Browsing by Author "Doyle, Martin"
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access 2020 Aspen-Nicholas Water Forum Water Affordability and Equity Briefing Document(2020-08-12) Patterson, Lauren; Doyle, MartinThe importance of water and sanitation for public health is once again visible and may change the trajectory of the water sector moving forward. Given that water is essential for public health, what must be done to ensure that these life-sustaining services are affordable and accessible to all and the utilities providing services are financially resilient? How do we reconcile the different values as individuals and society negotiate who decides, who gets what, and who pays. In a just society this process is inclusive, meaning all have a seat at the table. To unpack these questions, this paper explores the evolution of water services in the United States. The construction of water and wastewater systems during the 19th and early 20th century were significant feats. Now, most people have access to water, most tap water is drinkable, most dams are secure, most farms can grow more with less water, and most rivers are cleaner than they were 50 years ago. Most does not mean all. There is growing evidence that an increasing number of Americans are losing access to safe drinking water and sanitation—and others never had it at all.Item Open Access Compensatory Mitigation on Federal Lands(2020-02-06) Doyle, Martin; Olander, Lydia; Sharon, Ori; Mason, Sara; BenDor, ToddAs compensatory wetland and stream mitigation expands, particularly in the western United States, the availability and prominence of federal lands will become increasingly relevant in affecting the execution of mitigation. Moreover, as land management agencies face constrained economic conditions there will be growing interest in alternative forms of revenue and sources of money for restoration. Thus, it is realistic to expect the question of compensatory mitigation on federal lands to become increasingly relevant across land management and regulatory agencies. This raises the question: if federal land management agencies are going to create policies to formalize mitigation on their lands, what major considerations do they need to take into account, and what alternatives need to be acknowledged? This report represents an examination of compensatory mitigation of aquatic resources (i.e., streams and wetlands) on U.S. federal lands through an examination of case studies and a review of the legal landscape in which such mitigation takes place. While the authors neither promote nor discourage mitigation on federal lands at this time, we do present a series of considerations and recommendations that should be taken into account as federal agencies begin formalizing policies regarding compensatory mitigation on their lands. While our review of existing federal lands mitigation projects was not comprehensive, it draws on learnings from significant cases that were highlighted by individuals deeply involved in these processes—federal agency members, nonprofit employees, and private mitigation bankers. Some of the issues identified with compensatory mitigation on federal lands drawn from case studies presented here may represent outliers, but are nevertheless important to emphasize so that, as policies for these processes are institutionalized, such issues can be addressed accordingly.Item Open Access Creating Data as a Service for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs(2018-01-11) Patterson, Lauren; Doyle, Martin; Kuzma, SamanthaItem Open Access Energetic Opportunities and Chemical Risks in Urban and Forested Stream Ecosystems(2024) Behrens, Jonathan RichardUrban watersheds are dynamic ecological systems shaped by social, chemical, physical, and ecological forces. Urban stressor and disturbance regimes alter the availability and incorporation of energetic resources and chemical risks into stream ecosystems, and their ultimate transport and fate to downstream or paired terrestrial ecosystems. In this dissertation, I investigate how human-driven stressors (land-use, organic and inorganic chemical contaminants, heat, and hydrologic "flashiness") alter the energetic and chemical regimes of each system. Study systems include stream ecosystems that drain urban (Ellerbe Creek) and forested (New Hope Creek) watersheds in the Piedmont of North Carolina. In Chapter 1, I quantified the concentrations of chemical indicators in a novel approach to characterize the timing and spatial distribution of three common mixtures of contaminants (and their chemical indicator) in our urban watershed (Ellerbe Creek): treated and untreated sewage (sucralose, artificial sweetener), lawncare runoff (DPG and 6PPD-Q, automobile tire additives), and road runoff (Glyphosate and AMPA, active ingredient of herbicide RoundUp® and its major degradation product). We demonstrate that the concentrations of these chemical indicators, and by extension the mixtures of contaminants they represent across the heterogenous urban watershed, are highly variable across the landscape, seasons, and discharge regimes. In Chapter 2, I measured rates of ecosystem metabolism (gross primary production and ecosystem respiration), macroinvertebrate secondary production, and aquatic insect emergence to assess the efficiency at which energy moves through two types of urban stream ecosystems (wastewater and stormwater dominated) in Ellerbe Creek and our forested watershed in New Hope Creek. Urban disturbance regimes alter the composition, magnitude, and timing of energy availability. In turn, the efficiency at which energetic inputs were converted into primary production did not readily predict macroinvertebrate secondary production and emergence in our urban sites. This is the first known investigation of primary and secondary production in an urbanized watershed, and it provides compelling evidence that energetic regimes in two common types of urban watersheds (wastewater and stormwater dominated) are notably distinct from one another. Finally, in Chapter 3, emergent insects collected for Chapter 2 were assessed for trace metals to investigate how distinct communities of emergent winged insects altered the timing, magnitude, and composition of metals flux. I demonstrated that the transport of positive (energy) and negative (trace metals) subsidies is driven by distinct communities of organisms, which are simplified and constrained in our wastewater and stormwater dominated sites, rather than total emergent biomass or metals loading alone. Families of aquatic insects were differentially efficient at moving metals (Zn, Cu, Se) out of the stream food web and into the terrestrial food web. The biological community dynamics—composition, diversity of traits, and timing—play an equally if not more important role in the magnitude, timing, and composition of metals flux relative to metals inputs alone. The availability, assimilation, and transformation of energetic and contaminant inputs in-stream will ultimately enable (or suppress) export into paired riparian and terrestrial ecosystems. In human impacted systems, such as urban watersheds, analysis requires methods, models, and concepts in ecosystem and community ecology, urban ecology, environmental chemistry, and biogeochemistry. By further exploring the heterogeneity of urban watersheds, as demonstrated in this dissertation, stakeholders can better manage these ecosystems to support wildlife communities and human societies.
Item Open Access Environmental Impact Investing in Real Assets: What Environmental Measures Do Fund Managers Consider?(2017-06-30) Spence, Liz; Copp, Belton; Kent, Xander; Vermeer, Dan; Doyle, MartinAs concerns over climate change and natural resource depletion grow, investors have begun seeking opportunities for generating both market-rate financial returns and quantifiable environmental gains. Investing with the objectives of social or environmental return is often referred to as impact investing. Measuring and reporting the environmental impact of such investing is becoming of greater interest to environmental managers and investors. This report presents findings from interviews of investment fund managers of environmental real assets—defined here as real assets that rely on ecological systems to generate cash flows (e.g., timber, agriculture, fisheries, water rights). The interviews reveal little consistency in how environmental returns are measured and reported. Importantly, most of the environmental metrics are not designed to allow for evaluation of funds’ environmental performance. Hence, investors are unable to distinguish among funds in terms of environmental returns. Moreover, investors are also generally uninterested in such information. In short, impact investors seek environmental impact funds so long as they have risk-adjusted, market-rate returns regardless of environmental performance. To better evaluate the environmental returns of impact investments, whether real assets or other types of investments, fund managers and investors should directly engage the environmental science and operations management community. That community could offer insights to help ensure that investments are delivering and reporting on promise and that capital is being steered toward effective projects and opportunities.Item Open Access Estimating the Value of Public Water Data(2017-06-22) Gardner, John; Doyle, Martin; Patterson, LaurenPublic water data, such as river flow from stream gauges or precipitation from weather satellites, produce broad benefits at a cost to the general public. This paper presents a review of the academic literature on the costs and benefits of government investments in public water data. On the basis of 21 studies quantifying the costs and benefits of public water quantity data, it appears that the median benefit-cost ratio across different economic sectors and geographic regions is 4:1. But a great deal of uncertainty attends this number; very few studies empirically quantify or monetize the costs, the benefits, or both of water information with sound economic methods, and no studies have quantified the value of water quality information. This review is part of an ongoing effort by the Nicholas Institute of Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University and the Aspen Institute to develop the foundations of an Internet of Water by quantifying the potential value of open and integrated public water data.Item Open Access Sensitivity Analysis of Using Municipal Boundaries as a Proxy for Service Area Boundaries When Calculating Water Affordability Metrics(2022-03-18) Patterson, Lauren; Bryson, Sophia; Doyle, MartinWater is essential for life, and yet one of the nation’s most pressing water challenges has become ensuring that water services are affordable for households and communities. While there has been growing attention and concern around affordable water services, the actual scale of the problem remains poorly understood, in part because of the lack of data availability. The Nicholas Institute’s Water Affordability Dashboard was developed to provide several affordability metrics pulling together publicly available data from different sources: census data, rates data, and digital service area boundaries. As of January 2022, the dashboard provided affordability metrics for over 3,000 utilities located within 10 states, showing that between a tenth to a third of households struggle with affording water services. The ability to understand affordability challenges in other states is limited in states without digital service area boundaries. Digital service area boundaries are used to identify which communities are served by drinking water and wastewater utilities. A recent inventory by McDonald et al. (2022) shows that over half of the states do not have digital water service area boundaries. This study sought to determine if municipal boundaries could be used as a proxy for service area boundaries when calculating water affordability metrics. We explored several proxy (substitute) geographical boundaries by using different methods to (1) identify municipalities served by water service providers, (2) obtain the digital proxy boundaries (i.e., state provided municipal boundaries or nationally available census places), and (3) account for “outside” service areas for utilities for utilities that charge different rates to customers located outside municipal boundaries (Table ES1). Four affordability metrics were estimated using five different proxies for service area boundaries across 154 utilities representing a sample of states (California, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington), system size (small, medium, medium-large, large, and very large), and ownership type (public and private). There was good correlation (Spearman > 0.95) between affordability metrics using service area boundaries and all proxy geographical boundaries. The overall results indicate that municipal boundaries may serve as a proxy for digital service areas for calculating affordability metrics for public municipal water systems, with a median difference for all affordability metrics within ±0.30% of metrics when calculated using service area boundaries.Item Open Access The Financial and Environmental Risks of In Lieu Fee Programs for Compensatory Mitigation(2019-01-07) Doyle, MartinItem Open Access Uncommitted State Revolving Funds(2022-03-21) Hansen, Katy; Sawhney, Govind; Warren, Simon; Doyle, MartinStates and the federal government invest in water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure by providing subsidized loans and other financial assistance through State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs. The funds are capitalized with federal grants, state contributions, leveraged bonds, and loan repayments. Because the programs largely provide loans rather than grants, the repayment of principal and interest replenishes the pool of capital to finance infrastructure over time. Loan repayments are now the largest source of capital for SRFs. The amount of assistance available through the SRFs will increase substantially as state programs receive $55 billion in new funds through the bipartisan infrastructure law over the next five years. The increase in available funding—from both federal appropriations and loan repayments—makes it more important than ever for states to efficiently commit funds to finance projects. Uncommitted funds represent missed opportunities to improve public health and water quality, spur economic development, and create jobs through infrastructure investment. As federal funds flow to states faster, it is imperative to understand how states can efficiently allocate funds to reach their full potential. The authors of this report analyzed data from the EPA, interviewed stakeholders, and conducted a survey of over 200 water system decision makers and 30 state SRF administrators to better understand what is driving uncommitted SRF funds. The report offers three main recommendations to help states allocate funds, described fully in the report: - Set and track goals for the allocation of funds. - Stimulate demand for funds. - Enhance effective administrative practices.