substantial improvement was started on or before December 31, 1974, or prior to the effective date of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), whichever is later. Subsidized Rates also continue to be available for all structures and contents outside the 1 special flood hazard area Zones A, AO, Al-A30, or Vl-V30, regardless of date of construction. Rates Structure Contents A. Single-Family Dwelling .25 .35 B. Other Residential .25 .35 (except single-family) C. Any Other Structures .40 .75 1FIRM Zone Definitions A flood insurance map displays the zone designations for a community according to areas of designated flood hazards. The zone designations used by FIA are: Zone Explanation A Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding; flood depth 1 to 3 feet; product of flood depth (feet) and velocity (feet per second) less than 15. Al-A30 Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. A99 Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by a flood protection systera under construction; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. (CONTINUED) 187 TABLE 5.5 CONTINUED FIRM Zone Definitions Continued. Zone Explanation B Area between limits of 100-year flood and 500- year flood; areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths less than 1 foot. C Areas outside 500-year flood. D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards. V Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. V0 Areas of 100-year shallow flooding with velocity; flood depth 1 to 3 feet; product of depth (feet) and velocity (feet per second) more than 15. Vl-V30 Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors determined. Source: National Flood Insurers Association, 1975: B-2. 188 TABLE 5.6 FIA ZONE RATE TABLE (Applicable Only for Communities in the Regular Program) (Rates per $100 Insurance) Zone rates apply to all buildings in a Icommunity in the Regular Program, except those buildings located in Zones Al- A30, and Vl-V30. A building which was constructed or sub- stantially improved on or before December 31, 1974, or before the effective date of the FIRM, whichever is later, may be insured for first layer amounts of insurance using Subsidized Rate Table 1, if lower than the following Zone Rates. SECTION A--STRUCTURE--ONE-TO FOUR-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Zonel Type of Structure A AO B C D One story--no basement .35 .30* .03 .01 .20 Two or more stories--no basement .30 ..25* .02 .01 .15 Split level--no basement .30 .25* .02 .01 .15 One story--with basement 2.05 2.00 .15 .10 1.10 Two or more stories-- with basement 1.30 1.35 .10 .10 .70 Split level--with basement 1.30 1.35 .10 .10 .70 Mobile home on foundation 1.40 .65* .15 .15 .80 NOTE: The maximum actuarial rate payable by the insured on 1-4 family residential structures is $.50 for (a) first layer limits of insurance on new construc- tion, if first floor elevation is at or above the base flood elevation, or (b) second layer limits of insurance on all structures. 1See Table 5.5 for zone definitions. *For structures without basement located in Zone AO, where the first floor is eighteen inches (18") or more above the crown (highest point) of the nearest street, use Zone B rates. 189 TABLE 5.6 CONTINUED SECTION B--ALL OTHER STRUCTURES Zone A AO B C D One story--no basement .60 .50* .05 .02 .30 Two or more stories--no basement .50 .40* .04 .02 .25 Split level--no basement .45 .40* .04 .02 ' 35 One story--with basement 3.40 3.30 .25 .20 1.85 Two or more stories--with basement 2.15 2.25 .15 .20 1.15 Split level--with basement 2.15 3.00 .15 .20 1.25 Mobile home on foundation 2.30 1.10* .30 .25 1.30 SECTION C--CONTENTS--RESIDENTIAL. Zone Location in Structure A AO B C D All in basement 41.50 26.00 2.60 .20 22.00 All on lst floor .90 .75* .10 .05 .50 All on lst two or more floors .60 .50* .10 .05 .35 All on lst floor and basement 5.65 4.00 .40 .10 3.00 All on lst two or more floors and basement 5.90 3.50 .35 .10 3.10 All above lst floor .15 .05* .01 .01 .08 All in mobile home on foundation 1.35 .55* .10 .05 .75 *For structures wi thout basement located in Zone AO, where the first floor is eighteen inches (1811) or more above the crown (highest point) of the nearest street, use Zone B rates. 190 TABLE 5.6 CONTINUED SECTION D--ALL OTHER CONTENTS Zone Location in Structure A AO B C D All in basement 50.00 39.00 3.90 .30 50.00 All on lst Floor 1.35 1.10* .10 .10 .75 All on lst two or more floors .85 .75* .10 .10 .50 All on lst floor and basement 8.50 6.00 .60 .15 4.55 All on lst two or more floors and basement 5.90 5.25 .55- .15 3.20 All above lst floor .20 .08* .01 .01 .10 All in mobile home on foundation 2.00 .85* .10 .10 1.05 *For structures without basement located in Zone AO, where the first floor is eighteen inches (18") or more above the crovin (highest point) of the nearest street, use Zone B rates. Source: National Flood Insurers Association, 1975: B-3. 191 TABLE 5.7 FIA ELEVATION RATE SRCTTnN A_-ONE TO "POTIR FAMTT.V RF,,qTnp.NTTAT. RTR1jrTTjT4V ONE STORY ELEVATION OF FIRST NO BASEMENT WITH BASEMENT FLOOR ABOVE OR BELOW BASE FLOOD ZONES ZONES ELEVATION Al-A7 A8-A14 A15-A17 A18-A30 Al-A3 A4-A7 A8-A9 A10-A30 + 5 OR MORE .01 .01 .01 .01 .10 .10 .10 .10 + 4 .01 .01 .01 .01 .10 .10, .10 .10 + 3 .01 .01 .02 .04 .10 .10 .10 .10 + 2 .01 .02 .05 .08 .10 .10 .11 .13 + 1 .01 .07 .10 -.15 .90 .30 .24 .22 0 .12 .16 .19 .23 4.78 .84 .49 .33 1 .48 .31 .31 .34 13.13 2.13 .95 .49 2 1.59 .55 .47 .48 4.95 1.77 .71 3 .93 .70 .64 6.73 3.15 .98 4 1.48 .83 5.16 1.36 5 2.34 1.40 1.07 1.87 6 2.86 1.91 1.34 2.52 7 2.62 1.66 3.40 8 3.53 2.02 4.56 9 2.48 5.21 -10 3.03 OR LOWER 'ZONE RATE .35 5 5 .73 95 7.36 2.61 L@3 1.12 L 4USE $25.00 RATE. See Table 5.5 for zone definitions. Source: National Flood Insurers'Association, 1975: B-7. In the New Orleans region, 60 percent of the area within the perimeter levees is classified as an area of special flood hazard with the highest insurance rates for homeowners. Of the remaining land, 16 percent is classified as having moderate flood hazard, and 24 percent is classified as an area of minimal flood hazard. This minimal flood hazard zone is primarily along the natural levee of the Mississippi River and flood insurance rates are the lowest in this area (Earle, 1975: 88). PUBT I C .U CONSTRUCTION COSTS In addition to the private sector costs of developing in wetlands previously discussed, there are a number of additional costs which the public sector must bear. These include the special costs of building, operating and maintaining pumping stations to handle storm water runoff collected in drainage canals; sewage treatment facilities and lift stations to treat and pump sewage (sanitary and sometimes runoff) effluent into receiving water bodies; highway and major road systems, road drainage and bridges to provide necessary access to areas; and levees, flood- walls and floodgates to minimize flood danger. Costs for various projects needed in developing a wetlands area are included in Figure 5.1. Additional public costs are incurred in the construction of all public buildings (e.g., administrative offices, schools, health facilities, public protection headquarters, etc.). These structures are subject to the same higher construction costs and maintenance problems as private structures built in former wetlands. The financing of needed public improvements is normally shared by federal, state, and local governing bodies and (in the case of new developments) developers. Thus, if the cost of capital improvements is higher in a wetland over a dryland area, the public share is ulti- mately more. Table 5.8 summarizes the distribution of one example of projected public improvements financing for the proposed Pontchartrain New Town development in eastern New Orleans. 4 4Since the developer bears so little of the capital costs of public improvements and none of the maintenance costs, it is no wonder that developers seldom hesitate to initiate projects. In wetland areas boththe capital and operating costs are greater than in dryland areas. These additional costs, of course, accrue to many more citizens than the ones who ultimately live in the project area. 193 TABLE 5.8 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING (As Projected) Federal Local Developer (Parish.) Sewage Treatment Plants 60q-708q% 30-40% (Possible) Sanitary Collectors 508q7o 50q76 Sanitary Pumping Stations 50q7o 50q7o (Area of Collection>300 Acres) Major Water Distribution 50q76 508q% Water Tanks -q- 100% Storm Pumping Stations 50016 50q70 -- Local Street Drainage -- -- 100q510 Major Internal Road System* 508q7o 50% -- Road Drainage* 50% 50% Bridges* 5 0 CIVO 508% Street Lights and Signs -- 100% *With possible state participation. Source: Derived from TAMS, 1972b: 6-7. 194 Federal participation in the construction of sewage treatment plants may be between 60 and 70 percent of the construction cost (TAMS, 1972b: 6). The remainder of the cost is borne by local government. Sewage collection and treatment can legitimately be considered an additional cost of wetlands development because in a natural dryland with proper development density and adequate soil and water conditions, much less expensive on-site waste treatment systems such as septic tanks can be used effec- tively and without danger to public health. (See Bender, 1971 for fur't*her explanation of septic tank soil constraints.) As projected for the Pontchartrain New Town develop- ment, the local parish was expected to contribute 50 percent to the construction cost for major sanitary collectors, sanitary pumping stations, and major water distribution lines where the area of collection and service exceeded 300 acres. The construction costs of storm water pumping stations, required in all low-lying urbanized areas, was also to be shared by federal and local government on a 50/50 basis (TAMS, 1972b: 6-7). Financial aid for the major internal road system, road drainage and bridges within the Pontchartrain New Town development was to be funded through the Federal- Aid Highway Program on a 50/50 basis after required state legislative authorization. Developers must bear the costs for local street drainage (TAMS, 1972b: 6-7). Major roadway construction costs are higher in a wetlands environ- ment due to necessary peat removal, more extensive roadbed preparation and piling foundation support for elevated, sections. Another public cost associated solely with development that occurs in a wetland environment is that of mosquito control. Using the New Orleans Mosquito Control Program as a model, costs have averaged 510 per capita per year for its first twelve years of operation (Wagner and Magee, 1977: 17). In considering the public costs herein discussed, it should be remembered that these costs are ultimately absorbed by the individual taxpayers within coastal Louisiana. 195 PUBLIC MAINTENANCE COSTS Maintenance problems are not limited to the- private sector of a developed wetland area. Public facilities including streets, sewers, utility lines, and public buildings all require periodic maintenance expenditures due to the problems of subsidence and flooding attributed to the wetlands environment. However, the degree and effect of these problems on maintenance costs has not been measured nor documented in the past. For example, -maintenance costs within the New Orleans Department of Streets were found to be unavailable by Mumphrey et al.(1975: 162).in Louisiana MetropolLtan Wetlands: A Planning Perspective for two reasons. First, no record is maintained as to the cause of problems, all being categorized as simply "maintenance." Weed control, street cracks due to subsidence, and chuck-hole repair were all found to be recorded the same with respect to costs. Second, the total maintenance costs on a district basis are not computed. This makes it extremely difficult .to compare differences on a cost basis for each district which may be related to whether or not the district was at one time predominantly a wetland.. Similar negative results were also reported by Mumphrey et al. in attempting to gather information on wetlands-related maintenance costs for sewerage and water lines built in a wetlands environ- ment (Idumphrey et al., 1975: 162-163). It was therefore felt that a repair reporting form should be developed for use by agencies that maintain public facilities. This would help to institute more systemmatic recordkeeping on wetlands-related maintenance problems. In turn, the information collected could help to determine the extent to which these public maintenance costs relate to specific land base conditions. Figure 5.2 illustrates a proposed reporting form for wetlands-related damages. In the design of this reporting form it was kept in mind that expert analysis of each repair situation should not be required'in order to fill out the form. Instead, it is felt that an educated attempt at separating wetland from nonwetland related maintenance costs will be all that is necessary to achieve the desired data. 196 FIGURE 5.2 PROPOSED REPAIR REPORTING FORM FOR WETLANDS-RELATED DAMAGES AGENCY PERFORMING REPAIR SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT WATER DEPARTMENT STREET DEPARTMENT ELECTRIC UTILITY GAS UTILITY TELEPHONE OTHER . . . (please specify) DAMAGE REPORT DATE OF DAMAGE REPORT DAMAGE LOCATION DAMAGE DESCRIPTION MANHOLE ABOVE ROAD LEVEL CRACKED OR TILTED SECTION OF ROADWAY OPEN JOINT IN PIPE WATER DAMAGE TO UTILITY LINE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO UTILITY LINE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO PUBLIC BUILDING OTHER . . . (please specify) (continued) 197 FIGURE 5.2 (CONTINUED) CAUSE OF DAMAGE SUBSIDENCE OTHER SOIL PROBLEM (specify_ FLOODING OTHER . . . (please specify) REPAIR COST MATERIALS LABOR COST x MAN-HOURS REQUIRED TO PERFORM REPAIR TOTAL DAMAGE HISTORY (Optional) HAVE THERE BEEN SIMILAR REPAIRS PERFORMED IN THE SAME AREA? YES NO APPROXIMATE DATE(S) OF PREVIOUS REPAIRS CAUSE OF DAMAGE APPROXIMATE COST(S) OF PREVIOUS REPAIRS 198 The proposed forra in Figure 5.2 is intended for use in soliciting information on the causeof damage reported (whether or not it is wetlands related), the actual damage resulting, the cost of repair, and the location of the needed repair. CONCLUSIONS This chapter has dealt with both the public and private aspects of additional capital and maintenance costs necessary in developing wetlands over drylands for urban uses. Additional wetlands development costs are passed on to the consumer, except in the case of public facilities costs, which are passed on to everyone in the area. Costs may be direct, as in the higher purchase price of a house or lot, or relatively hidden, as in the additional price of insurance needed and maintenance costs due to subsidence. One caution in employing the costs listed is that they are taken from different source years. It would be necessary to update some of these figures to the present time in order to work with them more extensively. In developing urban wetlands, everyone bears the loss of their ecological value for assimilating urban runoff pollutants, for providing a buffer from storm velocity wind and water, for contributing to the local economy as a habitat for fish and game, and for serving C@ as a recreation area. Therefore, it is most important to be able to weigh @all of the related costs of wetlands development with the benefits to be gained by urban expansion into wetland areas of the coastal zone in order to make informed development decisions. This discussion clarifies those added construction and maintenance costs which are involved. 199 APPENDIX 5.1 ALTERNATIVE WETLANDS RECLAMATION METHODS (FOR PROPOSED PONTCHARTRAIN NEW TOWN) I. Wet Method This method proposes that the water level of the drainage canals and lagoons be drawn down to elevation -7.0 msl and that the developable land surface must be covered with 2 feet of fill. This fill blanket would be applied prior to land sale rather than by the builder during construction. Ii. Modified Wet Method This method proposes that the water level of the drainage canals and lagoons be drawn down to eleva- tion -9.0 msl and that the developable land surface be covered with approximately 2 feet of fill. This method would produce finished grade elevations that would be approximately 2 feet lower than with the Wet Method. III. Wet Method with Additional Fill This method proposes that the water level of the drainage canals and lagoons be drawn down to elevation -7.0 msl and that the developable land surface be covered with approximately 4 feet of fill. In this case the additional 2 feet of fill material would act as an accelerator for the consolidation of underlying materials. The excess fill would be progressively shifted to adjacent fill areas after the desired consolidation has taken place. IV. Modified Fill Method This method proposes that the water level of the drainage canals and lagoons be drawn down to an elevation of -3.5 msl and that the developable land surface be covered with approximately 4.5 feet of fill. V. Fill Method This method proposes that the water level of the drainage canals and lagoons be maintained at an elevation of approximately 0.0 msl and that the developable'land surface be covered with 11.5 feet of fill. Source: Kaiser Engineers, 1974: 13-14. 200 APPENDIX 5.1 CONTINUED ILLUSTRATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE WETLANDS RECLAMATION METHODS 4-Z.0 FILA, r-t&u r-e 5.1 7, mopir-15P Wer MFT-wc>tp*- 4e wv--r mvr@Aop wrnA N;vrnc@4kL, i LL,7,4- 4-' 0-04# -4.01 -oj P9--,\lWSP -N;Z0U&,P A@l OF- clq"WFIFZ@ LA9415 v4A.-mv-- vary 2011 APPENDIX 5.1 CONTINUED t@WAT94- TU4,15, FIL4, HATMIAL.- ta w x-ra g- TA' mla L,,kWI2 P"INIOP VIA -oYS,-MM OF 6WIZF'-AcE57 PLIHOPP IWTV CAWAL, SY-4@7-MM W @AT9 4 ..e@ 1'9-74 202 REFERENCES Bender, William H. (1971) Soils and Septic Tanks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Brunner, Dirk R. and Daniel J. Keller (1972) Sanitary Landfill.Designand Operation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bureau of Environmental Health) Louisiana State Department of Health (1972) State of Louisiana Solid Waste Management Plan. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State Department of Health. Earle, Daniel W., Jr. (1975) Land Subsidence Problems and Maintenance Costs to Homeowners in East New Orleans, Louisiana. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University. Engineering News Record Field Reporters (1977) "Materials Prices--Monthly Market Quotations," Engineering News Record. March 24; 70-71. F. W. Dodge, McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company (1974) Costs and Trends of Current Building Projects, Region F. Edition / Year End. New York: McGraw-Hill Information Systems. Kaiser Engineers and Bu_rk and Associates, Inc. (1974) Engineering: Pontchartrain New Town in Town. Supplemental Report. New Orleans: Kaiser Engineers. Landerkin, Richard J. (1977) Problems and Costs of Sanitary Landfilling in Coastal Louisiana Parishes. Unpublished masters thesis. New Orleans, Louisiana:Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. Liptak, Bela (1974) Environmental Engineers' Handbook, Vol. 3. Radnor, Pa.: Chilton Press. McGraw-Hill Information Systems (1977) Dodge Manual for Building Construction Pricing and Scheduling. New York, New York: Dodge Building Cost Services, McGraw- Hill Information Systems Company. 203 Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al. (1975) Louisiana Metropolitan Wetlands: A Plannin Perspective; a report to the Louisiana State Planning Office. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. (1976) Urban Development in the Louisiana Coastal Zone: Problems and Guidelines; a report to the Louisiana State Planning Office. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. National Flood Insurers Association (1975) Flood, Insurance Manual. Arlington, Virginia: National Flood Insurance Program. New Community Development Corporation (NCDC) of New Orleans (1974) hevised Financial Analysis, Pontchartrain New Town in Town. New Orleans, Louisiana: City Planning Commission. Private communication with local contractor doing sub- division work in southern Louisiana, FebruELry, 1976. Richardson, Dan K. (1976) The Cost of Environmental Protection: Regulating Housing Developmen; in the Coastal Zone. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Stocks, Clare Hilliker (1974) Report. on Water Quality in Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes; unpublished paper prepared for the Implementation Committee of the New Orleans Area Health Planning Council, New Orleans, Louisiana. March 21. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS) (1972a) Engineer- ing Appendix--Cost Estimates, Pontchartrain New Town in Town. New York: TAMS. (1972b) Final Report Engineering Plai, Pontchar- train New Town in Town. New York: TAMS. 204 Wagner, Fredrick W. and Richard K. Magee (1977) Mosquito Abatement and the Survival of New Orleans, unpublished paper. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute., University of New Orleans. U.S. Congress, Senate (1966) Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Report No. 93-583. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1974) National Flood Insurance Progra Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1976) Gulf Coast Wetlands Handbook. Alexandria, Louisiana: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Villavaso, Stephen D. (1975) Methods of Wetland Reclama- tion: A Decision Framework, unpublished manuscript. New Orleans, Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. 205 CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COASTAL ZONE PLANNING IN LOUISIANA INTRO*DUCTION The coastal zone of the State of Louisiana comprises all or part of twenty-two parishes (counties), with a population close to 2,000,000 (Denton, 1977: 4-5). Within that area are three metropoiitan areas (the New Orleans SMSA, a portion of the Baton Rouge SMSA, and the Lake Charles SMSA), and thirty incorporated municipali- ties of over 5,000 population (Appendix 6.1). Approxi- mately 52/10 of the total Louisiana population resides in or adjacent to the defined coastal zone. 6J. -imulates OCS energy activity directly or indirectly st population changes in the sensitive coastal areas. Many communities are not prepared to absorb a rapid influx of new residents and, in fact, are only minimally able to cope with slow increases of population in sensitive land areas. That does not mean energy-related growth will not occur. It does mean that growth may very poorly relate to either the capacity of the community to adjust to the population increase or the ability of the coastal land environment to sustain the added population burden without serious risk of environmental damage. If we were able to say precisely how many people were going to live in an area and how many could live in that area without exceeding ecological or institutional capacities, it might be possible to meter the flow of population accordingly. Such precise statements are not available. In their place, it is necessary to develop a competent and responsive local planning capability to monitor and evaluate the effects of growth, both before and as it occurs. Done correctly, this activity can highlight areas of future concern in time for the decision makers to take preventive or ameliorative action. An "early warning system" is, obviously, no better than its operators. The task of this chapter is to assess the effectiveness of the planning and management capability of the local governments in Louisiana's coastal zone and 207 and recommend improvements. Used properly, this assess- ment can pinpoint areas of probable concern wherein the need exists for more or different.planning/management resources in order to cope with energy-related activity. EVALUATION Louisiana State Planning District 3, shown in Figure 6.1, was selected as the model for evaluation of local planning and management capability. TherE.1 were two major reasons for the selection: (1) this region is the site of the Louisiana Superport and a region heavily impacted by OCS activity, and (2) the region represents a good balance of rural and urban conditions that permit analysis of impact in different environments. Conclusions drawn from the evaluation of capability in the model region can be used to infer capability in other regions. As a surrogate for measuring planning capabilities/ effectiveness of the model State Planning Distrj@@.ct 3, a comparison of existing expenditures, staff, and salaries with national averages was necessary. National data were derived from the Expenditures, Staff, and Salaries of Planning_Agencies, 1976 (ASPO, 1976). This American Society of Planning Officials' report by George C. Turnbull, Jr. notes that the activities and organization of planning agencies defy easy classification and comparison. In addition, a questionnaire survey such as the one used to derive the ASPO report cannot present all of the existing special cases and inconsistencies; thus, the da-ta should be used as guidelines for relative comparisons, not as standards for measurement (ASPO, 1976: 2). Finally, it is noted that the data are not drawn from a random sample of all planning agencies, but do nevertheless represent a good cross-section of agencies in the United States (ASPO, 1976: 1). Perhaps the most valid index is per capita expendi- tures for planning (ASPO, 1976: 3). Table 6.1 shows the per capita total planning expenditures for U. S. city, county, city-county, and metropolitan and regional jurisdictions. The percentage of expenditures from federal sources, and staff categorization are also shown. Per capita expenditures tend to decrease within a juris- diction type as agency size increases--probably attri- butable to economies of scale (ASPO, 1976: 3). The number 208 FIGURE 6.1 LOUISIANA STATE PLANNING DISTRICT 3 ,SIT. Jowm M-6UMPTIOW rz@ 1'1;,% X Mp 6-U I-F OFO MFIX 160 Source: Louisiana State Planning Office, 1976. 209 TABLE 6.1 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES AND STAFF BY JURISDICTION AND POPULATION GROUP, 1976 Per Capital Median Agencyl Mean Nunber of Authorized Positions2 Of Positions Per Total Expenditures Frm 1000 Population2 Jurisdiction and Expenditures Federal Sources Professional Para- Total Total Professional Population Group (Dollars) (Percent) Planners Draftsmen Professionals Clerical Staff Staff Planners City 50,000-99,999 1.818 23 5 0.7 1.1 2.0 9.3 0.130 0.071 25,000-49,999 2.070 18 3 0.4 0.7 1.3 5.9 0.136 0.073 10,000-24,999 3.265 14 2 .0.2 0.4 1.0 .4..0 0.197 0.096 under 10,000 13.856 -- 1 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.8 0.500 0.167 County 250,000-499,999 0.932 11 11 3.0 3.5 6.0 24.4 0.065 0.036 100,000-249,999 1.556 12 10 2.2 2.3 3.9 18.9 0.098 0.056 50,000-99,999 1.476 20 4 0.8 1.3 2.3 9.7 0.089 0.049 25,000-49,999 1.963 18 3 0.6 2.4 1.8 7.9 0.171 0.062 10,000-24,999 5.462 22 3 0.4 0.7 1.2 5.5 0.324 0.176 500,000-999,999 1.299 12 34 7.3 4.7 17.3 63.9 0.084 0.039 100,000-249,999 1.475 32 11 2.6 1.8 3.9 20.3 0.102 0.067 50,000-99,999 1.408 18 4 0.9 0.6 1.5 7.1 0.092 0.055 24,000-49,999 1.438 -- 2 0.3 0.7 1.2 5.1 0.152 0.089 Metro. &,Reg. l'OU0,000 + 1.027 42 41 2.7 8.3 25.5 78.5 0.048 0.025 250,000-499,999 0.883 45 13 2.6 1.2 4.8 22.6 0.059 0.035 100,000-249,999 1.709 60 11 1.6 1.1 6.4 20.7 0.106 0.056 50,000-99,999 1.395 49 4 0.8 0.4 3.4 8.9 0.100 0.061 500,000-999,999 0.954 75 20 3.1 4.3 10.9 39.3 0.072 0.028 Sources: 1ASPO, 1976: Table 2. 2ASPO, 1976: Table 6. of professional planners per capita and the total staff per capita almost invariably decrease as the population increases. It should be mentioned that while agencies are becoming increasingly diversified in their staff specializations, inconsistency in the way the figures were reported was prevalent (ASPO, 1976: 4). For example, an economist or waste disposal engineer might be employed by a planning agency and given a planning series title. Employment in another agency would result in another job title. Table 6.2 shows the median salary by qualification level and region. Louisiana is included in the West South Central region along with Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. As before, the salaries shown should be used as general indicators and not as precise measurement standards (ASPO, 1976: 5). In addition, the figures are statistically more valid at the lower level positions than at the higher levels, because in the higher positions, minimum job requirements tend to be the absolute minimum and do not reflect the actual level of education and experience commensurate with the position (ASPO, 1976: 5). Table 6.2 supports a trend that--even at the lower levels--experience is valued as much or more than educa- tion. Finally, Table 6.2 gives regional comparisons that may aid agencies wishing to compare their salary scale with other agencies inside or outside of the region. The data appear too inconsistent to draw regional comparisons except at particular levels (ASPO, 1976: 6). Table 6.3 shows the range of salaries by position level in relation to the number of levels in the agency. If regional differences are taken into account, the data may aid in establishing salary levels (ASPO, 1976: 6). The planning capabilities of local agencies in State Planning District 3 were difficult to determine. Lack of response from either a questionnaire (see Appendices 6.2 and 6.3) survey or telephone interviews necessitated that the analysis concentrate on one agency. The most exten- sive and effective planning agency in State Planning District 3 is the South Central Planning and Development Commission which is nonmetropolitan in character and jurisdictionally identical to State Planning District 3. A comparison of the Commission's expenditures, staff, and salaries with the ASPO information are shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5. Table 6.4 indicates that per capita expen- 211 TABLE 6.2 MEDIAN SALARIES OF PROFESSIONAL PLANNEUS, BY QUALIFICATIONS AND REGION, 1976 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 to it f2 13 14 Is Is 17 Is to 20 21 22 23 OL44LIFir-ArIONS MEDIAN SALARY NEW ENGLAND MID-ATLANTIC SOUTH EASrSOUrH EAsrNoRTq WESTNORTH WESTSOUTH MOUNIAIN PACIFIC CANADA EDUCATION YEARS ALL ATLANTIC CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL CENTRAL EXPERIENCE POSITIONS None stiso4v 12 slosig? ?a sto.o66 ja stust64 6 s ssi66 411 stu*6au it s to# i co t2 s @-%n 13 6 V*432 40 812PJVJ bI tap QUO 1 12s I;eQ IQ lt;P#170 74 11#6SI 3d 10-858 5 lugooo 99 lIP664 15 11-000 15 IING00 15 lumls@ so 140348 !) 15# lou 2 IJ8511 12-120 34 I?PS44 36 12-122 3 12#949 53 130136 IQ l3s244 17 IIpbdU 26 12#664 45 1!1*bdf 11 16&@J4 #.A. or 3 lbsoba 0 11-09 14 15#2d2 JG 14. 5 1 A 3 110592 25 150C86 13 140500 1? 140664 14 l5o442 V5 I4#qQ9 a 140473 4 1006jo 0 14-C55 10 19 9 30 11 16-40 16 q-ia4 I lb#95J 11 IOPJ62 66 2U*QIU 5-6 210012 0 140279 23 21#4b2 it la.532 it 10,352 9 17 :7 6 0 6 19 0 s 6 qj 12 200045 102 2 2 9 16 V f ND 7-8 2 j 0 d 414 6 26000 3 19.000 14 IVS052 4 IV 54d 4 24@150 24 2b0635 9-10 2si-V44 4 17P431 3 ?o#29o 4 ;3-366 S' 250020 over 10 jV.dUj 3 l4o5b;l it 1905uo 3 29-764 4 21-606 4 2J@712 4 IU* 146 None AIJODUU 4 1130145 7 612-12U 6 $1 109t,6 & jq*q3a 4 $14o32Y 4 8 1283VU 4 IIJo5jb 6 3 1400va 1 14.641 4 It & 183 6 14.1bo 6 13to9d 3 11 - ?96 4 15005 5 Ij#bU0 a llsqo@ 2 150 1 Qd V 13*0$6 13 002UC It. 15.9 12 6 llsU20 13 14-672 4 16#662 6 I6&V Ir 9 170472. M.A. 3 110012 10 1601je to 14 P 119 18 17 -2tC A 16oY23 16 If-761 b 160093 a 160154 3 130801 V 21#091 ".S. 4 2U0 Ili 1. 4 156135 9 0-suu 0 19.000 5 io. 053 13 2U.040 4 20125 4 20d44 1 22su4l 12 23#321 Map. In 5-6 22#04V 14 lbodoo 23 22039V J6 21-del 9 23o4oo 24 21-361 IQ 210975 1 19#440 9 21,dbb 21 23,100 b @Jpbjv 7-8 23.dG6 1 2o#554 10 21*619 14 26. 181 4 2C-699 6 23#c?V 4 24#514 A 22octo 5 21PU04 4 41 p JU#j 9-10 21-JI3 J 23PI64 3 2POSUU t 25-6J) 4 250146 1 2 7 p 3 7 3 V 32*053 4 110 143 over 10 24-lut, 6 70.816 5 210COU 3 1UP200 1 310060 None SIW*042 8 112*Cu5 it sO-ooc 4 313#06S 3 3120%4@ 1 1486#jo 5 13#S00 12 14.9SS 6 1392?0 3 13#964 2 Ib#oU0 5 12#265 3 l4s422 le 15.451 @u 15-00C 6 15stoO 1 11#565 6 0012 4 21#00V M.A. 3 Ilp6oa 6 1700uu a 11.116 10 17,425 5 16P430 1 1102VO 5 100271 12 2U#002 4 100UU0 M4 In 4 to . 6 U Q IQ 16.956 10 20362 5 IVpIVo 4 ils4bi 5 110 4 4 fj 0 22o235 awdw r-6 18.76n 9 24.s2V 6 2i.o44 I I 2016at 12 22,140 10 2l#2u6 a 21pu65 11 21#520 6 d2pbQ2 fisid 7-8 2;e-5VU 1 ?2:003 5 201CO 23p 3 iupyou 5 4 39u 3 32:02U 9-10 2V.jeq6 4 26 dt;c 4 25056C 41 5 2u over 10 2J#2?5 4 IV#695 *NUMBER OFPOSITIONSREPORTED. NO SALARY IS REPORTED WHERE THE NUMBER OF POSITIOJVS IS LESS THAN THREE. Source: ASPO, 1976: 46. M M W No TABLE 6.3 RANGE OF SALARIES AT PROFESSIONAL POSITION LEVEL, BY NUMBER OF LEVELS IN AGENCY) 1976 Position Re Inos Number of Levels In Agency Level One Two Three Four Five Sit Seven Eight HIGHEST 1129*29S 0200560 $27o696 $32,628 339#411 S37049S S42#552 $490047 7STH PERCENTILE IA-902 27#S@O 23P400 260000 26o952 290410 30s966 340000 FIRST L' r n I A N 17#000 1 a 1. 5 (' a 2r&696 22@1100 24o425 26 0 jq3 260816 31s,250 29TH PfRCENTILE Ir,. 340 j7p 160 1 F 1000 1900110 2 C * 8 4 A 22o5dO 23#895 2?0000 LrWEST 10.000 111p6p.8 IP1500 15oiao 148850 17#376 180000 14P248 P IAHErT 2 1 o 12 1 2Ss7?8 25p794 13,512 29 a 310 35P412 42#aS? 7KTH PERCFNTTLE 14;0280 170069 200100 22PI96 23o,540 25o844 30p3aill S7ECOND mFOIAN I p p 9 4 3 150000 17,1052 16,912 10878 229687 26& 19? 25TH PEDCENTILE 1119250 130440 150086 150571 le#745 190051 22#225 LrWEST Po-200 10020 t0#300 9 0 ? 16 131,800 16&500 12#950 HIGHEST 19,,832 72*90 29-2e4 2IP202 2150088 38#5o2 IKTH PERCFNTYLE 13#260 1601160 !?*at? 2091492 220416 26P400 THIRD MFOIAN 121000 10682 16aI83 1883MI 190470 23PO74 7RTH PERCFNTTLE IC6200 120275 14,000 15#9453 170415 190000 LrwEST 70155 8#082 90000 IIP502 12*624 110100 HIGHEST 2001134 21*608 22a515 23o736 30498 79TH PERCENTILE j3v950 15t624 1800co 210000 2' 21 FOURTH PFOIAK, 12 & 0 0 0 13,564 16#056 160580 :2 1 : '4 41 @-@TH PERCENTTLF 10#023 11-geo 13&179 OP002 171897 LrWEST ? v A A 0 7,500 108000 120 12 116000 HIGHEST 176705 20#0013 21a948 3059a 71tTH PERCENTILE 13,624 15*376 16saBO 210421 FIFTH 14F 0 1 A N 11 *648 13,12-00 140966 1 a 0 a I a 29TH PERrVITILE 10p 162 Its 4194 13#000 150995 LVWEST 7 1, 8 ? 5 8#375 11#208 100-000 H16HEST 16#676 200388 30s276 7STH PFOCEkTTLE l3o3213 150048 180862 SIXTH IAF n I AN I I p 6 37 13s 169 16 o 5 a 4 29TH PFRCFNTILr 10&175 11#124 140091 I-rWFST 7051C 8051B5 9P240 141r.14FrT 0#592 25#682 7STIl PERCFNTTLF 12o5OO 170105 SEVENTH H rn I AN 11 #739 14PS72 ;lr,TH PIERCENTILE 9#648 12#650 Lr4f.ST IsI75 80500 21&492 7STH PER'@ENTTLE 150174 E I GHTH MFOIAN 12P299 247H PERCENTILE *Salaries below $7,000 were deleted. 100440 LrWFST 7s,200 Source: ASPO) 1976. TABLE 6.4 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION EXPENDITURES AND STAFF (1976) ASPO Information for Metropolitan and Regional Areas of South Central Planning 1 100,000 to 249,999 and Development Commission Persons2 Per Capita Total Expenditures 0.775 1.709 (Dollars/Person) Percentage of Expenditures 48 (23% 701) 60 from Federal Sources (25% Other) Number of Authorized Positions3 Professional Planners 4 11 Draftsmen 1 1.6 Paraprofessionals 4 1.1 Clerical 6 6.4 Total Staff 15 20.7 Number of Positions Per 1,000 Population Staff 0.058 0.106 Professional Planners 0.016 0.056 - . 1 - .. - - -A Sources and Aotes: Questionnaire. See Appendices G".2 and 6.3. 2Table 6.1. 3Does not include Executive Director for South Central Planning and Development Commission. 1w Wo IM No so M =mom M@m M MM TABLE 6.5 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PROFESSIONAL PLANNER SALARIES (1976) Information2 South Central Regional Planning West South Qualifications and Development Commissionl U.S. Centra13 B.A. or B.S. $ 8,500 $11,049 $ 9,571 (No Experience) Master of City or $ 8,500 $13,800 $12,390 Urban Planning (No Experience) Master of City or $13,000 $17,012 $16,154 Urban Planning (Three Years Experience) Sources and Notes: 1Questionnaire. See Appendix 6.2. Da.ta do not include Executive Director. 2Table 6.2 3The West South Central Region includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. ditures for planning amount to only 4576 of the national average for comparable agencies. Dependence upon federal sources for funding is below the national average. The number of authorized professional planner positions, however, falls short of the national average by a large margin. In addition, the agency appears to rely more heavily upon paraprofessionals and less heavily upon professional planners for the completion of tasks. Table 6.5 indicates that salaries for inexperienced planners with a Bachelor of Arts or Science degree are only 89% of the West South Central region median and 77% of the national median. The salary levels for planners with three years@ experience and a-Master of City or Urban Planning fared similarly. Comparably degreed planners with no experience, however, earned only 690 of the regional median and 69% of the national median. These deficiencies may be corrected by doubling the amount of expenditures and the number of professional planners on the staff--assuming that the national averages are creditable goals for which to strive for planning excellence. The financial requirements for such an undertaking would require roughly 48241,139 per year, as is shown in Table 6.6. The allocation of these new funds to increase salaries for new and present planners could be distributed as shown in Table 6.7. The changes would bring the salary levels nearer to the median for@ each position level in Table 6.3. The remainder ($171,629) could be allocated to hire new and upgrade salaries of clerical staff and other employees, to consultant contracts based on need, etc. It must be noted that any new alloca- tion of monies--for salaries, consultant contracts, etc.-- should be used in a way to best serve the planning needs of a region. The simple creation of new planning positions may not be either adequate or efficient, if reputable consulting firms could do the job as well. RECOMIVEENDATIONS The previous section indicates that the primary plan- ning agency in State Planning District 3, namely the South Central Regional Planning and Development Commis- sion, is deficient in expenditures, staff size, and salary levels when compared to suggested national standards. Many local District 3 governments (parishes and. munici- palities) have no planning agency. Assuming that District 3 216 TABLE 6.6 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION EXPENDITURES NEEDED FOR UPGRADE (1976) ASPO Additional National Standard Per Requiured Additional Per Required Capita Expendituresl Capita Expenditures, Capita Expenditures2 (x) South Central South Centra (Dollars Per Person) (Dollars Per Person) (Dollars Per Person) -Population3 Expendituresi 1.709 0.775 0.934 253,179 $241,139 Sources: ITable 6.4 2Computed by authors. 3Denton, 1977: 4. TABLE 6.7 SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNER SALARY ALLOCATION Planner ASPO Existing Salary 2 Category Salary Salary Increase Existing Planners 3 - Highest Level (1) $17,012 $13,000 $ 4,012 Second Level (1) $16,000 4 $13,000 $, 3,000 Third Level (1) $13,800 $ 8,500 $ 5,300 Fourth Level (1) $11,049 $ 8,500 $ 2,549 New Planners 5 LO Second Level (1) $16,000 $ 0 $16,000 H 00 Third Level (2) $13,800 $ 0 $27,600 Fourth Level (1) $11,049 $ 0 $11,049 $69,510 Sources and Notes: Table 6.5. 2Computed by authors. 3Does not consider Executive Director. 4Arbitrarily chosen. 5 Afterthe Questionnaire was administered, three new positions were added, one at a salary of $13,000, one at $12,000, and one at $8,500 Per year (Strausser. 1977). They would corres- pond, at existing salary levels, to one highest level, one second. level.., and one fourth level positions. Thus, three of the suggested four hew positions have been added and $33,500 of the proposed $69,510 salary increase expended. Remaining needs are for one third level planner and across the board upgrading of the salary structure. is similar to the remainder of Louisiana's coastal zone, it can be concluded not only that planning improvement is necessary, but that it is expensive as well. (See Appen- dix 6.3 and Table 6.1.) The implementation of a planning improvement operation--financially supported from whatever source--will require a new comprehensive organizational structure in order to achieve better efficiency and representation of all interests. It is recommended that, as a basis for organization, the regional planning agency should be given a greater role in the guidance and direction of local planning projects that are proposed rather than instituting new or enhanced local planning agencies.2 In addition, a state agency qualified to give planning assistance should serve as a broker of information for consultants, universities, and regional planning agencies. Data are not systemati- cally collected or used at present. The operational scheme suggested is shown in Figure 6.2. The federal Office of Coastal Zone Management will outline project requirements, regulations, and specifications to be met for funding eligibility for coastal zone planning projects. The state assistance office will help interpret the guide- lines in specific cases and help regional agencies prepare their projects to receive funding. In addition, the state assistance office would provide basic research and specialized technical support to the regional level and to firms or individuals working on OCS-related contracts. Finally, the state agency would serve as a mediating/ appeals mechanism when conflicts arise between local and regional agencies. The regional planning agency would provide local planning project initiation and monitorship and would report back to the state and federal levels on work done "in house" or by consultants. Initiation of projects could be accomplished best at this level of planning. The regional office would be more familiar with the needs of The New Orleans area should be excluded from this state- ment. The regional planning agency of State Planning District 1 (Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes) and its more urban counterpart in New Orleans (New Orleans City Planning Commission) both compare favorably to the suggested national standards (see Appendix 6.3 and Table 6.1). Local sentiments do not necessarily favor an upgrading of local planning capacity because of fears of increasing governmental control of local public and private activities. 219 FIGURE 6.2 COASTAL LOUISIANA PLANNING OPERATION SCHEME FEDERAL OFFICE OF CZM STA E ASSI5TANCE OFFICE --Project Requirements --State and Federal Guide- --Federal Regulations line InterprE@tation --Funding Source --Basic Research and Specialized Technical Support --Appeals Mechanism REGIONAL PLANNINNG AGENCY JInitiator Monitor I ---Project in itiation --Con tract --Articulation of (and, sometimes, Monitorship Local Questions accomplishment) --Expenditure to State and ---Information, Guidance, Administration FedE@ral Levels. and Technical Assist-ance Regional Support and Leadership A B C D Source: Authors. 220 its jurisdiction than the state level would' and federal guidelines interpretation and technical information availability would be greater than at the local level. It is important that the regional level be given power of contract monitorship and expenditure administration since closer scrutiny would be possible than at the state level. By the same token, special needs of local work could be better understood and resolved to every- one's satisfaction. In its reports to higher levels, the regional planning agency could convey unanswerable questions regarding specific projects posed by local representatives. These three regional functions, coupled with the state's mediation/appeals mechanism, would allow for regional support and leadership in coastal zone management and would create a planning caDability for local areas that would combine the resource availability existing at the state level with the monitorship ability and sensitivity that exists at the regional level. The local level would be able to benefit from federal funds supplied to eligible projects with a regional planning body able to help initiate and carry out their local projects. CONCLUSION The evaluation of one regional planning agency in the coastal zone indicates expenditures and staff size suffer in comparison to a national sample of similar agencies. Increased expenditures and staff are needed if the planning capability and effectiveness of this agency are to be comparable to the other agencies and equal to the complex energy-related planning tasks that must be accomplished. The same situation exists for many planning agencies through- out the Louisiana coastal zone. However, given scarce resources and established spending patterns, it is unlikely that all local and regional planning-agencies can be improved. It is recommended here that the regional planning agencies be upgraded and assume many of the tasks of the local agencies. With increased resources and role, the regional level will, in turn, generate more funds through planning grants and regional capabilities should further increase. Planning at the regional level will take advantage of economies of scale not possible at the local level leading -to efficiency while the regional agencies' closeness to local problems will result in an equitable representation of local interests. 221 APPENDIX 6.1 COASTAL LOUISIANA MUNICIPALITIES WITH POPULATIONS GREATER THAN 5)000 Population Municipality Parish 1970) Abbeville Vermilion 10,966 Bayou Cane Terrebonne 9,077 Bayou Vista Terrebonne 5,121 Covington St. Tammany 7,170 Donaldsonville Ascension 7,367 Franklin St. Mary 9,325 Gretna Jefferson '24,875 Hammond Tangipahoa 12,487 Harahan Jefferson 13,037 Harvey Jefferson 6,347 Houma Terrebonne 130,922 Jeanere-1-1-te Iberia 6,322 Jefferson Heights Jefferson 16,489 Jennings Jefferson Davis 11,783 Kenner Jefferson '29,858 Lake Charles Calcasieu 77,998 Laplace St. John 5,953 Little Farms Jefferson 15,713 Marrero Jefferson id-.9,015 Metairie Jefferson 136,477 Morgan City St. Mary 16,586 New Iberia Iberia 30,147 New Orleans Orleans 593,471 Plaquemine Iberville 7,739 Reserve St. John 6,381 St. Martinville St. Martin 7,153 Slidell St. Tammany 16,101 Sulphur Calcasieu 14,959 Thibodaux Lafourche 15,028 Westwego Jefferson L1,402 Source: 1970 Census of Population. 222 APPENDIX 6.2 PLANNING AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Planning agency functions for (circle one): Municipality Parish Region 2. Population of jurisdiction: 3. Total planning expenditures during last fiscal year: 4. Percentage of expenditures from federal sources: 5. Where applicable, what percentage of answer (4) is from the 11701" program? 6. Where applicable, what percentage of answer (4) is from other sources (e.g., 208)? 7. Number of authorized positions in planning staff: (a) professional planners (b) draftsmen (c) paraprofessionals (d) clerical (e) total staff 8. Salaries of professional planners Position Level Salary Qualification* Highest Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth COMMEN'TS: *Qualification code: The first digit represents the min4mum degree required for the position as follows: I-BA or BS; 2=,'JCP or MUP, or similar degree 3=@U/MS in a field other than planning; 4=other degree. The second digit repreeents the minimum number years experi- ence required, as follows: O=no experience, 1=1year; 2=2 years; 3=3 years; 4=more than 4 years. Source: Authors. 223 APPENDIX 6.3 RESPONDING PLANNING AGENCY EXPENDITURES AND STAFF Percentage of Expenditures NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS Nuinber of Positions from Federal Profes- Per 1000 Population Municipality Per Capita Total Sources sional Parapro- Total To-tal Professional Parish or Region Expenditures 7N UEEe-r Planners Draf tsmen fessionaLq Clerical Staff Staff Planners DISTRICT 1 New Orleans Regional 0.930 50.0 50.0 20 3 0 4 39 0.038 0.019 New Orleans City-Parish 1.330 0.0 0.0 25 7 5 8 45 0.080 0.044 St. TUmnany Parish 0.185 42.5 42.5 4 1 0 2 7 0.086 0.049 Jefferson Parish 0.964 0.0 0.0 5 3 3 5 16 0.056 0.018 Mandeville City 0.000 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 --- I Part-Tbm - DISTHICT 2 Livingston Parish Planning Conmission Dissolved -- Tangipahoa Parish 0.171 0.0 66.0 0 0 2 1 3 0.040 0.000 D16'IRICT 3 South Central Regional 0.775 23.0 25.0 4 1 4 6 15 0.058 0.016 DISIRICT 4 df. -Mary # 1 Parish 0.010 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 1 0.029 0.000 Abbeville City -- No Active Planning Omudssion Exists - DI9fRICr 5 Cawron Parish 3.000 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 0 1 0.3-11 O..U1 Source: Questionnaire. See Appendix 6.2. REFERENCES American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO) (1976). Expenditures, Staff, a:nd Salatie@sbif Planning Agencies, 1976. Chicago, Illinois: Planning Advisory Service Reports Publications, ASPO. Louisiana State Planning Office (1976). Louisiana Planting Directory. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Office of the Governor. Denton, Barbara (1977) "Estimates of the Population of Louisiana Parishes." The Loui'siana Economy. Vol. X, No. 3 (February), 1-5.- U. S. Bureau of the Census (1971). Gene'ral' Population Characteristics, Louisi'ana. Thi 197-0 Census of Population. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office. Strausser, M. (1977). Telephone Interview in August. South Central Regional Planning and Development Commission. Thibodaux, Louisiana. 225 CHAPTER 7 GUIDELINES FOR CREATING A CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The term "citizen participation" has been used so extensively in the past decade that it is easy to forget that it is not new in American political life. Saul Alinsky introduced the concept in the late 1940s when he suggested that the poor organize to seek solutions to their problems. This tactic was then used by civil rights and reform organizations in the 1950s and 1960s. Some federally sponsored, locally administered programs have used citizen advisory boards for years, including agricultural extension programs and urban renewal programs. When the Office of Economic Opportunity developed in the 1960s, it incorporated the concept of I'max-imum. feasible participation" of the poor. Although the concept was never clearly defined, the idea of citizen participation in the formation of programs and policies began to be incorporated into other federal programs and was adopted by state and local agencies (Hutcheson and Shevin, 1976: 1; also see Hallman, 1972, for a detailed account ofthe historical development of citizen participation in federal programs). This chapter provides a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of citizen participation; a brief examination of the Public Participation Program of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program; a description of the four basic components of a citizen involvement program, including various techniques and mechanisms that can be used to accomplish each component; and a discussion of variables to be considered in designing specific citizen involvement programs on the local level. Rather than developing a specific citizen participation program to be used state-wide, guidelines have been formulated to assist planners in creating progranis tailored to the needs and characteristics of their local communities and to the budget and time constraints of their agencies. 227 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPA.ION The current controversy surrounding citizen partici- pation stems in large measure from three unanswered questions related to basic policy. These questions are important at all stages of the citizen participation program, from planning of the program through implementa- tion. Confronting these questions should be the respon- sibility of the planners in conjunction with the affected citizens and the general public. The first question is, who should participate? As government agencies established citizen participation programs, self-initiating groups have become more aggressive in demanding access to govern- mental decision-making. Citizen group activity has expanded rapidly in the past ten years. With this growth in activity has come the realization, however, that certain segments of the population--usually those most affected by a new program or project--are usually not among the active participants. Two separate groups of citizens can be identified--the interested and the affected. The emphasis in Federal programs that stress citizen partici- pation is how to involve the affected citizenry; this group is usually poor, with few resources, and without access to power-holders (Mogulof, 1969). The second question centers around power. That is, how much wei-ht should be given to the preferences of citizens in the overall formulation and implementation of a program or project? Arnstein (1969) has pointed out that the term "citizen participation" has been used to refer to situations ranging from virtual nonparticipation to degrees of tokenism to citizen control. The degree of liparticipation" encouraged is related to the purpose to be served by enlisting citizen input. Purposes range from a form of therapy in order to cure alienation to decentralizing governmental authority to redistributing power and resources. Typologies have also been developed to identify those variables, such as leadership, cohesive- ness) and goals, which determine how effective a 1@roup is likely to be in winning some influence in the decision- making process (see, for example, Kansas City Urban Observatory, n.d.). The third question centers around how a group should participate. That is, what mechanisms must be available to the group if it is to have adequate access to the decision-making process. The mechanism used is tied closely to the problem of power. Sometimes the mechanism is designed deliberately to keep effective participation 228 at a minimal/token level. At other times an honest attempt is made to incorporate citizen input, but the mechanism chosen does not lend itself to ef.fective participation. The relationship between the mechanism and the group is also crucial; some groups need more prodding and technical. assistance than others to be able to participate effec- tively. Choosing the proper mechanism entails an inter- active process between planners and citizen groups. General Discussion Historically, most citizen participation has been on the political level and expressed in such ways as voting, writing letters to public officials and running for public office. Today, citizens are seeking participation on the administrative level; they seek involvement in program formulation, evaluation, and implementation. Most ideas on administrative participation have their antecedents in political participation. But even among political theorists there is no consensus on what "particiipation" means. One school of thought sees participation as denoting influence that ordinary people have over the selection of their representatives (see Verba and Nie, 1972). The other school of thought sees participation as referring to the direct involvement of citizens in making decisions and policies (see Pateman, 1970). The former school is the more prevalent, chiefly because many modern theorists fear the dangers inherent in wide popular participation in politics. Berelsou et al. (1954: Chapter 14), for instance, conclude that high levels of participation and interest are required from only a minority of citizens, while the apathy and disinterest of the majority play a valuable role in maintaining the stability of the democratic system as a whole. The apathetic citizens are like a reserve force which becomes activated when circumstances warrant added involvement. Pateman (1970), on the other hand, demonstrates that the socializa- tion aspects of a participant environment enhance the stability of the political system. Participation increases L -looks and feelings of poli ical efficacy, broadens out interests, and creates familiarity with democratic pro- cedures and the learning of political skills. Theorists have suggested a number of factors which increase the likelihood of political involvement by the citizenry. Pateman demonstrates that institutional factors greatly influence the degree of interest a citizen has in 229 the political processes around him/her. An environment that has been structured to encourage active involvement (such as the Workers' Councils in Yugoslavian industries or the collective.farms in Peru) creates more participant members. Almond and Verba (1963) found that those countries which provided mechanisms for their citizens to ' participate in the local governmental processes produced citizens with high levels of political participation and sense of political efficacy. This finding has been corroborated by small group theorists who demonstrated that the kind of social climate created by leaders can promote or inhibit participation by the members of the group (see White and Lippitt, 1960). Organizational factors are also important in influenc- ing participation. Verba and Nie found that organizational affiliation increases political participation (1972: 174- 208). The Community Action Programs failed because the poor had little past experience with being members of an organization and they grew impatient with the inordinate amount of time and effort reauired to organize. Many of the poor also did not wish to bear the costs required of engaging in aggressive bargaining with government agencies (Kafoglis, 1968). Other studies have shown that citizen groups can be effective if the group has a dedicated leadership cadre within a larger general membership (Steggert, 1975). Effectiveness has also been shown to be related to funding and goal definition (Steinbacher and Solomon, 1971). Crenson (1974) demonst-rates that government-sponsored community organizations are generally less effective than privately initiated groups in develop- ing defined agendas, and ill-defined agendas produce few demands on officials. If groups are going to participate effectively, they need a source of relevant information, as well as technical assistance in assimilating and formulating this information, and research capabilities (see Henderson, 1974). An individual's social characteristics affect his/her decision to participate and the method of participation chosen. The social characteristics generate sets of attitudes conducive to or inhibitory of political partici- pation. Most studies have shown that those who are most likely to participate are male, better educated, urban, between 35 and 55., married, members of organizations, and from.higher socio-economic status (see Lipset, 1960; Lane, 1959; Berelson et al., 1954). Verba and Nie (1972: 70-73) identify four modes of political activity--voting, campaign acitivity, communal activity and particularized activity, and find that different modes of participation correlate 230 with different social characteristics. Unlike the other modes, those who engage in particularized activity come from throughout the socio-economic spectrum (p. 132). Such activity confirms that if an individual can be shown how an issue directly affects him/her then he/she will react in such a way as to attempt to ameliorate the problem. It is not that most citizens are apathetic, but that they must be: (1) shown why an issue is important to them, and (2) given an oportunity to express their preferences and seek their preferred course of action. One without the other--lack of information or lack of a mechanism--will not result in meaningful participation by citizens. The lack of information will result in apathy; the lack of a mechanism will result, eventually, in defiance. Having a broad spectrum of the public participate in local policy-making serves several purposes. First, it provides for a qualitative assessment of -the proposed policy by complementing technical knowledge with the per- sonal knowledge of those to be affected. Second, it serves as an educative process assisting in community development. Third, it provides for those being affected by a proposed policy to contribute to its assessment, which should be a basic right in a democratic society. Moreover, studies have found that participation brings measurable benefits to those who participate. For instance, officials are more responsive to the preferences of participant citizens than to nonparticipants. In fact, the more participation there is in a community, the more officials concur with citizens on community priorities (Verba and Nie, 1972: 332-333; also see Cole, 1974). S T CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM JLN THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE In 1972 the United States Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management (CZNI) Act, which provides monetary grants k@ to coastal states to assist in the development of programs 1 Voting and campaign activity are both concerned with parti- cipation in the electoral process and are usually conflictual. Communal activity is composed of all the acts of participa- tion that aim at influencing broader social issues in the community and is usually nonconflictual. Particularized activity refers to contacts with government officials in which the issue refers only to the individual or his/her .mmediate family, and in wbich the governmental decision responsive to that contact would presumably have little or no direct impact on others in the society. 231 to protect, develop, and, where possible, to restore coastal resources. To be eligible for funds a state must, among other requirements, provide for the inclusion of public participation in coastal zone management programs. Section 1454 of the Act requires that open public hearings be held prior to any plan approval, with public notice given 30 days prior to the hearing, and that all pertinent agency material.be made available for public review during that time (U.S. Congress, 1972). In 1973 Governor Edwin Edwards announced that the State Planning Office would be the agency responsible for formulating a coastal zone management program for Louisiana. The Coastal Resources Program, established within the State Planning Office in June 1974, is responsible for administering CZM grants, monitoring contractual activities, and assisting with information dissemination to legislators, local officials, and other interested parties. It is also responsible for drafting legislat ion for a CZM program (State Planning Office, 1976: 1). A public participation program was created to provide for a dialogue among state agencies, local elected officials, user groups and the general public on what CZM means to them and to the state as a whole. A variety of techniques have been used to open up this communication process. The program began with orientation meetings for elected officials and regional planners held in four different areas of the coastal zone. Later, five information meetings for officials and the public were held in different coastal communities. Represented most heavily at these meetings were environ- mentalists, sportsmen, and the oil and gas industry. At both sets of meetings, questionnaires were distributed to those attending to ascertain their attitudes and, opinions about the coastal zone and its management. The results were tabulated to help prepare CZM legislation. In conjunction with this, a statewide survey of citizens' opinions on coastal resources was done in the summer of 1974 (see Lindsey et al., 1976). After the proposed legislation was drafted, presenta- tions explaining its details were made to service groups, environmental groups, interest groups and police. juries. During these meetings, comments made for revising the legislation were recorded for future reference. All legis- lators received a package of information on major issues 2 The Coastal Resources Program has recently been. transferred to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Develop- ment. 232 and a briefing on coastal resources management. At this point, newsletters were being sent out to a mailing list of over 3000 people, brochures describing how citizens could get involved in the planning of a CZM program were distributed, and slide shows were produced for use at public meetings (State Planning Office, 1976: 33-40). The proposed legislation was not passed in the 1976 session of the Legislature. Two major reasons were given for nonpassage of the bill: first, major user groups and local officials felt that they had not been given an adequate opportunity to express their preferences in the initial steps of the bill's formulation; in other words, they felt that the Coastal Resources Program was trying to get them to accept what was essentially a fait accompli. Second, the public meetings were not well-attended and therefore the program lacked a broad constituency and failed to develop one. The results of the statewide survey showed that most Louisianaians have a general, but imprecise, awareness of the coastal zone and a vague concept of coastal zone management (Lindsey et al., 1976:1; also see Pinkey and Paterson, 1976). Attendance at the public information meetings was mostly by groups with vested interests in the coastal zone and with a tendency towards not wishing to make compromises with each other. In the summer of 1976 the Coastal Resources Program decided that there was a need to work at the local level, with local officials and groups, to incorporate their opinions and advice in the formation of new CZM legislation. The program now has advisory committees on the local level, with regional or local planning commissions responsible for coordination. There was also created, at the close of -the 1976 legislative session, a. state advisory committee to make recommendations and advise the natural resources committees of the legislature on an appropriate coastal zone management program. The Louisiana Coastal Commission consisted of ten members from coastal parishes (i.e., one representative from the police jury in each of the ten parishes), ten members representing interest/user groups and municipalities of coastal Louisiana appointed by the Governor, and the Director of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (see Appendix 7.1). The commission was structured so as to provide a "fair and balanced approach to devising a management plan" (C8te de la Louisiane, 1976: 1). As one interest group representative commented, it transformed local officials and interest groups "from observers and commentators into active participants charged with the responsibility of developing a coastal management 233 program" (C6te de la Louisiane, 1976: 2). The Coastal Resources Program provided technical and legal research to the Commission. The Commission has reported its recom- mendations to the legislature and now is defunct. Its proposed legislation was passed in the 1977 Legislature. The local advisory committees continue to function. These committees are composed of influential citizens attempting to represent a balance between developmental and environmental interest groups (see Appendix 7.2). They are responsible for identifying issues, goals, problems and their solutions at the local level in prepara- tion for parishes developing individual coastal management programs. One of their functions is to act as a, communi- cation center for public opinion and technical information. Their chief method for carrying out that function is to hold their meetings in public, in various locations within the parishes. Promotional and information programs have not been developed and the general public has not been provided with any mechanism for systematic input and criticism. Some promotional activities, usually in the form of speakers' bureaus, have been undertaken within the parishes by the regional planning commission.s. The state Coastal Resources Public Participation Program is planning to conduct a series of workshops within. the parishes that stress the varied activities and Uses that occur within the coastal zone. BASIC COMPONENTS OF A CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM The state's present Public Participation Program has been moderately successful in identifying key USE,@r/interest groups involved in activities related to the coastal zone. However, unless a systematic attempt is made also to inform the public-at-large of the benefits and costs inNrolved in a coastal zone management program and to create mechanisms for ensuring quality input from the public, then many of the affected groups and the impacts upon them will not be identified during the planning stages. The planning and implementation processes will lack vital information and possibly, cooperation and understanding. A more systematic citizen involvement program needs to be developed. As used in this report, citizen involvement is "a continuing, dynamic process of two-way communication between the public and the planning agencies/decision- makers during which choices are continually narrowed until 234 a final solution/plan/program is arrived at" (Appleby, 1977). A citizen involvement program consists of four major components: (a) keeping the public-at-large adequately informed; (b) identifying the affected publics; (c) creating mechanisms for eliciting citizen input; and (d) accounting for governmental decisions.3 Keeping the Public Informed The most basic component in any citizen involvement program is to keep the public adequately informed about a proposed program or project. This task involves two subcomponents (see Rosenbaum, 1976: 43-50). The first is to provide the public with basic educational background on the issue area, such as coastal zone management, and on how the government is set up to deal with such issues, so that the public can make a constructive and informed contribution to policy-making. The second subcomponent is to provide accurate, understandable information about how the proposed program is developing and notify the public about opportunities to participate. It is vital that an adequate flow of information be maintained throughout the planning process. Traditional procedures for providing basic background information include speaker's bureaus, distributing brief brochures to citizen groups and soliciting background coverage from the news media. Such procedures tend not to attract the attention of large numbers of citizens and do not present the information systematically. Some agencies have also used other resources; for example, schools offer both credit and non-credit courses in coastal zone manage- ment, the news media develop documentaries and broadcasts, and citizen groups hold community meetings. More 3This section on "Basic Components of a Citizen Involvement Program" is heavily indebted to Rosenbaum (1976), especially the ideas on keeping the public informed and government accountability. Rosenbaum divided his citizen involvement program into three basic components: (1) public preparation, (2) citizen participation, and (3) governmental accounta- bility. 235 innovative educational methods to capture public atten- tion include the production of a simplified land use curriculum designed specifically for citizens, such as the Princeton Planning and Design Workbook for Community Participation (Research Center for Urban and Environmental Planning, 1969), and special television programming, such as the "Choices for 176" educational campaign conducted by the planning commission of New York, coordinated with "Town Meeting Groups" organized in schools, homes, and churches (Rosenbaum, 1976: 45). Both methods tried to present the information systematically and emphasize basic concepts clearly. The second subcomponent of keeping the public informed involves notifying citizens about current policy issues and providing useful, comprehensible information on the stakes involved in these decisions. This recluires giving citizens ample notice of pending meetings and decisions, communicating in clear-cut, nontechnical language, and providing current information in a variety of formats suitable for different levels of sophistication. The traditional methods include depositing informational materials in local public libraries, posting public notices, holding public hearings and soliciting media coverage. More systematic distribution of information include developing and updating a registry of interested individuals and groups to whom detailed materials on current planning matters in specific areas are sent; using a mass mailing approach, such as that undertaken by the Vermont Environmental Board in which every household was mailed a newsprint copy of a draft land use plan (see Scoville and Noad, 1973, as cited in Rosenbaum, 1976: 47); combining mass mailings with public information meetings; and creating a permanent planning information center, which mounts continuous exhibitions on proposed plans and projects, often supplemented by mobile exhibitions. Identifying Affected Publics The next component in a citizen involvement program is to identify.the segments of the public who are likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the proposed project or program. The public is not a unitary mass; the segments of the public are identifiable on the basis of location, interest, or social characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity, education, income and occupation. Methods for identifying publics may include self- identification, third-party identification or staff 236 identification (see Willeke, 1977). Using a combination of the three methods provides the richest amount of infor- mation. An important ingredient in facilitating self- identification is the use of multiple channels of communi- cation to and from the public so that maximum opportunity for self-identification is afforded. In third party identification any person who is aware of the proposed project and knows of some other individual or group that should be involved may identify that person or group to the planner. In staff identification, nearly all the work involved in identifying publics is done by the planning staff itself. Techniques that can be used in staff identification include: (a) analysis of association--a process of consulting available lists of organized groups; e.g., Yellow Pages of the telephone directory, Chamber of Commerce, newspaper lists, etc. and picking out those which appear to have possible interest in being involved; (b) geographic analysis--the study of maps and photo- graphs to determine areas that should be singled out for special attention in the planning process (e.g., flood plain dwellers, those downstream from a dam or sewage treatment plant, etc.); (c) demographic analysis--the definition of a public as that group of persons having a given set of demographic characteristics (e.g., the elderly, minorities, middle-class, etc.); (d) comparative analysis--a process of consulting the record of studies and projects in closely related fields or comparable geographical areas and determining what groups were affected; M field interviews--a process of asking specific individuals for their views. The two methods used are (1) the "snowball effect," in which the planner begins by interviewing a group of people (usually opinion leaders) known to have some interest in the topic and asking them to identify others likely to be interested; those persons are subsequently interviewed and asked the same auestion and the process is repeated until no new names are received; and (2) concentration on the community and its problems with publics being identified as a matter of course (Willeke, 1977: 320-322). 237 Identification is more than naming specific groups; it implies learning about the characteristics and concerns of the identified segments. Such information is-'necessary to ensure social equity (Deckert and Sorensen, 1974). That is, the planner must determine which groups are likely to experience beneficial impacts from a proposed project and which ones will experience adverse impacts. To gain a thorough assessment of these impacts requires the active involvement of the affected citizens themselves. There are a variety of mechanisms that can be used to elicit citizen input (see later in this chapter). As an interim step, and one that will help the planner begin to appre- ciate the ramifications of the proposed project, a brain- storming session (see Finsterbusch, n.d.) among the staff and other key persons should be held. At this Session, an identification should be made of the specific kinds of groups likely to be affected by the proposed project and the impacts they are likely to experience as a result of the proposed project. Brainstorming sessions should complement, not replace, citizen participation activities. As an example of a brainstorming session, Table 7.1 identifies 27 specific kinds of groups that could expect to be affected, whether positively or negatively, by increased offshore and onshore activity related to OCS development in the state of Louisiana. This table places each group within either the economic or environmental categories and describes each as being either for or against increaseA OCS activity. Also included in the table are the possible objectives of each group as it engages in its da5,-to-day activities. Knowing a group's normal activities allows a better understanding of the potential impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project. Again, as a result of a brainstorming session, Table 7.2 presents the potential impacts that can be expected from increased OCS activity and matches the impacts with the segments of the 4The question of whether there should be increased outer continental shelf (OCS) activity (i.e., increased oil and gas production) is a key example of the conflict between pro-development and pro-environment groups. OCS activity is potentially damaging to the ecologically delicate coastal zone (see Mumphrey et al., 1976: 162-225; St. Amant, 1971), while being productive economically. For example, in 1975 oil and gas pipeline companies in the state had an assessed value of $491.5 million for tax purposes (Louisiana Tax Commission, 1976: 102). 238 TABLE 7.1 PUBLICS AFFECTED BY OCS ACTIVITY (+ = for increased activity; - = against increased activity) Category of Group Specific Groups Objective Environmental 1. Environmentalists 1. To prevent negative impacts on environment Economic 2. Commercial Fish- 2. To maintain safe habitats for the spawning/ ing/Trapping breeding of fish and animals (represents an economic benefit to fishermen and community) Environmental 3. Sport Fishing/ 3. To maintain variety and population of fish Hunting and wildlife (a recreational activity); good management techniques Environmental 4. Outdoor Recreation 4. Good maintenance of area; adequate access; convenient facilities Environmental 5. Wilderness 5. To maintain natural habitats Enthusiasts Economic 6. Seafood Restaurants 6. To have close (proximity), abundant, and non-contaminated supply of seafood; supply of cheap and reliable workers (catching, processing and shipping) Economic 7. Agriculture 7. Maintain environment for adequate produc- tion levels (number of acres in cultivation decreasing) Economic 8. Forestry 8. Maintain and increase productivity of forest reserves on a sustained yield basis; enhance other uses (recreationa.1/wildlife) TABLE 7.1 CONTINUED (+ = for increased activity; against increased activity) Category of Group Specific Groups Objective Economic 9. Tourism 9. To maintain attractive sites and other points of interests; easy access to sites; adequate supportive services (fast foods, hotels/motels, entertainment and shopping areas); manageable number of visitors Economic 10. Ports and Ship- 10. More efficient and greater number of ping industrial-loading facilities; adequate shippinglanes (dredging allowed); adequate transportation from docking to distribution and processing centers Economic 11. Shell Dredging/ 11. Access to readily available sand and gravel Sand deposits (ability to get dredging,permits so that areas can be excavated) Economic 12. Realtors, home- 12. Constantly expand-ing access to new areas; builders and well-defined permitting process; supply land developers houses at a price the market will pay Economic 13. Landowners 13. To derive the greatest profit possible from the selling or subdividing of their land; to maintain low tax rates on unused land Economic 14. Homeowners 14. To have stable house foundations with few maintenance problems; access roads.- utilities; low maintenance of roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc. TABLE 7.1 CONTINUED (+ = for increased activity; against increased activity) Category of Group Specific Groups Objective Environmental 21. Neighborhood/ 21. To maintain neighborhood quality, maintain Community Groups property values Economic (+) 22. Transient 22. To have access to inexpensive housing and Workers public services Environmental. 23. Preservation- 23. To maintain the quality/ambience of the ists area; to preserve historic, cultural and archaeological sites Economic (+) 24. Permanent Workers/ 24. To have access to adequate housing and New Residents public services Economic 25. Service Industry 25. To have adequate support personnel and (schools, police, facilities; to serve more densely medical) populated areas. Economic 26. Public Trans- 26. To have riders (potential and actual) in portation densely populated areas Economic 27. Labor Unions 27. To maintain adequate employment levels and working conditions for its members Environmental 28. Ethnic Groups 28. To maintain ethnic solidarity and cultural integrity Source: Authors.Format adapted from Francis, 1975: 400. TABLE 7.1 CONTINUED (+ = for increased activity; against increased activity) Category of Group Specific Groups 'Objective Economic 15. Industrial 15. To have federal permittink process relaxed (environmental constraints); low tax rates; cheap and easily available. facili- ties for transporting goods (receipt, dispersal of goods); cheap and readily available supply.of workers--skilled and unskilled Economic (+) 16. Commercial 16. To have minimum restricted access to new Interests marketing areas Economic 17. Oil and Gas/, 17. To have access to new leases and support W Sulphur yards; to have relaxed federal and state constraints on exploration, leasing and piping; to have a readily available pool of workers for the exploration and pipe- laying phases and a stable supply of workers for the drilling and production phases Economic and 18. Technical Experts 18. To keep control at their respective Environmental (Government levels agencies) Economic 19. Local Govern- 19. To have complete control over all activi- ment ties in the coastal zone; to maintain an adequate tax base; to minimize municipal costs Economic (+) and 20. Consumer Groups 20. To ensure all materials and resources Environmental derived from coastal zone are available at a good price in adequate supply TABLE 7.2 KEY ISSUES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF OCS Key Issues and Impacts Concerned Publics 1. Ecological Impacts Environmentalists Channelization leads to saltwater intrusion, marsh Commercial & Sport Fishing destruction, etc. Agriculture Reclamation leads to subsidence, saltwater Seafood Restaurants intrusion, etc. Outdoor Recreation Water Pollution (including oil spills, urban Agriculture and Forestry storm drainage, sewage) Homeowners Local Government 2. Economic Impacts Increased number of workers (temporary and permanent) Labor Unions Changes in job mix (unskilled to skilled; displace- Local Governments ment of workers; retraining workers) Landowners Effects on residential and commercial rents Commercial Interests Effects on local industries (esp, seafood, Shipping and Ports shipping, oil and gas) Commercial Fishing Changes in land value Seafood Restaurants Changes in tax base Homeowners Homebuilders Transient and Permanent Workers Oil and Gas 3. Municipal Impacts Increased provision of services (schools, Local Governments hospitals, fire and police, etc.) Homeowners Increased costs for services Land Developers Increased costs for crime prevention and detection Consumer Groups Changes in tax base Transient and Permanent Effects of new urban development (ensure Workers provision of sewerage, utilities., etc.) Technical Experts TABLE 7.2 CONTINUED Key Issues and Impacts Concerned Publics 4. Transportation Impacts Impacts on public transit (increased ridership, Transient and Permanent increased number of lines to non-central areas) Workers Increase in new road systems (new*construction) Labor Unions and improvements to old roads Transit Companies Increased traffic in coastal areas Neighborhood Associations Increased need for parking (esp. in non-central Commercial 'Interests areas) Landowners Homebuilders Local Government Environmentalists W 5. Historical and ArchaeologicalImpacts 14 Effects on historical areas and structures Tourism Effects on archaeological remains (esp. Indian Preservationists mounds) Neighborhood Associations Effects on tourism 6. Cultural Impacts Impacts on cohesiveness of ethnic communities Ethnic Groups (esp. the Acadians in coastal areas) Preservationists Impact on life-styles of ethnic groups Consumer Groups Effects on the relationship between older Transient and Permanent residents and transient/new residents Workers Tourism 7. Legal Impacts Impacts on zoning ordinances and building codes Local Government Effects of complying with Federal regulations Technical Experts (e.g., Coastal Energy Impact Program, CZM Act Homebuilders of 1972, Clean Air Act, NEPA, etc.) Landowners Consumer Groups Environmentalists TABLE 7.2 CONTINUED Key Issues and impacts Concerned Publics 8. Public Health Impacts Changes in air and water quality Technical Experts Increased need for water treatment and waste Local Government disposal facilities Environmentalists Increased need for clinics, public health Commercial & Sport Fishing officials, etc. Seafood Restaurants Outdoor Recreationists 9. Visual/Aesthetic Impacts Effects of commercial strip development Homeowners Impact on area during stay of transient Tourism workers and on their departure Outdoor Recreationists Impact on olfactory and auditory senses Environmentalists Source: Authors. Format adapted from Francis, 1975: 402. public that are likely to be affected or concerned. Having such preliminary information provides the planner with a better appreciation of the scope of the proposed project and should encourage him to seek more carefully for the identity of specific groups. Whether self-identification, third-party identifica- .tion or staff identification is encouraged, the process of identifying publics should be on-going, with new groups urged to participate as they are identified. To aid in the identification of publics, especially when the self-. identification method is used, an adequate amount of infor- mation about the proposed project must be circulated among the citizens. Mechanisms for Eliciting Citizen Input Once the planner has a preliminary idea of what groups are likely to be impacted and in what areas, he or she should begin considering the type of mechanism(s) to be used in eliciting citizen input. Local governments and agencies have reacted to increased levels of citizen participation by creating various mechanisms. Some have established grievance procedures, citizen boards and commissions; others have implemented structural changes like little city halls, neighborhood governments and other forms of political and administrative decentralization. Some have experimented with techniques utilizing survey research, mass media, workshops, and simulations and games. The type of mechan- ism chosen will depend on the purpose that citizen partici- pation is to serve because purpose and mechanism are closely linked together (see Heberlein, 1976). For instance, the public hearing is used most often when the planner wishes only to inform the public about a new program and has no plans to react to public opinion and concern. Or, the public hearing may be used when citizen participation is required by law or administrative code, but there is no general demand for public involvement. On the other hand, if the purpose of citizen participation is to redistribute power and resources' then a more interactive process is required, such as workshops and administrative decentralization. .The mechanism used should also be matched with the kind of+citizen group involved (see Kansas City Urban Observatory, n.d., for a typology of citizen groups). For example, a, poorly-organized group with.limited resources and expertise 246 may require technical assistance to help it formulate its preferences and make its presentations (see Sloan, 1974). Advocacy planning developed from the idea that the most disadvantaged groups are the least prepared to deal with technical matters and, therefore, need to be assisted in articulating their interests (Peattie, 1968). An example of a successful advocacy planning center in New Orleans was Metro Link, which worked with the New Orleans Tenants Organization to produce an alternative to the housing authority's plan for the redevelopment of the Desire housing project. On the other hand, a group that maintains a friendly/professional relationship with an agency may not need an elaborate mechanism through which to articulate its preferences. Attending a public hearing or sitting on a citizen review board may work quite well for such a group. The mechanism used should also be matched with the particular stage in the planning process. For instance, when the idea for a new program has just been proposed, the agency may choose to hold a public meeting for the purpose of informing the public about the prop osal. Later, to determine if the public feels the program is needed, or to create the details of the program, the agency may conduct a survey and hold a series of workshops. When it is time to implement the program, the agency may choose to decentralize the administration through neighborhood organizations or create citizen review boards. Three widely-used mechanisms for gaining citizen involvement are the public hearing, public opinion survey and the public meeting or workshop (Heberlein, 1976). The public hearing is the most traditional mechanism used for establishing communication between the planning agency and the general Dublic. The function most often served bv the hearing is informational, but it can be made to serve an interactive function if the agency is committed to dis- covering public needs and responding to those needs as expressed in the hearing. The most serious problem of the public hearing is that views presen-t-ed are likely to be unrepresentative of the range of individuals who are affected by the project. Lack of knowledge and motivation are chiefly responsible for the unrepresentativeness. One strategy to eliminate the unrepresentativeness of participation at the public hearing is the public opinion survey, which can ensure a representative sample of a given population within statistical estimates of probable error (see Webb and Hatry, 1973). However, the proper collection of data is costly and requires high levels of expertise, involving complex sampling procedures, proper wording of 247 questions, and analysis of data. Since many respondents are unknowledgable about any particular program and its implicaitons', they may form their opinions at the time they fill out the questionnarie. Such opinions are extremely unstable and are seldom good indicators of "true" prefer-.. ences formed once individuals have had experience with the project itself. The central notion of the workshop is to involve the public actively in the planning process by bringing groups of citizens together with planners in serious W03-king sessions. The workshop is so structured that it is inter- active and the participants can be given sufficient amounts of information to make meaningful input. Several communities have attempted to improve the usefulness of workshops and public meetings by using more systematic techniques to analyze citizen viewpoints. In general these techniques allow for structured brainstorming, exemplified best by the Delbecq method (Delbecq and de Ven, 1971), in which participants are assigned to small groups of six to nine individuals. Each participant in the small group is asked to identify all the desirable and undesirable aspects of a proposed project and to suggest options for dealing with the undesirable aspects., The group makes a master list of the problems identified. The group discusses the list, during which time group participants are urged to elaborate on and defend particular items, make additions or suggest deletions. The group then votes on which aspects of the proposed project are most critical and which the most feasible options. All the small groups then meet together and the votes of each group are reported to the entire audience. A final vote among the audience is taken. The final vote provides a clearer ranking of priorities and preferences among a substantial group of citizen parti- cipants than would have been possible with discussion alone. Besides Delbecq, other techniques include Delphi (Sackman, 1975), developed to elicit the opinion(s) of a group of individuals without meetings or direct discussion, using repeated waves of questionnaires and feedback reports; "Charette" (Chase, 1973), intensive activity directed towards accomplishing a stated goal; and Interpre- tive Structural Modelling (ISM) (Malone, 1975; Kawamura and Malone, 1975), in which participants respond to a sequence of queries generated by the computer based on the pattern of relationships among a set of elements (problems, goals, etc.) as defined by the participants during the course of the ISM session--the responses lead to prioriti- zing the elements and/or defining the support relationship among them. 248 The problem with the workshop is its lack of repre- sentativeness. One remedy for this problem is.to locate community opinion leaders and ask them to participate. Another, more innovative, remedy is to select impacted individuals from jury rolls or from voter registration lists to serve as "expert" representatives of public review. They should be reimbursed for their time and effort. Another method similar to the workshop is to use a work- book which presents the alternatives , a visual display of the impact, information about costs and a postcard reply. These can be mailed out to random samples drawn from voter registration lists or to other appropriate publics (examples of such workbooks are Spring, 1971: and Heder, Karen and Francis, 1974). Other approaches being considered by communities include the use of gaming and simulation, in which large- scale urban systems are modeled, sometimes with the intent of predicting the future effect of specified interventions, and usually focusing on quantifiable human activity (see Lee, 1973); panels of citizen reviewers (e.g., in Cali- fornia, copies of successive drafts of coastal zone plan elements were circulated to review panels across the state for review and comment); election of citizen advisory groups--typically on a neighborhood basis (Rosenbaum, 1976: 52); and subsidizing the drawing up of alternative plans-- plans that reflect the uncompromised views of a particular individual or citizen group (see Davidoff, 1965). In the beginning stages of participation, citizens should be encouraged to express their preferences as freely as possible, defining the stakes of the issue as they see them. After the full diversity of distinctive positions among the public have been brought out, the planner must then attempt to impose a structure on the process by high- lighting the common elements among public viewpoints and weeding out the options that are not feasible on legal or technical grounds. At that point, the planner and the public can focus on a small number of options and make their decision from among those (Rosenbaum, 1976: 24). Governmental Accountability The major aspect of governmental accountability is explaining to the public the rationale for particular policy decisions. First, every individual or group that takes time to express a policy preference in detail should receive an official response, explaining what action was 249 taken and why. This type of feedback is a crucial means of building both public trust in the responsiveness of government and feelings of political efficacy. A number of jurisdictions have demonstrated that such replies need not be excessively burdensome (Rosenbaum, 1976: (32-63). Second, the agency must explain how citizen input was used in making the final decision. Providing this infor- mation demonstrates that the agency is aware of the basic direction of majority preference and has incorporated this knowledge into its deliberations. It also builds greater support for a policy decision among affected citizens who do not personally favor the final course of action, but who might support the decision if shown that it was arrived at in a fair, sensitive and responsive manner. The traditional method is to circulate the final plan to all officially recognized "interested parties" and to provide public access to all records and transcripts of decision-making bodies. These procedures are essentially passive in that they impose no obligation on an agency to explain directly the reasons for its actions and decisions. The state of Oregon expanded its accounta- bility through a different approach. Upon completion of a year-long process of soliciting citizen participation on statewide goals and guidelines, the Conservation Com- mission held a special "mark-up session" to reach its decision and explain it to the citizens. The audience was free to ask questions. After the session the Commis- sion printed copies of a tabloid newspaper explaining the decision and mailed them to every individual and group that participated in the decision-making process (Rosenbaum, 1976: 63). Another aspect of governmental accountability involves providing opportunities for appeal and reconsideration of decisions that citizens may feel are unfair and unrespon- sive. Generally, this is done through automatic legislative or executive review of administrative decisions. However, many groups have expressed discontent with the rubber- stamp quality of local legislative review, or have faulted the composition of legislative bodies. Alternative procedures which maximize input from the citizens include internal review of administrative decisions by ombudsmen or citizen advocates, citizen access to courts, and citizen-initiated referenda (Rosenbaum, 1976: 64-70). Appendix 7.3 lists the various mechanisms that are appropriate for each of the components of a citizen involve- ment program. It also provides important points to remember about each component. 250 IMPORTANT VARIABLES FOR DESIGNING LOCAL CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS Every citizen involvement program should include the four basic components discussed in the section above. The specific techniques and mechanisms used by a specific government to accomplish each component should be deter- mined by the (1) characteristics of the local community, and (2) resources of the local planning agency. No one program can be packaged and used throughout the state; if it is, the needs of the specific communities will be overlooked. One of the problems with Louisiana's original public participation program was that the same information and format were used for meetings held in various locations around the state. Having local advisory committees could remedy this shortcoming, provided each committee structures its own public participation program according to its needs and resources, rather than having the specifics of a program imposed on it by the state. Characteristics of the Local Community Each community is unique, consisting of its own mix of those factors considered important in determining level of participation. The characteristics of the specific community should determine the kind of citizen involve- ment program developed. A profile of the oemmunity can be gleaned from census data and other compiled statistics, surveys, monitoring the mass media, interviewing local officials and opinion leaders, and published reports. Characteristics considered to be important in describing a local community include: size of the community, age distribution, ethnic/racial divisions, income levels, employment distributions, degree of literacy, degree of urbanization, degree of cohesiveness, and level of organi- zational activity. A cohesive community composed of young professionals, active in many community organizations would be able to handle survey que;tions, acquire adequate infor- mation from tae mass media and function well in a public meeting. On the other hand, a community of older, less literate individuals with few (if any) organizational ties would require more innovative techniques, such as an 251 advocate planner to provide expertise, informational material explaining basic concepts, and a workshop format through which the opinions of the participants can be freely expressed. A highly-stratified community would require mechanisms that allow for conflict resolution and consensus building. .Resources of the Agency The three most important resources to be considered when developing a citizen involvement program are Cost, time and staff. The various mechanisms that are available differ widely in cost. A properly conducted sample survey of parish residents could cost approximately $10,000 (Webb and Hatry, 1973: 86). A public meeting held in EL government office building could cost less than $100. Cost is associated with the kind of individual participating; some individuals have enough resources to be able to volunteer their services,.while others require stipends and allowances. Costs will also vary depending on how far the program attempts to reach out to inactive citizens, and how inten- sive and systematic the program is. Knowing whether the costs of a program will be borne by one agency or.divided among several is also important. Therefore, before design- ing a citizen involvement program, the planner Must be aware of the agency's budget constraints. Even with a minimal budget, an involvement program can still. be developed, for many of its aspects may be subsumed under the normal and necessary expenditures of administrative decision-making. Planners may take calls from citizens or conduct meetings without significant impact on their work. Hearing notices and decision documents are usually printed in substantial quantity even if they are never Systemati- cally distributed to citizens. Most citizen involvement programs are conducted primarily through such indirect expenditures. When there are direct expenses, usually arising from preparing and distributing educational or informational material, such costs can be controlled by exploiting existing resources in the community. Free media coverage can be sought, colleges and universities can be tapped for assistance in developing materials, and community organi- zations can be used for free dissemination. Costs for the basic aspects of a program--such as meetings, hearings, 252 and workshops--tend to be much less than the costs for supplementary and more innovative mechanisms, such as surveys or high-technology approaches (i.e., two-way cable television or teaching computers). Knowing whether the citizen involvement program is to be a permanent or temporary aspect of the planning agency-will also determine the kinds of mechanisms chosen. The staff of a program that is to last only several months may have to rely on meetings and workshops. The staff of a permanent program has the time to develop workbooks geared to its specific community; design, conduct and analyze surveys; and maintain an updated registry of interested persons to be sent informational materials. Developing a systematic program to be implemented in a short period of time puts a greater burden on the staff and, therefore, may require hiring additional personnel. The'various mechanisms also require different levels of expertise among the staff. Some of this expertise can come from resources within the community, such as colleges and universities, local organizations and from other agencies working in the area. For instance, analyzing surveys requires a knowledge of the computer; developing films or using cable television requires a communications expert. Whether the expertise comes from within the planning agency or outside, there must be someone on the staff to coordinate the various efforts who understands the overall program. Because of these different variables, it is important that a citi--en involvement program be developed at the local level. A local program is better able to cater to the needs of the community, while maximizing the use of its own resources. It will also ensure that input into the proposed project stems from the local level and from the affected publics. CONCLUSION The four components of the public involvement program respond to the theoretical policy questions concerning the concept of citizen participation. The three basic questions discussed earlier are (1) who should participate; (2) with how much power; and (3) through what mechanism. The questions are related closely to each other. 253 During the stage(s) of identifying publics (the second component), a determination is made of who the participants are to be. It is clear that those to be affected by a proposed project or program should partici- pate. Deciding who will be affected by a project, however, is a difficult task, especially in a metropolitan area where so much of what happens in one location affects those living in another location. For example, building a low-cost housing project affects not only the new tenants and the old residents who are to be relocated, but tax- payers who subsidize the rents and services to the area. The question then becomes, should everyone in the community be encouraged to participate? Such a question is difficult to answer, especially in the abstract. However, on the local level, as the members of the community learn more about the proposed project (as a result of component one, keeping the public adequately informed)and planners increase their knowledge and understanding of potential impacts, then an answer to the question of who ShOUld participate can be approached. However this question of participation is linked to the "power" and I'mecha,nism" questions as shown below. The question of how much power the citizen groups should have in the decision-making process is related to and determined by the kind of mechanisms available to citizens for expressing their preferred alternatives. Varying degrees of effectiveness in expressing the preferences of citizens are possible according to the specific mechanisms created (the third component). if the traditional public hearing is used, then the group in effect is given no power because the emphasis is on one-way communication from the planner to the community. If the planning agency encourages political or administra- tive decentralization, then the group is given much power. Other mechanisms between the public hearing and decentra- lization schemes provide varying degrees of power, for the mechanism chosen is the outward manifestation of the amount of power held by the citizen groups. The power held by a group is a product of the group's internal resources and the recognition of those resources (for whatever reasons) by the decision-makers of the community. Thus, the question of who participates in the decision- making process is determined in part by the amount Of power held by the various citizen groups in the community. Those with an adequate amount of power will participate. The mechanism of participation can either enhance or diminish the amount of power held by a particular group. 254 The question of power, or deciding whose resources are to be recognized and to what degree, is a central problem throughout the citizen involvement program. Those affected by the proposed project tend to want as much power as possible; that is, once they understand the project's ramifications and potential impacts upon them, then they would like to have the ultimate decision-making authority. Planners, on the other hand, tend to want to give citizen groups as little power as possible. They sometimes feel that they have the expertise necessary to be able to decide what is best for the public interest. In such a stalemate situation it may be wise that repre- sentatives from the general public act as arbiters. The general public includes those indirectly affected by a project; it does not include so amorphous a group as all the voters of a state. For example, if the proposed project is a new highway that will cut through a settled neighborhood, then the residents of the area who feel the direct impact through relocation, noise and threat to safety are considered the directly affected public; those who are likely to use the highway are considered the general public. Thus, when the general public is included the participation question raises its head again. Even if the general public is seen as arbiters, are they to exercise an amount of power equal to that exercised by the affected public? The question is one of social equity. For the general public the benefits of a project may be only slightly greater than the costs. For the affected public the costs usually are much greater than the benefits. Under such circumstances it would be inequitable for the principle of "one man, one vote" to be operative since the more advantaged and larger general public will outvote the more disadvantaged affected public. Whatever the voting principle--"one man, one vote" which is central to democratic theory, or some other procedure in which votes are weighted by impact--strict measures of accounta- bility (component four) become necessary. The citizen needs to know not only what the final decision is, but what specific impact he/she has had on the decision-making process. In the true sense of the concept, citizen partici- pation has to do with the involvement of citizens in the making of decis-A*.ons about activities that affect their lives. Figure 7.1 summarizes the discussion. The three boxes in the diagram correspond to the basic policy questions. The citizen involvement process begins by, first, informing the public about the proposed project (component one) and, second, identifying the affected publics (component two). 255 FIGURE 7.1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROCESS Participation can lead directly to power regardless of mechanism -7- Who How Much What ?articipate:sr, chanism Power? (3) L r Information dentificatio Motivating Variable Components of' a Citizen 0 Involvement Program A Intervening Variable (1) = Information (2) = Identification (3) = Mechanism Basic Policy Question (4) = Accountability I hat /Zhanism 3\) -Source: Authors. 256 The effect of these two components is to generate interest in the proposed project, so that citizens will want to get involved and express their preferences. Who these citizens are (i.e., who participates) depends on the effectiveness of components one and two. These components are a con- tinuous part of the process which in turn increase the degree of participation. Once a certain amount of interest in the proposed project has been generated among the citizens, it becomes necessary to structure that interest in some meaningful way. Thus, the third component of the process, creating mechanisms for citizen input, becomes important. Mechan- isms determine to a large extent if the groups are to have adequate access to and impact on the decision-making process. Some mechanisms, such as small group workshops, enhance participation, while others, such as public hearings, diminish participation. If the mechanism is determined after participation begins, the participating groups will likely attempt to shape the mechanism. If the mechanism is determined by the planners before, during, or after identification, the groups who subsequently partici- pate may attempt to reshape the mechanism. Planners should not hope to mold the mechanism singularly if the participation process is to be seen as legitimate by the groups. The mechanism may be the intervening variable between power and participation. The mechanism chosen can either increase or decrease the power of a particular group. For example, providing traditionally inarticulate groups with advocate planners increases their ability to express preferences and formulate options. In the process the groups become more effective participants. They become more powerful to the extent that it becomes difficult to discount their input in the decision-making. Under these circumstances it becomes more likely that the final decision will be compatible with their preferences. On the other hand, when groups that are traditionally a part of the established order have to share their input with less established groups, it works to decrease the power of "Che more established groups. Having citizen partici- pation also means that the power of the planning agency to make decisions is decreased--the agency must be willing to make concessions on the basis of new input. Therefore, it is possible for the mechanism to act as a power equalizer. 257 The more one participates, the more power one gets. This is true regardless of the mechanism, which --'Ls what the dot-dash line in Figure 7.1 indicates. For instance, if a person conscientiously participates in public hearings (a weak mechanism), he/she is likely nonetheless to increase in power because of the information and skills learned. Even a situation in which no participation is envisioned by the planners,. a person who interjects himself/herself into the planning process is likely to gain power--the interest shown increases the chances of his/her preferences being adopted. The less one participates, the more likely it is that others will make the decision that affects him/her. In a participant environment, all the decisions that are being made are open to public scrutiny, with the institutional practices and underlying social and political values fully understood by all the actors (see Bachrach and Baratz, 1962: 948-49). One way for citizens to determine the amount of power they have exercised in the. decision-making process is through the accountability procedures available to them. Component four of the process allows citizens to know how and why the final decision was made, as well as to seek a remedy if the decision does not meet their approval. The process has a feedback mechanism in the sense that the more power one has, the more one participates. Traditionally, the participants in decision-making are those from the established power elite. The reason for structuring citizen involvement programs is to make it possible for those whose lives are affected by decisions to have input in the making of those decisions. In the process they become more effective members of the community. Incorporating citizen input into the planning process serves several other basic functions. First, it enhances the rationality of the process by gathering systematically the viewpoints of a large and diverse number of -persons, many of whom will be affected directly by the proposed project. Secondly, it lessens the distance between citizens and their government, thus increasing citizens' trust in government. When there is greater trust and understanding, citizens are less likely to become militant and contest every decision made by government. Citizen participation efforts are often charged with being costly and time-consuming. What fails to be seen, however, are the even greater resources spent by government agents when they work against the wishes of citizens and find their agencies facing lawsuits, hostile clients, or an 258 apathetic citizenry. As stated above, many of the citizen involvement mechanisms can be adopted by government agencies using limited funds and a small staff. Finally, citizen involvement programs enhance the well-being of the citizen, for it encourages feelings of political efficacy and self-esteem and teaches political skills. 259 APPENDIX 7.1 LOUISIANA COASTAL COMMISSION MEMBERS - 1976 Governor's Appointees Name and Address Parish Representing Everett Berry St. Mary Sport fishing, hunting 4312 Cantrelle Drive and recreation Berwick, LA 70342 Leland Bowman Jefferson Ports, shipping, and S.B.A. Shipyards Davis transportation P.O. Box 1311 Jennings, LA 70546 (318) 824-1519 Charles Broussard Vermilion Agriculture and Flying J. Ranch forestry Kaplan, LA 70548 (318) 642-5287 Dr. C. R. Brownell, Mayor St. Mary Municipalities City Hall Morgan City, LA 70380 (504) 385-1770 Vernon Langlinais Iberia Producers of solid Morton Chemical Company minerals Weeks Island Plant P.O. Box 280 New Iberia, LA 70560 (318) 365-3453 Robert Liles, Jr. Orleans Oil and Gas 1240 Seville New Orleans, LA 70122 (504) 288-9222 Mrs. Bethlyn McCloskey Jefferson Nature preservation 5113 Bissonet and environmental Metairie, LA 70003 protection (504) 887-2554 (home) 260 APPENDIX 7.1 CONTINUED Governor's Appointees Name and Address Parish Representing William Manning Orleans Coastal landowners Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. P.O. Box 60350 New Orleans, LA 70160 (504) 525-7500 0. V. (Sonny) Moss Iberia Commercial fishing Delcambre, LA 70528 and trapping (318) 685-2573 William Clifford Smith Terrebonne Industrial develop- P.O. Box 2266 ment Houma, LA 70361 (504) 868-1050 J. Burton Angelle, Director Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission 400 Royal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 527-5126 Parish Representatives Alternate Name and Address Parish Ernest Meyers Cameron Rt. 11 Box 179 Lake Arthur, LA 70549 (318) 774-2742 Clifton Aucoin Iberia Elverse Trahan 212 Parkview Drive P.O. Box 35 New Iberia, LA 70560 Avery Island, LA 70513 (318) 365-3028 (318) 364-8851 Doug Allen Jefferson Lloyd F. Giardina 4909 Henican Place 81 Derbes Drive Metairie, LA 70003 Gretna, LA (504) 367-6611 (office) (504) 367-0968 834-7700 (E. Bank office) 261 APPENDIX 7.1 CONTINUED Parish Representatives Alternate Name and Address Parish Octave Bruce Jr. Lafourche Irving E. Legendre, Jr. P.O. Box 426' P.O. Box 551 Cut Off, LA 70345 Thibodaux, LA 70301 (504) 798-2175 (504) 447-13210 Harold Katner Orleans Randolph Clement Room 9 W Same City Hall New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 586-4751 Chalin 0. Perez Plaquemines Michael E. Kirby Braithwait, LA 70040 P.O. Box 5 (504) 682-3343 Port Sulphur, LA 70083 (504) 333-41343 Ext. 248 R. J. Bergeron, Jr. St. Bernard Henry J. Rodriquez, Jr. Box 38 P.O. Box 316 St. Bernard, LA 70085 St. Bernard, LA 70085 (504) 682-5034 (504) 682-0776 Gregory Hamer St. Mary Ned Russo 1620 Parlange Place 1202 Second St. Morgan City, LA 70380 Morgan City, LA 70380 (504) 384-4411 (504) 384-8446 Ken Watkins Terrebonne E. P. "Bubba" Lyons 100 General Lee 108 Jane Street Houma, LA 70360 Houma, LA 70360 (504) 868-2333 (Office) (504) 872-12937 868-4926 (Home) Ray Morvant Vermilion N. R. Broussard P.O. Box 331 Rt. 3, Box 166 Kaplan, LA 70548 Abbeville, LA 70310 (318) 643-8900 (Office) (318) 893-5303 or 643-8992 (Home) 893-4518 262 APPENDIX 7.2 CATEGORIES FOR CZM LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES Except for state agencies, persons should be domiciled in the parish. State agency appointees should be locally based whenever possible. 1. Oil-Gas Industry 2. Agriculture & Forestry 3. Fishing & Trapping, Commercial 4. Sport Fishing, Hunting & Recreation 5. Ports & Shipping 6. Nature Preservation-Environmental Protection 7. Landowners 8. Municipalities 9. Solid Minerals 10. Industrial Development 11. Police Jury Member(s) 12. La. Department of Public Works 13. Agriculture Extension Agent 14. Wildlife and Fisheries 15. La. Conservation Department 16. State Health Department 17. State Recreation Department 18. Tourism Commission 19. Fish or Shellfish Processors 20. Parish Coastal Zone Management Agency 21. La. Forest Commission 263 APPENDIX 7.3 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM .KEEPING PUBLIC INFORMED Important Points to Remember (1) Maintain an on-going flow of information th3, -oughout the planning process, using a variety of techniques. (2) Provide citizens with ample notice of hearings, meetings, and pending decisions. (3) Use clear-cut, nontechnical language. (4) Present information in a variety of formats suitable for different levels of sophistication. (5) Distribute information systematically to all interested and affected groups. Mechanisms Speakers' bureaus Brochures, newletters, fliers Community resources (e.g., schools, organizations, unions, etc.) Media coverage (including advertisements, news reports, feature articles, documentaries, talk shows, etc.) Special TV programming held in conjunction with small group meetings Specially de signed curriculum in workbook style Registry of interested individuals and groups Mass mailings combined with public information meetings Permanent information center 264 APPENDIX 7.3 CONTINUED IDENTIFYING AFFECTED PUBLICS Important Points to Remember (1) Determine criteria for identifying affected publics. (2) Separate citizens into identifiable Dublics on the basis of location, interest and/or social character- istics. (3) Use a variety of methods in identifying the publics. (4) Learn about the characteristics and concerns of the identified groups (general objectives, potential impacts, intensity of impacts). (5) Create a process for continuous identification of publics. Mechanisms Self-Identification media coverage, voluntary associations, interest groups, etc. Third-Party Identification opinion leaders, voluntary associations, etc. Staff Identification lists of organized groups census data and other statistical information field interviews analysis of comparable plans, programs and reports, etc. Brainstorming Sessions 265 APPENDIX 7.3 CONTINUED ELICITING CITIZEN INPUT Important Points to Remember (1) Choose a mechanism that is congruent with purpose, citizen group, and particular stage in the planning process. . 1 (2) Stress interaction and feedback between planner and citizen groups. (3) Encourage representation of the full range of community interests and viewpoints. (4) Avoid manipulation of citizen groups by planning/ government staff. (5) When possible, use techniques that systematically analyze citizen viewpoints (i.e., that provide for a clear ranking of priorities and preferences). (6) Encourage a wide range of policy options and gradually narrow them down to those that are popular and legally and technically feasible. Mechanisms Hearings and other large public meetings Small group meetings Workshops (using various techniques such as structured brainstorming, nominal group process, Delphi., "Charette") Public opinion surveys (telephone, in-person, mail) Workbooks Citizen advisory groups (elected on neighborhood basis, nomination process) Citizen review boards Gaming and simulation Subsidized alternative plans (including the use of advocacy planning centers, where necessary) Grievance boards Administrative decentralization (e.g., little city halls, field offices, etc.) 266 APPENDIX 7.3 CONTINUED ACCOUNTING FOR GOVERNMENT DECISIONS Important Points to Remember (1) Ensure that the public understands the final policy decision. (2) Provide an official explanation of the policy decision to every active participant. (3) Explain to the public how citizen input was incorporated in making the final decision. (4) Keep an accurate record of citizen participation proceedings. (5) Provide opportunities for citizens to appeal or reconsider decisions felt to be unfair. Mechanisms Records and transcripts accessible to public (e.g., deposited in public libraries, agency library, etc.) Final plan distributed to "interested" parties "Mark-up" sessions (to finalize and explain plan) Official responses to active participants (individual responses or report summarizing changes in prelimi- nary report made in response to citizen input) Legislative/executive review Internal review (using ombusdmen, citizen advocates, etc.) Citizen-initiated referenda Judicial review (citizen access to courts) 267 REFERENCES Almond, Gabriel and Sidney Verba (1963) Civic Culture. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Appleby, Michael (1977) "Nuts and Bolt-s of Citizen Involvement: A Short Workshop in the Management of Participatory Public Decision-Making Processes." Presented at the annual meeting of the Council of University Institutes of Urban Affairs, New Orleans, Louisiana, March. Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969) "A Ladder of Citizen Partici- pation.11 Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 29 (July): 216-24. Bachrach, Peter and Marti n S. Baratz (1962) "Two Faces of Power." American Political Science Review, 55 .(December-).-- @947-952- Berelson, Bernard et al. (1954) Voting. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Bishop, A. Bruce (1970) Public Participation in Water Resource Planning. Arlington, Virginia: U. S. Army Engineer Institute of Water Resources. Chase, Dale (1973) The Charette Process. Washington, D.C.: :0 Office of Education., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cole, Richard L. (1974) Citizen Participation and the Urban Policy Process. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath. Crenson, M. (1974) "Organizational Factors in Citizen Participation." Jgurnal Qj Politics, 36(May): 356-78. Cote de la Louisiana (1976) "State Coastal Legislation." Baton Rouge, Louisiana: State Planning Office. Davidoff, Paul (1965) "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31: �-31-38. Deckert, Thomas and Jens Sorensen (1974) "Social. Equity in Coastal Zone Planning." Coastal Zone MELnagement Journal 1, No. 2: 1-41-150. 268 Delbecq, A. and A. Van de Ven (1971) "A Group Process Model for Problem Identifica"Cion and Program Planning." Journal of Appl ied Behavioral Science, 7: 466-92. Finsterbusch, Kurt (n.d.) "Steps in the Performance of Social Impact Assessments." Unpublished paper. Francis., Mark (1975) "Urban Impact Assessment and Community Involvement: The Case of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library."' Environment and Behavior, 7 (September): 373-404. Hallman, Harold W. (1972) "Federally Financed Citizen Participation." Public Administration Review, 32 (September): 421-27. Heberlein, Thomas (1976) "Some Observations on Alternative Mechanisms for Public Involvement." Natural Resources Journal, 16 (January): 195-212. Heder, L., V. Karen and M. Francis (1974) The Harvard Square Planning Workbook. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory of Architecture and Planning. Henderson, Hazel (1974) "Information and the New Movement for Citizen Participation." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 412 (March): 34-43. Hornback, Kenneth E. (1977) "Overcoming Obstacles to Agency and Public Involvement: A Program and its Methods" in Methodology of Social Impact Assessment, Kurt Finsterbusch and C.P. Wolf, eds. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc. Hutcheson, John D. and Jann Shevin (1976) Citizen Groups in Local Politics: A Bibliographic RFv-iew-. Sant Barbara, California and Oxford, England: -Clio' Books. Kafoglis, Madelyn L. (1968) "Paticipatory Democrary in the Community Action Program." Public @hoice, 5: 73-85. Kansas City Urban Observatory (n.d.) Citizen Participation Groups: A Report of the National -Ur6A@Nbservatory. Lawrence: Urban Studies Group, University of Kansas. Kawamura, K. and D.W. Malone (1975) "Probing Complexity in Social Systems Through Interpretive Structural Modeling"; Batelle Monograph No. 6. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Memorial Institute. .2. 6 9 Lane, Robert E. (1959) Political Life: Why and How People Get Involved in Politics and Political Ideology. New York, New York: Free Press. Lee, Colin (1973) Models in PlanninE. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.- Lindsey, Joel L. et al. (1976) Citizen Perceptiot of Coastal Area Planning and Development: A Study of the Attitudes and Knowledge of Louisianans. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University. Lipset, Seymour M. (1960) Political Man. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Louisiana Tax Commission (1976) Seventeenth Biennial Report, 1974-76. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana Tax Commission. Malone., D.W. (1975) "Interpretive Structural Modeling: An Overview and Status Report." Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Modeling and Simulation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mogulof, Melvin B. (1969)."Coalition to Adversary: Citizen Participation in Three Federal Programs." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4: 225-32. Mumphrey, Anthony J. et al (1976) The Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Development on Lafourche Parish. New Orleans., Louisiana: Urban Studies Institute, University of New Orleans. Pateman, Carole (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Peattie, Lisa (1968) "Reflections on Advocacy PlELnning.11 Journal of the American Institue of Planners, 34: 80-88. Pinkey , Thomas and Karen W. Paterson (1976) "Comments: Environmental Concern As a Factor in Coastal Zone Development--A Study of Louisiana Citizens."' Coastal Zone Management Journal, 2, (3): 297-310. 270 Research Center for Urban and Environmental Planning (1969) Planning and Design Workbook for Community Participation. Princeton) N. J.: School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Princeton University. Rosenbaum,' Nelson M. (1976) Citizen Involvement in Land Use Governance: Issues and Methods. Washington, D. C. Urban Institute. Sackman,' Harold (1975) Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion Forecasting and the Group Process. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.-C. Heath. St. Amant, Lyle S. (1971) Impacts of Oil on the Gulf Coast: transactions of the 36th North American Wildlife and National Resources Conference. Washington, D. C.: Wildlife Management Institute. Scoville, Anthony and Adrian Noad (1973) Citizen Partici- pation in State Government. Montpelier, Vermont: Environmental Planning Information Center, Final Report to NSF-RANN, November. Sloan, Allan K. (1974) Citizen Participation in Transpor- tation Planning: The Boston Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Press. Spring, B. (1971) Planning and Design Workbook for Community Participation. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University School of Architecture and Planning. State Planning Office (1976) Annual Report, YY 75-76: Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Steggert, Frank H. (1975) Community Action Groups and City Governments: Perspectives from Ten American ,Cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Press. Steinbacher, Roberta and Phyllis Solomon (1971),Client Participation in Service Organization. Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Urban Observatory. U. S. Congress (1972) Public Law 92-583, Coastal Zone Manaaement Act of 1972. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 271 Verba, Sidney and Norman H. Nie (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Egiality. New York: Harper and Row. Webb., Kenneth and Harry P. Hatry (1973) Obtaining Citizen Feedback. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. Wengert, Norman (1976) Citizen Participation: Practice In Search of a Theory." Natural Resources Journal, 16 (January): 23-40. White, R. and R. Lippitt (1960) "Leader Behavior and Member Behavior in Three Social Climates in Group Dynamics, D. Cartwright and H. Zender, eds. London: Tavistock. Willeke, Gene E. (1977) "Identifying Publics in Social Impact Assessment" in Methodology of Social Impact Assessment, Kurt Finsterbusch and C. P. Wolf, eds. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross., Inc. 272 3 6668 00002 6668