United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4101)
EPA816-R-01-006
February 2001
&EPA
Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey
American Indian and Alaska Native
Village Water Systems Survey
Printed on recycled paper
-------
Pictured left to right from upper left: groundwater supply, building anew treatment plant, building a
ground-level storage tank, laying distribution mains, andcollecting drinking water from a watering point.
-------
Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey
American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems Survey
1999
II
11
February 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Drinking Water Protection Division (4101)
Washington, DC 20460
-------
This document is available for sale to the public through:
Educational Resource Information Center
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics,
and Environmental Education (ERIC/CSMEE)
1929 Kenny
Columbus, OH 43210-1015
1-800-276-0462
-or-
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
1-800-533-NTIS or 1-703-487-4650
This document is also available electronically on the Internet
at www.epa.gov/safewater
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems 12
The Regulatory Need 14
Households Not Served by Public Water Systems 15
Methods 15
Total Need Compared to the 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey 15
Conclusions 15
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS 17
Scope of the Survey 17
Documented Costs and Cost Models 18
Developing the Methods 19
Conducting the American Indian and Alaska Native Village Surveys 19
FINDINGS 23
American Indian Water System Needs 25
Alaska Native Village Water System Needs 26
Total Need Compared to the 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey 28
Economic Challenges Faced by Small Water Systems 28
HOUSEHOLDS NOT SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS 31
APPENDIX A— METHODS: SAMPLING AND COST MODELING 35
Estimating the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems 35
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 39
APPENDIX C—GLOSSARY 45
-------
-------
EXHIBITS
Exhibit ES-1: Total 20-Year Need by Category 12
Exhibit 1: Location of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems in the Needs Survey Sample 21
Exhibit 2: Total American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Need by Category of Need 23
Exhibit 3: Total 20-Year Need by Category for American Indian Water Systems 25
Exhibit 4: Total 20-Year Need by Category for Alaska Native Village Water Systems 27
Exhibit 5: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need 28
Exhibit A-1: American Indian and Alaska Native Village System Sampling for the 1999 Needs Survey 35
Exhibit A-2: Cost Curve for New Conventional Filtration Plant 36
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many dedicated individuals contributed to the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. We would like to
thank the American Indian, Alaska Native Village, Indian Health Service, and EPA Needs Survey Coordinators for
their active support and continuing interest in the survey. Not listed are the operators and managers of the systems
that spent their valuable time searching through their records and completing the questionnaires we sent to them.
We thank them for their assistance.
Bill Reid-The Cherokee Nation
Phyllis A. Attocknie-The Comanche Nation
Melanie Watkins-The Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma
Stephen Aoyama-lndian Health Services
Tammy Belone-The Navajo Nation EPA
Earl Hatley-The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
Marion Sizemore-The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma
Karl Powers-Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Celeste Davis-Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Orie Williams-Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Maria McCarthy-U.S. EPA Region 1
Raymond Kvalheim-U.S. EPA Region 2
Fred Hunter-U.S. EPA Region 4
Chuck Pycha, William Tansey-U.S. EPA Region 5
Tom Poeton-U.S. EPA Region 6
Kelly Beard-Tittone-U.S. EPA Region 7
Minnie Moore Adams-U.S. EPA Region 8
Jose Caratini-U.S. EPA Region 9
Geoff Keeler-U.S. EPA Region 10
Dennis Wagner-U.S. EPA Region 10, Alaska Native Village Coordinator
EPA Office of Water
David Travers-Needs Survey Coordinator
Clive Davies-Drinking Water Protection Branch Associate Chief
Prime Contractor-The Cadmus Group, Inc.
-------
The construction of a tre ate dwater storage tanknears completion inNuiqsut, one of the most northerly
communities in Alaska. In many Alaska Native communities, water tanks and treatment plants must be
elevate don pilings to prevent the heated facilities from subsiding into the permafrost.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted the second survey of the
nation's infrastructure needs. The survey covers community water systems and not-for-
profit noncommunity water systems. American Indian and Alaska Native Village systems
represent $2.2 billion of the $150.9 billion total national need. The results of this survey
support the findings of the first survey, conducted in 1995, by documenting the continued
need to install, upgrade, and replace the infrastructure on which the public relies for safe
drinking water.
Rblic water systems must invest in
ifrastructure improvements to
insure that they can continue to
deliver safe drinking water to consumers.
These improvements vary greatly in
complexity and cost: from replacing a low-
capacity well pump that will serve a small
community to constructing a 500 million
gallon-per-day water treatment plant that
will serve a large metropolitan area.
Despite the importance of these projects
for protecting public health, water systems
often encounter difficulties in obtaining
affordable financing for such improve-
ments. Recognizing this problem, Con-
gress established the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) in the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments. The DWSRF provides
low-interest loans and other forms of
assistance to public water systems so
they can supply safe drinking water. Since
1997, Congress has appropriated $3.6
billion to the DWSRF.
The Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey is an important tool
of the DWSRF program. The
purpose of the survey is to esti-
mate the documented 20-year
capital investment needs of public
water systems eligible to receive
DWSRF funding—community
water systems and not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems.1
The survey includes infrastructure
needs that are required to protect
public health, such as projects to
preserve the physical integrity of
the water system, convey treated
water to homes, or ensure contin-
ued compliance with specific
SDWA regulations.
Sections 1452(h) and
1452(i)(4) of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act direct the EPA
to conduct the Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey every four years. The
results are used to allocate
Drinking Water State Re-
volving Fund monies to the
States and Tribes. The 1999
Needs Survey is due to
Congress by February 6,
2001.
1 Community water systems serve at least 25 people or 15 connections year-round.
Noncommunity water systems serve at least 25 people for more than 60 days, but less
than year-round.
-------
Page 12
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit ES-1: Total 20-Year Need by Category
(in January 1999 dollars)
Storage
$0.4 billion
Transmission and
Distribution
$1.2 billion
Treatment
$0.4 billion
Source
$0.1 billion
Other
$0.01 billion
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
As required by the SDWA, EPA uses the
survey as a tool for allocating the Tribal
Set-Aside (up to 1.5 percent of the
DWSRF annual appropriation) to Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native Village
water systems.
Needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems
Total American Indian and Alaska
Native Village Water System Needs.
The total need for American Indian and
Alaska Native Village systems is $2.2
billion over 20 years. Exhibit ES-1 pre-
sents the total need by category for these
systems. The significance of this need in
terms of public health is underscored by
considering the per-household costs,
which average $6,500 for American
Indians and $51,500 for Alaska Natives.
The difficulty in transporting materials to
remote areas, the lack of economies of
scale for small system projects, and the
limited annual construction period in some
regions contribute to the high per-house-
hold costs for these systems.
The survey includes only infrastructure
needs that are required to protect the
public health. It is important to emphasize,
however, that most of the needs repre-
sent projects that systems would address
as preemptive measures to ensure the
continued provision of safe drinking water,
rather than as remedial actions to correct
an existing violation of a drinking water
standard. In addition, the majority of the
total need derives from the inherent costs
of being a water system which involves
the nearly continual need to install,
upgrade, and replace the basic infrastruc-
ture that is required to deliver safe drink-
ing water to consumers.
American Indian Needs. The total 20-
year need for American Indian systems is
$1.2 billion. Of this total, approximately
$1.0 billion is currently needed to ensure
the continued provision of safe drinking
water.
Alaska Native Village Needs. The total
20-year need for Alaska Native Village
systems is $1.1 billion. Of this total,
approximately $1.0 billion is needed now
to ensure the continued provision of safe
drinking water.
Total Need by Category. Every project in
the survey belongs to one of five catego-
ries of need: source, transmission and
distribution, treatment, storage, and
"other." Each category represents projects
that are of critical importance to providing
safe drinking water.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 13
With $1.2 billion needed over the
next 20 years, transmission and
distribution projects constitute the
largest category of need. The
transmission and distribution cat-
egory includes the installation and
rehabilitation of raw and finished
water transmission pipes, distribu-
tion water mains, replacement of
lead service lines, flushing hydrants,
valves, and backflow prevention
devices. Failure of transmission and
distribution lines can interrupt the
delivery of water. Broken transmis-
sion lines also can disrupt the
treatment process, and leaking
distribution mains can lead to a loss
of pressure causing back-siphonage
of contaminated water.
Storage projects represent the
second largest category of need,
$447.0 million over the next 20
years. This category includes
projects to construct new or rehabili-
tate existing finished water storage
tanks. A water system with inad-
equate storage capacity cannot
always provide water at pressures
sufficient to prevent back-siphonage
of microbial contaminants. In addi-
tion, constructing new tanks is
necessary if the system cannot
meet peak demands. Many projects
in this category involve rehabilitating
existing tanks to prevent structural
failures that can cause microbiologi-
cal contamination.
The total 20-year need for treatment
projects is $408.1 million. This
category consists of projects
needed to reduce contaminants
through, for example, filtration,
chlorination, corrosion control, and
aeration. $164.5 million is needed to
address contaminants that pose
acute health risks. The installation,
upgrade, or rehabilitation of treat-
ment infrastructure also is required
to remove contaminants that can
cause chronic health effects or
taste, odor, and other aesthetic
problems.
• The source category includes
projects that are necessary to obtain
safe supplies of surface or ground
water. The infrastructure needs in
this category include the installation
and rehabilitation of drilled wells.
The total 20-year need for source
water projects is $123.2 million.
• Other needs account for an esti-
mated $12.4 million. This category
captures needs that cannot be
assigned to one of the prior catego-
ries. Examples include emergency
power generators, computer and
automation equipment, and im-
provements for flood or earthquake
protection.
Total Need by Current and Future
Needs. About 93 percent of the total
need, $2.0 billion, is needed now to
continue to protect the public health and
maintain existing distribution and treat-
ment systems. Current needs are projects
that a system would begin immediately.
In most cases a current need would
involve installing, upgrading, or replacing
infrastructure to enable a water system to
continue to deliver safe drinking water. A
system with a current need, therefore,
usually is not in violation of any health-
based drinking water standard. For
example, a surface water treatment plant
may currently produce safe drinking
-------
Page 14
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
water, but the plant's filters may require
replacement due to their age and declin-
ing effectiveness, if the plant is to continue
to provide safe water.
Future needs are projects that water
systems expect to address in the next 20
years as part of routine rehabilitation of
infrastructure or due to predictable events
such as reaching the end of a facility's
service-life. Approximately 7 percent of
the total need, $165.8 million, is reported
as future needs.
The Regulatory Need
The SDWA aims to ensure that public
water systems meet national standards to
protect consumers from the harmful
effects of contaminated drinking water.
Although all of the infrastructure projects
included in the survey promote the
SDWA's public health objectives, some
are directly attributable to SDWA regula-
tions. This report refers to these needs
collectively as the "regulatory need." The
total regulatory need is divided into two
broad categories: existing SDWA regula-
tions and recently promulgated and
proposed regulations.
The total regulatory need accounts for 7
percent, or $164.6 million, of the total
Tribal need. This statistic reveals that
most of the total need results from the
costs of installing, upgrading, and replac-
ing the basic infrastructure that is required
to deliver drinking water to consumers-
costs that are borne by water systems
independent of the SDWA. For a need to
be included in the survey, however, it
must be required to protect public health.
Therefore, if a system fails to address a
need, then a health-based violation of a
standard eventually may occur.
Microbial Contaminants. Projects to
address microbiological contamination
account for $164.5 million, of the total
existing regulatory need. Under the
SDWA, the Surface Water Treatment
Rule (SWTR) and the Total Coliform Rule
(TCR) are designed to reduce the amount
of microbial contaminants in drinking
water. Microbial contaminants, such as
Giardia and E. coli, can cause acute
gastrointestinal illness and, in extreme
cases, death. The installation of a treat-
ment plant to filter a surface water source
and the installation of a disinfection
system are examples of needs associated
with this category.
Chemical Contaminants. Infrastructure
needs to protect the public health from
chemical contaminants comprise $0.1
million of the total existing regulatory
need. This category includes projects
necessary for compliance with the Nitrate/
Nitrite Standard, Lead and Copper Rule,
Total Trihalomethanes Standard, and
other regulations that set maximum
allowable limits for organic and inorganic
contaminants. Examples of projects in this
category are aerating water to remove
volatile organic compounds and applying
corrosion inhibitors to reduce the leaching
of lead from pipes.
Households Not Served by
Public Water Systems
Data from the 1990 census indicate that
approximately 16 million households are
not served by public water systems. This
survey was restricted to public water
systems eligible for DWSRF assistance. It
therefore, was not designed to estimate
the needs for households that use private
wells, haul water from non-public sys-
tems, or lack running water. However, the
survey addressed these needs in a limited
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 15
way by including projects to extend
service from existing public water systems
to homes that do not have access to safe
drinking water.
Methods
The approach for the survey was devel-
oped by EPA in consultation with a
workgroup consisting of American Indian,
Alaska Native Villages, and Indian Health
Service representatives. The workgroup
refined the methods used in 1995 based
on lessons learned from the 1995 survey
and options made available from techno-
logical advancements in the Internet.
Each of the 19 American Indian systems
serving more than 3,300 people com-
pleted a questionnaire. To assess the
needs of small systems serving fewer
than 3,300 people, EPA conducted site
visits to a random sample of 78 American
Indian water systems.
In Alaska, the availability of key personnel
and data resources (such as aerial
photographs) allowed for a census of the
174 Alaska Native Village water systems.
The survey included 2 medium-sized
systems and all 172 small systems.
Current and future needs for Alaska
Native Village systems were documented
by EPA in consultation with district engi-
neers, Village Safe Water, and Alaska
Native Village representatives.
Total Need Compared to
the 1995 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs
Survey
The total need for American Indian
systems and Alaska Native Village sys-
tems increased by $533.8 million and
$216.2 million, respectively, compared to
the 1995 findings. This increase results
largely from refining the methods used to
estimate the needs. For the American
Indian survey, the sample size was
increased to provide a more precise
estimate of national need. Similarly, the
use of a census for Alaska Native Village
systems increased the precision of the
need estimate compared to the sampling
methods used in the first survey.
Conclusions
The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey, the second such national
survey by EPA, estimates that American
Indian and Alaska Native Village water
systems need to invest $2.2 billion over
the next 20 years to ensure the continued
provision of safe drinking water to con-
sumers. This finding lends support to the
results from the previous survey which
also identified a substantial need for
infrastructure investments. The need to
replace, upgrade, and install infrastructure
will continue to increase as these systems
age.
-------
Completed in 1999, this new surface water treatment system serves the Standing Sioux Tribe in
Wakpala, SouthDakota. The previous plant lacked the treatment capacity to protect against microbial
contamination during periods of high runoff in the spring months.
-------
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS
^^Tne second Drinking Water Infra-
I structure Needs Survey involved
I the collective efforts of the Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native Village
representatives, the Indian Health Ser-
vice, EPA, and water systems-all of
which participated in identifying and
documenting infrastructure needs. This
chapter provides an overview of the
methods used by these participants to
assess drinking water needs. It also
describes the refinements made to the
methods used in the 1995 survey to
improve the accuracy of this survey's
results.
Scope of the Survey
Goal and Purpose. The goal of the 1999
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey was to estimate the documented
20-year Tribal infrastructure need for the
community and not-for-profit noncommu-
nity public water systems eligible to
receive DWSRF assistance.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) Amendments direct EPA to use
the results from the latest Needs Survey
to allocate DWSRF funds. For American
Indian and Alaska Native Village water
systems, EPA calculated the total infra-
structure need for each EPA Region. The
results are used to allocate the Tribal Set-
Aside of up to 1.5 percent of the DWSRF
to the Regions based in part on each
Region's share of the total American
Indian and Alaska Native Village need.
Infrastructure Needs. To fulfill the
survey's purpose as a tool for allocating
DWSRF funds, all of the infrastructure
needs in the survey were required to meet
the basic eligibility criteria established
under the DWSRF program.1 In general,
projects eligible for funding facilitate
compliance with the SDWA's National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations or
otherwise significantly further the health
protection objectives of the Act.
Categories of Need. The survey as-
signed each project to one of five catego-
ries of need: source, transmission and
distribution, treatment, storage, and
"other." This classification allowed for an
understanding of where on a broad scale
the nation's water systems need to make
capital investments.
• The source water category com-
prises projects necessary to obtain
sufficient supplies of surface or
ground water. Examples include
wells, surface water intakes, and
spring collectors.
• The transmission and distribution
category includes the pipes that
transport water to consumers. This
category represents the needs
associated with installing or rehabili-
tating raw and finished water trans-
mission pipes, distribution water
mains, flushing hydrants, valves,
and backflow prevention devices.
• The treatment category consists of
projects needed to address prob-
lems such as the presence of
microbial pathogens and chemical
contaminants.
1 The survey excluded DWSRF-eligible needs which do not involve the installation,
replacement, or rehabilitation of infrastructure: for example, refinancing loans, conducting
studies, and acquiring other water systems.
-------
Page 18
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
• The storage category includes
projects to construct new or rehabili-
tate existing finished-water tanks.
• The "other" category captures
needs that cannot be assigned to
one of the prior categories. Ex-
amples include laboratory equip-
ment, emergency power generators,
computer and automation projects,
and improvements for flood or
earthquake protection.
Current and Future Needs. The survey
identifies current and future needs for the
20-year period from January 1, 1999
through December 31, 2018. Current
Acceptable Documentation
The following types of documents were used to
justify the need and/or cost of a project.
For Need and/or Cost Documentation
• Capital Improvement Plan or Master Plan
• Facilities Plan or Preliminary Engineering Report
• Grant or Loan Application Form
• Engineer's Estimate
• Intended Use Plan/State Priority List
• Indian Health Service Sanitation Deficiency
System Printout
For Need Documentation Only
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE)
Results
• Sanitary Survey
• Source Water Protection Plan
• Monitoring Results
• Signed and dated statement from State, site visit
contractor, or system engineer clearly detailing
infrastructure needs.
For Cost Documentation Only
• Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
needs address infrastructure projects
which systems would implement as
preventive measures to avoid water
quality problems. An example of a current
need is replacing an old and leaking
section of distribution line that is suscep-
tible to contamination.
Future needs are projects that a water
system expects to undertake in the next
20 years. These include the routine
rehabilitation of infrastructure and the
replacement of a facility that performs
adequately now, but will need to be
replaced over the next 20 years to ensure
the continued provision of safe drinking
water. For example, a system may
anticipate that it will need to replace its
chlorinator within the next 10 years.
Credibility of the Findings. The survey
required that documentation describing
the purpose and scope of a project
accompany each need. This requirement
was necessary to verify that all of the
projects submitted to the survey met the
eligibility criteria for DWSRF funding. The
survey established specific documenta-
tion requirements to ensure that uniform
requirements would be applied to the
Tribes in determining the adequacy of
documentation and the eligibility of needs.
These requirements not only lend credibil-
ity to the findings, but also address the
issue of fairness when the results are
used to apportion DWSRF funds.
Documented Costs and
Cost Models
In addition to developing requirements for
documenting needs, the survey set
rigorous documentation criteria for as-
sessing the legitimacy and scope of
project costs. EPA required that each
project cost submitted to the survey be
supported by documentation to indicate
that the cost had undergone an adequate
degree of professional review. The
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 19
documentation criteria also allowed EPA
to review all of the components of a
project that were included in a cost
estimate. This enabled EPA to model
portions of the project that might have
been excluded from a cost estimate, or to
delete DWSRF-ineligible portions of the
submitted cost. For example, if a system
identified a need to replace a section of
old and leaking pipe, but lacked cost
documentation, the system could supply
the length and diameter of pipe to be
replaced. Based on this information, the
cost for this project could be modeled.
For the 1999 survey, 59 models were
developed to assign costs to 95 different
infrastructure needs, from replacing
broken valves to building new treatment
plants. The cost documentation submitted
by water systems was the sole source of
data for all but 19 of the cost models.
Most documented costs were obtained
from systems in the State portion of the
survey, given the availably of the
planning documents for these systems.
For some types of need, the survey data
proved inadequate for generating a
statistically significant model. Therefore,
cost data from additional sources, includ-
ing engineering firms and the Indian
Health Service, were obtained to supple-
ment the data submitted by survey
respondents.
Developing the Methods
The methods for the 1999 survey were
developed by a workgroup consisting of
American Indian, Alaska Native Village,
Indian Health Service, and EPA represen-
tatives. The workgroup decided to adopt
the general design of the first survey in
1995. However, the workgroup refined
some of the methods based on lessons
learned in conducting the 1995 survey,
findings from a 1997 follow-up study that
EPA conducted to assess the first survey,
and options made available by advances
in Internet communications.
The workgroup developed the following
improvements for the 1999 survey:
• The workgroup modified the design
of the survey questionnaire by
providing more examples and
simplifying the forms.
• The 1999 survey created a user-
friendly website that allowed the
EPA Regions to readily identify
which projects required additional
documentation of need or cost.
• For the American Indian portion of
the 1999 survey, the number of
small systems selected to partici-
pate was increased to provide a
more precise estimate of national
need.
• The use of a census for Alaska
Native Village water systems
increased the precision of the need
estimates compared to the sampling
methods used for the first survey.
Conducting the American
Indian and Alaska Native
Village Surveys
Developing the American Indian Meth-
ods. The 1999 survey used the same
tools (questionnaires and site visits) to
estimate the needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native Village water systems
as were used for systems in the State
portion of the survey. Exhibit 1 displays
the location of the American Indian and
Alaska Native Village water systems
included in the survey.
-------
Page 20
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit 1: Location of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems In the
Needs Survey Sample
O Small American Indian systems in the sample
I Medium American Indian systems
• Alaska Native Village water systems
Numbers indicate the number of medium/small
American Indian systems, respectively
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 21
All 19 American Indian systems serving
more than 3,300 people completed a
questionnaire. EPA offered technical
support to systems that requested assis-
tance in identifying eligible needs and
preparing documentation. The question-
naires for each system contained pre-
printed need and cost information derived
from the Sanitation Deficiency System
(SDS) of the Indian Health Service (IMS).
The SDS provides information on specific
needs and ranks communities' needs
based on threats to public health. This
information served as a baseline of needs
to which the systems added projects for
the survey.
The survey conducted 78 site visits to a
random selection of small systems
serving fewer than 3,300 people. Of the
approximately 781 American Indian water
systems, 762 systems are small.
All needs and costs submitted by Ameri-
can Indian systems were required to meet
the documentation criteria established for
the survey. To be considered adequate,
documentation of need had to explain the
purpose of the project, while documenta-
tion of cost had to indicate that the cost
had been subject to professional review. If
cost documentation was unavailable, the
system was asked to provide information
that enabled EPA to model the cost.
Developing the Alaska Native Village
Methods. The availability of key person-
nel and data resources (e.g., aerial
photographs) allowed EPA to use a
census to assess the needs of Alaska
Native Village water systems. A question-
naire was mailed to the two medium-sized
systems serving more than 3,300 people.
Infrastructure needs for 172 small sys-
tems were identified on questionnaires by
representatives from the Alaska Native
Village Health Consortia, IMS, and Village
Safe Water with assistance from EPA.
A round-table of IMS and EPA engineers
was convened to provide guidance on
developing project costs. Villages were
assigned to one of four geographical
zones to account for distinct regional
variations in costs. For most types of
need, costs were established for each
region. EPA developed these costs based
on projects funded by IMS in Alaska
Native Villages. However, the cost models
that were developed from data provided
by systems in the State and American
Indian portions of the survey were used to
assign costs to a few small-scale projects
(e.g., flushing hydrants) for which IMS
costs were unavailable.
k
Many Americanlndians obtain their drinkingwaterfrom watering points such as
the onepicturedhere.
-------
The expense of burying pipe leads some systems to develop expedient but precarious solutions such as the one
picturedhere. Water service will be disruptedifpipes are not buried or otherwise adequately protected.
-------
FINDINGS
In 1999, EPA conducted a survey to estimate the 20-year capital needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native Village water systems. This section of the report presents the total need for
these systems. The section also describes the need by category and the existing regulatory
need. Appendix B presents the American Indian need by EPA Region.
'^^Hne survey estimates that American
I Indian and Alaska Native Village
I water systems need to invest $2.2
billion in capital improvements over the
next 20 years. Of this total, $2.0 billion is
needed now to ensure the continued
provision of safe drinking water. Exhibit 2
presents the total need by category for
American Indian and Alaska Native
Village systems.
The public health significance of this need
is underscored by considering the per-
household needs of American Indian and
Alaska Native Village water systems. As
Exhibit 5 shows, these household needs
are the highest in the
nation-averaging $6,500
per-household for Ameri-
can Indians and $51,500
per-household for Alaska
Native Villages. It is to be
expected that American
Indian and Alaska Native
Village systems would
have high per-household
needs because most of
these systems are small,
serving between 25 and
3,300 people. Small
systems lack the econo-
mies of scale that reduce the
hold needs of larger systems.
The majority of American Indian
systems, 762 of 781, are small
systems serving between 25 and
3,300 people. The remaining 19
systems are of medium size
serving between 3,300 and 50,000
people. A similar breakdown in
size applies to the Alaska Native
Village systems: 172 systems are
small and 2 systems are of medium
size.
per-house-
Exhibit 2: Total American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Need
HHBII by Category of Need
(in millions of January 1999 dollars)
American Indian Water Systems
Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Storage
$137.4 million
Transmission and
Distribution
$743.4 million
Storage
$309.7 million
Treatment
$179.3 million
Transmission and
Distribution
$485.0 million
Treatment
$228.7 million
Source
$43.1 million
Other
$0.8 million
Does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
-------
Page 24
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Workers install a section of water main on the Navajo
reservation in Arizona. Many American Indian systems
have disproportionately high distribution needs relative
to their size, because they serve widely dispersed homes
in remote locations.
However, American Indian and Alaska
Native Village systems have substantially
higher needs than the small systems in
the State portion of the survey. For
American Indian systems, the widely
dispersed and remote location of many
communities and the limited availability of
water resources are among the logistical
challenges that account for these high
per-household needs. Alaska Native
Village water systems face higher costs
due to their remote arctic locations and
the unique design and construction
standards required in permafrost condi-
tions.
The isolation of many American Indian
communities and Alaska Native Villages
makes it infeasible to obtain water from
neighboring water systems. In less
remote areas, water systems often find
that consolidation with other systems can
reduce or eliminate the needs associated
with treatment and source development.
Also, a group of homes lacking safe
drinking water can connect to a nearby
system without the expense of laying
miles of pipe or creating a new water
system. These options are not available
to remote American Indian communities
and Alaska Native Villages.
The problem of delivering safe water in
these communities is compounded by
their poor economic condition. According
to the 1990 census, approximately 32
percent of American Indians and Alaska
Natives live below the poverty line, com-
pared to the national average of 13
percent. Also, the median household
income of American Indians and Alaska
Natives is just 66 percent of the national
average. These communities, therefore,
often lack the internal financial resources
to invest in water infrastructure.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimates
that approximately 20,000 households in
American Indian communities and Alaska
Native Villages lack potable water sup-
plies. Some of these households must
haul their drinking water from community
watering points. In the course of being
transported and stored, sometimes in
unsanitary conditions, hauled water is
vulnerable to microbial contamination. For
example, in arctic areas of Alaska, the
common practice of hauling buckets of
human waste along the same walkways
used for hauling drinking water poses
significant public health risks. Households
without access to a watering point must
obtain their water from alternative sup-
plies, such as untreated surface sources
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 25
that are subject to contamina-
tion from waterborne bacte-
ria, viruses, and protozoa.
Irrespective of where these
households obtain their
water, a lack of running water
tends to limit hand-washing
and bathing. Consequently,
these households face an
increased risk from such
communicable diseases as
Hepatitis A, shigellosis, and
Impetigo.
Although the risk of water-
borne and water-related
diseases remains an impor-
tant public health concern,
the occurrence of these
diseases has declined in
many American Indian
communities and Alaska Native Villages.
The construction of water systems and
waste disposal facilities was a critical
factor in this decrease. The challenge
many American Indian communities and
Alaska Native Villages now face is the
lack of financial and technical resources
necessary to operate and maintain these
new water systems. The survey found
that a disproportionately large number of
these treatment facilities required replace-
ment rather than rehabilitation. Without
adequate operation and maintenance,
water systems will cease to provide safe
drinking water well before the end of their
design life. Thus, in many American
Indian communities and Alaska Native
Villages, new water systems often dete-
riorate to an extent that premature re-
placement of the facilities is required.
Exhibit 3: Total 20-Year Need by Category for
American Indian Water Systems
(in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Categories of Need
Distribution and
Transmission
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total Need
Current
Need
$691.6
$157.2
$106.3
$64.9
$11.6
$1,031.5
Future
Need
$51.8
$22.1
$31.1
$15.2
$0
$120.3
Total Need
$743.4
$179.3
$137.4
$80.1
$11.6
$1,151.8
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.
American Indian Water
System Needs
The total 20-year need for American
Indian systems is $1.2 billion. Of this total,
approximately $1.0 billion is needed now
to provide safe drinking water. Exhibit 3
presents the total need by category for
American Indian systems.
Transmission and distribution projects
account for 65 percent of the total Ameri-
can Indian need, a finding which reflects
the long lengths of main often needed to
transport water from a source to a treat-
ment facility and from the facility to remote
users. The cost of extending service to
each home may be prohibitive in some
communities given the distances involved.
In these circumstances, more affordable
options include drilling private wells to
serve individual homes and constructing
treated water stations from which water
can be hauled and stored under sanitary
conditions.
-------
Page 26
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Treatment represents the second largest
category of need at $179 million. Although
some American Indian systems have
surface water treatment facilities, many
systems are located in dry regions where
ground water is the only available source.
The fact that approximately 93 percent of
American Indian systems rely on ground
water also reflects their small size, since
most small systems in the country use
ground water sources. The treatment
needs of American Indian systems
therefore are typical of ground water
systems-with disinfection being the most
common form of treatment.
Many American Indian systems are
located in arid areas where the aesthetic
quality of the ground water is poor. The
survey estimates that $26 million is
needed for projects to remove secondary
contaminants that impart an unpleasant
taste, odor, or color to the water.
A storage tankunder construction in White Mountain, Alaska, is encasedin
insulation to preventwater in the system from freezing. Constructingwater
systems to withstand extreme weather conditions is one reason Alaska Native
Village systems have highper-householdneeds.
Of the remaining categories of need, $137
million is needed to install or rehabilitate
water storage tanks. Another $80 million
is needed to develop and maintain ad-
equate sources of water-a significant
challenge for many American Indian
systems due to the scarcity of water
resources. Representing $12 million in
needs, the "other" category comprises the
remaining 1 percent of the total need. This
category includes projects for installing
emergency power generators and up-
grading facilities to protect against floods
and earthquakes.
Regulatory Need for American Indian
Systems. Infrastructure needed for
compliance with existing SDWA regula-
tions comprise 5 percent, or $57 million,
of the total 20-year American Indian need.
The regulatory need category includes
projects which are necessary to attain or
maintain compliance with a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) or treatment
technique requirement. Approximately 98
percent of these projects involve the
upgrade, replacement, or installation of
treatment technologies required for
compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule. Less than 2 percent of
the regulatory need is for compliance with
the Total Coliform Rule. The remainder is
for compliance with the Lead and Copper
Rule.
Alaska Native Village Water
System Needs
The total 20-year need for Alaska Native
Village systems is $1.1 billion. Of this
total, approximately $1.0 billion is needed
now to ensure the continued provision of
safe drinking water. Exhibit 4 shows the
total Alaska Native Village need by
category. The Alaska Native Village need
contributes a disproportionately large
share to the total national need on a per-
household basis.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 27
The main reason for this high
per-household need is that
Alaska Native Village sys-
tems must contend with
significantly higher transpor-
tation and construction costs.
For communities located on
the coast or near navigable
rivers, equipment often must
be transported by barge
during the summer months.
In the absence of navigable
waterways or roads, commu-
nities must rely on helicopters
or airplanes to transport
equipment.
Another factor contributing to
the high per-household need
is the unique construction
standards required to accom-
modate arctic conditions. For example,
storage tanks, treatment facilities, and
other water system components must be
placed on large gravel beds or support
structures, called pilings, to prevent the
transfer of heat from a water system
component to the permafrost. Without
these measures, the underlying perma-
frost would subside and destabilize the
component.
Transmission and distribution projects
comprise the largest category of need,
representing $485 million, or 45 percent of
the total need. Alaska Native Village water
systems usually require only a modest
amount of pipe to provide service to each
residence, given the close proximity of the
homes to each other. However, the
transmission and distribution of water in
many Alaska Native communities requires
the use of supplemental infrastructure that
is not needed in more temperate climates.
In arctic areas, distribution networks
consist of insulated, above-ground mains,
known as utilidors. To prevent water in the
Exhibit 4: Total 20-Year Need by Category for
Alaska Native Village Water Systems
(in millions of Jan. '99 dollars)
Categories of Need
Distribution and
Transmission
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total Need
Current
Need
$481.8
$212.0
$292.5
$34.6
$0.8
$1,021.7
Future
Need
$3.2
$16.8
$17.1
$8.5
$0
$45.5
Total Need
$485.0
$228.7
$309.7
$43.1
$0.8
$1,067.2
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.
system from freezing, the water in these
mains is heated and the distribution
network is looped to provide continuous
circulation of water throughout the entire
system-from the treatment plant and
storage tank, to the homes and back to
the plant.
With $310 million needed over the next 20
years, water storage projects represent
the second largest category of need.
Storage facilities in arctic systems require
heavy insulation and the continuous
circulation and heating of water to prevent
freezing. In addition, the formation of ice
renders many surface water sources
inaccessible for most of the year. Conse-
quently, many surface water systems
must treat and store an entire year's
supply of water within 8 to 12 weeks
during the summer. These systems
require treatment plant and storage
capacities that greatly exceed what would
normally be necessary for similarly sized
systems in the lower 48 States.
-------
Page 28
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Treatment comprises 21 percent of the
need for a cost of $229 million. Although
ground water systems are not subject to
the seasonal limitations which require the
over-sizing of facilities, the quality of the
water often is poor. High levels of iron and
manganese require these systems to
install expensive treatment facilities to
improve the taste and color of the water.
The total 20-year need for source projects
is $43 million. Most of these projects are
for drilling or rehabilitating wells. Alaska
Native Village systems also included
projects to install or upgrade surface
water intake structures.
Regulatory Need for Alaska Native
Village Systems. For Alaska Native
Village systems, all of the projects directly
attributable to the existing SDWA are for
compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR). These projects
total $108 million, or 47 percent, of the
entire Alaska Native Village need for
treatment.
Exhibit 5: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
(in January 1999 dollars)
Large
Systems
Medium
Systems
Small
Systems
American
Indian
Systems
Alaska Native
Village
Systems
Total Need Compared to
the 1995 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs
Survey
The total need for American Indian
systems and Alaska Native Village sys-
tems increased by $533.8 million and
$216.2 million, respectively, compared to
the 1995 findings. This increase results
largely from refining the methods used to
estimate the needs. For the American
Indian survey, the sample size was
increased to provide a more precise
estimate of national need. Similarly, the
use of a census for Alaska Native Village
systems increased the precision of the
need estimate compared to the sampling
methods used in the first survey.
Economic Challenges
Faced by Small Water
Systems
Most American Indian and Alaska
Native Village systems are small,
serving between 25 and 3,300 people.
Small water systems vary widely in
size and complexity. In general,
systems serving more than 500
people have a configuration typical of
larger public water systems: a water
source, several miles of transmission
and distribution piping, multiple
storage tanks, and a treatment sys-
tem. Systems serving fewer than 500
people are usually much simpler in
design and consist of a ground water
well, a small storage tank, and a few
hundred feet of pipe. Some small
systems purchase treated water from
larger public water systems, and
therefore lack the source water and
treatment components of a complete
water system.
Does not include the costs associated with proposed and recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 29
Regardless of their size and configuration,
small water systems face many unique
challenges in providing safe drinking
water to consumers. The substantial
capital investments required to rehabili-
tate, upgrade, or install infrastructure
represent one such challenge. Although
small systems generally have fewer
capital investment needs than larger
systems, the per-household costs borne
by small systems are significantly higher
than those of larger systems. Exhibit 5
compares the average 20-year per-
household need for water systems of
different sizes and for American Indian
and Alaska Native Village water systems.
Small systems lack the economies of
scale that allow larger systems to spread
the costs of capital improvements among
their many consumers. For example, the
installation of a new 1.2 MOD conven-
tional treatment plant designed to serve a
community of 1,000 people may cost
approximately $2.5 million, whereas a 20
MOD plant serving 100,000 people may
cost $30.3 million. The cost per-house-
hold is approximately 88 percent higher
for the smaller community. Moreover,
larger systems usually purchase material
in quantities that result in significant
savings on a unit basis.1 In addition to
facing the financial challenges typical of
small systems, American Indian and
Alaska Native Village systems also must
contend with the other factors (e.g.,
remote location, limited supplies) dis-
cussed earlier.
1 These estimates are derived from the cost models.
See Appendix A—"Methods and Cost Modeling" for a
discussion of how the cost models were developed.
-------
The wells serving the city ofHollywood, Florida, had severe microbiological
contamination whichfouledthe membrane treatment system. In addition, the
combinedoutput ofthewellscouldnot meet demandandthe distribution system
routinelyfailedto reach minimum pressure standards. With a $13 million DWSRF
loan, the city drilled 12 new wells and added 1.5 miles of raw water lines.
-------
HOUSEHOLDS NOT SERVED BY
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
EPA estimates that approxi-
mately 16 million households
obtain their drinking water from
sources other than public water systems.
Of these households, nearly 15 million are
served by private drilled or dug wells,
while 1 million use untreated surface
water such as lakes, rivers, and springs.
The adequacy of these supplies in terms
of quality and quantity cannot be compre-
hensively assessed on a national or even
individual State level due to a lack of data.
This owes largely to the fact that most
private supplies are not subject to the
same rigorous federal or state monitoring
requirements as public water systems.
In addition, an unknown number of people
live in homes without running water. This
population faces an increased risk of
waterborne diseases and related ill-
nesses, because a safe supply of running
water is essential to basic sanitation.
Needs Included in the Survey. For
households without access to safe drink-
ing water, two DWSRF-eligible options
are available for addressing the problem.
An existing public water system can
extend service to these households or a
new public water system can be con-
structed to provide drinking water.
Although systems had the opportunity to
identify these DWSRF-eligible needs, the
survey likely underestimates the true
needs for households without access to
safe drinking water. The lack of compre-
hensive data on the water quality at
private wells obscures the extent of the
problem for many water systems and
States. Thus, respondents may have
overlooked these needs for lack of public
health data. Also, in responding to the
survey, most water systems concentrated
their efforts on identifying projects for their
current, rather than potential, customers.
Therefore, the survey estimate of $6.0
billion to extend service to homes without
safe drinking water understates the true
need.
Private Wells. A lack of monitoring data
prevents a comprehensive assessment of
the quality of water supplied by private
wells. Although EPA believes that most of
the households served by private wells
likely receive safe drinking water, several
studies have found that contamination
rates in some areas are very high.
IF-T . v"
I > -W:
w !
•• fl .- -XXStt , '\-s.'./Vfj«
w ' ' V/
M, '• -- \M,
i V V^ i . i
Pipe /s installed to provide safe drinking water to homes in Rensselear County,
New York, that had previously useduntreatedwaterfrom a transmission line.
The D WSRFcontributed $4.9 million in funding assistance to this project.
-------
Page 32
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Based on data from six states, a
1997 General Accounting Office
study reported bacterial and nitrate
contamination as high as 42 and 18
percent, respectively, of the private
wells tested.1
A 1995 Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention report found that
total coliform bacteria exceeded the
health-based standard in 46, 37,
and 23 percent of the private wells
tested in Illinois, Nebraska, and
Wisconsin, respectively. The study
also detected nitrate concentrations
above the standard in 15, 15, and 7
percent of the wells sampled in
these states, respectively.2
Although data on pesticides, heavy
metals, and volatile organic com-
pounds are extremely limited, one
study found that lead exceeded 15
ppb (an action level for public water
systems) in 19 percent of the wells
tested in Pennsylvania.3
The proximity of this
small groundwater
system to a gasoline
station provides an
example of a poorly sited
well. Spills or leakage
from underground
gasoline storage tanks
could contaminate the
groundwater. Wells
such as this one should
be replaced by new wells
that are drilled aw ay
from potential sources of
contamination or,
alternatively, the source
of contamination should
be eliminated.
Improper siting and construction is one of
the main causes of contamination in older
private wells. Because of land availability
constraints, a lack of understanding of
health implications, and a desire to
minimize cost, some older private wells
are located too close to septic systems or
other potential sources of contamination.
The length of the well casing also influ-
ences the susceptibility of wells to micro-
bial contamination, with the probability of
contamination increasing as casing length
decreases.4 Although all States now have
well construction standards, an unknown
number of private wells were constructed
before these standards were established.
Hauled Water and Untreated Surface
Water Sources. More than 1 million
households obtain water directly from
cisterns, springs, rivers, and lakes. Drink-
ing water from untreated surface sources
is often stored in barrels or cisterns which
are susceptible to microbiological con-
tamination. Census data show that 2
percent of American Indian households
on federally recognized Tribal lands and
20 percent of mainland Alaska Native
Village households obtain their water from
untreated surface sources.
1We//, Well, Well Water. 1997. Environmental Health
Perspectives 105(12):1290-1292.
2Center for Disease Control and Prevention, et.al. A
Survey of the Presence of Contaminants in Water in
Private Wells in Nine Midwestern States. Report in Draft.
3Swistock, B.R., W.E. Sharpe, and P.O. Robillard. A
Survey of Lead, Nitrate and Radon Contamination of
Private Individual Water Systems in Pennsylvania. 1993.
Journal of Environmental Health 55(5):6-12.
"Tuthill A., D.B. Meikle, M. C.R. Alavanja. 1998.
Coliform Bacteria and Nitrate Contamination of Wells in
Major Soils of Frederick, Maryland. Journal of Environ-
mental Health 60(8): 16-20.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 33
Colonies and Washeterias. A significant
number of consumers commonly use
untreated sources of water or water
hauled from unsanitary sources in areas
called colonies along the Texas-Mexico
border and in Alaska Native communities.
Colonies—Nearly 400,000 people
live in communities, known as
colonias, which extend along the
border with Mexico. These commu-
nities have the largest concentration
of people living without basic ser-
vices in the nation. Most colonias do
not have a safe supply of running
water. Therefore, people must haul
water from central watering points or
untreated sources such as irrigation
canals. The lack of water service to
homes in colonias tends to limit
hand-washing and bathing. Conse-
quently, these households face an
increased risk from communicable
diseases including Hepatitis A,
shigellosis, and Impetigo.
The Needs Survey includes the
capital needs of colonias only to the
extent that States have identified the
water systems serving these com-
munities. The survey likely underes-
timates the needs of colonias, as
most States have yet to locate all of
these systems for inclusion in their
inventory.
Washeterias Serving Alaska
Native Communities—Approxi-
mately 30,000 Alaskans, or 30
percent of the population, live in
rural communities without adequate
water and sewer facilities. The only
drinking water available to many
Alaska Natives is from the commu-
nity washeteria, particularly during
The City of El Paso, Texas, received a $15 million loan from the Texas D WSRF
program to expand the capacity of the Jonathan Rogers Treatment Plant. This
project will provide water to colonias that lack access to safe drinking water.
cold weather when snow and ice
make alternative sources of water
inaccessible. A washeteria is a
single building with showers, toilets,
and washing machines. The
washeteria often doubles as a water
treatment plant with heated water
storage. Residents haul drinking
water, usually by walking along a
boardwalk, from a watering point at
the washeteria. In most cases, the
access boardwalk is also used to
haul sewage to disposal sites. As
sewage spills are not uncommon,
there is a high risk of contaminating
the drinking water. Other sources of
water include rain, melting snow,
rivers, lakes, individual wells, and
individual storage tanks. In addition,
container vehicles are used to
transport water to, and sewage
from, these communities.
-------
Workers retrieve a tunnel boring machine (TBM) used to excavate an underground
passage for a transmission line. TBMs allow water systems to bore through rock at
rates faster than conventional drilling and blasting methods. By avoiding the need to
tear up streets and set underground explosives, TBMs also minimize traffic disruption
and noise for the surrounding areas.
-------
APPENDIX A— METHODS: SAMPLING
AND COST MODELING
^^Tne sampling methods for the 1999
I Needs Survey were developed by a
I workgroup consisting of American
Indian, Alaska Native Village, Indian
Health Service (IMS), and U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) repre-
sentatives. The workgroup met four times
to develop the survey methods.
The workgroup based the approach for
the 1999 survey on the methods used in
1995, with refinements from the lessons
learned in conducting the 1995 survey,
findings of a follow-up study that EPA
performed in 1997, and options made
available by technological advances in
database management and the Internet.
Different data collection methods were
used to account for the strengths and
resource constraints of the different sized
systems in the survey—with small sys-
tems receiving site visits and medium
systems receiving questionnaires.
Estimating the Needs of
American Indian and
Alaska Native Village Water
Systems
Inventory Verification. To ensure that
the survey accounted for all community
and not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems for the Tribal survey, the uni-
verse of water systems (from which the
samples were drawn) was obtained from
the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS). SDWIS is EPA's
centralized database for information on
public water systems. It is an ideal choice
for determining the inventory, because it
is designed to identify all public water
systems. EPA Regions verified informa-
tion on population served, water sources,
and other important variables for their
systems.
Exhibit A-1: American Indian and Alaska Native Village System Sampling for
the 1999 Needs Survey
Population Served
Data Collection Method
Sample Size
Response Rates
Precision Target
American Indian
Small Systems
3,300 or fewer
Site Visits
78
100 Percent
95%±10% Precision
Nationally
American Indian
Medium Systems
3,301 - 50,000
Questionnaire
19
100 Percent
Alaska Native Systems
All populations
Questionnaire
174
100 Percent
Systems Sampled With Certainty (Census)
-------
Page 36
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
American Indian Water Systems. The
1999 survey estimated the infrastructure
needs of medium-sized American Indian
water systems using a census. Each of
the 19 community water systems serving
more than 3,300 people completed a
questionnaire. EPA offered technical
assistance to help these systems identify
eligible needs and prepare documenta-
tion. In addition, drinking water projects
from IHS's Sanitation Deficiency System
(SDS) were pre-printed on each question-
naire. The SDS was not designed to
capture the full extent of the needs
allowable for the survey, so these data
served as a baseline to which systems
added projects. For example, SDS
contains only current needs, while the
survey asks for current and future needs.
The systems returned the completed
questionnaire and documentation to EPA
for final review.
The Needs Survey workgroup agreed that
small systems generally lack the planning
documents and personnel to complete a
mailed questionnaire. Therefore, needs
Exhibit A-2: Cost Curve for New Conventional Filtration
1,000,000,000 -3
100,000,000 •;
10,000,000 -
§
to
4-1
O 1,000,000 -
o
100,000 -
10,000 -
1,000
data were collected through site visits. A
sample of 78 small American Indian
systems was randomly selected. Site
visits were conducted by drinking water
system specialists who had extensive
experience working with small systems,
had received special Needs Survey
training, and had previous experience with
American Indian water systems. In some
cases, IMS and Tribal officials attended
the site visits. EPA was responsible for
completing the questionnaire and docu-
menting needs and costs.
Stratification. The sample design for the
survey of American Indian small systems
was based on the concept of stratified
random sampling. Stratification made the
design more efficient by enabling it to
meet precision targets with a smaller
sample size than if the sample were not
stratified. These efficiencies are achieved
if the design accounts for the fact that
some water systems, as a group, will
have different needs than other water
systems. For example, large water
systems generally require much greater
investments than do small systems.
Water systems were stratified using two
source (surface and ground) and several
population groups. Results from the 1995
survey indicated that systems purchasing
treated water have needs more similar to
ground water systems than systems using
and treating surface water sources.
Therefore, systems that solely purchase
water were included in the ground water
strata. Also, in assigning a system to a
size category, the survey included the
population served by other utilities which
purchase water from the system. Systems
that sell water must design their infra-
structure, particularly treatment facilities,
to serve the purchasing system popula-
tions.
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Millions of Gallons per Day
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 37
Cost Modeling. Few of the water systems
in the Tribal survey provided the capital
improvement plans or engineering reports
that were required to document the costs
of their infrastructure projects. EPA used
models to assign costs to these projects.
Cost models were developed from docu-
mented cost estimates provided mostly by
the systems from the State portion of the
survey. For a limited number of infrastruc-
ture needs, the cost data collected were
insufficient to develop a cost model. For
these projects additional project cost
information was obtained from the States,
Indian Health Service, and engineering
firms. All costs were converted to January
1999 dollars.
For example, a cost model would have
been used if a system lacked cost docu-
mentation for rehabilitating a conventional
filtration treatment plant that no longer
met performance standards. If the system
provided the design capacity of the plant
on the questionnaire, EPA would have
applied the specific cost model for reha-
bilitating this type of plant. Exhibit A-2
provides an example of a cost curve used
to apply costs to a new conventional
treatment plant project.
Alaska Native Village Water Systems.
Current and future needs of Alaska Native
Village water systems were identified
through a census of water systems that
serve predominantly Alaska Natives. The
inventory consisted of 2 medium systems
and 172 small systems. A list of projects
needed for each small system was
developed by EPA in consultation with
Village representatives, Village Safe
Water, IMS, and State officials. Site visits
to 5 Alaska Native Village water systems
were performed to confirm the need
assessments.
Needs for the two medium Alaska Native
Village water systems were obtained
through phone interviews with the sys-
tems. Based on the responses from the
water systems, EPA prepared the ques-
tionnaires and documentation.
Cost Modeling. Using cost models
developed with data from systems in the
State and American Indian portions of the
survey would not reflect the unique
construction challenges that face Alaska
Native Villages. For example, in some areas,
water tanks and treatment plants need to be
elevated on pilings to prevent the heated
facilities from subsiding into the permafrost.
Therefore, a roundtable meeting of IMS and
EPA engineers was held to provide guide-
lines for determining project costs. In
assigning costs to projects, water systems
were grouped into three geographic areas
roughly corresponding to the northern,
central, and southern parts of the State.
These areas coincided roughly with the
different factors that influence project
costs, such as the means used to trans-
port equipment. This process omitted
water systems located on the North
Slope, because they had prepared master
plans and capital improvement plans that
documented the costs of all of their
needs. IMS provided cost documentation
for projects constructed in Alaska Native
Villages throughout the State. These
costs were used to estimate the average
costs of projects in each geographic area.
Costs for some projects were derived
from the cost models developed for the
State and American Indian systems. The
models were used to assign costs to
small-scale projects (e.g., flushing hy-
drants) for which IMS costs were unavail-
able.
Precision Targets. Because all of the
Alaska Native Village and medium-sized
American Indian water systems were
included in the survey, the needs of these
systems were calculated with certainty.
The estimates of need for small American
Indian water systems have a national
precision level of 95 percent ±10 percent.
-------
Filtration plants consist of a series of treatment stages, each of which is critical to the production of safe water.
Shown is a filter bed that is cloggedwith mud and treatment chemicals. The clarifier that should have removed
these particulates in the preceding stage is in poor condition andneeds to be replaced.
-------
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Exhibit B-1—Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Systems by EPA Region
Exhibit B-2—Total Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Exhibit B-3—Total Regulatory Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems
-------
Page 40
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-1 : Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Systems
by EPA Region (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9 2
Region 1 0 3
Alaska Native Systems
Total
Total Need
3.9
6.0
0.0
17.8
157.3
151.9
14.3
133.4
548.9
1 18.3
1,067.2
2,219.0
1 There are no American Indian water systems in EPA Region 3.
2 Navajo water systems are located in EPA Regions 6, 8, and 9, but for purposes of
this report, all Navajo needs are shown in EPA Region 9.
3 Needs for Alaska Native Village water systems are not included in the EPA Region 10 total.
Locations of EPA Regions
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 41
Exhibit B-2: Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Transmission and Distribution
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total
Current Needs
1,173.4
369.2
398.8
99.5
12.4
2,053.2
Future Needs
55.0
38.9
48.2
23.7
0.0
165.8
Total Need
1,228.4
408.1
447.0
123.2
12.4
2,219.0
-------
Page 42
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-3: Total Regulatory Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Regulations for Contaminants
with Acute Health Effects
Regulations for Contaminants
with Chronic Health Effects
Total
Current Needs
159.8
0.1
160.0
Future Needs
4.7
0.0
4.7
Total Need
164.5
0.1
164.6
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 43
-------
Sebago Lake, inMaine, provides water to Portland and surrounding communities.
-------
APPENDIX C—GLOSSARY
Acute health effects: health effects resulting from exposure to a contaminant that causes severe symptoms to
occur quickly—often within a matter of hours or days. Examples include gastrointestinal illness and "blue baby
syndrome."
Capital improvement plan (CIP): a document produced by a local government, utility, or water system that
thoroughly outlines, for a specified period of time, all needed capital projects, the reason for each project, and their
costs.
Chronic health effects: health effects resulting from long-term exposure to low concentrations of certain contami-
nants. Cancer is one such health effect.
Coliform bacteria: a group of bacteria whose presence in a water sample indicates the water may contain
disease-causing organisms.
Community water system: a public water system that serves at least 15 connections used by year-round resi-
dents or that regularly serves at least 25 residents year-round. Examples include cities, towns, and communities
such as retirement homes.
Current infrastructure needs: new facilities or deficiencies in existing facilities identified by the State or system
for which water systems would begin construction as soon as possible to avoid a threat to public health.
Engineer's report: a document produced by a professional engineer that outlines the need and cost for a specific
infrastructure project.
Existing regulations: drinking water regulations promulgated under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act
by EPA; existing regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.
Finished water: water that is considered safe and suitable for delivery to customers.
Future infrastructure needs: infrastructure deficiencies that a system expects to address in the next 20 years
due to predictable deterioration of facilities. Future infrastructure needs do not include current infrastructure needs.
Examples are storage facility and treatment plant replacement where the facility currently performs adequately,
but will reach the end of its useful life in the next 20 years. Needs solely to accommodate future growth are not
included in the Needs Survey.
Ground water: any water obtained from a source beneath the surface of the ground which has not been classi-
fied as ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
Growth: needs planned solely to accommodate projected future growth are not included in the survey. Eligible
projects, however, can be designed for growth expected during the design-life of the project. For example, the
survey would allow a treatment plant needed now and expected to treat water for 20 years. Such a plant could be
designed for the population anticipated to be served at the end of the 20-year period.
-------
Page 46 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Infrastructure needs: the capital costs associated with ensuring the continued protection of public health through
rehabilitating or building facilities needed for continued provision of safe drinking water. Categories of need include
source development and rehabilitation, treatment, storage, and transmission and distribution. Operation and main-
tenance needs are not considered infrastructure needs and are not included in this document.
Large water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving more than 50,000
people.
Medium water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving from 3,301 to
50,000 people.
Microbiological contamination: the occurrence in a water supply of protozoan, bacteriological, or viral contami-
nants.
Noncommunity water system: a public water system that is not a community water system and that serves a
nonresidential population of at least 25 individuals or 15 service connections daily for at least 60 days of the year.
Examples of not-for-profit noncommunity water systems include schools and churches.
Public water system: a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or,
after August 5, 1998, other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regu-
larly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.
Regulatory need: a capital expenditure required for compliance with regulations.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): a law passed by Congress in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996 to ensure
that public water systems provide safe drinking water to consumers. (42 U.S.C.A. §300f to 300J-26)
Small water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving 3,300 people or
fewer.
Source rehabilitation and development: a category of need that includes the costs involved in developing or
improving sources of water for public water systems.
State: in this document, this term refers to all 50 States of the United States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.
Storage: a category of need that addresses finished water storage needs faced by public water systems.
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA): an advanced control system that collects all system
information for an operator and allows him/her, through user-friendly interfaces, to view all aspects of the system
from one place.
Surface water: all water which is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface run-off including streams, rivers,
and lakes.
Transmission and distribution: a category of need that includes replacement or rehabilitation of transmission or
distribution lines which carry drinking water from the source to the treatment plant or from the treatment plant to the
consumer.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 47
Treatment: a category of need that includes conditioning water or removing microbiological and chemical contami-
nants. Filtration of surface water sources, pH adjustment, softening, and disinfection are examples of treatment.
Watering point: a central source from which people without piped water can draw drinking water for transport to
their homes.
------- |