(All appendicies are PDF )
Clean Air (transferred from EPA to authors in 2004 - copy on file with the author)
Clean Water (transferred from EPA to authors in 2004 - copy on file with the author)
State Budget Data
State Per Capita Environmental Spending Data Corrections
California: California lists its expenditures in separate locations depending on the source of the money. The California numbers were determined by adding all categories of environmental expenditures across general fund appropriation, federal funding, and other. This does not include the category of bond funding.
Ohio: Though listed as appropriation, expenditures match this number closely. Appropriations include all money received from permitting programs, such as fees for CAA permitting. Though a separate budget item in Ohio, this number is in other states expenditures and was thus added back into the Ohio figures.
Tennessee: The total includes all conservation and fish, wildlife, and state park services. The expenditure total given backs out the following categories: Tennessee Elk River Resource Management, Conservation Administration, Historical Commission, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Archaeology, Geology, Maintenance of Historical Sites, Local Parks Acquisition Fund, State Lands Acquisition Fund, West Tennessee River Basin Authority, West Tennessee River Basin Authority Maintenance, TennesseeState Parks, and Tennessee State Parks Maintenance. The Tennessee figure does include all money allocated to administration, even though it can go to any of these departments. This amount could be reduced by the overall percentage, but it is unclear how much administration may go more towards environmental programs or not.
Colorado: The initial figures came from yearly appropriation bills for the Department of Health and the Environment. This included amounts of money spent for public health. This amount of money was backed out of the total figure by category. The categories eliminated include Consumer Protection, Special Purpose Disease Control Technology, Family and Community Health Services Division, Health Facilities Division, and Emergency Medical Services and Prevention Division.
Indiana: Only some of the expenditures in the two categories environmental management and conservation and environment are comparable to other states programs. Programs in Conservation and Environment that were subtracted include legislator's trees, entomology division, Entomology and Plant Pathology Fund, the engineering division, the state museum, the historical preservation Division, Historic Preservation and Archeology Division, Outdoor Recreation Division, Deer Research and Management Division, Conservation Officers Fund, Oil and Gas Division, State Parks Division, Snowmobile Licensing, Law Enforcement Division, Reservoir Management Division, Soil Conservation, Boating Safety Trust, Reservoir Crop Lease Funds, Nongame Fund, Fall of the Ohio Interpretive, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Heritage Fund.
Kansas: Funds associated with the Division of Health, including Administration, Health, and CHES (Community Health Services) were backed out.
New York: Funds spent on Forest and Land Resources, Agriculture, Capital Projects and Sale of Timber were backed out of the initial report.
North Carolina: Figures did not include amounts that were spent that came from proceeds from permitting programs; these were put back in.
Oregon: Figures do not include large amount for fish and wildlife since most of this goes to commercial salmon run protection as opposed to traditional environmental expenditures.