MISI Score
49.0
Fragile
Project NC / Robeson County
Robeson County
DW · Robeson CountyPWSID NC0378055
Score Confidence
1.0%
Peer Percentile
99.8th
As of
Jun 2, 2026
EXPLANATION
Score Drivers
- MISI score is 49.006 (Fragile).
- Infrastructure Capital Gap adds 11.238 points. Capex pressure contributes +12: drinking-water capital need is 202462528.363511 with per-capita burden 3100.36. variance weighting adjusted headline contribution from 12 to 11.238.
- Parent-Government Fiscal Stress adds 9.157 points. Governance Risk contributes +10: parent-government flags=['debt_service_ratio>=11', 'operating_deficit_flag=1', 'pension_contribution_ratio>=18', 'funding_ratio<75', 'retiree_to_worker_ratio>=1.25']. variance weighting adjusted headline contribution from 10 to 9.157.
- PFAS Contamination Risk adds 7.998 points. PFAS contamination contributes +8: detections=34, max result=12.000000 ng/L. variance weighting adjusted headline contribution from 8 to 7.998.
- Climate Hazard Exposure adds 7.198 points. Operational climate hazard exposure contributes +8: FEMA NRI composite score is 91.0900. variance weighting adjusted headline contribution from 8 to 7.198.
- Missing or unresolved factors: Project Status Staleness.
MARKET INTERPRETATION
What the data suggests
Robeson County's drinking-water system serves about 65,303 residents, making it a mid-size system within the coverage universe. The current reading places the system in a zone of moderate-to-elevated stress that goes beyond normal operating variation.
The score is being driven mainly by Capex Pressure, which is at the top of its range in the model, with Operational Stress adding further pressure. In other words, Capex Pressure is doing most of the heavy lifting in the headline score.
7 active stress signals are attached to this system, including 6 at high severity. That signal mix points to a system where several warning indicators are firing at once, not just one extreme outlier.
Within its peer cohort, this system ranks around the 100th percentile on measured stress, placing it near the top of peer-group stress.
Recent observations suggest the system has been relatively steady rather than sharply improving or deteriorating — the current picture looks more like persistent underlying pressure than a sudden shift.
This summary is based on structured, source-backed public data and is intended for research and monitoring only. It is not investment advice, a credit opinion, or municipal advisory guidance.
SCORE STACK
Family Contributions
Operational Stress11.2 / 20.0
Capex Pressure19.2 / 20.0
Revenue Fragility9.5 / 20.0
Rate Constraint0.0 / 20.0
Governance Risk9.2 / 20.0
SL 2020-79
SWIA Assessment History
| 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 |
ACTIVE SIGNALS
7 Signals
Infrastructure Capital Gap
Large structural capital need relative to local support capacity often precedes major rate or funding pressure.
Score impact: 11.2 · Family: Capex Pressure
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress
Parent-government debt, pension, or operating stress can constrain infrastructure support and governance flexibility.
Score impact: 9.2 · Family: Governance Risk
Climate Hazard Exposure
Elevated drought and flood exposure raises outage, source-water, and infrastructure reliability stress.
Score impact: 7.2 · Family: Operational Stress
Current Drought Severity
Active drought conditions stress source-water availability and treatment operations.
Score impact: 4.0 · Family: Operational Stress
High-AGI Out-Migration
High-AGI outmigration erodes the rate base and compresses affordability headroom.
Score impact: 4.0 · Family: Revenue Fragility
Population Served Decline
A shrinking served population weakens the customer base and raises infrastructure cost per customer.
Score impact: 5.5 · Family: Revenue Fragility
PFAS Contamination Risk
PFAS detections can force expensive treatment retrofits and accelerate capital plans.
Score impact: 8.0 · Family: Capex Pressure
HISTORY
Score Trend
Latest
49.0
Trend
+43.0
Observations
49
Population Served
65,303