Communicating Revenuesheds: A User Guide

Transcription

1 Communicating Revenuesheds: A User Guide Slides with Talking Points August 2012 Environmental Finance Center Knapp-Sanders Building, CB# 3330 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC Tel: (919) Fax: (919)

2 Introduction The Revenueshed User Guide is a tool for educators, civic leaders, land trusts, and other stakeholders in watershed protection to introduce the revenueshed concept to their communities. What is a revenueshed? We define a revenueshed as the geographic area within which revenue is generated for a specific purpose. Here, a revenueshed describes the area within which revenue is generated for watershed protection. What are the advantages of the revenueshed analysis framework? Jurisdictional boundaries were developed to meet social, economic, and/or political needs. Historically, they have not been designed to meet watershed needs. As a result, jurisdictional boundaries (sources of revenue for watershed protection) often do not match watershed boundaries. This leads to: Multiple jurisdictions being responsible for financing watershed protection in a single watershed. The result is often a free-rider problem whereby all jurisdictions want the benefit of clean water but nobody wants to pay for it. Pooling revenue from these communities for efforts that exceed their jurisdictional boundaries is difficult. The consequence is that water quality is not directly addressed until it approaches a crisis point where action is necessary. Single jurisdictions become responsible for watershed protection in multiple watersheds. The chief question facing communities is: since water quality and quantity are affected by decisions made upstream, who is responsible for ensuring the quality and quantity of water available for downstream users? The upstream impacting jurisdictions, the downstream benefitting jurisdictions, or both? And, from what revenue streams should jurisdiction draw to fund watershed protection efforts. A revenueshed conceptual model provides a basis for generating discussion amongst watershed actors, interactive decision making, and modeling financing options. August 1, 2011 The Environmental Finance Center ( at the University of North Carolina developed this guide for the Conservation Trust for North Carolina s through a grant from the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Contributors to this curriculum include: Jeff Hughes, Glenn Barnes, Mary Tiger, Christine Boyle, Lauren Patterson, Jordan McMillen, Jon Breece, and Erin Weeks.

3 Using this document This document is an overview of the concepts and content presented in the Curriculum Package. Included in the footnotes of each page is the file name of the presentation from where the slides displayed were taken. Please consult the Curriculum Outline- document for more information about individual presentations including information on when presentation was delivered. Chapter REVENUESHED OVERVIEW CASE STUDY: MILLS RIVER WATERSHED CASE STUDY: UPPER NEUSE RIVER BASIN Storyline Storyline 1: Who pays? Storyline 2: Two main municipal withdrawers ( benefactors ) from watershed and a small number of in-watershed impactors Storyline 3: Complex interaction between communities in growing Triangle region with high stakes In each storyline we will consider: 1. What revenue streams exist that could fund watershed protection? 2. How should the funding burden be divided between communities?

4 Storyline 1: Who pays? REVENUESHED OVERVIEW

5 Who pays? QUESTION: How to create a multi-partner effort to finance watershed protection efforts that is: Sustainable And, justly shares the burden Many factors contribute to a complex political landscape in identifying who pays for protection efforts Overlapping jurisdictions Differing stakeholder opinions on best courses of action The type of financing option is a complex decision: Collect impact fees from all residents or only new build? Water charges on bills of downstream consumers? If a government employs a property tax option, how would tax-exempt properties contribute to protection efforts? Takeaway: Creating a workable solutions requires a blending of financing tools and a sharing of financing burden From: 1b_OVERVIEW_Revenuesheds_Flow_of_Funds.pdf, 7c_CASE_STUDY_Mills_River_with_Financing_Scenarios.pdf

6 Finding Funding: Revenuesheds (1 of 2) After deciding to fund watershed protection efforts (e.g., stormwater control, land acquisition, BMP installation), a chief question for communities: Who pays? Suppliers (impactors)? Jurisdictions/residents who live in water supply basin Rationale #1: Communities upstream of water system intakes impact water quality through land use practices and quality of stormwater controls Rationale #2: Upstream communities are legally obligated to control run-off HOWEVER these communities often are small and rural and unable to bear the entire burden of maintaining water quality Consumers (benefactors)? Consumers of utilities that draw from watershed Rationale: These communities/consumers benefit from clean water. The availability of clean water allows these communities to attract new businesses and residents Takeaway: Suppliers and Consumers must share the financially burden of enhancing water quality protection efforts that federal and state agencies mandate From: 8a_OVERVIEW_Revenuesheds_ pdf

7 Finding Funding: Revenuesheds (2 of 2) Where does the money come from: Taxes Loans Bonds User fees Assessments Impact fees Grants Trade-offs to each mechanism Takeaway: Financing option is another decision point for concerned communities and the type of option selected will impact the strength of ongoing funding for efforts From: 8a_OVERVIEW_Revenuesheds_ pdf

8 Stormwater Finance (1 of 2) Many factors can influence a locality s decision to implement a stormwater fee Stormwater fees are becoming more popular in North Carolina Methods of calculation differ and create different burdens NC Stormwater Utility Dashboard URL: From: 2_Revenue_Options.pdf

9 Stormwater Finance (2 of 2) The decision to fund a stormwater program through property taxes or fees impacts the size of the burden on residential, industrial, and non-profit groups.

10 A Question of Boundaries: Jeff s House Boundaries/layers shown (clockwise from upper right) Water features within 20 miles of Jeff s house in Durham, North Carolina River basins Jeff s house is in the Cape Fear Basin Most of region in Neuse Basin Six counties divide the region shown Person, Orange, Durham, Granville, Chatham, Wake City of Durham municipal boundaries Durham Public water supply boundary Durham Wastewater utility boundary Takeaway: Different governments/authorities/utilities have different concerns and powers. Coordination is complex. From: 1a_OVERVIEW_Revenuesheds.pdf

11 Example: Regulatory Boundaries in the Neuse River Basin Across the state, the density of local governments varies by river basin Within the Neuse River Basin there is a complex quilt of water, stormwater and wastewater utilities Takeaway: Watershed-wide collective action is difficult because: Regulatory requirements may impact jurisdictions differently Economic stress may impact communities willingness to accept higher fees and/or taxes The blame game From: 1a_OVERVIEW_Revenusheds.pdf

12 Dashboard A dashboard is a graphical information system with a user interface that is designed to be easy to read. Dashboards are designed to be interactive to allow user to easily develop scenarios and visualize performance metrics (e.g. meeting target goal, changes in rates, source of revenue). The visualization and ease of entering data into the dashboard make it an ideal way to engage with, and interactively communicate with your target audience. The underneath the dashboard customized for a utility or potential regional partnership are data on individual utilities rates. Every year, the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) and the North Carolina League of Municipalities (NCLM) collect rate schedules from hundreds of local government and notfor-profit utilities across the state. The sampled utilities serve over 95 percent of all customers who are served by public owned utilities in North Carolina. The rate schedules are used to determine what residential and commercial customers of these utilities are billed for their water, irrigation and wastewater service, at various consumption levels. North Carolina Water & Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures (Reports and Tables, Interactive Dashboards, Individual Utilities Rate Sheets) URL: From: 8a_OVERVIEW_Revenuesheds_ pdf

13 Storyline 2: Two main municipal withdrawers ( benefactors ) from watershed and small number of impactors CASE STUDY: MILLS RIVER WATERSHED

14 Overview (1 of 2) Mills Rivers has a history of not meeting water quality standards but also a history of partnership in watershed protection The EFC assisted watershed stakeholders in developing potential financing solutions EFC Mills River Project: Southeastern Regional Water Quality Assistance Network (SERWQAN) EFC Case Study: From: 7a_CASE_STUDY_Mills_River_UNRB.pdf

15 Overview (2 of 2) QUESTION: What are potential streams of revenue that could be used to fund watershed protection efforts? The main withdrawers from the watershed are: Asheville Hendersonville Many potential sources of revenue: County governments Municipal governments Water utilities Wastewater utilities Stormwater utilities From: 7a_CASE_STUDY_Mills_River_UNRB.pdf

16 Water, Stormwater, Wastewater Utilities QUESTION: How should the funding burden be divided between communities? Multiple utilities withdraw water from the Mills River watershed Boundaries of several water utilities and wastewater utilities overlap Previous partnership to restore water quality funded by outside monies ( From: 7a_CASE_STUDY_Mills_River_UNRB.pdf

17 Financing Options Dashboards can be used to develop models for financing: A one-time project with a known cost A dedicated funding stream EFC-developed dashboards can: Vary base water and/or wastewater charge increases Percent of accounts in bill change Changes in annual water and/or wastewater use One-time and/or recurring cost share from another community or government function Changes in property tax EFC Dashboard Capacity for Watershed Protection Investment From: 7c_CASE_STUDY_Mills_River_with_Financing_Scenarios.pdf

18 Dashboard generated scenarios The back-end of a dashboard is a database of financial information about the communities of interest An user can manipulate rates, fees, and model assumptions (e.g., population growth, changes in water usage) to create scenarios Conclusion: Data analysis and modeling are key in understanding how minor adjustments in rates can generate substantial and sustainable funding for water quality restoration efforts Stakeholders must investigate all potential sources of revenue and tailor a financing mechanism that best fits the political and financial environment of the area

19 Storyline 3: Complex interaction between communities in growing Triangle region with high stakes CASE STUDY: UPPER NEUSE RIVER BASIN

20 Overview (1 of 2) QUESTION: How to create a multi-partner effort to finance watershed protection efforts in this political complex environment? The Upper Neuse River Basin (UNRB) includes Falls Lakes, Lake Michie, Little River Reservoir, Lake Orange, Hillsborough Reservoir, Lake Rogers and Lake Holt. The UNRB is the water source for the: Raleigh Durham Hillsborough From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

21 Overview (2 of 2) The 770-square mile region includes all or part of 13 separate political jurisdictions. Most of the UNRB is rural. Only Hillsborough, Stem, and Butner are completely within the watershed. Approximately 58% of the watershed is forested, 18% is agricultural and 11% is developed. The majority of the City of Durham is outside the UNRB and only 1% of the City of Raleigh is inside the basin but these communities withdraw the most water from the watershed Jurisdictions total area inside of UNRB From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

22 Subwatersheds and Source Points QUESTION: How should the funding burden be divided between communities? The UNRB includes all or parts of six counties, eight municipalities, seven water utilities, seven wastewater utilities and two stormwater utilities. Jurisdictions located within the UNRB are termed impactors because their land use decisions directly impact water quality. Services provided by impactors are more directed toward deterring negative impacts to the watershed (such as wastewater and stormwater utilities). On the other hand, the role of the benefactors is more related to using a resource in the watershed (such as drinking water utilities). Jurisdictions located downstream of the UNRB that benefit from improved water supply quality are termed benefactors. Jurisdictions range on this continuum from the role of mostly impactor (e.g. Town of Roxboro) to mostly benefactor (e.g. City of Raleigh). The City of Durham is both an impactor and benefactor (its water supply source is located inside the UNRB). Again, all jurisdictions impact and benefit from watersheds. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

23 Raw Supply in UNRB The watershed for each reservoir is delineated. Shading darkens farther downstream. Arrows show flow direction and size reflects relative contribution. Reservoir size is relative to the raw water supply held in the reservoir (millions of gallons) The purpose of visualizing the water supply watershed for each reservoir is to understand that land use and water resource management decisions made upstream have a direct impact on both water quantity and quality in the reservoir. The above figures highlight the directional impact that land use and water resource decisions have on each respective water supply reservoir, as well as which jurisdictions are located upstream. For example, decisions made in the City of Roxboro will have an impact on water resources at Lake Michie and Falls Lake. Hillsborough, Durham, and Wake Forest are located downstream of all water supply reservoirs except Falls Lake (so they only impact the water quality in Falls Lake). Lake Orange, Hillsborough, Corporation Lake, Ben Johnston, Little River Reservoir, and Lake Holt do not have any municipalities located within their watershed, with only the counties in those reservoirs having the potential for influencing land-use decisions. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

24 UNRB Reservoirs The UNRB contains seven sub-watersheds draining into Falls Lake. There are seven water treatment plants (WTP) accessing nine reservoirs. Four of these plants are located within the Eno River watershed. Corporation Lake is the Reservoir for Orange-Alamance and the remaining three reservoirs are used to manage Hillsborough s water supply. Hillsborough draws directly from the Ben Johnston reservoir. The remaining sub-watersheds each contain a single WTP, except Ellerbe Creek which has no WTPs. Falls Lake is the most downstream reservoir and contains all of the upstream water supply watersheds. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

25 Utilities: Drinking Water UNRB Water Utilities: The UNRB intersects 7 water utilities, although the City of Roxboro does not use water from the UNRB and the City of Durham uses water from both the UNRB and the Cape Fear River Basin. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

26 Withdrawals by Utilities (1 of 2) Raleigh and Durham withdraw the most water from the watershed Raleigh has a permitted capacity of 86 MGD; Durham, 52 MGD SGWASA: 7.5 MGD Creedmoor: 0.46 MGD Orange-Alamance: 0.9 MGD Hillsborough: 3 MGD In 2007, Raleigh s average daily withdrawal was 51 MGD; Durham, 34.4 MGD SGWASA: 2.4 MGD Creedmoor: 0.3 MGD Orange-Alamance: 0.3 MGD Hillsborough: 1.14 MGD Most of the land in the watershed drains into Falls Lake, Raleigh s water supply From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

27 Withdrawals by Utility (2 of 2) The most recently available (2006 and 2009) local water supply plans (LWSP) for each water utility contain information regarding the raw water supply storage of the reservoir and the available raw water supply on a daily basis. In 2007, Raleigh and Durham were utilizing 76% and 93% of their daily available raw water supply from the UNRB (Durham has additional water supply from the Cape Fear River Basin). There is an increased risk for water scarcity as utilities approach an equivalent water demand to supply ratio. On May 12, 2010 Raleigh opened the Dempsey E. Benton WTP with a capacity of 20 MGD from Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler, and plans to expand the E.M. Johnson WTP capacity to withdrawal up to 120 MGD from Falls Lake. In addition to the Little River and Lake Michie reservoirs, the City of Durham has access to Teer Quarry, Jordan Lake, as well as emergency interconnection contracts with Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Chatham County, Cary, Orange-Alamance, and Hillsborough. Takeaway: Raleigh and Durham are the largest consumers of UNRB water. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

28 Growing demand (1 of 2) The population of the Triangle region continues to grow This growth will lead to greater stress on the region s water resources Population Growth in UNRB counties from 2000 to 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau) From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

29 Growing demand (2 of 2) Demand from the utilities that draw from the UNRB is projected to grow From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

30 Projected Supply and Demand, Durham The City of Durham has direct access to 37 MGD from Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir, in addition to 10 MGD of allocation space from Jordan Lake. The drought from 2007 and 2008 resulted in accelerated water supply capacity enhancement developments by the City of Durham that was not anticipated prior to the drought (Morrison 2011). The City of Durham developed Teer Quarry to add an additional 7 MGD to their water supply. Durham also accessed 2 of its 10 MGD allocation at Jordan Lake through an interconnection with the Town of Cary for a total available water supply of 46 MGD. It is assumed that Durham will gain access to all 10 MGD of Jordan Lake by The water demand for Durham is anticipated to increase by 45% from 2010 to 2050, and its 2010 projected demand is similar to the recorded average demand. In spite of the population increase, the City of Durham anticipates meeting demand through The City of Durham is currently looking toward the Cape Fear River Basin for additional water supplies. Future water supply alternatives that would impact Falls Lake involve expanding the capacity of Lake Michie and developing a new water supply on either Flat River or Little River (DCP, 2010). From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

31 Project Supply and Demand, Raleigh The City of Raleigh has access to 75 MGD through the E.M. Johnson WTP at Falls Lake. The WTP capacity is rated at 86 MGD, but the plant can only reliably deliver 75 MGD due to hydraulic restrictions and lack of filter redundancy (Hazen and Sawyer 2010). In 2010, the Dempsey E. Benton WTP was opened to provide an additional 20 MGD from Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler at a cost of $97.5M (Morrison, 2011). The WTP at Falls Lake is expanding to handle an additional 34 MGD by 2015 at an estimated cost of $250M (Morrison, 2011; Raleigh, 2007). The final water supply project currently being assessed is the construction of a new reservoir on Little River for an additional 13.7 to 20 MGD for an estimated $263M (Morrison, 2011; Raleigh, 2007). The Little River project is hotly debated due to the large amount of area that would be inundated for such a small increase in water supply. Water demand for the city of Raleigh is projected to more than double by 2050 and the peak demand is anticipated to exceed the projected future water supply by 2040 (Morrison, 2011). Raleigh is currently searching for new water supply sources. Clearly, Falls Lake is an essential water source to protect to ensure the future of Raleigh and the surrounding municipalities receiving water from Raleigh. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

32 Point-Source Discharge UNRB Wastewater Utilities: While there are only three wastewater utilities that discharge into the UNRB, there are 6 local municipal wastewater utilities that service customers within the UNRB. Raleigh, Franklin, and Roxboro discharge into other basins. There are three municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) that discharge into the UNRB. Orange Alamance is a water only utility, Raleigh discharges downstream of the UNRB, and the wastewater services for Creedmoor are handled by South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWASA). Durham County has a WWTP separate from the municipality that services the Research Triangle area. The Durham County WWTP treats approximately 5.07 MGD. Unlike stormwater and other non-point pollution sources, point discharge is concentrated and remains within the confines of a receiving water body. The influence of land use decisions via stormwater runoff and non-point source pollution will be examined by tracing those watersheds downstream of each jurisdiction. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

33 Non-Point Source Discharge Precipitation events place water on the landscape, resulting in surface runoff that may either flow directly into a stream, or it may be channeled to storm sewers and wastewater treatment plants prior to entering the stream. Surface runoff as a result of precipitation is stormwater. Urbanization increases impervious surface area, which prevents precipitation from soaking into the ground; thereby, generating more stormwater, and consequently, more erosion and flooding. In North Carolina there were 38 stormwater utilities in 2006 (defined as a separate fee for the explicit purpose of stormwater management) and 47 stormwater utilities in 2009 (EFC 2010). Statewide, the median monthly fee increased from $3.27 to $3.75 for residential buildings during this time period. The rate structure for residential buildings is typically a uniform fee. The median non-residential monthly fee increased from $28.71 to $33.34 from 2006 to 2009 (EFC 2010). The Cities of Raleigh and Durham currently have the only stormwater utilities located in the Upper Neuse River Basin. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

34 Non-Point: Roxboro and Hillsborough Roxboro, located at the top of the UNRB, discharges downstream in the North Flat River. The North Flat merges with the South Flat to form the Flat River which flows unimpeded into Lake Michie, one of Durham s drinking water reservoirs. Lake Michie flows downstream directly into Falls Lake. Roxboro can negatively impact the water quality in Falls Lake through stormwater runoff and non-point source pollution. The water supply for Roxboro is located in the Roanoke River Basin. All catchments that directly intersect the municipality are highlighted and the intersecting streams are traced downstream to Falls Lake. Hillsborough is located in the Eno River sub-watershed, where it withdraws water from, and discharges wastewater back into, the Eno River. Falls Lake is the only water supply reservoir located downstream of Hillsborough. Figure 27 shows which catchments drain directly from the municipality and traces the flow of stormwater downstream. From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

35 Non-Point: Butner, Durham and Raleigh

36 County Non-Point Source Impacts

37 Drainage by County Person County Person County drains into two rivers that run downstream into Falls Lake. Runoff from Person County also impacts Durham water supply (Lake Michie) and Butner s water supply (Lake Holt). Granville County Note that Granville County is directly adjacent to portions of Falls Lake (direct runoff into the Lake). In addition, runoff from Granville impacts the water supply reservoirs for Butner and Creedmoor. Franklin County Franklin County is located in the most SE corner of the UNRB; however, the county intersects three streams that drain into Falls Lake. No other water supply reservoirs in the UNRB are impacted by Franklin County. Orange County Non-point source discharge from Orange County impacts seven of the nine reservoirs in the UNRB (4 in Orange County, both of Durham s reservoirs, and Falls Lake). Durham County Non-point source discharge from Durham County impacts both of Durham s reservoirs, Butner s reservoir, and Falls Lake. Durham County is directly adjacent to the Western half of the upper Fall s Lake Reservoir. Wake County The lower portion of Falls Lake is located entirely inside Wake County. This means runoff from Wake County can flow directly into Falls Lake.

38 Suppliers versus Consumers Roxboro is a pure impactor Roxboro is at the headwaters of the Flat River Roxboro run-off flows downstream and ultimately to Falls Lake Raleigh and communities served by Raleigh s water utility are near pure benefactors A small sliver of the City of Raleigh is in the UNRB watershed These communities benefit from having a safe water supply QUESTIONS: How to balance financial burden of impactors and suppliers? What revenue streams could/should jurisdictions tap into to fund watershed protection efforts? From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

39 Utility Revenues (2008 to 2010) Watershed protection efforts could be funded by a variety of pool of money A dashboard allows a user to conduct what if analyses and model funding options EFC Dashboard Capacity for Watershed Protection Investment From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

40 Scenario: Durham needs $20M Durham anticipates paying $20 million over the next decade as a result of the Falls Lake Rules, with the potential of an additional $1 billion if they are required to upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. Let us assume that the city of Durham needs to generate $20 million in the next year to pay the upfront costs for watershed protection projects. How can the City of Durham generate that revenue and what will the impact be to customers? We will look at this question with four scenarios: Scenario 1 Durham increases wastewater rates only Scenario 2 Durham increases water rates only Scenario 3 Durham increases water and wastewater Scenario 4 Durham increases water and wastewater rates, plus a one-time cost share. For all scenarios we will assume a 20 year loan at an interest rate of 2.75 percent. The scenario is completed when $20 million is financed ($1.55 million is required to make the year one debt payment except in the last scenario). From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

41 Scenario: All UNRB utilities raise rates Scenario: pools together the resources of all water, wastewater and stormwater utilities in the Upper Neuse River Basin to create a dedicated funding stream for watershed protection. The rate increase is held constant for all utilities. All values were calculated as $ per kgal From: Upper Neuse River Basin Watershed Protection Revenueshed Analysis

42 Update: Durham and Raleigh = 1 cent fee In May 2011, the Raleigh City Council approved a $0.10 increase in water rates per thousand gallons consumed for watershed protection. This increase is projected to cost the average Raleigh household $5.66 per year. In 2011, the Durham City Council also passed a $0.01 increase in water rates per 100 cubic feet consumed. Other water utilities with on bill watershed protection fees: Central Arkansas Water (since 2009) CARKW (Central Arkansas Water) May Central Arkansas institutes new rate features on watershed protection and wise water use. Accessed May pp 4 Salt Lake City (since 1991) EPA Utah: Slat Lake City Salt Lake City works with stakeholders to protect its water supply. Study-UT-Salt-Lake-City.pdf. Accessed May 2011 Dennis Water District [Massachusetts] DWD (Dennis Water District) Reports of the Officers of the Dennis Water District for the Calendar and Fiscal Year Accessed May Images from:

43 Conclusion When creating a sustainable funding mechanism for watershed protection, stakeholders must: Consider how to distribute the financial burden amongst communities that impact the health of the watershed and those that benefit from it Investigate the financial and political viability of financing strategies: Property tax Stormwater fee Increased water rates Use models to determine how financing options would impact participating communities and their constituents

44 Works Cited DCP (Durham City-County-Planning Department) The Durham Comprehensive Plan. Accessed May Morrison, S. April 26, The Future of Raleigh s Water. Raleigh Public Record. Last Accessed May Raleigh Raleigh Community Inventory Report: Chapter 7 Public Utilities. n Accessed May Note on Data: Data reported and used in this Curriculum came from local government financial reports, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) databases, the N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCCGIA) datasets, Environmental Finance Center databases, and other sources. N.C. Department of State Treasurer Annual Financial Information Reports (North Carolina State Treasurer) County and Municipal Financial Data. Last Accessed May NCDENR EFC Rates Data NCCGIA NC OneMap