T

he second Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey involved

the collective efforts of the States,

American Indian and Alaska Native

Village representatives, the Indian Health

Service, EPA, and thousands of 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 national infrastructure need for

the approximately 55,000 community and

21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity public

water systems eligible to receive DWSRF

assistance. A total of approximately 4,000

public water systems participated in the

survey.

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) Amendments direct EPA to use

the results from the latest needs survey to

allocate DWSRF funds. For this purpose,

the survey was designed to provide

statistically precise estimates of need for

each of the States. The DWSRF funds

are allocated based on each State’s share

of the total national need (although, under

SDWA, each State receives a minimum

allotment of 1 percent).

The results of the survey are also used to

allocate the set-aside—up to 0.33 percent

of the DWSRF—for the U.S. Territories.

Therefore, the survey generated separate

estimates of need for Guam, American

Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern

Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands.

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 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 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.

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 22 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

• 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.

• 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

States, U.S. Territories, and Tribes in

determining the adequacy of documentation and the eligibility of needs. These

The rust on the hydropneumatic tank (foreground) signals the need for requirements not only lend credibility to

rehabilitation, while the severe corrosion on the other tank will require its

replacement. Such deterioration can promote microbial growth and impair water

quality.

Dan Fraser
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 23

the findings, but also address the issue of

fairness when the results are used to

apportion DWSRF funds. Of the 86,057

projects submitted to the survey, 14

percent were deleted for failing to meet

the documentation criteria or for appearing to be ineligible for DWSRF funding.

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

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.

The number of projects submitted without

cost documentation increased significantly

in 1999 compared to the previous survey.

Of 74,339 accepted projects, 67 percent

were submitted without costs or documentation of cost. This increase necessitated a greater reliance on cost modeling.

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. 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 State

DWSRF programs,

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 State,

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.

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
Page 24 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

The workgroup developed the following

improvements for the 1999 survey:

• In 1995, all systems serving more

than 50,000 people were included in

a census. The 1999 survey expanded the census to include

systems serving more than 40,000

people. This change increased the

precision of the survey’s estimates

for the largest systems that represent the greatest share of the

nation’s infrastructure needs.

• For the first survey, EPA was

primarily responsible for collecting

information from systems that did

not respond to the survey or that

submitted inadequate documentation. For the 1999 survey, this

responsibility was assumed by

States. The involvement of those

more familiar with the surveyed

systems improved the response

rate and the identification of needs.

• 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

States to readily identify which

projects required additional documentation of need or cost.

• The 1999 survey included the

infrastructure needs of the 21,400

not-for-profit noncommunity water

systems eligible for DWSRF assistance. These systems were not

included in the 1995 survey.

• 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 State

Survey

The survey used a questionnaire to collect

infrastructure needs from medium and

large water systems. A package containing a questionnaire, instructions, an

example of a completed questionnaire,

and a list of commonly asked questions

was sent to each system in the survey.

Packages were mailed to all 1,111 of the

nation’s largest systems serving more

than 40,000 people and to a random

sample of 2,556 medium systems serving

more than 3,300 people.

Water from the Charles River in Massachusetts pours into a deteriorated

transmission main which the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)

had drained after detecting a leak. MWRA replaces or rehabilitates approximately

7 miles of pipe per year, some of which is more than 100 years old. Many older

water systems will find it increasingly necessary to replace substantial portions of

distribution networks that were installed 50 to 100 years ago.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 25

The systems returned the questionnaires

and accompanying documentation to their

State contacts. The States reviewed each

questionnaire to ensure that systems

identified all of their needs and that the

projects fulfilled the eligibility and documentation criteria. If these criteria were

not met, the States had the option of

contacting the system to obtain more

information. EPA conducted a final review

of each project and entered the information into a database. Web-based communications allowed the States to review the

data, including any changes made by

EPA. The website provided States with

the information necessary to identify

projects not meeting the established

criteria and provided the States with an

opportunity to submit additional documentation of project need or cost.

Small systems serving 3,300 or fewer

people generally lacked the personnel

and planning documents necessary to

complete the questionnaire. Therefore,

the infrastructure needs of small systems

were obtained through site visits to

approximately 599 systems—with at least

6 systems selected in each State. EPA

conducted an additional 100 site visits to

assess the needs of not-for-profit noncommunity water systems.

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.

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 U.S. EPA
Page 26 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

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
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 27

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
Some water systems employ short-term measures to postpone the expense of replacing and rehabilitating infrastructure.

Here a water system uses a broom to prop up a chemical feed line. With a $4.4 million DWSRF loan, a neighboring water

system expanded its treatment capacity to serve the community previously served by this deteriorated system.

U.S. EPA