Laserfiche WebLink
Water Regionalization <br />Produce for Own <br />Use, Purchase and <br />Sell to Others <br />7% <br />Produce fc <br />Use and P~._..___ <br />from Others <br />14% <br />Sewer Regionalization <br />Treat Own <br />Sewage or <br />Treat Own <br />and Others <br />71% <br />for Own Use, <br />iase None <br />Sell None <br />48% <br />Purchase all <br />Water <br />26% <br />Sewage Treated <br />by Others <br />29% <br />Small systems remain the rule throughout much of the state, and their size is costing <br />retepayers. <br />Small systems dominate despite some movement toward regionalization. Water systems <br />demonstrate this issue. AUout half of North Carolina's water systems seroe 2,500 people <br />or fewei, and 70 peccent serve 5,000 or fewer. To look at it anothec way, the state's 37 <br />lacgest systems provide water for 65 percent of all people on public water systems. The <br />remaining 35 percent receive their water from 493 different utilities. (These numbers <br />exclude five systems that sell bulk water only to two or fewer customers.) Lacking <br />economies of scale, most of these smal] systems charge significantly higher rates than <br />do their larger counterpaits. Monthly bills for households on those smaller systems <br />oken run hvice as high as tliose foi customers of large systeins. 'Che differences for <br />sewer customers can be even more dramatic. Needed improvements in upcoming }~ears <br />will magnify the disparities. If the next five eear's worth of needed investments were <br />spread across their customer bases during that period, the smallest water systems would <br />~' I' 13 <br />Produce for Own <br />Use and Sell to Others <br />5% <br />