> One US state may be split into “counties”, to which certain powers are devolved, and another into “townships”, to which different powers are devolved, but each state has the same powers devolved to it by the federal government, and each subunit has the same powers devolved to it by the state. Having both “counties” and “townships” as first-level subunits of the same state would be a recipe for confusion, as it is with Unitary Authorities, Counties and Combined Authorities in the UK.

Sorry for being nitpicky, but local governance in the United States is nowhere as streamlined as you seem to imagine it to be. I would argue that the UK system if far more legible.

Generally states will have up to three levels of *general* local government called:

1. Counties (Called Boroughs in Alaska and Parishes in Louisiana)

2. Intermediate Level: Towns/Township

3. Municipalities: Cities/Towns/Townships/Villages

Note that in some states “town/township” is the intermediate level while in others it is the municipal level. Many states only have two levels having abolished or never had an intermediate level. Some of the New England states are so small they have abolished county governments, only having them as geographic labels, and functionally have only the municipal level.

First, we have consolidated municipalities-counties, much like combined authorities in the UK. For example, San Francisco is a city-county and New York City is made up of 5 counties! However, these are relatively rare. There’s only about two dozen consolidated city-counties (and most of these are only partially consolidated) in the US compared to over 50 unitary authorities in England.

Second, we have the issue of unincorporated territory which does not exist in the UK. While every state has all of its territory divided into counties, many states only divide some of the entire territory into the intermediate and municipal levels. For example in California (which only has counties and municipalities) Mr. A can live in the City of Los Angeles which is in Los Angeles County while Mr. B a few miles away lives in Unincorporated Los Angeles County. The County provides some services to all residents regardless if they live in a city or unincorporated area (for example courts and indigent health care), while other services are provided by the County only to people who live in the unincorporated area (for example policing and road maintenance) while the City is responsible for those services in incorporated areas. Both individuals have the same vote for the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, while only the resident of the City of Los Angeles votes for the Los Angeles City Council. The same may occur in a state that has all three levels. For example in New York State, the entirety of the territory is divided into counties and intermediate-level towns, but some areas are also in municipal-level cities/villages while others are not.

Third, in some states the powers and responsibilities that an intermediate- or municipal-level local government has vis-a-vis the other levels will vary based on its charter. For example, in New York State a village has fewer responsibilities and powers than a city even though they fall at the same level.

Fourth, even within the same state the same type of local government may not have the same governance strucutre of elected officials. Some have have a council-manager system where the chief executive is a professional manager is appointed by the elected council. Others have a council-mayor/executive system where the council and mayor/executive are separately elected with vetoes over each other. There are of course hybrids and variations of both types. It is also common for local governments to elect additional officers such as the clerk, treasurer, assessor, controller, tax collector, recorder of wills, superintendent of schools, sherriff, public prosecutor, and coroner. Which additional officers are elected by which local government can vary within the same state.

Fifth, we have special districts which are single purpose governments with elected boards ranging from school districts (the most common type) to fire districts, police districts, health districts, bus districts, regional rail districts, water districts, air quality districts, cemetery districts, library districts, waste management districts, electricity districts, flood control districts, irrigation districts, and so on. The closest thing I can think of in the UK is the elected police and crime commissioner for each police area. Depending on the type, the entire state might be divided into special districts of that type (common for school districts) while other types only exist in some areas. Many special districts provide services that could otherwise be provided by a county or municipality in another community in the same state. For example you might get your fire protection services from the county, a city, or a special district depending on where you live in the same state. In California, which heavily relies on special districts, there are 50 types of special districts and over 4,000 individual districts compared to about 500 municipalities (here is a [fun map](https://mydashgis.com/CSDA/map) of all of the non-school ones).

Sixth, we have out of control municipal fragmentation in many states where the boundaries of local governments are historical artifacts that have no relation to the current community geographies and economies of where people live and work. This is Los Angeles from [space](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA02679) while this is a [map of the 88 separate cities](http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1043452_BasicColorMap.pdf) which govern the area. Municipal fragmentation is prevalent because many states require that any boundary changes be approved by a referendum of the affected areas. Local politicians are reluctant to give up power so they campaign against mergers, and residents of wealthier neighborhood will oppose joining a bigger city so their tax revenue does not go to subsidize the central city. The same thing applies with special districts, which just adds several more layers to the fragmentation. This does not seem to be a major issue in the UK, since the national government seems to re-rationalize the boundaries every few decades.

Lastly, we have metropolitan or regional authorities (frequently called “councils of government”) similar to the combined authorities in the UK. These are also relatively rare. Not every state has them, and in the states that do only some areas are covered. Even within the same state, each of the regional authorities frequently doesn’t even operate under the same legal framework! The regional authority in one part of the same state may have actual powers and directly elected members while in another part it’s just an advisory body with delegates from the constituent counties/cities.