2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey by 8aCt3p




      2011 Drinking Water
      Infrastructure Needs
Overview of the American
     Indian and Alaskan
    Native Village Survey

       History, Statistics and
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
   Section 1452(i)(4) of the Safe Drinking
    Water Act requires EPA, in consultation
    with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and
    Indian tribes, to prepare surveys and assess
    the needs of drinking water systems serving
    American Indians and Alaskan Native
    What does the survey
   Public water systems’ 20-year needs for
    infrastructure construction, rehabilitation and
   Community and not-for-profit non-community
    public water systems (e.g. schools, office
    building, etc.)
   Only captures needs of existing public water
 Why is the survey
 Resultshelp determine regional
 distribution of Drinking Water Tribal
 Set-Aside funds
 ►   Set-asides are allotted each fiscal year
 Set-aside     allotment formula:
 ►   2% to each region with tribes (= 18% total)
 ►   Remaining 82% allocated by assigning weight of
     50% to IHS’s SDS list, and 50% to tribal needs
 Implications for
 Participating Systems
 The   survey…
 ►   Does not serve as a grant or loan application
 ►   Does not ensure funding of the projects
 ►   Does not obligate the tribe to implement those

 ►   Does support long-term planning of the water system
     infrastructure needs
History of AI/ANV Survey
 The AI/ANV survey effort was coordinated
  with the 1995 and 1999 State Needs
 Workgroup develops approach for AI/ANV
    ►   AI and ANV representatives
    ►   Indian Health Service (IHS)
    ►   Village Safe Water (VSW)
    ►   EPA
1995 and 1999 American
Indian Surveys
   Census of medium systems (serving greater
    than 3,300 people)
    ►   All medium systems were surveyed via mailed questionnaire
    ►   Technical assistance was provided by phone

   Statistical sample of small systems (serving
    3,300 or fewer)
    ►   Site visits conducted for all systems

                             Medium Systems     Small Systems
           Survey Year
                                Sampled           Sampled
               1995            15 (out of 15)   57 (out of 682)
               1999            19 (out of 19)   78 (out of 762)
2003 and 2007 DWINSA
   State and island survey only
    ►   In 2003, small state systems were not included
    ►   In 2007, small state systems were surveyed

   AI and ANV needs
    ►   Systems not surveyed
    ►   Adjusted 1999 results to current year dollars
    ►   High level of confidence in 1999 findings
2011 AI/ANV Survey
 12 years since systems surveyed
 Representatives of AI and ANV systems
  agreed that new survey necessary to
  capture updated needs
 Primacy agency (EPA regions and
  Navajo Nation) responsible for
  completion of survey
    ►   EPA HQ oversees process
How many Region 9
systems will participate?
 65 systems in Region 9 (excl. Navajo)
 40 systems in Navajo Nation

 25% SRF-eligible Region 9 systems,
  36% SRF-eligible Navajo Nation-
  regulated systems
     Approach and
Statistical Methods
Data Quality Objectives
   Two sampling frames
    ►   American Indian Systems
    ►   Alaskan Native Village Systems
   Overall DQO for each
    ►   Confidence level of 95%
    ►   Precision target of ±10%

   Same DQOs as the national level and each
    participating state for the state survey
 2011 AI/ANV Survey
 Statistical Approach
                                                       Alaskan Native
                    American Indian Systems
                                                       Village Systems
Population        >10,000            25 – 10,000             > 25
Data           EPA Regions and the Navajo Nation coordinate with AI and
Collection          ANV water system owners to complete survey
                   Census                              Random Sample
Sample           (all systems      Random Sample        (includes all
                  sampled)                                 >3,300)

Data Quality
                            95% +/- 10%                  95% +/- 10%
                   14 of 14          206 of 770           88 of 188
AI/ANV Survey Strata
     Population      Surface Water   Groundwater
      > 10,000           Census – All Systems
                         Receive Questionnaire

    1,001 to 3,300         Random Sample
     501 to 1,000
      25 to 500
American Indian Need
   Total AI Need
    ►   Multiply each system’s need by its final weight (each system
        represents ~3.5 systems)
    ►   Total need =  (system need * weight)
   Determining Each Region’s AI Need
    ►   Calculate average need per stratum (population and source
        water type)
            Average need = total need in that stratum / number of systems in
             that stratum nationally
    ►   EPA Region AI Need
            Regional need per stratum = average need * number of systems
             in that Region’s inventory
            Total Regional Need = of strata
Exhibit 1.12
Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs
Survey and
Fourth Report to
Congress (2007

     Navajo Nation needs
     will be a separate
     line item in the fifth
     report to Congress
AI/ANV Survey
5 Categories of Need
   Source                            Transmission and
    ►   Wells, surface water           Distribution
        intakes, springs
                                       ►   Include appurtenances
   Treatment                         Other
    ►   Complete plants and
                                       ►   Emergency power
   Storage                            ►   System security
    ►   Finished water tanks and       ►   Computer and automation
        reservoirs                         costs
    ►   No raw water reservoirs
Allowable Projects
 Must      be:
 ►   Capital improvement needs
 ►   Eligible for SRF funding
 ►   In furtherance of public health goals of the SDWA
         Violation or regulatory requirement is not necessary
 ►   Within the survey timeframe (2011 through 2030)
 Must      meet documentation requirements
 ►   Ensures fairness and credibility
Types of Documentation
 Survey-generated
 ►   Generated specifically for the Needs Survey
 Independent
 ►   Planning documents written for purposes other
     than the Needs Survey
Assigning Costs
   To contribute to the need, each project
    must have a cost assigned
    ►   Independently-documented cost estimate
           EPA adjusts cost to 2011 dollars
    ►   Information for EPA to model cost
           “modeling parameters” (e.g., MG – storage; MGD –
            source, treatment, pumping; diameter and length of
           EPA can model most, but not all, project types
New Ground Level Finished
Water Storage
Tribal Collaboration and
Data Gathering Approach
   Tribal Leader/Contact Role
    ►   Confirm/correct system information
    ►   Identify additional needs outside of SDS
    ►   Provide additional studies or project documentation
   EPA Region/Navajo EPA/Contractor Role
    ►   Compile existing information
    ►   Identify any suspected information gaps
    ►   Identify proposed data collection approach (i.e., site visit or
        phone interviews)
    ►   Complete questionnaire and compile submittal after collaborating
        with tribal contact
AI/ANV Survey Data Flow

              Training for EPA
              Regions and
              Navajo Nation EPA

                 EPA Region will send notification
                 letter to tribal leaders to inform them
                 which tribal employees EPA Region
                 will coordinate with for data collection
AI/ANV Survey Data Flow
AI/ANV-Specific Issues
Homes Without Adequate
Water Service
 Constructing      new public water system
 ►   Not part of DWINSA data collection
 ►   EPA plans to include a note about these needs in
     the survey report
 Extending      service
 ►   Demonstrate inadequate quality/quantity of water
     and feasibility of the project
Not-for-profit Noncommunity
 Included in the sample with community
 EPA Regions/Navajo Nation were asked to
  identify NPNC systems in their frames
 Casinos are assumed to be not-for-profit
Efficient and Effective
Data Collection Efforts
Methods of Data Collection
1.   EPA and Navajo Nation file review
2.   IHS STARS data system review
        Review existing SDS project data
        Frozen November 2010
3.   Phone interviews with water systems
     and Indian Health Service staff
4.   Site visits by the EPA Regions and the
     Navajo Nation (as needed)
Review Process
   EPA contractor reviews submittal
    ►   Some projects may be amended or rejected
           Allowability or documentation issue

    ►   Modification requests may be submitted
    ►   If modification denied, EPA Region, Navajo Nation, or
        water system may request reconsideration
           Tribal DWINS Workgroup

           USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

   EPA Region will request tribal concurrence on
    the final needs determination
    Key Dates
   September 2010                        November 2011
    ►   Tribal leaders contacted via       ►   Final questionnaires
        letter to explain survey               deadline

   October 2010                          February 2012
                                           ►   Final modification deadline
    ►   Conference call with tribal
        leaders                           February 2013
   January 2011                           ►   Report to Congress due
    ►   Questionnaires sent*


              Thank You
          Any Questions?

To top