GAO urges Congress to redefine eligibility and fund tribal water O&M

Report recommends statutory definition, funding exceptions, and an O&M pilot for tribes, affecting IHS, EPA and USDA.

Aerial view of the National Building Museum and surrounding Judiciary Square neighborhood in Washington, D.C.

The Government Accountability Office released a report reviewing federal assistance for tribal water infrastructure and issued three primary recommendations for congressional action. It calls for amending the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act to define "Indian homes, communities, and lands," authorizing the Indian Health Service (IHS) to fund ineligible properties when administrative costs would exceed capital costs, and establishing a pilot program to provide routine operations and maintenance (O&M) assistance to tribal water systems.

GAO found that IHS limits eligibility to homes it deems "Indian," excluding residences owned by spouses, grandparents, or non-tribal members, as well as rentals with leases under five years. When projects include such properties, IHS staff must secure separate funding, a process that can be costly; the report cites an instance where staff spent over 80 hours helping a tribe obtain an $8,000 grant.

The study also identified interagency burdens. USDA's underwriting requirements demand additional financial information from tribes, a step not required by IHS or EPA. EPA's invoicing and funds-transfer procedures, as well as its application process for certain projects, generate significant administrative effort for IHS staff. GAO recommends streamlining these processes and revising standard interagency agreements.

Because IHS generally does not fund routine O&M, tribes often struggle to hire and retain certified water operators, risking system deterioration and higher federal repair costs. The proposed pilot would cover costs such as operator salaries and energy, allowing GAO to assess whether O&M assistance yields federal cost savings and health benefits.

IHS agreed with the recommendations and outlined actions to address them. EPA generally concurred with the invoicing and funds-transfer recommendation but disagreed with the original EPA application recommendation, prompting GAO to revise it. USDA opposed the suggestion to streamline its financial-information requirements. GAO maintains that all 12 agency recommendations should be implemented.

Keep reading