Drinking Water Infrastructure

Needs Survey

American Indian and Alaska Native

Village Water Systems Survey

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Water

(4101)

EPA 816-R-01-006

February 2001

Printed on recycled paper
Pictured left to right from upper left: ground water supply, building a new treatment plant, building a

ground-level storage tank, laying distribution mains, and collecting drinking water from a watering point.

Credits left to right from upper left: Navajo Nation EPA; Indian Health Service; Indian Health Service; Indian HealthService; and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey

American Indian and Alaska Native Village

Water Systems Survey

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

1999
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

-orNational 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

Bill Reid–The Cherokee Nation

Phyllis A. Attocknie–The Comanche Nation

Melanie Watkins–The Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma

Stephen Aoyama–Indian 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

José 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.

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.
The construction of a treated water storage tank nears completion in Nuiqsut, one of the most northerly

communities in Alaska. In many Alaska Native communities, water tanks and treatment plants must be

elevated on pilings to prevent the heated facilities from subsiding into the permafrost.

Indian Health Service
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-forprofit 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.

P

ublic water systems must invest in

infrastructure improvements to

ensure that they can continue to

deliver safe drinking water to consumers.

These improvements vary greatly in

complexity and cost: from replacing a lowcapacity 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 improvements. Recognizing this problem, Congress 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 estimate 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 continued compliance with specific

SDWA regulations.

Sections 1452(h) and

1452(i)(4) of the Safe Drinking 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 Revolving 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

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 American 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 presents 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-household 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 represent 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 infrastructure that is required to deliver safe drinking 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 categories of need: source, transmission and

distribution, treatment, storage, and

“other.” Each category represents projects

that are of critical importance to providing

safe drinking water.

Transmission and

Distribution

$1.2 billion

Storage

$0.4 billion

Treatment

$0.4 billion

Source

$0.1 billion

Other

$0.01 billion

Exhibit ES-1: Total 20-Year Need by Category

(in January 1999 dollars)

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
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 category includes the installation and

rehabilitation of raw and finished

water transmission pipes, distribution 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 transmission 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 rehabilitate existing finished water storage

tanks. A water system with inadequate storage capacity cannot

always provide water at pressures

sufficient to prevent back-siphonage

of microbial contaminants. In addition, 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 microbiological 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 treatment 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 estimated $12.4 million. This category

captures needs that cannot be

assigned to one of the prior categories. Examples include emergency

power generators, computer and

automation equipment, and improvements 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 treatment 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 healthbased 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 declining 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 regulations. This report refers to these needs

collectively as the “regulatory need.” The

total regulatory need is divided into two

broad categories: existing SDWA regulations 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 replacing 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 treatment 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 systems, 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 developed 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 technological advancements in the Internet.

Each of the 19 American Indian systems

serving more than 3,300 people completed 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 engineers, 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 systems 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 consumers. 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, South Dakota. The previous plant lacked the treatment capacity to protect against microbial

contamination during periods of high runoff in the spring months.

Indian Health Service
T

he second Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey involved

the collective efforts of the American Indian and Alaska Native Village

representatives, the Indian Health Service, 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 noncommunity 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 infrastructure need for each EPA Region. The

results are used to allocate the Tribal SetAside 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 assigned each project to one of five categories 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 comprises 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 rehabilitating raw and finished water transmission pipes, distribution water

mains, flushing hydrants, valves,

and backflow prevention devices.

• The treatment category consists of

projects needed to address problems such as the presence of

microbial pathogens and chemical

contaminants.

OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS

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 rehabilitate existing finished-water tanks.

• The “other” category captures

needs that cannot be assigned to

one of the prior categories. Examples include laboratory equipment, 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

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 susceptible 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 documentation 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 credibility 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 assessing 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

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
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 availablity 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, including engineering firms and the Indian

Health Service, were obtained to supplement 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 representatives. 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 userfriendly 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 participate 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 Methods. 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

Small American Indian systems in the sample

Medium American Indian systems

Numbers indicate the number of medium/small

American Indian systems, respectively

Alaska Native Village water systems

3/13

1/3

2

2

1/1 3

2/1

Exhibit 1: Location of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems In the

Needs Survey Sample
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 assistance in identifying eligible needs and

preparing documentation. The questionnaires for each system contained preprinted need and cost information derived

from the Sanitation Deficiency System

(SDS) of the Indian Health Service (IHS).

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 American 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 documentation 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 personnel and data resources (e.g., aerial

photographs) allowed EPA to use a

census to assess the needs of Alaska

Native Village water systems. A questionnaire was mailed to the two medium-sized

systems serving more than 3,300 people.

Infrastructure needs for 172 small systems were identified on questionnaires by

representatives from the Alaska Native

Village Health Consortia, IHS, and Village

Safe Water with assistance from EPA.

A round-table of IHS 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 IHS 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 IHS

costs were unavailable.

Many American Indians obtain their drinking water from watering points such as

the one pictured here.

Navajo Nation EPA
The expense of burying pipe leads some systems to develop expedient but precarious solutions such as the one

pictured here. Water service will be disrupted if pipes are not buried or otherwise adequately protected.

Dave Clark
Transmission and

Distribution

$743.4 million

Storage

$137.4 million

Treatment

$179.3 million

Source

$80.1 million

Other

$11.6 million

American Indian Water Systems

Transmission and

Distribution

$485.0 million

Storage

$309.7 million

Treatment

$228.7 million

Source

$43.1 million

Other

$0.8 million

Alaska Native Village Water Systems

T

he survey estimates that American

Indian and Alaska Native Village

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 perhousehold 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 American 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 economies of scale that reduce the per-household 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.

Exhibit 2: Total American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Need

by Category of Need

(in millions of January 1999 dollars)

Does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.

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.
Page 24 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

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 conditions.

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, compared 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 supplies. 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 supplies, such as untreated surface sources

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.

Indian Health Services
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 25

that are subject to contamination from waterborne bacteria, 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 waterborne and water-related

diseases remains an important 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 replacement 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 deteriorate to an extent that premature replacement of the facilities is required.

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 American Indian need, a finding which reflects

the long lengths of main often needed to

transport water from a source to a treatment 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.

Exhibit 3: Total 20-Year Need by Category for

American Indian Water Systems

(in millions of January 1999 dollars)

Categories of Need Current

Need

Future

Need Total Need

Distribution and

Transmission $691.6 $51.8 $743.4

Treatment $157.2 $22.1 $179.3

Storage $106.3 $31.1 $137.4

Source $64.9 $15.2 $80.1

Other $11.6 $0 $11.6

Total Need $1,031.5 $120.3 $1,151.8

Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
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.

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 adequate 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 upgrading facilities to protect against floods

and earthquakes.

Regulatory Need for American Indian

Systems. Infrastructure needed for

compliance with existing SDWA regulations 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 perhousehold basis.

A storage tank under construction in White Mountain, Alaska, is encased in

insulation to prevent water in the system from freezing. Constructing water

systems to withstand extreme weather conditions is one reason Alaska Native

Village systems have high per-household needs.

Indian Health Service
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 27

Exhibit 4: Total 20-Year Need by Category for

Alaska Native Village Water Systems

(in millions of Jan. ‘99 dollars)

The main reason for this high

per-household need is that

Alaska Native Village systems must contend with

significantly higher transportation 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, communities 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 accommodate 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 permafrost 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

Categories of Need Current

Need

Future

Need Total Need

Distribution and

Transmission $481.8 $3.2 $485.0

Treatment $212.0 $16.8 $228.7

Storage $292.5 $17.1 $309.7

Source $34.6 $8.5 $43.1

Other $0.8 $0 $0.8

Total Need $1,021.7 $45.5 $1,067.2

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. Consequently, 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.

Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Page 28 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

$790 $1,250

$3,000

$6,500

$51,500

Large

Systems

Medium

Systems

Small

Systems

American

Indian

Systems

Alaska Native

Village

Systems

Exhibit 5: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need

(in January 1999 dollars)

Does not include the costs associated with proposed and recently promulgated SDWA regulations.

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.

Total Need Compared to

the 1995 Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs

Survey

The total need for American Indian

systems and Alaska Native Village systems 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 system. 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.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 29 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.

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 rehabilitate, 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 perhousehold 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 MGD conventional treatment plant designed to serve a

community of 1,000 people may cost

approximately $2.5 million, whereas a 20

MGD plant serving 100,000 people may

cost $30.3 million. The cost per-household 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) discussed earlier.
The wells serving the city of Hollywood, Florida, had severe microbiological

contamination which fouled the membrane treatment system. In addition, the

combined output of the wells could not meet demand and the distribution system

routinely failed to 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.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
E

PA estimates that approximately 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 comprehensively 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 illnesses, because a safe supply of running

water is essential to basic sanitation.

Needs Included in the Survey. For

households without access to safe drinking 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 constructed 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 comprehensive 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.

HOUSEHOLDS NOT SERVED BY

PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

Pipe is installed to provide safe drinking water to homes in Rensselear County,

New York, that had previously used untreated water from a transmission line.

The DWSRF contributed $4.9 million in funding assistance to this project.

New York State Department of Health
Page 32 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

The proximity of this

small ground water

system to a gasoline

station provides an

example of a poorly sited

well. Spills or leakage

from underground

gasoline storage tanks

could contaminate the

ground water.Wells

such as this one should

be replaced by new wells

that are drilled away

from potential sources of

contamination or,

alternatively, the source

of contamination should

be eliminated.

• 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 compounds 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

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 influences the susceptibility of wells to microbial 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. Drinking water from untreated surface sources

is often stored in barrels or cisterns which

are susceptible to microbiological contamination. 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.

1 Well, Well, Well Water. 1997. Environmental Health

Perspectives 105(12):1290-1292.

2 Center 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.

3 Swistock, B.R., W.E. Sharpe, and P.D. 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.

4Tuthill A., D.B. Meikle, M. C.R. Alavanja. 1998.

Coliform Bacteria and Nitrate Contamination of Wells in

Major Soils of Frederick, Maryland. Journal of Environmental Health 60(8):16-20.

U.S. EPA
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 33

Colonias and Washeterias. A significant

number of consumers commonly use

untreated sources of water or water

hauled from unsanitary sources in areas

called colonias along the Texas-Mexico

border and in Alaska Native communities.

Colonias—Nearly 400,000 people

live in communities, known as

colonias, which extend along the

border with Mexico. These communities have the largest concentration

of people living without basic services 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. Consequently, 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 communities. The survey likely underestimates 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—Approximately 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 community washeteria, particularly during

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.

The City of El Paso, Texas, received a $15 million loan from the Texas DWSRF

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.

Texas Water Development Board
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.

Kimberlie Staheli, Bennett Staheli, Engineers
T

he sampling methods for the 1999

Needs Survey were developed by a

workgroup consisting of American

Indian, Alaska Native Village, Indian

Health Service (IHS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) representatives. 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 systems 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 universe 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 information on population served, water sources,

and other important variables for their

systems.

APPENDIX A— METHODS: SAMPLING

AND COST MODELING

American Indian

Small Systems

American Indian

Medium Systems Alaska Native Systems

Population Served 3,300 or fewer 3,301 - 50,000 All populations

Data Collection Method Site Visits Questionnaire Questionnaire

Sample Size 78 19 174

Response Rates 100 Percent 100 Percent 100 Percent

Precision Target 95%±10% Precision

Nationally Systems Sampled With Certainty (Census)

Exhibit A-1: American Indian and Alaska Native Village System Sampling for

the 1999 Needs Survey
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 documentation. In addition, drinking water projects

from IHS’s Sanitation Deficiency System

(SDS) were pre-printed on each questionnaire. 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

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, IHS and Tribal officials attended

the site visits. EPA was responsible for

completing the questionnaire and documenting 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 infrastructure, particularly treatment facilities,

to serve the purchasing system populations.

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Costs ($)

Millions of Gallons per Day

Exhibit A-2: Cost Curve for New Conventional Filtration
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 documented cost estimates provided mostly by 

the systems from the State portion of the

survey. For a limited number of infrastructure 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 documentation 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 rehabilitating 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, IHS, 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 systems. Based on the responses from the

water systems, EPA prepared the questionnaires 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 IHS and 

EPA engineers was held to provide guidelines 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 transport 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. IHS 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 hydrants) for which IHS costs were unavailable.

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 clogged with mud and treatment chemicals. The clarifier that should have removed

these particulates in the preceding stage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced.

Dan Fraser
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 Total Need

Region 1 3.9

Region 2 6.0

Region 3 1 0.0

Region 4 17.8

Region 5 157.3

Region 6 151.9

Region 7 14.3

Region 8 133.4

Region 9 2 548.9

Region 10 3 118.3

Alaska Native Systems 1,067.2

Total 2,219.0

R1

R10

R10

R9

R8

R6

R7

R5

R4

R3

R2

Locations of EPA Regions 

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.
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 Current Needs Future Needs Total Need

Transmission and Distribution 1,173.4 55.0 1,228.4

Treatment 369.2 38.9 408.1

Storage 398.8 48.2 447.0

Source 99.5 23.7 123.2

Other 12.4 0.0 12.4

Total 2,053.2 165.8 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 Current Needs Future Needs Total Need

Regulations for Contaminants 

with Acute Health Effects

159.8 4.7 164.5

Regulations for Contaminants 

with Chronic Health Effects 0.1 0.0 0.1

Total 160.0 4.7 164.6
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 43
Sebago Lake, in Maine, provides water to Portland and surrounding communities.

Saint Joseph’s College, Standish, Maine
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 contaminants. 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 residents 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 classified 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 maintenance 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 contaminants.

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 regularly 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 contaminants. 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.