Bureaucratic rules, outdated funding caps, and a lack of operations support are leaving tribal communities without reliable access to safe drinking water, even as the Indian Health Service (IHS) estimates it would take $6 billion to close the gap, according to a new federal audit of tribal water infrastructure. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that IHS's interpretation of its own statutory authority excludes a range of homes where tribal members actually live, including those owned by a non-member spouse or grandparent, which tribal officials described as common in tribal communities. The administrative friction compounds the problem: IHS officials reported spending over 80 hours helping one tribe obtain an $8,000 grant, plus additional hours helping that tribe report on how it spent the money, a case the report uses to illustrate how administrative costs can match or exceed the project costs they are meant to support.
The audit arrives as Congress considers how to address longstanding inequities in federal infrastructure investment in Indian Country, and as three separate executive agencies continue to operate under misaligned rules that the report says slow delivery and raise costs for the communities they are meant to serve.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has found that tribal water systems have been underdeveloped and have fallen into disrepair because of chronic underfunding, and that tribes often lack the same financing options and traditional tax bases available to other communities. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs requested the review, and GAO conducted site visits to Alaska and Arizona to assess conditions on the ground.
Three federal agencies share responsibility for tribal water projects: IHS, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The agencies have taken steps to coordinate, including through a tribal infrastructure task force, but the report identifies persistent friction in how they work together. USDA, for example, requires additional financial information from tribes for underwriting to help ensure project sustainability, a burden that neither IHS nor EPA imposes under their own programs. That inconsistency means tribes seeking funding from multiple federal sources must navigate different documentation standards depending on which agency's window they approach, adding time and administrative capacity to an already constrained process.
The funding cap IHS uses for existing community buildings, set at $10,000 in 1985, has not been adjusted for inflation or increases in labor and materials costs.
Once infrastructure is built, tribes are responsible for operating and maintaining it, but limited financial capacity makes that difficult. Tribes face challenges hiring and retaining certified water operators who keep systems in working order, according to an agency study cited in the report. IHS generally does not fund routine operations and maintenance (O&M), and IHS officials stated the agency lacks the authority and funding to do so. The report notes that IHS has assessed tribal capacity to fund O&M but has not assessed whether providing that funding could produce federal cost savings or improve tribal health outcomes, leaving Congress without the data it would need to make that call.
GAO is presenting three matters for Congressional consideration and making 12 recommendations to executive agencies, all of which are currently open. The congressional matters ask lawmakers to consider amending the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act (ISFA) to define "Indian homes, communities, and lands," to authorize IHS to fund otherwise ineligible properties when administrative costs would exceed their capital costs, and to establish a pilot program for IHS to provide O&M assistance to tribes in collaboration with EPA.
Among the 12 agency recommendations, GAO asks IHS and EPA to jointly address invoicing requirements and funds-transfer processes that generate high administrative costs, and asks USDA to streamline or eliminate its financial information requirements for tribal grant applicants. IHS agreed with the recommendations and described actions it was taking or planned to take. EPA generally agreed on the invoicing issue but disagreed with the recommendation as originally written regarding its application process, prompting GAO to revise the recommendation to clarify that EPA should streamline the application process for certain projects. USDA disagreed with the recommendation to streamline its financial information requirements, and GAO said it maintains that the agencies should implement all recommendations.
With all 15 recommendations and matters currently carrying an open status, meaning actions to satisfy their intent have not been taken or are being planned, the structural barriers the report identifies, including eligibility gaps, an unadjusted 1985 funding cap, misaligned interagency requirements, and an operations and maintenance funding void, remain in place. Tribes that have waited years for infrastructure investment face the prospect of continued delays while agencies work through open recommendations at their own pace and Congress weighs whether to act on the statutory changes GAO has proposed.
Such a pilot program, the report states, would enable IHS to provide direct, on-the-ground assistance to participating Tribes while collecting data that could inform decision-making on whether it is cost-effective to provide that assistance to Tribes on a broader scale. Without that data, the cycle of infrastructure deterioration and costly federal repair or replacement may continue. Readers tracking this issue can follow legislative and agency activity through Legis1.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article