Changing Needs of the West I

              TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES,
HEARING ON "THE CHANGING NEEDS OF THE WEST", SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH, APRIL 7, 1994, GIVEN BY JOHN CROMARTIE, ECONOMIC RESEARCH
SERVICE, USDA.
Recent Demographic and Economic Changes in the West
Summary
The following report summarizes recent population and
economic changes in the U.S. West, excluding Alaska and Hawaii,
with particular focus on the Mountain Division (or Mountain, for
short) 1
• The West continues to experience rapid population
growth, high levels of in-migration, fluctuations in resource­based
industries, and steady growth in the service sector. The
Mountain increased its already high population growth rate during
1990-92. Conditions and trends vary significantly between metro
areas (cities of 50,000 people or more and surrounding territory
that is economically integrated with those cities) and the
remaining territory within the region, labelled nonmetro (Figure
1) . Large differences exist in net migration trends within
nonmetro territory, depending on what economic sector dominates,
or whether the area is valued for its high amenities by retirees
and others. In addition, the nonmetro West distinguishes itself
from the rest of the country in having extensive "frontier"
territory, areas where the population density is less than two
people per square mile (Figure 2). Problems associated with the
rapid pace of change in the West must be addressed with a
sensitivity to changing population patterns, changing economic
base, and the geographical differences among areas that make up
the West.
Population
The Mountain had an estimated population of 14.4 million in
1992, the smallest of the nine census divisions with 6 percent of
the nation's population (Table 1). The Pacific Division, outside
Alaska and Hawaii, contained 39 million people, over 15 percent
of the U.S. total. With 36 million metro residents (93 percent
of the total), the Pacific is the country's most urbanized
division. The Mountain, despite several large and rapidly
growing metro regions, still has a lower-than-average metro share
(71 percent vs. 79 percent nationally). Nonetheless, during the
rapid growth period of the 1980's, a good deal of nonmetro
territory became metro. Three cities (Cheyenne, Wyoming; Santa
Fe, New Mexico; and Yuma, Arizona grew into metro status, and
four existing metro areas added territory (Albuquerque, New
1The Mountain Division consists of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. California,
Oregon, and Washington are part of the Pacific Division.
Mexico; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona) . The
share of population living in large cities and surrounding
suburbs has expanded along with the area's population.
Population change
As anyone who lives in the region can attest, rapid
population growth is changing the character of much of the West.
Cities are leading a population boom that is great~y diminishing
the number of counties losing population. During the 1980's, 2.3
million people were added to the population of the Mountain at a
rate of 20.1 percent, making it the second fastest-growing
division, second only to the Pacific (Table 2) . The rate of
growth was more than double the national rate.
An additional 0.7 million people were added during the 1990-
92 period, still more than double the U.S. rate and a significant
increase in the 1980-90 rate (if projected through the end of the
decade). More significantly, for the first time since the
1970's, and only the second time this century, the Mountain
population grew faster than the Pacific. During the 1980's,
absolute population growth in California's metro regions alone
greatly out-paced the rest of the West (5.8 vs. 3.6 million), but
not during the early 1990's (1.1 vs. 1.2 million). Much of this
change is tied to new migration choices of people moving to the
West and increasing out-migration from California to Mountain
states.
Over three-quarters of Mountain population growth during
both these periods occurred in metro areas. These cities, which
have been out-pacing eastern cities for several decades, grew two
and one-half times the national rate during the 1980's. They
equally out-paced growth in the Mountain Division's nonmetro
areas. The 1980's were a period of relatively slow nonmetro
population growth nationally, coming on the heels of a period in
the 1970's when several factors combined to cause a "rural
renaissance", as much if not more in the West as elsewhere.
However, by national standards population growth in the nonmetro
West was still quite high in the 1980's, over twice the national
nonmetro rate in the Mountain and three times the rate in the
Pacific. In fact, the West is the only region of the country
where nonmetro territory grew at a rate faster than the nation as
a whole in the 1980's.
Estimates from the early 1990's indicate that nonmetro areas
are increasing their rate of population growth nationally, and
nowhere is this more evident than in the West. If current trends
continue throughout the decade, the Mountain will add more than
one and one-half times as many people as were added in the 1980's
(an estimated 0.8 million vs. 0.5 million). With the gap between
metro and nonmetro areas much smaller than in the ~980's, the
recent geographical distribution of population growth in the West
appears to be more widespread. The Pacific also shows more
widespread growth, with nonmetro areas growing faster that metro
areas for the first time since the 1970's.
Net migration
Since the 1950's, the West has been attracting large numbers
of people from the Northeast and Midwest (primarily young adults
but also a significant number of retirees), and both the Mountain
and Pacific have grown rapidly as a result. In addition, changes
in migration patterns within the region have fueled increased
growth within the Mountain.
Net migration, the difference in the number of in-migrants
to and out-migrants from an area, is a major source of population
growth for the West. In the Mountain, net migration accounted
for a larger share of population growth than natural increase
(the difference between births and deaths) during 1990-92; this
was in contrast to the nation as a whole and in particular to the
Pacific, where, owing to increased out-migration and a young
metro population (disproportionately in childbearing ages), net
migration accounted for just over a quarter of all growth. Table
3 shows that net migration contributed to a 7 percent rate of
increase in the Mountain population during the 1980's, three
times the national average, and that an additional 2.9 percent
was added during the early 1990's. This translates to over a 10
percent increase during the 1990's from net migration alone, if
early trends continue.
In terms of net migration, the nonmetro U.S. experienced a
turnaround from net out-migration during the 1980's to net in­migration
during the early 90's, as did the Mountain. Unlike the
early 90's when in-migration contributed so much to overall
growth in the Mountain, the region experienced close to equal
amounts of in- and out-migration during the 1980's, thus total
population growth was wholly attributable to natural increase.
The geographical pattern of net migration changed ··
dramatically between the 1980's and 1990's, and confirms that
growth in the region became much more widespread (Figures 3 and
4). Growth-was highly concentrated in the region's three
southwestern states (Arizona, California, and Nevada) during the
1980's, with additional concentrations around the Puget Sound and
in the Rio Grande Valley. High amenity areas show up as major
migration destinations, for instance the area surrounding
Yellowstone National Park, Washington County (a booming
retirement area in southwestern Utah), and Idaho's Panhandle.
However, almost all the northern Great Plains sections of the
Mountain Division, along with vast stretches within the Rocky
Mountains themselves, experienced higher out- than in-migration
during this period.
In contrast, net in-migration spread to almost all sections
of the Mountain Division during 1990-92, including much of the
Great Plains (although northeast Montana and eastern Colorado
continued to lose population through migration) . The Northwest
in particular, including the Rocky Mountain sections of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming, appear to have added greatly to t~rritory
that was already attracting in-migrants. Northwestern Colorado,
which experienced a major downturn in its mining industry during
the 1980's, had renewed in-migration during the early 1990's. A
large number of nonmetro counties throughout the Mountain
switched from net loss to net gain as a result of changing
migration patterns.
Net migration by type of county
Despite an economically significant elderly component among
migrants to the West and their major impact in specific locales,
young people make up the bulk of migrants. New migrants coming
into the region are primarily motivated by economic concerns,
although surveys have shown that dissatisfaction with a previous
(usually metro) residence and the attraction of natural amenities
are significant factors as well, particularly for this part of
the country. Whether any specific area of the West attracts in­migrants
depends in large degree on the economic base and level
of natural amenities. As Table 4 indicates, areas dominated by
agriculture, mining, or manufacturing lost a much larger
percentage of their population during the 1980's than other areas
with a more balanced economic mix, as high as 12 percent for
mining-dependent counties. All three types of counties returned
to net in-migration during the early 1990's, although at levels
below the rest of the division. Counties that contain a higher­than-
average number of government service jobs (often with large
proportions of Federally owned land) do not exhibit the strong
cyclical patterns of the other groups, but rather have been
gaining population through net in-migration steadily throughout
the last two decades.
Two other types of nonmetro counties exhibit vastly
different patterns of net in-migration. On the one hand, the
Mountain Division is the home of a booming retirement population
attracted by the climate, the recreation opportunities, and the
variety of natural and cultural amenities. The high total in­migration
rates for nonmetro retirement counties is not
surprising since the category itself is based on the amount of
in-migration among those aged 60 or older. Where retirees move,
younger migrants follow, taking advantage of the usually fast­growing
retirement-related, service economy, including high
paying jobs in health-related industries.
On the other hand, vast expanses of virtually uninhabited,
"frontier" territory lend to the Mountain Division one of its
most distinctive qualities (Figure 2). These areas sustain a
very small number of people, typically engaged in ranching,
mining, retail trade, or other services; their numbers declined
through net migration during the 1980's but stabilized more or
less during the 1990's. Some of these areas have been recently
"discovered" by outsiders and have begun to experience a boom in
construction of second homes or retirement communities. Other
frontier counties remain at the "bare minimum" as described by
author Dayton Duncan, with slim chances for either-continued
population decline or future growth.
Economic Changes
In recent years the Mountain Division has been characterized
by a rapidly growing private service sector (up from 20 to 30
percent of metro earnings, 1979 to 1991), a steady manufacturing
base (15 percent of metro earnings, 10 percent of nonmetro
earnings since 1969), and severe fluctuations in agriculture and
mining, which disproportionately affect nonmetro economies
(Figures 5-7) . The service sector includes a vast range of
consumer and producer services, everything from laundromats and
hotels to advertising, engineering, and legal services. Much
evidence indicates that nonmetro areas in the West are beginning
to benefit from the location of high-paying, producer services,
such as the large engineering firm that designs power plants,
located (because the CEO is an avid skier) in Hailey, Idaho.
High-end producer services such as engineering, accounting, and
legal services, that were once the exclusive property of
metropolitan areas are now increasingly "footloose", free to join
the already strong deconcentration of lower-end "back-office"
jobs out of the big city.
What distinguishes the West economically is its long­standing
dependence on extractive industries. Agriculture is
relatively more important as a base source of income and
employment in the Pacific, though important agricultural areas
are found throughout the Mountain, notably in Idaho and Arizona.
Mountain agriculture experienced a severe downturn from 1975-82,
but since has maintained and even slightly increased its share of
earnings.
Along with Appalachia, the Mountain Division has the
country's greatest concentration of mining activity, providing
relatively high-paying jobs directly and contributing indirectly
to job growth through the income those jobs generate. However,
the West has had to adjust to a major boom-and-bust cycle in
mining industries during the 1970's and 1980's. Between 1969 and
1981 jobs in mining more than doubled but almost all of these
gains were lost between 1981 and 1991 (Figure 8) . Especially
hard hit were the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico,
with Arizona and Utah not far behind. An array of market factors
(industrial recession, falling international prices, cutbacks in
the nuclear power industry, the end of the Cold War) combined to
cause mining cutbacks in oil, uranium, copper, lead, zinc, and
others; only Nevada showed any significant increase in mining
employment during the late 1980's, thanks to the opening of
several gold mines in response to favorable prices.
For the Division as a whole, mining plays a minor role as
measured by share of jobs, around 1 percent in metro areas and 4
percent in nonmetro areas (Figures 9-11). However, two factors
make the adjustment to fluctuations in mining more difficult.
First, mining like manufacturing produces more earnings per job,
thus cutbacks and plant closings effect income levels and ripple
through the rest of the economy more so than the same job losses
in other sectors would. Mining produced almost tw~ce the share
of earnings than employment in nonmetro Mountain counties in 1991
(Figure 11) . .
Second, mining jobs are more concentrated geographically
than jobs in other industrial sectors. Over 52 counties in the
Mountain have been classified as mining-dependent; in contrast,
only 17 counties have a strong reliance on manufacturing (Table
4). There is a greater tendency for areas dominated by mining to
be less suitable for alternative economic activity. Places such
as Cibola Co., New Mexico and Grand Co., Utah, where uranium was
extracted; or Lake Co., Colorado, where molybdenum operations
have shut down; or Moffat Co., Colorado, where shale oil work
dominated for a short period; or many areas in Wyoming, where oil
and gas drilling has come and gone. Many of these areas now look
to tourism as an alternative to a greatly reduced mining economy.
Conclusions
The Mountain region is a land of contrast. Rapidly growing
cities and amenity areas (attracting retirees and young alike)
are separated by vast tracts of lightly inhabited territory.
Rapid changes are taking place, more so than in many other parts
of the Nation. Rapid in-migration is fueling a strong shift to
private, service-based industries, both consumer and producer;
agriculture and mining are still important in several sub­regions,
but mining has not begun to gain back it's peak levels
of employment seen in the early 1980's.
Environmental issues (especially water supply, water and air
quality, carrying capacity) have long been issues of concern in
and around the region's large cities. We now may be entering a
period of sustained population growth in areas that are
environmentally sensitive, lack the carrying capacity of areas
settled in the past, and are valued for their pristine condition.
Current trends point to an increased concern for the effect of
rapid population growth in nonmetro areas throughout the West.
Table 1. Population (in thousands) by Residence, u.s. and West1 Region by Division, 1992
Area
u.s.
Number
Percent
Mountain
Number
Percent
Pacific
Number
Percent
Total
255,078
100
14,379
100
39,010
100
Residence
Nonmetro
203,262 51,815
79 21
10,155 4, 225
71 29
36,226 2,784
93 7
Produced by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA, (202) 219-0534.
Source: Components-of-Change files, 1980-90 and 1990-92, Bureau of the Census.
1Excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
'Metro areas defined as of June, 1993.
Table 2. Population Change by Residence, U.S. and West1 Region by Division, 1980-90 and
1990-92.
Residence
--------------------------
Area Total Metrd~ Nonmetro
u.s.
1980-90
1990-92
Mountain
1980-90
1990-92
Pacific
1980-90
1990-92
Number
(1,000s)
22,168
6,368
2,287
721
7,036
1,541
Percent
9.8
2.6
20.1
5.3
23.1
4.1
Number Percent Number
(1, OOOs) (1; OOOs)
19,906 1l.. 6 2,261
5,450 2.8 917
1,779 25.0 508
550 5.7 171
6,598 23.9 437
1,406 4.0 135
Produced by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA, (202) 219-0534.
Source: Components-of-Change files, 1980-90 and 1990-92, Bureau of the Census.
1Excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
'Metro areas defined as of June, 1993.
Percent
4.2
l..8
1l..9
4.2
15.7
5.1
Table 3. Population Change due to Net Migration by Residence, u.s. and West' Region by
Division, 1980-90 and 1990-92.
Residence --------------------------
Area Total Metro2 Nonmetro
u.s.
1980-90
1990-92
Mountain
1980-90
1990-92
Pacific
1980-90
1990-92
Number
(1, OOOs)
5,206
1,925
831
395
3,759
511
Percent
2.3
0.8
7.3
2.9
12.4
1.4
Number
(1, OOOs)
5,991
1,529
835
305
3,532
412
Percent Number
(1, OOOs)
3.5 -785
0.8 396
11. 8 -4
3.2 90
12.8 227
1.2 100
Produced by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA, (202} 219-0534.
Source: Components-of-Change files, 1980-90 and 1990-92, Bureau of the Census.
'Excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
'Metro areas defined as of June, 1993.
Percent
-1.4
0.8
-0.1
2.2
8.1
3.8
Table 4. Nonmetropolitan population change due to net migration by type of county,
Mountain Division, 1980-90 and 1990-92.
Percentage Change from net migration
Type of county
Number of
counties
All nonmetro counties 257
Farming-dependent 69
Mining-dependent 52
Manufacturing-dependent 17
Government-dependent 66
Retirement 50
Frontier 79
1980-90 1990-92
-0.1 2.2
-8.7 0.3
-12.0 l..3
-10.6 l..6
2.5 2.1
11.8 3.0
-7.9 -0.6
Farming-dependent: 20 percent or more of total labor and proprietor income in farming, 1975-79.
Mining-dependent: 20 percent or more of total labor and proprietor income in mining, 1979 ..
Manufacturing-dependent: 30 percent or more of total labor and proprietor income in manufacturing, 1979.
Government-dependent: 25 percent or more of total labor and proprietor income in government services, 1979.
Retirement: Net inmigration rates for persons aged 60 and over 15 percent or higher, 1970-80.
Frontier: Less than 2 person per square mile, 1990.
Produced by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA, (202) 219-0534.
D Nonmctro
Metro
Figure 1 ==================::::;-]
Metropolitan counties, 1990
Metropolitan oreos defined os of June, 1993, bosed on 1990 census
Prepared by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA
WEST01
~~==============Fi~e2==================~
Nonmetropolitan "frontier" counties, 1990
(less than 2 persons per square mile)
Type of county:
Frontier
Other nonmetro
!"*l.!i~;J;!i D Metro
Source: Dayton Duncan, Miles From Nowhere. New York: Penquin, 1993.
Prepared by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA.
WEST02
~===============FiWlle3==================~
Population change due to net migration, 1980-90
Percentage change:
[ill] Decline
Growth below regional average
Growth above regional average
----~---·----·---·--.-·..----·----·---·----·.---·--..·- ----------------.--- -----------.-------.---------------.---. -----­--
----------------------..--.-- ---.---------.-------.--.-- ----.-..-.. -.- -.- ---------..-.- -----.--.----------------.-.-.- --. -----.--
Source: 1980-90 components-of-change file, Bureau of the Census
Prepared by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA
WEST03
r;:::::================ Figure 4 ==================::::::;-
Population change due to net migration, 1990-92
Percentage change:
n~ D ecl ine
Growth below regional average
Growth above regional average
Source: 1990-92 components-of-change file, Bureau of the Census
Metropolitan areas defined as of June, 1993, based on 1990 census
Prepared by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA
WEST04
Percent
Figure 5
Western States*
Annual share of total earnings in
selected sectors
30.-------------------------------------------~----~
2 5 !-------------------------··-·-----------··---------------------------------------·-·--------·--------·- ... ---------------------------1
20 f----- -~- ------------- --------------------------------~
7
_____________ . ----------------* ---;~--~---- -~, -----·- ~- ------------------- * --- 15 ~ ..,~--- * '" ~( ~( ~( 'J( '"·---------·--·
1 0 1--- -- ------------------------------ -------------------------------- ----------···-- . --------------------- ---------··· --·· ·-
5 F-~-~;==~- ~: :· -=:=-----1------s-----;- -~- ---~---~----1
oL-~-L~~~~~-L~--~~~~--L-~_L~--~~~~~~
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Year
, ~ Agriculture
-a- Services
-+- Mining
----*""""" Government
•Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
--*- Manufacturing
•
Percent
Figure 6
VVestern States*
Annual share of metro earnings in
selected sectors
35,--------------------------------------------------,
30 ~
- -----
'
---------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------·-·-
-)( )( )( )( )(-)( )( )( )( )( )(
15~ *( -*- ~( * ----~(- ~( -----r----~c---- ~c ~(--- *----* -* · * _'* __ -*----*·--·-::rc----~r-----lic ---i
1 0 1------------------------------------------·--··--·----··-·-------------------------·--·------------ - ---- ·---·-··- ·····-·-·-----------------· ····-. ----- .. ---
: r---i----~---~---~-::---=-:--:-----~-------~----:----;----~-----:===:-- -: -~- ----;-------~-----~-----~ ---,- ---1
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981
Year
I~ Agriculture -1-- Mining
-a- Services ---*- Government
•Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
---:+:-- Manufacturing
Figure 7
Western States*
Annual share of nonmetro earnings in
selected sectors
25.·P ~e~rc~e~n~t--------------------------------------------------------~
20 ---------------- ----·---------------· -------------·---- -·-----··-------·--···--·--·-·~ ........ --·--·-·--------------··
1 5 1:::::::=.:.::: r-·
1 of=--*·---*·--*-;---~~- .1 ~ ~-;-··- ~ t--- ~( * * * *-----+
5 r--···············-------------·--··-----·-·········· ··----·-·--·-~ ····--··-----~
oL_~_L~~L_~~-L~--L-~_L~--L-~_L~--L-~-L~~~
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Year
,~ Agriculture
--a-- Services
-+- Mining
---*- Government
•Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
-+- Manufacturing
•
....... 1\.) w ~ 01~ 0· 0 (J) 0 0 0 Ofil (0 ~
.........
~
.~....
......... VJ ~
(t)
......... 00
(11
......... ~ .........
0"
.........
(t)
1-1
(0 0
~
c-.
00
~
g. ~
0 c:ll 00 < 0 s·
VJ !: 00
(11 (JQ
"
00 \'"'0""
......... 0\
\0
I
00 \0
(0 .w
(0
~
(0
VJ
Figure 9
Western States*
Share of total earnings and jobs in
1-digit sectors, 1991
Percent
35.--------------------------------------------------.
3 0 f---------------------·--·------------------------·----------------------------------·-·--------------- -=-----------·-··---------1
2 5 r--------------···--··--·-----------------------·--------------------------------------------···-··---·----------------·---------·
20,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 5 f.--------------·-----------------------------------------------------------------·
1 0 f--------------------------
5 1------------------'
0
Agri. Mining Constr. Manuf. TCPU Whole. Retail FIRE Services Govt.
Sector
-Earnings -Jobs
•Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
. . ~"
Figure 10
Western States*
Share of metro earnings and jobs in
1-digit sectors, 1991
Percent
35.-------------------------------------------------,
30r-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------,
2 5 ------------
·---·"·----- ... -·-----------···-... ·-·-··-·--·--------·-····-----·------ ---------·--·-
2 0 r------ ----------
1 5 ---------------·--·-----··--·-------------------- ---- -- -- --- ----
10 t----------------------------
5 r---- -------
0
Agri. Mining Constr. Manuf. TCPU Whole. Retail FIRE Services Govt.
Sector
- Earnings - Jobs
•Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
1. ~ > ·"
Figure·ll
Western States*
Share of nonmetro earnings and jobs in
1-digit sectors, 1991
Percent
25~-----------------------------------------==-----,
2 0 r-----------------· -----------------·---------·---·-·-·-·--·-··---·--·-----------------------·
1 5 r----------------------------------------------------·-·-·--·--------·------
1 0 f----------------------_________ " ___ _
5
0
Agri. Mining Constr. Manuf. TCPU Whole. Retail FIRE Services Govt.
Sector
-Earnings -Jobs
•Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
••• ' li..,
Appendix 1
Population Change and Net Migration in the West, 1980-90. 1
Population (1, OOOs) ------------------------------- Net
Change, Migration
Area 1990 1980 1980-90 (1,000s)
United States 248,709.9 226,542.2 22,167.7 5,205.9
Metro2 192,023.2 172,117.2 19,906.0 5,991.3
Nonmetro 56,686.7 54,425.0 2,201:7 ·· -785".4
The West' 51,127.8 41,804.8 9,323.0 4,589.3
Metro 43,119.9 34,742.6 8,377.3 4,366.9
Nonmetro 8,007.9 7,062.2 945.8 222.4
Mountain Division 13,658.8 11,371.5 2,287.3 830.7
Metro 8,881.5 7,102.4 1,779.0 835.2
Nonmetro 4,777.3 4,269.1 508.3 -4.5
Arizona 3,665.2 2, 716.5 948.7 610.3
Metro 2,789.0 2,040.6 748.4 502.6
Nonmetro 876.2 675.9 200.3 107.7
Colorado 3,294.4 2,889.7 404.7 71.0
Metro 2,686.3 2,326.5 359.9 77.4
Nonmetro 608.1 563.3 44.8 -6.4
Idaho 1,006.7 944.1 62.6 -41.8
Metro 205.8 173.1 32.7 13.2
Nonmetro 801.0 771.0 30.0 -55.0
Montana 799.1 786.7 12.4 -53.1
Metro 191.1 188.7 2.4 -16.2
Nonmetro 608.0 598.0 10.0 -36.9
Nevada 1, 201.8 800.5 401.3 314.6
Metro 996.1 656.7 339.4 266.7
Nonrnetro 205.7 143.8 61.9 47.9
New Mexico 1,515.1 1,303.3 211.8 36.4
Metro 616.1 516.6 99.5 33.4
Nonmetro 899.0 786.7 112.3 3.1
Utah 1,722.9 1 461.0 261.8 -31.7
Metro 1,335.8 1,128.3 207.5 -22.3
Nonmetro 387.0 332.7 54.3 -9.4
Wyoming 453.6 469.6 -16.0 -75.1
Metro 61.2 71.9 -10.6 -19.6
Nonmetro 392.4 397.7 -5.3 -55.5
Pacific Division 37,469.0 30,433.3 7,035.8 3,758.6
Metro 34,238.4 27,640.1 6,598.3 3,531.7
Nonmetro 3,230.6 2,793.1 437.5 226.9
California 29,760.0 23,667.8 6,092.3 3,352.0
Metro 28,315.1 22,554.4 5,760.7 3,127.7
Nonmetro 1,445.0 1,113.4 331.6 224.4
Oregon 2,842.3 2,633.2 209.2 37.0
Metro 1,947.2 1,763.3 183.8 61.6
Nonmetro 895.2 869.8 25.3 -24.6
Washington 4,866.7 4,132.4 734.3 369.6
Metro 3,976.2 3,322.4 653.7 342.4
Nonmetro 890.5 809.9 80.6 27.2
1Produced by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA, (202) 219-0534.
Source: 1980-90 Components-of-Change File, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
2Metiopolitan status as of June, 1983.
3Excluding Alaska and Haw~ii.
"'
..
·Percent Change
--~--------------
From Net
Total Migration
9.8 2.3
11.6 3.5
4.2 -1.4
22.3 11.0
2.4 .1 12.6
13.4 3.1
20.1 7.3
25.0 11.8
11.9 -0.1
34.9 22.5
36.7 24.6
29.6 15.9
1-4.0 2.5
15.5 3.3
8.0 -1.1
6.6 -4.4
18.9 7.6
3.9 -7.1
1.6 -6.7
1.3 -8.6
1.7 -6.2
50.1 39.3
51.7 40.6
43.1 33.3
16.2 2.8
19.3 6.5
14.3 0.4
17.9 -2.2
18.4 -2.0
16.3 -2.8
-3.4 -16.0
-14.8 -27.3
-1.3 -14.0
23.1 12.4
23.9 12.8
15.7 8.1
25.7 14.2
25.5 13.9
29.8 20.2
7.9 1.4
10.4 3.5
2.9 -2.8
J.:7 • 8 8.9
19.7 10.3
10.0 3.4
'STf.0'-1"'1
~ Appendix 2
i'
Population Change and Net Migration in the West, 1990-92. 1
Population (1, OOOs) Percent Change ------------------------------- Net -----------------
1992 Change, Migration From Net
Area (Estimate) 1990 1990-92 (1, OOOs) Total Migration
United States 255,078 248,710 6,368 1,925 2.6 0.8
Metro2 203,262 197,812 5,450 1,529 2.8 0.8
Nonmetro 51,815 50,898 -9-17 396 1.8 0.8
The West3 53,389 51,128 2,261 906 4.4 1.8
Metro 46,381 44,425 1,956 716 4.4 1.6
Nonmetro 7,009 6,703 305 190 4.6 2.8
Mountain 14,379 13,659 721 395 5.3 2.9
Metro 10,155 9,605 550 305 5.7 3.2
Nonmetro 4,225 4,054 171 90 4.2 2.2
Arizona 3,832 3,665 167 80 4.6 2.2
Metro 3,244 3,106 138 65 4.5 2.1
Nonmetro 588 559 29 15 5.1 2.6
Colorado 3,465 3,294 170 98 5.2 3.0
Metro 2,832 2,686 146 82 5.4 3.1
Nonmetro 632 608 24 16 4.0 2.7
Idaho 1,066 1,007 59 38 5.9 3.8
Metro 320 296 24 17 8.0 5.7
Nonmetro 746 711 35 21 5.0 3.0
Montana 822 799 23 13 2.9 1.6
Metro 197 191 6 3 3.3 1.6
Nonmetro 625 608 17 10 2.8 1.6
Nevada 1,336' 1, 202 135 107 11.2 8.9
Metro 1,134 1,014 120 95 11.8 9.4
Nonmetro 203 188 15 11 7.9 6.1
New Mexico 1,582 1,515 67 29 4.4 1.9
Metro 886 842 45 24 5.3 2.8
Nonmetro 696 673 22 5 3.3 0.8
Utah 1,811 1,723 88 27 5.1 1.6
Metro 1,403 1,336 67 18 5.0 1.3
Nonrnetro 408 387 21 9 5.4 2.4
Wyoming 465 454 11 3 2.5 0.6
Metro 138 134 4 1 2.7 0.7
Nonmetro 327 319 7 2 2.3 0.6
Pacific 39,010 37,469 1,541 511 4.1 1.4
Metro 36,226 34,820 1,406 412 4.0 1.2
Nonmetro 2,784 2,649 135 100 5.1 3.8
California 30,895 29,760 1,135 242 3.8 0.8
Metro 29,875 28,799 1,076 199 3.7 0.7
Nonmetro 1, 021 961 59 43 6.2 4.5
Oregon 2,972 2,842 129 90 4.5 3.2
Metro 2,081 1,985 97 65 4.9 3.3
Nonmetro 890 858 33 24 3.8 2.8
Washington 5,143 4,867 276 179 5.7 3.7
Metro 4,270 4,036 234 148 5.8 3.7
Nonmetro 873 830 42 32 5.1 3.8
1Produced by John Cromartie, Economic Research Service, USDA, (202) 219-0534.
Source: 1990-92 Population Estimate~ File, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
2Metropolitan status as of June, 1~3.
3Excluding Alaska and Hawaii.