Browsing by Author "Doyle, Martin"

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    2020 Aspen-Nicholas Water Forum Water Affordability and Equity Briefing Document
    (2020-08-12) Patterson, Lauren; Doyle, Martin
    The 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Compensatory Mitigation on Federal Lands
    (2020-02-06) Doyle, Martin; Olander, Lydia; Sharon, Ori; Mason, Sara; BenDor, Todd
    As 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Creating Data as a Service for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs
    (2018-01-11) Patterson, Lauren; Doyle, Martin; Kuzma, Samantha
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen 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, Martin
    As 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Estimating the Value of Public Water Data
    (2017-06-22) Gardner, John; Doyle, Martin; Patterson, Lauren
    Public 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen 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, Martin
    Water 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Uncommitted State Revolving Funds
    (2022-03-21) Hansen, Katy; Sawhney, Govind; Warren, Simon; Doyle, Martin
    States 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.