This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-126
entitled 'Rural Water Infrastructure: Improved Coordination and Funding
Processes Could Enhance Federal Efforts to Meet Needs in the U.S.-
Mexico Border Region' which was released on January 19, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2009:
Rural Water Infrastructure:
Improved Coordination and Funding Processes Could Enhance Federal
Efforts to Meet Needs in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region:
GAO-10-126:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-126, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Agriculture, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
A serious problem for U.S. communities along the U.S.-Mexico border is
the lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation systems.
Inadequate systems can pose risks to human health and the environment,
including the risk of waterborne diseases. Numerous federal programs
provide grants, loans, or other assistance to rural U.S. communities,
including those in the border region, for drinking water and wastewater
projects.
GAO was asked to determine (1) the amount of federal funding provided
to rural U.S. communities in the border region for drinking water and
wastewater systems and (2) the effectiveness of federal efforts to meet
the water and wastewater needs in the region. GAO analyzed agency
financial data; reviewed statutes, regulations, policies, and
procedures; and interviewed federal, state, local, and private sector
officials.
What GAO Found:
Seven federal agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps),
Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Indian Health Service
(IHS), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)—obligated at least
$1.4 billion for drinking water and wastewater projects to assist
communities in the U.S.-Mexico border region from fiscal years 2000
through 2008. USDA and EPA obligated 78 percent, or about $1.1 billion,
of the total $1.4 billion—with USDA obligating 37 percent, or $509
million, and EPA obligating 41 percent, or $568 million. Agencies
provided assistance for a variety of drinking water and wastewater
activities, such as constructing or improving treatment facilities and
installing distribution lines. For example, of the $509 million total,
USDA obligated about $502 million to public utilities or similar
entities for construction of or improvements to water and wastewater
infrastructure. It obligated over $7 million to individuals in the
border region for household projects, such as repairs to indoor
plumbing.
Federal efforts to meet drinking water and wastewater needs in the
border region have been ineffective because most federal agencies (1)
have not comprehensively assessed the needs in the region, (2) lack
coordinated policies and processes, and (3) in some cases have not
complied with statutory requirements and agency regulations. Although
federal agencies have assembled some data and conducted limited studies
of drinking water and wastewater conditions in the border region, the
resulting patchwork of data does not provide a comprehensive assessment
of the region’s needs. Without such an assessment, federal agencies
cannot target resources toward the most urgent needs or provide
assistance to communities that do not have the technical and financial
resources to initiate a proposal for assistance. In contrast, IHS has
collected data on water and wastewater conditions for each tribal
reservation. As a result, the agency can select projects that target
the greatest need. In addition, although some federal agencies
recognize the importance of a collaborative and coordinated process to
increase program effectiveness, agencies’ policies and processes are
generally incompatible or not collaborative with those of other
agencies. For example, most federal programs require separate
documentation to meet the same requirement and the agencies do not
consistently coordinate in selecting projects. As a result, applicants
face significant administrative burdens and project completion can be
delayed. Moreover, GAO found that some agencies do not always meet the
requirements stipulated in federal statutes and agency regulations
concerning how they are to determine the eligibility of applicants or
projects and how they are to prioritize funds. For example, USDA and
HUD do not ensure that recipients’ use of targeted funds intended for
use in the border region complies with statutory requirements for
establishing project priorities in the border region. Finally, the
Corps has not established any guidance to ensure funds are targeted to
those projects with the greatest need.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests that Congress consider requiring federal agencies to
develop a coordinated plan to improve the effectiveness of drinking
water and wastewater programs in the border region and recommends that
the agencies take steps to comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements. Because USDA and DOD generally believe they are in
compliance with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements; they
did not fully concur with this recommendation. GAO believes that its
findings and recommendations remain valid.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-126] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-
9846 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Federal Agencies Provided at Least $1.4 Billion over 9 Years for Water
and Wastewater Infrastructure in the Border Region:
Federal Efforts Have Not Been Effective in Meeting the Water and
Wastewater Needs of the Border Region:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Determining How Much Federal Funding was Provided to the Border Region:
Appendix II: Additional Information on Eligibility and Prioritization
Requirements for USDA, HUD, and Corps Programs Targeted to the Border
Region:
Appendix III: Total Obligations and Rural-Urban Categories for Water
and Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008,
by County:
Appendix IV: Total USDA Obligations for Water and Wastewater Projects
in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008, by County:
Appendix V: Total EPA Obligations and Rural-Urban Categories for Water
and Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008,
by County:
Appendix VI: Total Obligations from Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds and Rural-Urban Categories for Water and
Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008, by
County:
Appendix VII: Total HUD Obligations and Rural-Urban Categories for
Water and Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-
2008, by County:
Appendix VIII: Total Obligations for Water and Wastewater Projects in
the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008, by Tribal Nation:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Federal Funds Obligated to the Border Region for Water and
Wastewater Projects, by Agency and Program, Fiscal Years 2000-2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: U.S.-Mexico Border Region:
Figure 2: Proper and Improper On-site Wastewater Treatment:
Figure 3: Federal Funding Obligated from USDA, EPA, HUD, the Corps,
EDA, and Reclamation for Water and Wastewater Projects, Fiscal Years
2000-2008:
Figure 4: Federal Funding Obligated from USDA:
Figure 5: Federal Funding Obligated from EPA:
Figure 6: Federal Funding Obligated from HUD:
Abbreviations:
BECC: Border Environment Cooperation Commission:
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant:
CWTAP: Colonias Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program:
CPAP: Community Program Application Processing:
EDA: Economic Development Administration:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
IDIS: Integrated Disbursement and Information System:
IHS: Indian Health Service:
NADB: North American Development Bank:
SAAP: Special Appropriation Act Projects:
SDS: Sanitation Deficiency System:
SFC: Sanitation Facilities Construction:
STAG: State and Tribal Assistance Grant:
USDA: Department of Agriculture:
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey:
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 18, 2009:
The Honorable Collin C. Peterson:
Chairman:
Committee on Agriculture:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
A serious problem along the U.S.-Mexico border is the lack of access to
safe drinking water and sanitation systems.[Footnote 1] U.S. residents
who lack safe drinking water systems often buy and store water in
outdoor tanks or barrels for drinking and other domestic uses. This
practice represents a significant health risk because the water is
often transferred or stored in open containers and is thereby subject
to contamination. In addition, some residents rely on substandard
septic systems or cesspools to dispose of sewage because they do not
have access to wastewater treatment systems. Leaks from substandard
septic systems can contaminate sources of drinking water, such as
wells, and can also leave sewage on the ground, where residents,
especially children, may be exposed to bacteria and other pathogens.
Exposure to contaminated water and wastewater may contribute to the
increased rate of waterborne diseases in this region. For example,
according to an EPA report, waterborne diseases such as hepatitis A and
cholera occur at much higher rates in the Texas border region than in
other parts of the state.
Numerous federal programs provide grants, loans, or technical
assistance to rural communities in the United States, including those
in the border region, for drinking water and wastewater projects. Seven
federal agencies--the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps), the Department of Health and Human Service's Indian Health
Service (IHS), the Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration (EDA), and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation)--administer programs that can assist rural
communities in the border region with acquiring drinking water and
wastewater systems. In addition, four of these seven federal agencies--
USDA, EPA, HUD, and the Corps--administer programs that are targeted
specifically to the border region. Agencies provide assistance for a
variety of activities, such as the planning, design, and construction
of treatment facilities; installation of distribution lines and pumping
stations; and upgrades to household plumbing. A combination of
assistance from multiple programs is used to fund some individual
projects.
In response to your request for information on the status of rural
water infrastructure along the border region, this report addresses (1)
the amount of funding federal agencies have provided to rural
households and communities in the border region for the purposes of
obtaining safe drinking water and wastewater systems and (2) the
effectiveness of federal efforts to meet the drinking water and
wastewater needs in the border region. Our review focused on fiscal
years 2000 through 2008.
To determine the extent of federal funding provided to rural households
and communities in the border region for drinking water and wastewater
projects, we collected and analyzed agency data on obligations provided
for drinking water and wastewater activities from those federal
programs that, based on our prior work and additional research, were
the most likely to provide assistance to the region. As stated earlier,
these programs are primarily administered by USDA, EPA, HUD, the Corps,
EDA, IHS, and Reclamation. Our review included programs that provide
assistance specifically to rural areas as well as programs that provide
assistance to both rural and urban areas. We assessed the reliability
of the data we used by reviewing information about the underlying
database systems, reviewing the data to identify outliers and
inconsistent or missing values, and discussing the data with
knowledgeable agency officials. We determined that the data obtained
from these agencies were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
review. In addition, we electronically mapped the funds provided by the
federal agencies to identify the geographic distribution of funding. To
determine the effectiveness of federal efforts to meet the drinking
water and wastewater needs of the region, we identified and reviewed
existing federal assessments of drinking water and wastewater
conditions; program statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures to
solicit, accept, and prioritize applications for those agencies with
programs targeted to the border region (i.e., USDA, HUD, EPA, and the
Corps); and coordination efforts among these agencies. We also
interviewed state and local government officials, officials from water
and wastewater utilities, nonprofit officials from the region, and such
private sector representatives as urban planners and engineers. In
addition, we conducted site visits in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona,
in which we observed federally funded projects and discussed with state
and local officials their experiences applying for or receiving
assistance from federal agencies. Furthermore, we attended two
interagency coordination meetings in which various federal and state
agency officials discussed the status of ongoing drinking water and
wastewater projects in the border region. A more detailed description
of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2008 to December 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The U.S.-Mexico border extends more than 2,000 miles, from the Gulf of
Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. As can be seen in figure 1, portions of
four states--Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California--encompassing
97 counties and 44 U.S. federally recognized tribal nations make up the
border region.
Figure 1: U.S.-Mexico Border Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: map]
The map depicts a 150-mile boundary from the U.S.-Mexico border, as
well as counties and tribal nations within that boundary.
Source: GAO; MapInfo (map).
[End of figure]
The region includes a wide range of community types, from large cities--
such as Los Angeles, California, population 3.8 million--to small,
rural communities--such as Spofford, Texas, population 75. Of the 44
tribal nations in the region, 30 are in California, 8 in Arizona, 1 in
New Mexico, 2 in Texas, and 3 in both California and Arizona. The
tribal nations range in population from 1 household in the Jamul Indian
Village in California to 3,572 households in the Tohono O'odham tribal
nation in Arizona, whose tribal land covers an area approximately the
size of Connecticut.
History of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in the Border Region:
Throughout the border region, a lack of safe drinking water and
adequate wastewater treatment has been a continuous problem exacerbated
by large gains in population associated with rapid industrial growth
that has occurred over the past three decades. Part of this population
increase has occurred in communities now commonly referred to as
colonias. Initially, colonias emerged as developers sold small plots of
residential land to individuals without providing water or wastewater
infrastructure. Residents often placed a trailer or similar structure
on the land or built their homes themselves, many starting with just
one room and adding on periodically as they were able to afford it.
Numerous news articles during the 1980s and 1990s described colonias,
with one referring to colonias as "pockets of poverty" with conditions
similar to those generally associated with "third-world" conditions.
[Footnote 2] When colonias first began to emerge, they were often
located in remote areas outside of incorporated cities where developers
sold land as residential without adhering to the ordinances and
regulations of the cities; however, more recently many local
governments have begun to classify entire cities or subdivisions within
a city as colonias.
Since water and wastewater infrastructure were lacking when they bought
their lots and built their homes, many residents in colonias relied on
on-site alternatives. For example, to obtain water, some used
contaminated wells, while others hauled and stored water in barrels or
tanks. For wastewater disposal, residents used methods such as septic
tanks or cesspools. Septic systems can treat waste safely, but they can
also contaminate drinking water with sewage and organic matter if they
are not installed and maintained properly. Effective septic systems
require that the type and amount of soil be sufficient to absorb
wastewater, and that the systems not be located too close to
groundwater or surface water. In contrast, cesspools can pose a risk of
contamination because they do not treat wastewater and are merely holes
in the ground for the disposal of sewage. Problems associated with
failing septic systems are not restricted to colonias. Rural households
throughout the region can experience difficulties maintaining proper on-
site wastewater treatment. Figure 2 compares proper septic system
function with improper cesspool disposal.
Figure 2: Proper and Improper On-site Wastewater Treatment:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Proper septic system process:
Deep well (bored and cased) to deep aquifer below bedrock;
Septic tank from house to drain field in soil, above groundwater layer.
Improper waste disposal process:
Shallow well (hand dug) to groundwater;
Cesspool from house drains into the soil and then into the groundwater.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of figure]
In response to public health concerns in the border region caused by a
lack of clean drinking water and adequate sewage treatment, Congress
established various programs with dedicated funding.[Footnote 3] For
example, in the early 1990s, Congress established dedicated funding for
water and wastewater projects to benefit residents of colonias.
[Footnote 4] These funds have been used for a number of projects to
provide colonia residents safe drinking water and adequate sewage
disposal, yet some colonias continue to lack these basic services.
Appendix II provides additional information on the establishment of
federal funding to assist colonias.
Colonias are still found throughout the border region, though their
characteristics vary widely. Present-day colonias are communities of
all types and sizes, both incorporated and unincorporated. For example,
a colonia can be a tribal reservation, a fast-growing retirement
community, or a high-poverty subdivision. Moreover, not all colonias
have the same level of need. For example, a town in Arizona that
already had water and wastewater service was designated a colonia in
2008 because the local water utility did not have the funds to address
routine repairs, and believed that the designation would increase its
ability to receive federal funds. In contrast, residents of the El
Conquistador colonia in Hudspeth County, Texas, have lived without
access to water and wastewater service for over 20 years.
Agencies That Provide Assistance in the Region:
To help communities and households throughout the border region obtain
safe drinking water and adequate wastewater treatment, seven federal
agencies provide grants, loans, and technical assistance under separate
programs and congressional authorizations. These include the following:
* EPA, which has funding for drinking water and wastewater systems that
is complementary to its regulatory and enforcement authorities under
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. EPA provides
grants for water and wastewater infrastructure in the border region
through several different programs including the:
* U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program. EPA's binational
program provides grants to water and wastewater facilities within 62
miles of the border.[Footnote 5] EPA allots most of these funds to the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADB).[Footnote 6] These organizations then
administer these funds to implement project development activities and
construction. In addition to the funds administered by BECC and NADB,
EPA provides grants to tribal nations within the border region.
* Colonias Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program (CWTAP). EPA awarded
grants to the state of Texas from fiscal years 1993 through 1999 for
the purpose of funding the construction and improvement of water and
wastewater systems in colonias.[Footnote 7] The state of Texas
obligated this funding, along with a state match, to public entities
during fiscal years 2000 through 2008.
* Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs. EPA
annually provides grants to states to help finance local drinking water
and wastewater projects nationwide through the Drinking Water and Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Programs.[Footnote 8] The states use this
funding, along with a required 20 percent match, to capitalize their
state revolving funds. The funds provide low-cost loans or other
financial assistance for a wide range of water infrastructure projects.
In addition, EPA provides funds from the Drinking Water and Clean Water
Revolving Fund Programs to tribal nations throughout the United States
for water and wastewater projects.
* USDA, which provides grants, loans, and technical assistance for
rural water and wastewater projects through its Water and Environmental
Program.[Footnote 9] The department can provide assistance for various
activities, such as construction of water treatment and sewage
collection facilities, connection of single-family homes to water
distribution or wastewater collection lines, and training for the
operation of water and wastewater utilities. While the program is
available to eligible entities nationwide, USDA has been required by
annual appropriations acts to set aside a portion of this funding--up
to $25 million annually--for water and wastewater systems that benefit
colonia residents (referred to as the Section 306C Colonia
funds).[Footnote 10]
* HUD, which disburses grants to states and local governments through
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to fund housing,
infrastructure, and other community development activities. The annual
appropriation for CDBG is split according to HUD formulas so that 70
percent is allocated among eligible metropolitan cities and counties
(referred to as entitlement communities) and 30 percent among the
states to serve cities with populations of fewer than 50,000 and
counties with populations of fewer than 200,000 (referred to as
nonentitlement communities). Each border state is required to use up to
10 percent of total funds for projects to meet the water, sewage, and
housing needs of colonia residents (referred to as the Colonia Set-
aside).[Footnote 11] According to a HUD official, HUD determines each
state's Colonia Set-aside amount annually based on input from state
officials and other colonia stakeholders, such as nonprofit
organizations. For fiscal years 2000 through 2008, HUD established a 10
percent annual set-aside amount for Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and
a 5 percent annual set-aside for California. Additionally, HUD provides
CDBG funds to tribal nations that can be used for any eligible CDBG
activity, including water or wastewater projects.
* IHS, which constructs water and wastewater projects through its
Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) Program. This assistance is
available to tribal nations within the United States, and through the
program, IHS constructs various projects, including distribution and
collection lines, treatment facilities, and home connections.
* EDA, which provides grants to economically distressed areas through
its Public Works and Economic Development Program.[Footnote 12] The
funds are used for construction of public facilities, including water
and wastewater facilities.
* The Corps, which has provided assistance for water and wastewater
projects in the border region as directed by Congress. Congress has
authorized and appropriated funds for the Corps to provide assistance
for a number of projects, including projects to benefit colonias in
need of water or wastewater infrastructure.
* Reclamation, which has been directed to provide assistance for
drinking water or wastewater treatment projects in response to
individual project authorizations but does not have an established
program for such assistance. However, in 2006, Congress passed the
Rural Water Supply Act, directing Reclamation to develop a rural water
supply program.
Entities that can seek assistance from most of these federal agencies
include local units of government, tribal nations, water or wastewater
utilities or similar entities, nonprofit organizations, or individual
homeowners. Each federal program has its own application process but
generally involves the following steps:
* Pre-application meeting. Federal agencies generally require the
entity seeking assistance to meet with agency officials prior to
submitting an application. During this meeting, officials and the
potential applicant discuss program eligibility, the type of assistance
needed, and application requirements.
* Submission of application. After the pre-application discussion, the
entity seeking assistance prepares an application that can include
information such as financial, engineering, and environmental studies
that describe the project plan and its costs. Some agencies require
additional documentation, such as evidence of public support for the
project and documentation that the entity cannot obtain commercial
credit at a reasonable rate.
* Review and evaluation of application. Once an agency receives an
application, officials review it for eligibility. After the agency
determines that an application meets program eligibility requirements,
it may be further evaluated, depending on whether the assistance being
requested is from a competitive or a noncompetitive program. For
competitive programs, agencies generally score each application
according to established criteria and then rank the applications so
that the projects with the highest scores will receive priority for
available funds. For noncompetitive programs, agencies will generally
obligate funding as applications are deemed eligible until all
available funds are depleted.
Federal Agencies Provided at Least $1.4 Billion over 9 Years for Water
and Wastewater Infrastructure in the Border Region:
We found that seven federal agencies obligated at least $1.4 billion
for drinking water and wastewater projects in the U.S.-Mexico border
region from fiscal years 2000 through 2008. USDA and EPA obligated 78
percent, or about $1.1 billion, of the total $1.4 billion. The
remaining 22 percent, or $309 million, came from HUD, the Corps, IHS,
EDA, and Reclamation. Table 1 provides additional data regarding
federal funds obligated to the border region for water and wastewater
projects by agency and program.
Table 1: Federal Funds Obligated to the Border Region for Water and
Wastewater Projects, by Agency and Program, Fiscal Years 2000-2008:
Agency/program: EPA:
Grants: [Empty];
Loans: [Empty].
Agency/program: EPA: U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program;
Grants: $298 million.
Agency/program: EPA: Colonias Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program;
Grants: $173 million;
Agency/program: EPA: Congressionally directed funds;
Grants: $61 million;
Agency/program: EPA: Indian Clean Water and Tribal Drinking Water
Revolving Fund Programs;
Grants: $36 million.
Agency/program: EPA total;
Grants: $568 million;
Agency/program: USDA: Water and Environmental Program;
Grants: $92 million;
Loans: $209 million.
Agency/program: USDA: Section 306C Colonia Funds;
Grants: $208 million.
Agency/program: USDA total;
Grants: $300 million;
Loans: $209 million.
Agency/program: HUD: CDBG Programs;
Grants: $217 million.
Agency/program: HUD: Congressionally directed funds;
Grants: $925,000.
Agency/program: HUD total;
Grants: $218 million.
Agency/program: IHS;
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program;
Grants: $45 million.
Agency/program: EDA;
Public Works and Economic Development Program;
Grants: $39 million.
Agency/program: Corps;
Grants: $4 million.
Agency/program: Reclamation;
Grants: $4 million.
Agency/program: Total federal funding;
Grants: $1.2 billion;
Loans: $209 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA, EPA, HUD, IHS, EDA, Corps, and
Reclamation data.
Notes: Individual program totals may not add to agency totals because
of rounding.
In addition to the funding reported in the table, EPA's U.S.-Mexico
Border Water Infrastructure Program obligated funds to support projects
in Mexico.
The $4 million in Corps assistance reported was obligated through
technical assistance.
[End of table]
Details about the funding provided by each of the seven federal
agencies to the border region from fiscal year 2000 through 2008
include the following:
* EPA obligated at least $568 million in grants, or 41 percent of the
total federal funding provided to the region.[Footnote 13] Of that,
about $471 million was obligated through programs targeted to the
border region, while just over $98 million was obligated through
nationwide programs. Of the $471 million targeted to the border region,
EPA obligated $298 million in grant funds through the U.S.-Mexico
Border Water Infrastructure Program, and $173 million in grant funds
through the Colonias Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program.[Footnote
14] Of the $98 million from nationwide programs, $61 million was
congressionally directed in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grant
(STAG) account appropriations, according to data provided by EPA. The
remaining nationwide program funds were obligated to tribal nations
through the Drinking Water and Clean Water Revolving Fund Programs
(about $36 million). Appendix V provides additional data on the
obligations from EPA in the border region. In addition, state-
administered revolving loan funds partially capitalized by EPA provided
approximately $3.4 billion in loan financing to water and wastewater
projects in the border region through the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund Programs from fiscal years 2000 through
2008.[Footnote 15] For example, the California Department of Health
obligated about $1.7 million for repairs to the drinking water
distribution system in Imperial County, California. Appendix VI
provides additional data on the obligations from the Drinking Water and
Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs in the border region.
* USDA obligated about $509 million, or about 37 percent of the total
federal funding.[Footnote 16] Of the $509 million, it obligated $208
million in grant funds through its Section 306C Colonia funds. The
remaining $302 million--$209 million in loan funds and $93 million in
grant funds--was obligated through its nationwide Water and
Environmental Program. Of the $509 million total, USDA obligated about
$502 million (98 percent) to public utilities or similar entities for
construction or improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure.
For example, USDA obligated $2.9 million in grants and almost $1
million in loans to the city of Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, for
improvements to the wastewater treatment plant and extension of
collection lines. It obligated over $7 million to individuals in the
border region for household projects, such as installing indoor
plumbing. Appendix IV provides additional data on the obligations from
USDA funds in the border region.
* HUD obligated about $218 million, or 16 percent of the total federal
funding provided to the region.[Footnote 17] Almost all of the funds,
$217 million, were obligated as grant funds through the Community
Development Block Grant Programs. The remainder, $925,000, was
obligated from HUD's Economic Development Initiative Special Project
account, according to officials. Of the $217 million in CDBG grants,
$51 million of this was identified by states in HUD's database as
obligated for water or wastewater projects in a colonia.[Footnote 18]
For example, New Mexico obligated about $265,000 to extend water
distribution lines to 20 residents of a colonia in Sierra County.
Additional funds from the Colonia Set-aside Program may have been used
in colonias for water and wastewater projects, but we were unable to
determine the total amount because HUD does not comprehensively
distinguish in its data system which of the CDBG obligated funds are
under the Colonia Set-aside. Of the $217 million in CDBG grants, HUD
obligated $2.6 million through its Indian CDBG program to two tribal
nations--the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the San
Pasqual Band of Mission Indians. Appendix VII provides additional data
on the obligations from HUD in the border region.
* IHS obligated about $45 million for the construction of sanitation
facilities on tribal nations in the border region. For example, IHS
obligated about $8 million to provide basic sanitation services to
residents of the Tohono O'odham tribal nation by participating in a
modular bathroom program.[Footnote 19] Through this effort, residents
living in traditional adobe structures that lack indoor plumbing are
able to attach a modular bathroom to the home and then connect to a
wastewater distribution line. Appendix VIII provides additional data on
federal obligations made to each tribal nation in the border region.
* EDA obligated about $39 million in grant funds for public
infrastructure projects that included water or wastewater activities.
These funds were obligated for 29 projects. For example, EDA obligated
$3.2 million in grant funds for a water system project in San
Bernardino, California. This project included land acquisition for new
water wells, well drilling, new pipeline, a booster pump, obtaining
water rights, an engineering and environmental assessment, and removal
of an elevated water tank.
* The Corps obligated just over $4 million in assistance to projects
within the border region. The assistance was used for 6 congressionally
directed projects in New Mexico, and 3 projects to assist colonias in
Texas conducted under the Water Resources Development Act of 1992,
which authorized the Corps to assist communities with water and
wastewater needs.[Footnote 20]
* Reclamation obligated almost $4 million in grant funds for 5 water
supply projects, for which Congress specifically authorized and
appropriated funds, according to agency documents. Reclamation
currently funds projects only in response to specific congressional
directives, but it was authorized in 2006 by the Rural Water Supply Act
to establish a rural water supply program.[Footnote 21] We reported in
2007 that Reclamation planned to develop programmatic criteria to
determine eligibility for participation in this program and to assess
the status of authorized rural water supply projects and other federal
programs that address rural water supply issues, as the act required,
by December 2008.[Footnote 22] As of September 2009, agency officials
told us that the establishment of the program is still a priority, but
it has been delayed by the change of Administration and by efforts to
develop a strategy for implementation of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds.[Footnote 23] Agency officials stated they hope
to have the program established by the end of calendar year 2009.
Of the 97 counties in the border region, 94 received some assistance,
and 3 received no assistance during fiscal years 2000 through 2008.
Figure 3 shows the amounts provided to the 94 counties that received
some assistance, which ranged from a low of just under $260,000
provided to Reagan County, Texas, and to a high of almost $130 million
provided to Cameron County, Texas.
Figure 3: Federal Funding Obligated from USDA, EPA, HUD, the Corps,
EDA, and Reclamation for Water and Wastewater Projects, Fiscal Years
2000-2008:
Figure 1: U.S.-Mexico Border Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: map]
The map depicts a 150-mile boundary from the U.S.-Mexico border, as
well as counties within that boundary.
Also depicted is federal assistance by county in the following amounts:
0;
$1 to less than $5 million;
$5 million to less than $15 million;
$15 million to less than $30 million;
$30 million to less than $60 million;
$60 million to $130 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA, EOA, HUD, the Corps, EDA, and Reclamation
data; MapInfo (map).
Note: Because tribal nations do not conform to county boundaries, IHS
obligations are not included in figure 3.
[End of figure]
Appendix III provides further data on each county, including its rural-
urban classification and the funding obligated by federal agencies.
Federal Efforts Have Not Been Effective in Meeting the Water and
Wastewater Needs of the Border Region:
Federal efforts have not effectively addressed the drinking water and
wastewater needs in the border region because agencies (1) have not
comprehensively assessed the needs of the region, (2) lack coordinated
policies and processes, and (3) in some cases have not complied with
statutory requirements and agency regulations.
Agencies Have Not Comprehensively Assessed Water and Wastewater
Conditions, Hampering Their Ability to Meet the Needs of the Region:
Over the years, some federal agencies have conducted assessments to
identify water and wastewater conditions in the border region, but none
of these assessments either individually or collectively provides a
comprehensive picture of the needs of the region. We identified the
following assessments that either have been conducted by federal
agencies or are ongoing:
* EPA commissioned a study to set a baseline, as of December 2003, for
its U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program by estimating the
number of households without basic water and wastewater service in the
area served by the program. While the data collection effort was used
by the agency to establish performance measures and strategic goals,
the agency did not establish a process to update the data to reflect
current conditions. Without such a process, the accuracy and usefulness
of the data are limited. In addition, the study did not distinguish
between homes with appropriate septic systems and homes without them.
In addition, EPA has reviewed applications received from both the U.S.
and Mexico sides of the border through its U.S.-Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure Program in 2004, 2006, and 2008 to determine the total
amount of funding requested from the border region. The requests for
assistance ranged from $590 million to over $1 billion in project
construction costs. During the most recent solicitation, over 130
projects on the U.S. side of the border requested assistance
representing $800 million in total project cost, according to EPA
officials. While EPA told us this effort provides the agency with a
snapshot that reflects the existing needs in the region, it
acknowledges this snapshot is not a comprehensive assessment of need in
the region and captures only the need from those entities that seek
assistance from the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program.
Further, EPA conducts the nationwide Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
every 4 years to identify the funds needed to address problems with
wastewater treatment facilities. Similarly, the agency conducts an
assessment every 4 years to identify the funds needed for existing
drinking water facilities to comply with safe drinking water quality
standards. However, on the basis of information provided by agency
officials, we do not believe that either of these efforts provides the
agency with a comprehensive assessment of the border region. For
example, according to officials, these assessments have not
traditionally been successful in collecting data from small
communities. Officials told us that the 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey had a 36 percent response rate from wastewater systems that
serve small communities (those with fewer than 10,000 wastewater
customers). In addition, officials told us the 2007 drinking water
assessment includes data for all existing utilities serving over
100,000 customers, but only a sample of small community systems are
included in the assessment--600 of the approximately 33,000 such
systems nationwide. Because many of the communities in the border
region are small, we do not believe that they would be captured by the
survey.
* In 2008, USDA, reported on the amount of funds directed to colonias
in each of the four border states and the amount of unfunded
applications the agency received for the program in fiscal year 2008.
This report was in response to a request from the Senate Agriculture
Committee to, among other things, provide a report that "identifies
where additional resources are most needed."[Footnote 24] According to
our review of USDA's report, the department did not identify where
additional resources are needed, but simply reported its backlog of
applications from each state.[Footnote 25] For example, the report
stated that the department had a pre-application and application
backlog of approximately $117 million--with pre-applications accounting
for $108 million and applications accounting for $9 million. As with
EPA's assessment of applications submitted to the U.S.-Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure Program, these figures represent only those
entities that have contacted USDA for assistance, and therefore do not
provide a complete assessment of those areas where resources are most
needed.
* HUD has provided funds for local governments to identify colonias and
the water and wastewater conditions within them. From 1992 through
2008, HUD-funded assessments were completed for 43 of the 67 Texas
counties in the border region. For example, a 2008 assessment for
Dimmitt County, Texas, found that 113 housing units lacked centralized
water service. However, as some assessments were conducted more than a
decade ago or longer, they may not reflect current conditions. HUD also
provided funds to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to collect data on
infrastructure in colonias for 6 counties in Texas. The dataset,
released in 2007, includes information such as number of households,
source of potable water, and whether wastewater collection is
available.
* Since 1989, IHS has collected data on the water and wastewater
infrastructure conditions for each tribal reservation in the United
States. This information is available through its Sanitation Deficiency
System and is updated annually. As a result, IHS can select projects
that target the greatest need and report on effectiveness to meet the
water and wastewater needs of tribal nations, including those within
the border region.
* In 2007, BECC began efforts to identify the water and wastewater
infrastructure needs within the 62-mile region north of the U.S.-Mexico
border. The study is expected to compare the number of existing water
and wastewater connections with the total number of homes and is
expected to identify gaps in access to centralized services. According
to BECC officials, data collection and analysis were completed for New
Mexico in the first quarter of 2009 and are currently being conducted
for Texas, California, and Arizona. BECC expects to complete all data
collection and analysis and issue the study by the end of 2010.
Without a comprehensive assessment of the needs of the region and the
existing condition of water and wastewater systems, federal agencies
are hampered in their ability to identify and provide assistance to
those communities with the greatest need. Instead, we found that most
federal programs generally provide funds to those communities with the
ability to initiate projects and seek assistance, which may not be the
ones with the greatest need. According to several state and local
officials, it is often the communities in the border region that do not
have the institutional capacity to identify solutions or apply for
funding that are in need of assistance. For example, rural communities,
such as unincorporated colonias, may not be aware of potential
solutions for obtaining water and wastewater services or how to start
the process to seek these services.[Footnote 26] Rural communities may
also lack the financial resources to hire a consultant who can help
them design a project and prepare the application materials, including
the preliminary engineering and environmental documents. According to
several officials that we spoke to, engineering and environmental
reports can cost from $30,000 to $100,000. A prior federal study has
identified this high initial cost as a major obstacle to providing
federal assistance for water and wastewater service in the
region.[Footnote 27] While federal assistance to help offset this high
initial cost is available through some programs, such as EPA's U.S.-
Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program, the overall federal
assistance provided for such activities is minimal--from fiscal years
2000 through 2008, the program provided funds to 62 projects in the
border region representing about $15 million in grant funds.[Footnote
28]
Although few federal agencies have made efforts to build institutional
capacity in border communities, we did find some efforts by state
programs and nonprofits. For example, the Texas Colonias Initiative
Program has colonia ombudsmen who assist communities with basic
infrastructure needs. In 1999, the state of Texas established a
Colonias Initiative Program to advance efforts to connect colonia
residents' homes to water and wastewater services. The program's
ombudsmen work in counties in the border region with the highest
colonia populations--Hidalgo, El Paso, Starr, Webb, Cameron, Nueces,
and Maverick Counties. The role of the ombudsmen includes the
following:
* serving as liaisons among colonia residents, federal and state
agencies, local governments, and utility companies;
* facilitating effective communication among colonia stakeholder groups
to improve living conditions for colonia residents;
* mediating among interested groups to resolve situations that prevent
the provision of water and wastewater service;
* serving as conduits for information by conducting community outreach
and facilitating community meetings with colonia residents; and:
* monitoring the different phases of projects to ensure progress and
project completion.
State and local officials told us that the ombudsmen had helped
communities overcome obstacles to obtaining service and had provided
valuable information on colonia conditions to state and federal
agencies.
Agencies Lack Coordinated Policies and Processes for Providing Federal
Assistance in the Border Region:
The federal agencies that provide most of the funding for water and
wastewater projects in the border region--EPA, USDA, and HUD--have not
developed comprehensive coordinated policies and procedures, resulting
in administrative burdens for applicants, duplication of efforts, and
inefficient use of resources. However, the agencies have long
recognized the need for improved coordination, and in 1997 these
agencies issued a joint memorandum to encourage cooperation among
federal, state, and local funding agencies. The memorandum states that
the agencies will foster coordination efforts by establishing a uniform
application, standardizing requirements, coordinating funding cycles,
and collaborating in project selection to improve program delivery to
small and rural communities, including those in the border region.
[Footnote 29]
Despite the fact that this joint memorandum was issued over a decade
ago, we found that most programs still have different application
processes, different requirements for engineering and environmental
reports, different deadlines for submitting applications, and different
processes for selecting projects.[Footnote 30] Since water and
wastewater projects often depend on assistance from more than one
agency, these separate and differing requirements can increase the
burden on applicants and delay project completion, according to
officials we spoke to.[Footnote 31] For example, an engineer in Texas
representing a public utility told us that one applicant trying to
expand water service to colonia residents had to pay $30,000 more in
fees because the engineer had to complete two separate sets of
engineering documentation for EPA and USDA. The applicant could have
saved these funds had EPA and USDA established uniform engineering
requirements. In addition, because most federal programs have no
process by which to coordinate and share information on projects they
have selected for funding, we found examples where agencies made
inefficient use of limited resources.[Footnote 32] For example, we
found a case where EPA and USDA both provided funds to design
wastewater projects that would serve the same communities in Hidalgo
County, Texas. EPA provided funds to design the project as an expansion
of service from an existing utility, while USDA provided funds to
design the project as a new wastewater treatment facility. The
community elected to build the new facility, thus eliminating the need
for the EPA design work and resulting in a waste of those federal
funds. In another example, HUD provided a utility in Hudspeth County,
Texas, over $860,000 in grant funds from 2004 to 2006 to extend water
distribution and waste collection lines for residents of a colonia.
However, as of September 2009, the distribution lines remain unused
because the utility does not have enough water to serve the additional
households. The utility intended to use funding from USDA to construct
a new well, but the funding obligated by the agency was not enough to
cover project costs.[Footnote 33] The utility has been unable to obtain
the additional assistance from federal agencies, and no additional
water supply has been acquired in the 3 years after the HUD funds were
provided to construct the distribution lines, resulting in a $900,000
investment of federal funds in distribution lines that are not usable.
We received conflicting reports about this project from USDA and
utility officials. Specifically, a USDA official in the state office
told us that the agency could provide loan funds only to complete the
project and that the agency advised the utility against applying for
assistance because the utility could not handle any additional loan
burden. In contrast, USDA headquarters officials told us that the
agency orally offered a loan to the utility to complete the project,
but the utility did not submit an application to officially request the
assistance, and a representative of the utility told us that the
utility did meet with USDA officials and it was discouraged from
submitting an application.
In contrast, federal and tribal officials told us that the
collaborative relationship between EPA's tribal programs and IHS is a
model that has been beneficial for tribal nations. The agencies have
created a process to coordinate project selection and development in
which EPA uses data on the needs of tribal nations from IHS to select
projects. According to EPA data, IHS administers almost all jointly
funded projects, and as a result applicants need to deal with only one
federal point of contact.
Furthermore, we found examples of states in the border region that have
made efforts to better coordinate funding for water and wastewater
projects among federal, state, and local agencies and thereby make the
application process easier, maximize the use of funds, and reduce
complications during project development. The following are examples of
coordination within the states:
* Texas has developed a coordination group for the state and federal
agencies that provide funding to colonias, and for representatives from
regulatory agencies. This group meets quarterly to discuss the status
of ongoing projects in colonias and any impediments to their
completion.
* California organizes "funding fairs," where several state and federal
agencies come together in communities throughout the state to provide
information on potential assistance that may be available.
* Arizona has developed a committee that consists of several state and
federal agencies that conduct meetings throughout the state. According
to state officials, these meetings provide communities the opportunity
to discuss their needs with the officials and to determine which
funding agency could best meet their needs.
* New Mexico, through executive orders, established an initiative to,
among other things, increase collaboration among state agencies that
fund water infrastructure.[Footnote 34] As a result of the initiative,
the state developed a single application process for entities seeking
assistance with water and wastewater infrastructure to complete and
submit to one state office through a Web-based portal that then
disseminates the application to numerous other state and federal
agencies for review. The state has also developed a single set of
engineering requirements that state and some federal agencies agreed to
accept. In addition, a workgroup of state and federal officials meets
biweekly to review the applications and identify the combination of
programs that would best meet the needs of individual applicants.
Federal participation includes the New Mexico USDA Rural Development
office, and state participation includes the New Mexico state agencies
administering the HUD CDBG Program and the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund Programs.
Our past work on issues that cut across multiple agencies, such as
rural water infrastructure, has shown that agencies face numerous
challenges in their efforts to improve coordination.[Footnote 35] For
example, we have found that agency missions may not be mutually
reinforcing or procedures and processes may be incompatible. However,
we found that without a coordinated approach, programs can waste scarce
funds and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. In
order to overcome significant differences in agency missions, cultures,
and established ways of doing business, collaborating agencies must
have a clear and compelling rationale to work together. The compelling
rationale for agencies to collaborate can be imposed externally through
legislation or other directives or can come from the agencies' own
perceptions of the benefits they can obtain from working together. In
either case, among the key practices that can help agencies enhance and
sustain their collaborative efforts, include the following:
* defining and articulating a common outcome;
* agreeing on roles and responsibilities;
* establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries;
* identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources; and:
* developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
[Footnote 36]
Agencies Have Not Always Ensured Compliance with Statutory Requirements
in Implementing Programs for the Border Region:
We found that USDA, HUD, and the Corps have not always ensured
compliance with statutory requirements and regulations concerning the
eligibility of applicants or projects or the prioritization of funds
from programs targeted at the border region.
Agencies Are Not Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Eligibility
Requirements:
HUD and the Corps are not ensuring compliance with eligibility
requirements set by Congress when they distribute federal assistance.
Specifically, we found the following:
* HUD. Under the Cranston-Gonzalez Act, the states of Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Texas shall each make available, "for
activities designed to meet the needs of the residents of colonias in
the State relating to water, sewage, and housing," a specified
percentage of CDBG funds they receive.[Footnote 37] Under the act, the
term "colonia" means any identifiable community that, among other
things, is determined to be a colonia on the basis of objective
criteria, including lack of potable water supply; lack of adequate
sewage systems; and lack of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. In
short, the act requires grants to be made for projects meeting the
needs of colonias residents, which must be related to water, sewage,
and housing.
We found that HUD has not developed guidance for determining what
constitutes a colonia, has not made such determinations, and has not
reviewed states' determinations. Lacking guidance and direction from
HUD, states have applied the requirement differently. For example, in
California and New Mexico most colonias are designated as communities
with substandard housing and a lack of either potable water or adequate
sewage systems. In Arizona, designations use any one of the three
statutory criteria. In Texas, designations are made for areas with
substandard housing that lack either adequate water or wastewater
treatment, and which are unincorporated, criteria not found in the act.
HUD officials said that the CDBG Program relies on states to make
decisions that make the most sense for the particular state, and
officials do not agree that varying interpretations by states suggest
that the lack of guidance is problematic. However, officials stated
that in the future, HUD will issue guidance that reportedly will
include information on the documentation needed by states to support
that a colonia meets statutory requirements.
HUD officials also told us that the agency interprets the statute as
authorizing colonia funds to be spent on any currently eligible CDBG
activity. However, the statute expressly limits the Colonia Set-aside
to activities relating to water, sewage, and housing. As the agency has
not limited state use of the funds, grants have been obligated for
numerous activities. Arizona obligated only about 32 percent of the
Colonia Set-aside funds for water, wastewater, or housing activities,
and the remainder was used for other activities not consistent with the
limitations in the act, including about $560,000 for a neighborhood job
center and almost $180,000 for a garbage collection vehicle. HUD
officials did not say whether the guidance the agency intends to issue
in the future will discuss eligible activities.
* Corps. The Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended,
authorizes the Corps to provide assistance for wastewater treatment
facilities, water systems, and related structures for colonias in the
United States along the United States-Mexico border.[Footnote 38]
Although the act does not define colonias, the legislative history for
the program shows that colonias were considered to be rural settlements
in the border region that lack adequate basic water and sewer
facilities, specifically stating that most of these communities rely on
outhouses or substandard septic tanks. We found that the Corps has not
defined "colonia" for the purposes of the act, or developed any
guidance for use of these funds. The Corps recognizes that unlike other
Section 219 projects, which have specifically identified project
locations (e.g., congressionally directed), the colonias Section 219
project is essentially a programmatic authority. Nonetheless, Corps
officials stated the program was too small for the agency to develop
guidance. While the Corps states that it independently verifies that
the assistance it provides under this provision is going to colonias,
Corps officials acknowledged that the agency does not have criteria for
identifying eligible colonias, and it is unclear by what basis the
Corps has verified the communities are colonias as meant in the
authorizing statute.[Footnote 39] As a result, the Corps cannot ensure
that its assistance is going to colonias.
Appendix II provides additional information on the establishment of
federal funding to assist colonias and GAO's analysis of legal
requirements related to eligibility and project priorities.
Agencies Do Not Ensure Funds Intended for Use in the Border Region Are
Provided to Those with the Greatest Need:
USDA and HUD do not ensure that funds intended for use in the border
region comply with statutory requirements for establishing project
priorities in the border region. Further, the Corps has not established
any guidance to ensure funds are targeted to those projects with the
greatest need. Specifically, we found the following:
* USDA. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended,
directs USDA to provide financial assistance for water supply and waste
facilities and services to communities whose residents face significant
health risks, because the community's residents do not have access to
such facilities. The act states that USDA must give preference to
entities "that propose to provide water supply or waste disposal
services to the residents of those rural subdivisions commonly referred
to as colonias that are characterized by substandard housing,
inadequate roads and drainage, and a lack of adequate water or waste
facilities."[Footnote 40] Thus, the provision requires USDA to give
preference to water and waste projects in colonias where other
infrastructure and housing are also inadequate.
We found that USDA has no process in place to ensure that entities
"propos[ing] to provide water supply or waste disposal services" to
these colonias are given preference. Instead, USDA told us it views an
entity proposing to assist any community the relevant state or local
government has designated as a colonia as qualifying for the
preference.[Footnote 41] USDA does not attempt to independently verify
whether these entities meet the threshold eligibility requirement
(proposing to serve communities in which most residents lack access to
adequate water or waste facilities), or that the areas to be served
meet the statutory definition of "colonia." The agency also has failed
to provide any guidance elaborating on the meaning of an "adequate"
water or waste disposal system, or of "colonia." Despite the lack of
guidance, USDA told us that it considers as inadequate a system with
any violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act, as
appropriate.
As a result of these issues, we believe that USDA has no assurance that
entities proposing to serve eligible colonias with the required
characteristics have received the required statutory preference.
[Footnote 42] For example, we found that USDA gave an entity proposing
a water utility improvement project in New Mexico the colonia
preference and obligated $700,000 from the colonia funds. The
improvements to the water utility included a new well, tank, and
related infrastructure. Rather than reserving the colonia preference to
projects that serve areas living without these basic necessities, the
agency provided the same preference to this project, which was intended
to serve new development, according to the USDA project summary. By
awarding the same preference to projects that benefit communities with
existing infrastructure, the agency is failing to give preference to
those entities proposing to "provide water supply or waste disposal
services" to colonias that have the statutory characteristics and live
without basic necessities.
* HUD. The Cranston-Gonzalez Act requires Colonia Set-aside grants to
be made in accordance with a distribution plan that gives priority to
colonias having the greatest need for such assistance. To do so would
require a state to at a minimum identify colonias, discuss the relative
needs of colonias, and select projects reflecting the colonias with
greatest needs.[Footnote 43] However, we found that HUD has failed to
ensure that state distribution plans reflect that priority is given to
the colonias with the greatest need. Instead, HUD officials told us
that it is up to the states to determine the needs-based grant
priorities and the agency does not believe it has the authority to
direct states on how to distribute the funds as long as it is in
accordance with a distribution plan. We believe that without direction
and oversight from HUD, states may not be meeting the statutory
requirements. For example, one state does not distinguish between
Colonia Set-aside funds and regular CDBG funds and does not actually
"set aside" the colonias funds to distribute based on priority of
needs. Instead, the state splits the available funds among the regional
Councils of Governments, which then determine how to distribute the
funds to local projects. The distribution process can vary by region--
e.g., one region rotates eligibility among the eligible entities in the
county, providing each eligible entity an equal distribution of the
funds. The state later adds up the total of the projects that it
considers qualifying as colonias to justify the set-aside amount. While
HUD officials may believe states are identifying the colonias with the
greatest needs, we do not agree that this complies with the act, which
requires the agency to take the necessary steps to ensure that the
states are doing so. In a July 2008 report, the HUD Inspector General
also recommended that HUD address this issue, and HUD agreed to issue
guidance to assist states to "more clearly articulate the priorities"
in developing their method of distribution.[Footnote 44] As of November
2009, the agency had not yet issued this guidance, but officials told
us the agency still intends to issue the guidance in the near future.
* The Corps. We have previously reported that for a federal program to
be effective it should, among other things, be well targeted to those
with the greatest needs and the least capacity to meet those needs.
[Footnote 45] However, we found that the Corps lacks any guidance
specific to the colonias funds and does not have a process to ensure
that assistance authorized for colonias is targeted at those with
greatest need. Instead we found that the Corps selects projects on an
ad hoc basis.[Footnote 46] According to a Corps official, when funds
become available, the Corps notifies state officials and asks these
officials to notify communities of the available assistance. Then
communities are required to send a letter to the Corps requesting
assistance. When the Corps receives a letter for assistance, it
consults with state officials to discuss the project and primarily
bases its decision to assist the community on the entity's readiness to
enter into the required cost-sharing agreement. By using this approach,
the Corps is failing to ensure limited funds are provided to those with
the greatest need.
Appendix II provides additional information on the establishment of
federal funding to assist colonias and GAO's analysis of legal
requirements related to eligibility and project priorities.
Conclusions:
Meeting the drinking water and wastewater needs of the border region is
a difficult undertaking. Among other things, the remoteness of many
communities can make it difficult to identify residents in need of
water and wastewater services. In addition, the program differences
resulting from separate mandates and project eligibility requirements
for the various federal programs add to the complexity of coordinating
funding needed to complete projects in the region. The ultimate success
of providing these basic services to residents of the border region
hinges on several factors, of which a well-coordinated implementation
approach based on a comprehensive assessment of the region's existing
water and wastewater needs is key. Federal agencies have obligated more
than $1.4 billion in recent years to fund numerous projects that
provided water and wastewater service to residents in the border
region. However, despite the extensive efforts that have gone into
these projects and the agencies' recognition over a decade ago of the
benefits from coordinated policies and procedures, the lack of (1) an
overall needs assessment for the region, (2) comprehensive coordinated
policies and procedures, and (3) compliance with all statutory and
program requirements is undermining the effectiveness of the federal
efforts. We believe that the impact of these deficiencies has limited
the availability of federal assistance, created an administrative
burden for applicants, delayed project completion, and failed to ensure
that federal funds are used effectively and directed according to the
criteria established in federal statutes. In a time of constrained
resources, continuing to provide an uncoordinated federal response is
not the most effective use of federal resources to meet the drinking
water and wastewater needs in the border region.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
In order to better address the needs of the region, Congress may wish
to consider establishing an interagency mechanism or process, such as a
task force on water and wastewater infrastructure in the border region
that includes the federal agencies that administer programs in the
region. Congress may wish to direct any task force, in partnership with
state and local officials, to:
* leverage collective resources to identify needs within the border
region--including the identification of the water infrastructure status
within colonias, and the extent to which the lack of institutional
capacity has impeded communities within the border region from seeking
assistance;
* in light of these needs, establish a framework for compatible and
coordinated policies and procedures across relevant agencies, such as a
coordinated process for the selection of projects, and standardized
applications and environmental review and engineering requirements, to
the extent possible;
* evaluate the degree to which there are gaps in the programs and what
resources or authority would be needed to address them; and:
* provide periodic status reports regarding the progress made in
developing this strategic and coordinated approach.
Congress may also wish to consider reemphasizing the priorities for use
of Colonia Set-aside funds by specifically requiring HUD to make these
funds available only for grants related to the three existing statutory
purposes, and by directing HUD to report annually to Congress on the
purposes for which such funds were used and the steps it is taking to
ensure that the funds are being used for the required purposes.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We are making the following three recommendations for executive action.
To ensure that funding established to meet the needs of colonias is
used in ways that are consistent with statutory and regulatory
requirements, we recommend that:
* The Secretary of Agriculture direct Rural Development to revise its
process of determining eligibility to ensure that the agency only
provides Section 306C colonia funds for projects that benefit colonias,
as defined by federal statute, and to revise its priority process to
better target limited funds to those projects meeting the statutory
preference criteria.
* The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ensure that state
agencies provide Colonia Set-aside funds only for projects that benefit
colonias, as defined by federal statute, and to promptly establish
guidance to ensure states follow a method of distribution that results
in the prioritization of Colonia Set-aside funds to those colonias with
the greatest need. Further, the Secretary should monitor the states'
uses of all Colonia Set-aside funds as a distinct component of CDBG
monitoring.
* If the Corps continues to assist communities with water and
wastewater related activities through the colonia program, the
Secretary of Defense direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding
General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop eligibility
criteria and a standard process to review and select activities for
funding that targets the assistance to those with the greatest need.
The process should comply with all applicable regulations and include
verification of eligibility.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
with a draft of this report for their review and comment. In addition,
we sent relevant portions of the report to the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration, the Department of Health and Human
Service's Indian Health Service, and the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation for their review and technical comment.
In its written comments, USDA provided several observations on the
report's findings but disagreed with the report's recommendation.
Specifically, USDA agreed that our report accurately reflects the
assistance that has been provided in the border region and stated that
more work and additional funding are needed to continue the progress
being made. USDA also agreed with our report's finding that there is no
comprehensive federal assessment of the region's water and wastewater
systems. However, USDA questioned whether a federal level comprehensive
assessment is needed to effectively address water system inadequacies
or whether a locally based federal presence that leverages local
knowledge of local conditions might not be more effective. While we
agree that local knowledge of local needs is an important element that
can help inform decision makers, we continue to believe that without a
comprehensive assessment of the region, federal agencies providing
assistance to the region lack necessary information on the magnitude of
the problem and on how best to prioritize and target limited resources.
Additionally, USDA stated that it believes the examples presented in
our report where coordination would have improved the project outcome
are rare instances and that the examples of state level coordination in
our report demonstrate that effective coordination is occurring amongst
the programs. While we agree that some level of coordination is
occurring, we disagree that the examples cited in our report are rare
instances. During our review, we contacted numerous officials in the
border region--including local, state, and tribal officials; engineers
and other consultants; nonprofit representatives; water and wastewater
utility representatives; and residents--and these officials
consistently provided us with numerous examples of the type of concerns
they have experienced due to ineffective coordination among the federal
agencies. Moreover, while state efforts to coordinate funding for water
and wastewater projects are beneficial; we found that these efforts are
not consistent throughout the region and can not replace the need for
coordination of policies and procedures among federal agencies. We
therefore continue to believe that without a coordinated approach
federal programs continue to place additional burden on applicants,
waste scarce funds, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal
effort. Finally, in its comments, USDA disagreed with our
recommendation that it should revise its process of determining
eligibility to ensure that Section 306C colonia funds are only provided
to those projects that benefit colonias, as defined by federal statute,
and to revise its priority process to better target limited funds to
those projects meeting the statutory preference criteria. Specifically,
USDA stated that its current process complies with statutory
requirements and that preference is given to entities that propose to
provide water or waste disposal services to colonias. In explaining its
position, USDA stated that the characteristics of a colonia to be given
preference per the statute do not constitute a definition. We disagree
with USDA's interpretation of the statute and continue to believe that
USDA must determine that an area proposed for assistance has these
characteristics before the agency provides preference to an entity for
funding decisions. Our recommendation would allow entities that propose
to provide water and wastewater disposal services to colonias that
match the statutory characteristics to receive preference for limited
federal funds and ensure that the agency is providing federal funds to
those with the greatest need. USDA's letter can be found in appendix
IX.
In its written comments on the draft report, HUD provided several
clarifications about its disagreement with our interpretation of the
statutory requirements for the CDBG program and also commented on our
recommendations, although it did not state whether it agreed or
disagreed with them. For example, with regard to our recommendations
that state agencies only provide colonia set-aside funds for projects
that benefit colonias, as defined by federal statute, and that HUD
establish guidance to ensure that states follow a method of
distribution that results in the prioritization of Colonia Set-aside
funds to those colonias with the greatest need, HUD stated that it will
issue guidance to the states that will address the proper
administration of the Colonia Set-aside funds. HUD stated that this
guidance is currently being finalized, but did not provide a timetable
for its release or specify how the guidance would address the issues
GAO identified. With regard to our recommendation that HUD should take
additional actions to monitor the states' use of Colonia Set-aside
funds, HUD stated that it already monitors distinct components of the
state CDBG program and as part of this process also monitors a portion
of the Colonia Set-aside funds. HUD stated that it has recently
developed a new monitoring exhibit specifically to assist in the review
of Colonia Set-aside funds. Because HUD has not finalized its guidance
we believe that our recommendation remains valid. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development's letter can be found in appendix X.
In its comments on the draft report, DOD stated that it believes that
the Corps' current method of determining which communities receive
assistance under its Section 219 program is appropriate; however, DOD
partially concurred with our recommendation, and stated that should
Congress direct additional funds to the colonias Section 219 program,
the Corps will develop written guidance on eligibility criteria and the
process for selection of activities. While we appreciate DOD's
agreement with the need for a formal process and written guidance, we
continue to be concerned about the Corps ad hoc selection process for
these colonias water and wastewater projects. This is because such a
process fails to ensure that limited funds are provided to those
colonias with the greatest need--which GAO has found to be a key factor
in federal program effectiveness. The Department of Defense's letter
can be found in appendix XI.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration, the Department of Health and Human
Service's Indian Health Service, and the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation provided technical comments, which we
incorporated throughout the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30
days from the date of this report. At that time, we will then provide
copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and
other interested parties. We will also send copies to the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Defense, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have questions about this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix XII.
Sincerely Yours,
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Determining How Much Federal Funding Was Provided to the Border Region:
To determine how much federal funding was obligated to rural households
and communities in the border region for water and wastewater projects,
we identified seven agencies with programs that may have provided
assistance to these areas. We then collected and analyzed obligation
and project location data from each of the seven agencies--the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the Department of Health and Human
Service's Indian Health Service (IHS), the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration (EDA), and the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)--from fiscal years 2000
through 2008. We collected data from each agency for the 97 counties
that are within 150 miles of the border region. We geographically
located the data using MapInfo. We assessed the reliability of the data
we used by reviewing information about the underlying database systems,
reviewing the data to identify outliers and inconsistent or missing
values, and discussing the data with knowledgeable agency officials. We
present more details about the data, their limitations, and how we
addressed these limitations below. On the basis of these efforts, we
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
Environmental Protection Agency:
The Border Environmental Cooperation Commission and the North American
Development Bank provided grant and loan obligation data for all
projects that received funds from EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure Program. The reports are based on data tracked by the
agency's financial systems and program management data. As U.S.-Mexico
Border Water Infrastructure Program grant funds are obligated to
entities in both the United States and Mexico, we filtered the data to
include only projects that were located in the United States.
Additionally, we included only water and wastewater projects in our
review.
EPA provided grant obligation data for congressionally designated
projects from the Special Appropriation Act Projects (SAAP) database.
We filtered these data to include only projects whose primary purpose
was designated as drinking water or wastewater. The SAAP database does
not include county-level data, so we identified the county for each
project based on location data EPA was able to provide. After the
county was identified for each project, we filtered the data to include
only projects in counties within 150 miles of the border.
EPA provided grant obligation data on tribal programs from spreadsheets
used to track projects. EPA provided data for those tribal nations it
determined to be within 150 miles of the border region.
State agencies from Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas provided
loan obligation data for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and
Clean Water State Revolving Fund programs.
U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USDA provided grant and loan obligation data for all water and
wastewater utility programs from its Community Program Application
Processing (CPAP) system. For some projects that were within the areas
of our site visits, we obtained additional information, such as copies
of the original applications and project summary data. USDA provided
grant obligation data for the single-family programs from the Rural
Development Data Warehouse. A number of records in the dataset did not
include physical addresses. However, all records did include at least
county and state data.
We did not include one of USDA's Section 504 single-family programs in
our review. The Section 504 program provides funds to individual
households for numerous activities, including water and wastewater
projects--such as repairs to septic systems or water wells--but the
funds can also be used for other household repairs not related to water
or wastewater. USDA does not centrally track how the funds were
utilized, and we could not determine what portion of the funds was
relevant for our review.
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
HUD provided grant obligation data from its Integrated Disbursement and
Information System (IDIS). HUD was not able to extract data by county,
but rather provided data for all water and wastewater activities in
counties eligible to receive Community Development Block Grant funding
in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. We then reviewed the
project location data and determined the county in which each project
was located, and we imported the data into a geographic information
system and extracted only those activities conducted in the 97 counties
included in our review.
Within the IDIS, HUD tracks project activities through matrix codes. We
obtained data for matrix code 03J--water and sewer improvements, and
matrix code 14A--rehab, single-family residential units. HUD also
provides funds for planning purposes--matrix code 20--some of which may
have been used for water and wastewater activities. However, we found
the data for matrix code 20 often did not include enough information to
determine whether the project included a water or wastewater component.
We did not include these projects in our review.
Furthermore, although we requested data from fiscal years 2000 through
2008, HUD could not ensure that all funds for fiscal year 2008 were
included in our data. At the time HUD extracted the data, the agency
had not verified that all states had finished inputting data into the
database. However, officials stated that they believe most, if not all,
of the data were included.
Indian Health Service:
IHS provided grant obligation data from its Project Data System. We
obtained data for all water and wastewater projects in Arizona,
California, New Mexico, and Texas. We then reviewed and filtered the
data by tribal name and included only the funds obligated to tribal
nations located within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. We
determined the tribal nations located in the border region using data
provided by EPA, IHS, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. IHS also
provided needs data from the Sanitation Deficiency System.
Economic Development Administration:
EDA provided grant obligation data from its Operations Planning and
Control System. Agency officials identified and provided data for those
projects with a water or wastewater component. We reviewed the data and
excluded several projects from our review as they were not directly
related to the provision or improvement of water or wastewater systems,
and thus outside the scope of our review.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
The Corps provided data from its P2 Project Management System. Corps
officials identified and provided data for drinking water and
wastewater projects that received assistance in the border region. We
did not collect data for regulatory permits or projects conducted on
military installations in the region.
Bureau of Reclamation:
Reclamation identified and provided data for water and wastewater
projects. We determined that several projects were not directly related
to the provision or improvement of drinking water or sewage treatment
systems, and were thus outside the scope of our review. Specifically,
we did not include obligations for activities related to storm water
runoff, water recycling, or desalination studies.
Rural Areas Identified Using a System Based on Population and Commuting
Patterns with Census Tracts:
The federal government has not established a formal or consistent
definition of what constitutes a rural area. The term "rural" is
defined differently by Congress and each federal agency according to
agency guidelines and individual project or program authorizations.
Depending on the agency, rural areas may be defined as ranging from
fewer than 2,500 to fewer than 50,000 persons. Some agencies and
programs that fund water and wastewater projects in the border region
do not focus on serving rural or urban areas but instead provide funds
to eligible applicants from any location.
We determined that, for purposes of this report, the best system for
differentiating rural from urban areas would be based on ZIP codes
rather than on counties. Because the number of ZIP codes in the nation
is so much larger than the number of counties, classification systems
based on ZIP code measures offer a more precise means of identifying
rural areas than county-based systems. However, because of data
limitations and the multiple ZIP codes often served by projects, we
could not reliably track funding to the ZIP code level; we chose to use
the dominant Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) system, developed by the
Washington State Office of Community and Rural Health in 2001. The
system relies on both population and commuting patterns of census
tracts to classify each county as rural or urban based on the counties'
dominant commuting patterns.[Footnote 47] The dominant RUCA system is
based on the 10-tiered subcounty RUCA system developed by ERS in
conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services in the
late 1990s. The rural-urban continuum system does not explicitly define
"rural." However, the rural-urban continuum codes can be combined to
create rural and urban designations for counties.
Effectiveness of Federal Efforts:
To assess the effectiveness of federal efforts, we based our review on
key evaluation criteria identified in previously published GAO reports.
[Footnote 48] Our review did not assess the benefits of individual
projects; rather, we determined the effectiveness of the collective
federal effort of the programs. Specifically, to determine the
effectiveness of the federal effort, we identified whether the agencies
with programs targeted to the border region had (1) comprehensively
assessed the needs they seek to address; (2) developed cooperative
policies, procedures, and requirements; and (3) adhered to all
statutory and regulatory requirements, including those that ensure
assistance is targeted to those with the greatest need.
In order to determine whether federal agencies have comprehensively
identified the drinking water and wastewater needs of the region, we
reviewed existing assessments and interviewed federal officials
regarding their assessment efforts. To determine agencies' efforts to
enhance and sustain collaboration with other agencies, we reviewed
coordination documentation, such as memorandums of agreement; reviewed
program requirements; and interviewed federal officials. To determine
if agencies' programs comply with statutory requirements, we reviewed
applicable authorizing statutes, appropriations acts, regulations, and
agency policies and guidance. We also reviewed program policies and
procedures to solicit and accept applications, and interviewed federal
officials regarding their practices. In addition, we reviewed key
legislative history for key statutes and any relevant case law.
Furthermore, we asked agency attorneys and program officials for
explanations where we found noncompliant practices.
We conducted site visits to colonias, tribal nations, and other
communities in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. During the site visits,
we observed water and wastewater conditions in the border region and
federally funded projects. We also interviewed local, state, tribal,
and federal officials; engineering consultants; nonprofit
representatives; urban planners; water and wastewater utility
representatives; and residents regarding their experiences applying for
or receiving assistance from federal agencies. In selecting our site
visit locations, we considered a number of factors, including (1)
geographic location, (2) proximity to identified colonias, (3)
proximity to tribal nations, (4) location of federally funded water and
wastewater projects, (4) location of federal agency field offices, and
(5) recommendations from state and local officials of areas that either
lacked basic services or have received the services as a result of
receiving federal funds. While the results of the site visits cannot be
generalized to all sites or projects, the results do reflect a range of
geographic diversity and water and wastewater needs. In addition to the
site visits, we conducted telephone interviews with local, state,
tribal, and federal officials, and nonprofit representatives in Texas,
New Mexico, Arizona, and California not located within the areas where
we conducted site visits to obtain additional information on water and
wastewater conditions in their communities and their experiences with
federal assistance.
Furthermore, we attended two interagency coordination meetings in which
various federal and state agency representatives discussed the status
of ongoing drinking water and wastewater projects in the border region
and the challenges they face completing them.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Additional Information on Eligibility and Prioritization
Requirements for USDA, HUD, and Corps Programs Targeted to the Border
Region:
This appendix provides additional information on GAO's analysis of
legal requirements related to eligibility and project priorities for
targeted USDA, HUD, and Corps programs. This information includes
relevant history of the program's original authorizing legislation, and
additional details and citations.
Legislative History of the USDA, HUD, and Corps Colonias Programs:
The federal government's role in assisting colonias was primarily
established when the 101st and 102nd Congresses established dedicated
funding--in programs administered by USDA, HUD, and the Corps--to
address the needs of colonias.[Footnote 49] These agencies were
directed to establish programs dedicated to assisting these
communities. The legislative histories of the program authorizations
emphasize that the key concern over colonias was public health impacts
stemming from the lack of clean drinking water and the inadequate
disposal of sewage; for example, one particular concern was that the
inadequate systems in use, combined with flooding conditions, would
result in human waste in the roads.[Footnote 50] Statements throughout
the Congresses consistently depict colonias as areas that lack safe
drinking water and sewage disposal facilities, and the colonias were
sometimes likened to areas with "third world" conditions.[Footnote 51]
Substandard housing is also mentioned,[Footnote 52] but the lack of
water and sewer are the predominant characteristics. For example, the
sponsor of the HUD-administered Colonia Set-aside explained, "These
citizens do not have sewer, they do not have sewage systems, they do
not have running water, and I think that is a travesty in America, that
American citizens do not have the basic necessities of life."[Footnote
53] Another representative, when introducing amendments to the USDA
program legislation, stated "[t]here are hundreds of individuals that
live in the colonias that will suffer from a lack of adequate water and
sanitation facilities. This situation is truly dangerous in terms of
sanitation and health hazards from the lack of proper water and sewer
systems."[Footnote 54] Finally, when the provision authorizing the
Corps' colonias assistance was added to the Water Resource and
Development Act bill, a representative explained: "Colonias are rural
settlements along the United States-Mexico border which lack or have
inadequate basic water and sewer facilities. All of the colonias to
receive funding under this amendment are located in the United
States....Most of the inhabitants of these communities use outhouses or
substandard septic tanks for their waste disposal. A set-aside for
these areas is particularly crucial from a health standpoint. Because
of substandard water resources, contagious diseases pose a particular
threat to people living in colonias."[Footnote 55]
USDA:
The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, directs
USDA to provide financial assistance for water supply and waste
facilities and services to communities whose residents face significant
health risks, because the communities' residents do not have access to
such facilities.[Footnote 56] The act states that USDA must give
preference to entities "that propose to provide water supply or waste
disposal services to the residents of those rural subdivisions commonly
referred to as colonias that are characterized by substandard housing,
inadequate roads and drainage, and a lack of adequate water or waste
facilities."[Footnote 57] Thus, the provision requires USDA to give
preference to water and waste projects in colonias where other
infrastructure and housing are also inadequate.
We found that USDA has no process in place to ensure that entities
"propos[ing] to provide water supply or waste disposal services" to
these colonias are given preference. USDA officials explained that the
agency considers the funding for colonias to be a set-aside, and
therefore only considers entities proposing to assist colonias for this
funding.[Footnote 58] However, in implementing the program, USDA told
us it views any entity proposing to assist an area that the relevant
state or local government has designated as a colonia as qualifying for
the preference,[Footnote 59] and awards funds to them on a first-come,
first-served basis.[Footnote 60] USDA does not attempt to independently
verify whether these entities meet the threshold eligibility
requirement (that they propose to provide service to areas where most
residents lack access to adequate water or waste facilities), or that
the areas to be served meet the statutory definition of "colonia."
While agency regulations repeat the statutory requirement for threshold
eligibility[Footnote 61] and define "colonia",[Footnote 62] the agency
has failed to provide any guidance elaborating on the meaning of an
"adequate" water or waste disposal system, or how to identify those
colonias with the statutory preference characteristics. Despite the
lack of guidance, USDA told us that it considers as inadequate a system
with any violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act,
as appropriate. Furthermore, the agency simply accepts local
designations of colonias to satisfy the regulation and the statute.
As a result, USDA has no assurance that entities proposing to serve
colonias with the required characteristics have received the required
preference.[Footnote 63] By allowing colonia funds to be used for
projects that benefit communities with existing infrastructure, the
agency is failing to give preference to those colonias that have the
statutory characteristics and live without basic necessities.
HUD:
Under section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act, the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas shall
each make available, "for activities designed to meet the needs of the
residents of colonias in the State relating to water, sewage, and
housing," a specified percentage of CDBG funds they receive.[Footnote
64] Under the act, the term "colonia" means any identifiable community
that, among other things, is determined to be a colonia on the basis of
objective criteria, including lack of potable water supply, lack of
adequate sewage systems, and lack of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing.[Footnote 65] The act requires grants to be made in accordance
with a distribution plan that gives priority to colonias having the
greatest need for such assistance. In short, the act requires grants to
be made for projects meeting the needs of colonias residents, which
must be related to water, sewage, and housing, and which give priority
to the colonias with greatest need.
With respect to the meaning of "colonia," HUD told us the agency has
not developed guidance regarding interpretation of the definition or
determination of eligible entities.[Footnote 66] HUD's sole written
interpretation of the definition, issued in a 2003 notice,[Footnote 67]
asserts that all three criteria must be met; nonetheless, HUD officials
also stated that the agency allows states to interpret the definition
as requiring only one of the three criteria to be met.[Footnote 68]
Finally, HUD officials told us that as they give grants to the states
for distribution to colonias, the states are ultimately responsible for
determining eligible entities; to do so, the states rely on formal
"designation" of colonias. Without guidance from HUD, states have
applied the requirement differently. For example, in California and New
Mexico, most colonias are designated as communities with substandard
housing and a lack of either potable water or adequate sewage systems.
In Arizona designations use any one of the three statutory criteria. In
Texas, designations are made for areas with substandard housing that
lack either adequate water or wastewater treatment, and which are
unincorporated, a criterion not found in the act. While interpreting
colonias as those designated by states may have been the correct
interpretation of the Cranston-Gonzalez Act until 1992, in that year
Congress repealed a provision requiring that a colonia must be
designated as such by the state to be eligible for funds.[Footnote 69]
A committee report explains that the designation process was changed so
that a colonia can be qualified for this program without regard to a
state or county action.[Footnote 70] We believe that HUD's reliance on
the states in carrying out section 916 fails to give effect to this
change in law. HUD officials said that the CDBG Program relies on
states to make decisions that make the most sense for the particular
state, and officials do not agree that varying interpretations by
states suggest that the lack of guidance is problematic. However,
officials stated that HUD will be issuing guidance, which they say will
include information on the documentation states need to support that a
colonia meets statutory requirements.
HUD officials also told us that it is up to the states to determine the
needs-based grant priorities. However, under the act, states must
distribute the colonia funds according to distribution plans that give
priority to the colonias in the greatest need of assistance.[Footnote
71] To do so would require a state to at a minimum identify colonias,
discuss the relative needs of colonias, and select projects reflecting
the colonias with the greatest needs.[Footnote 72] However, we found
that HUD has failed to ensure that state distribution plans reflect
priority given to the colonias with greatest need. Instead, HUD
officials do not believe the agency has the authority to direct states
on how to distribute the funds as long as it is in accordance with a
distribution plan. Without direction and oversight from HUD, states may
not be meeting the statutory requirements. While HUD officials may
believe states are identifying the colonias with the greatest needs,
section 916 requires the agency to not just rely on mere belief, but
take such steps as required to ensure it is doing so.
HUD officials also told us that the agency interprets the statute as
authorizing colonia funds to be spent on any currently eligible CDBG
activity. However, the statute expressly limits the set-aside to
activities relating to water, sewage, and housing.[Footnote 73] Lacking
guidance and direction from HUD, states have applied the requirement
differently.
Finally, HUD officials said they are required to give states "maximum
feasible deference" in interpreting statutory requirements related to
the Colonia Set-aside. HUD regulations establish the maximum feasible
deference policy; however, the regulations provide for deference only
to states' interpretations of CDBG requirements under the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 and certain HUD regulations.[Footnote
74] The Colonia Set-aside requirement, however, was established by
section 916 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act,
[Footnote 75] which stands alone and is not an amendment to the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974. Thus, HUD's maximum feasible
deference regulation by its terms does not encompass state
interpretations related to the set-aside.[Footnote 76] Even if it were
applicable, the regulation limits deference to state interpretations
that "are not plainly inconsistent with the Act and the Secretary's
obligation to enforce compliance with the intent of the Congress as
declared in the Act."[Footnote 77] As outlined above, HUD has not taken
steps to ensure state interpretations related to funding of set-aside
projects, such as which activities are eligible, are in accordance with
law.
The Corps:
The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 authorized the Corps to
provide assistance to colonias.[Footnote 78] The colonias authorization
is unique among WRDA section 219 projects, which are otherwise specific
earmarked projects; that is, Congress has not directed the funds to
particular colonias projects.[Footnote 79] The authorization limits
grants to "colonias in the United States along the United States-Mexico
border," but does not define colonias. While limited, the legislative
history shows that colonias were understood to be "rural settlements
along the United States-Mexico border which lack or have inadequate
basic water and sewer facilities," and that "most of the Inhabitants of
these communities use outhouses or substandard septic tanks for their
waste disposal."[Footnote 80] In addition, Congress has elsewhere
defined colonias as "based on objective criteria, including lack of
potable water supply, lack of adequate sewage systems, and lack of
decent, safe, and sanitary housing."[Footnote 81] Nonetheless, the
Corps has never developed a definition, an interpretation, or guidance
for staff to use in determining whether an assistance recipient is a
colonia eligible for the program. Although the Corps recognizes that
the colonias section 219 project is essentially a programmatic
authority, nonetheless, Corps officials stated the program was too
small for the agency to develop guidance. The Corps claimed to
independently verify in letter reports, which are brief project reports
that the Corps prepares before providing assistance to an entity, that
the assistance it provides under this provision is going to colonias;
however, the Corps acknowledged that it does not have criteria for
identifying eligible colonias. Thus, while these letter reports
describe the areas, it is unclear by what basis the Corps has verified
they are colonias as meant in the authorizing statute.[Footnote 82] As
a result, the Corps cannot ensure that its assistance is going to
colonias.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Total Obligations and Rural-Urban Categories for Water
and Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008,
by County:
State: AZ;
County: Cochise;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $5,983,185;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $6,924,160;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$15,246,570;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $707,968;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $28,861,883.
State: AZ;
County: Gila;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $540,190;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $748,400;
HUD CDBG: $480,335;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,768,925.
State: AZ;
County: Graham;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,208,290;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,195,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $6,768,447;
HUD CDBG: $173,340;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $10,345,077.
State: AZ;
County: Greenlee;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $555,150;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $75,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $943,034;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,573,184.
State: AZ;
County: La Paz;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $8,665,890;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $5,880,110;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $1,400,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $15,946,000.
State: AZ;
County: Maricopa;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,969,649;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $742,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $3,265,300;
HUD CDBG: $3,889,833;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $9,866,782.
State: AZ;
County: Mohave;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,165,900;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $2,964,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $1,433,600;
HUD CDBG: $1,855,922;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $8,419,422.
State: AZ;
County: Pima;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $8,536,740;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $4,280,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: $68,691;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $2,494,700;
HUD CDBG: $3,379,667;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $18,759,798.
State: AZ;
County: Pinal;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $12,736,276;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $6,632,605;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,305,186;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $20,674,067.
State: AZ;
County: Santa Cruz;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $280,720;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $881,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$61,451,177;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $2,993,554;
HUD CDBG: $365,813;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $65,972,264.
State: AZ;
County: Yavapai;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $5,895,470;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $5,649,479;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $733,750;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $12,278,699.
State: AZ;
County: Yuma;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $7,285,064;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $7,018,340;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$7,359,501;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $953,514;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $22,616,419.
State: CA;
County: Imperial;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $11,774,134;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $11,540,700;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$2,592,244;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $5,170,391;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $1,446,690;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $32,524,159.
State: CA;
County: Los Angeles;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $446,500;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: Not Collected;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $446,500.
State: CA;
County: Orange;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: Not Collected;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: 0.
State: CA;
County: Riverside;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $8,150,985;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $15,219,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: $37,786;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $2,083,149;
HUD CDBG: $1,928,333;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $8,931,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $36,350,253.
State: CA;
County: San Bernardino;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $4,772,902;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $4,148,334;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $12,342,667;
HUD CDBG: $1,928,333;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $7,125,000;
Reclamation: $989,997;
Total: $31,307,233.
State: CA;
County: San Diego;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $7,716,441;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,700,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $12,735,333;
HUD CDBG: $425,354;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: $2,406,000;
Total: $24,983,128.
State: NM;
County: Catron;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $5,377,046;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $49,600;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,031,634;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $6,458,280.
State: NM;
County: Chaves;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (5);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,798,773;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,798,773.
State: NM;
County: Dona Ana;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $31,428,830;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $6,882,900;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$21,859,544;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $2,890,100;
HUD CDBG: $1,747,693;
Corps: $130,494;
EDA: $850,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $65,789,561.
State: NM;
County: Eddy;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (5);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $6,566,721;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,437,700;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,564,698;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $10,569,119.
State: NM;
County: Grant;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $15,939,245;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $815,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $2,373,600;
HUD CDBG: $1,474,258;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $20,602,103.
State: NM;
County: Hidalgo;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $4,866,148;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $104,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$725,700;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $96,200;
HUD CDBG: $1,206,225;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $6,998,273.
State: NM;
County: Lea;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (5);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $1,425,350;
HUD CDBG: $5,844,378;
Corps: $2,420,180;
EDA: $1,450,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $11,139,908.
State: NM;
County: Lincoln;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,931,747;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,142,236;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $2,321,100;
HUD CDBG: $3,955,304;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $9,350,387.
State: NM;
County: Luna;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $3,392,153;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$264,133;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: $920,284;
EDA: $1,250,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $5,826,570.
State: NM;
County: Otero;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $13,170,826;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,213,919;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $867,300;
HUD CDBG: $529,540;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $15,781,585.
State: NM;
County: Sierra;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,931,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,624,500;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $433,600;
HUD CDBG: $257,005;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $5,246,105.
State: NM;
County: Socorro;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $843,976;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $786,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,136,110;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,766,086.
State: TX;
County: Aransas;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,586,745;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $2,586,745.
State: TX;
County: Atascosa;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,306,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $3,016,100;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,985,421;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $8,307,521.
State: TX;
County: Bandera;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,329,271;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,329,271.
State: TX;
County: Bee;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $509,250;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,592,705;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $4,101,955.
State: TX;
County: Bexar;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $3,613,700;
HUD CDBG: $3,568,927;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $1,800,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $8,982,627.
State: TX;
County: Brewster;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,640,635;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$1,754,889;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,395,524.
State: TX;
County: Brooks;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $3,052,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,907,467;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $794,421;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $7,753,888.
State: TX;
County: Cameron;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $16,644,239;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $30,093,600;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$68,330,278;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $12,164,874;
Corps: $98,764;
EDA: $1,420,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $128,751,755.
State: TX;
County: Concho;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $820,544;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $820,544.
State: TX;
County: Crane;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,158,659;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,158,659.
State: TX;
County: Crockett;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $461,390;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $461,390.
State: TX;
County: Culberson;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $556,980;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $556,980.
State: TX;
County: Dimmit;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$2,077,594;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,346,826;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $5,424,420.
State: TX;
County: Duval;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $10,260,180;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $6,232,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,091,180;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $18,583,360.
State: TX;
County: Ector;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $4,920,400;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $3,247,200;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,692,292;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $11,859,892.
State: TX;
County: Edwards;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,190,607;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,190,607.
State: TX;
County: El Paso;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $3,209,146;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $9,608,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$58,737,820;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $433,500;
HUD CDBG: $6,236,201;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $78,224,667.
State: TX;
County: Frio;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,971,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $2,690,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$9,683,274;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,156,605;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $16,500,879.
State: TX;
County: Gillespie;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Glasscock;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $350,000;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $350,000.
State: TX;
County: Goliad;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,597,600;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $200,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,500,000;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,297,600.
State: TX;
County: Hidalgo;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $14,128,824;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $8,152,300;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$50,948,407;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $625,500;
HUD CDBG: $18,082,498;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $5,716,823;
Reclamation: $480,868;
Total: $98,135,220.
State: TX;
County: Hudspeth;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $346,140;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,012,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,552,032;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,910,172.
State: TX;
County: Irion;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $529,989;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $529,989.
State: TX;
County: Jeff Davis;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,704,957;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $100,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,963,440;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,768,397.
State: TX;
County: Jim Hogg;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $7,394,514;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $4,031,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $190,237;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $11,615,751.
State: TX;
County: Jim Wells;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,228,633;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $4,256,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $4,580,165;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $11,064,798.
State: TX;
County: Karnes;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,439,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $3,361,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $7,870,180;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $12,670,180.
State: TX;
County: Kendall;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $779,750;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $779,750.
State: TX;
County: Kenedy;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $585,511;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $585,511.
State: TX;
County: Kerr;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $3,162,772;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,761,853;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $5,924,625.
State: TX;
County: Kimble;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $374,999;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $374,999.
State: TX;
County: Kinney;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $633,433;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $633,433.
State: TX;
County: Kleberg;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $628,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,969,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $976,100;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,573,100.
State: TX;
County: La Salle;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $3,313,483;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $789,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $621,747;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $1,250,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $5,974,230.
State: TX;
County: Live Oak;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $3,172,500;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $5,619,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,779,600;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $11,571,100.
State: TX;
County: Loving;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $500,000;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $500,000.
State: TX;
County: Mason;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,165,000;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,165,000.
State: TX;
County: Maverick;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (5);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $7,147,448;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$63,115,228;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $867,300;
HUD CDBG: $3,797,817;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $74,927,793.
State: TX;
County: McMullen;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,117,508;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,117,508.
State: TX;
County: Medina;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $975,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $5,767,224;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $6,742,224.
State: TX;
County: Menard;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $599,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,361,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $704,997;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $2,664,997.
State: TX;
County: Midland;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Nueces;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,702,500;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,926,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,982,075;
Corps: $97,073;
EDA: $1,500,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $8,207,648.
State: TX;
County: Pecos;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,037,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $553,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$228,186;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,049,994; $3,049,994;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $800,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $5,668,180.
State: TX;
County: Presidio;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $5,477,587;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $3,704,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$120,713;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,264,784;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $10,567,084.
State: TX;
County: Reagan;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $258,809;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $258,809.
State: TX;
County: Real;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,136,131;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,136,131.
State: TX;
County: Reeves;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $188,200;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $62,800;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,895,920;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,146,920.
State: TX;
County: Refugio;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,864,500;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $1,936,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,715,568;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $7,516,068.
State: TX;
County: San Patricio;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (2);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $4,248,135;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $961,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $7,392,019;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $1,643,823;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $14,244,977.
State: TX;
County: Schleicher;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $799,157;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $799,157.
State: TX;
County: Starr;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (4);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $12,468,723;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $12,065,500;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$17,830,708;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $7,704,128;
Corps: 0;
EDA: $1,500,000;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $51,569,059.
State: TX;
County: Sterling;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $324,030;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $324,030.
State: TX;
County: Sutton;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $349,998;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $349,998.
State: TX;
County: Terrell;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (9);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$372,943;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $372,943.
State: TX;
County: Tom Green;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,179,000;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $521,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,248,508;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $2,948,508.
State: TX;
County: Upton;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (8);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $643,536;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $643,536.
State: TX;
County: Uvalde;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $520,580;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $2,899,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $571,817;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $3,991,397.
State: TX;
County: Val Verde;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (5);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $342,724;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$17,229,341;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: 0;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $17,572,065.
State: TX;
County: Ward;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,773;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,469,131;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $2,471,904.
State: TX;
County: Webb;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (3);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,968,170;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $315,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$39,099,609;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,222,721;
Corps: $419,667;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $46,025,167.
State: TX;
County: Willacy;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,548,775;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $361,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$4,770,396;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $4,043,270;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $10,723,441.
State: TX;
County: Wilson;
Rural-urban continuum code: Urban (1);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $155,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $2,658,948;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $2,813,948.
State: TX;
County: Winkler;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: 0;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $1,202,179;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $1,202,179.
State: TX;
County: Zapata;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (6);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $1,258,138;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: 0;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$6,998,141;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $4,028,271;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $12,284,550.
State: TX;
County: Zavala;
Rural-urban continuum code: Rural (7);
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $2,286,762;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $4,342,000;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP: 0;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: 0;
HUD CDBG: $3,723,436;
Corps: 0;
EDA: 0;
Reclamation: 0;
Total: $10,352,198.
State: Total;
USDA Water and Environmental Program grants: $300,101,965;
USDA Water and Environmental Program loans: $208,917,583;
EPA U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program and CWTAP:
$450,902,873;
Congressionally directed in EPA STAG account: $60,812,400;
HUD CDBG: $213,983,946;
Corps: $4,086,462;
EDA: $38,877,757;
Reclamation: $3,876,865;
Total: $1,281,559,851.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA, EPA, HUD, Corps, EDA, and Reclamation
data:
Note: We did not collect data from the HUD entitlement counties of Los
Angeles, California and Orange, California. These counties are
considered by HUD as completely urban. HUD data also do not include the
$925,000 authorized through a congressional directive.
Rural-Urban continuum codes with category definitions:
(1) County in metro area with 1 million population or more.
(2) County in metro area of 250,000 to 1 million population.
(3) County in metro area of fewer than 250,000 population.
(4) Nonmetro county with urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent
to a metro area.
(5) Nonmetro county with urban population of 20,000 or more, not
adjacent to a metro area.
(6) Nonmetro county with urban population of 2,500-19,999, adjacent to
metro area.
(7) Nonmetro county with urban population of 2,500-19,999, not adjacent
to metro area.
(8) Nonmetro county completely rural or less than 2,500 urban
population, adjacent to metro area.
(9) Nonmetro county completely rural or less than 2,500 urban
population, not adjacent to metro area.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Total USDA Obligations for Water and Wastewater Projects
in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008, by County:
The following figure displays the ranges of USDA funding obligated to
counties in the border region for water and wastewater projects.
Figure 4: Federal Funding Obligated from USDA:
[Refer to PDF for image: map]
The map depicts a 150-mile boundary from the U.S.-Mexico border, as
well as counties within that boundary.
Also depicted is USDA assistance by county in the following amounts:
0;
$1 to less than $1 million;
$1 million to less than $5 million;
$5 million to less than $10 million;
$10 million to less than $20 million;
$20 million to $47 million.
Source: GAO analysis of USDA CPAP data; MapInfo (map).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Total EPA Obligations and Rural-Urban Categories for Water
and Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008,
by County:
The following figure displays the ranges of EPA funding obligated to
counties in the border region for water and wastewater projects.
Figure 5: Federal Funding Obligated from EPA:
[Refer to PDF for image: map]
The map depicts a 150-mile boundary from the U.S.-Mexico border, as
well as counties within that boundary.
Also depicted is EPA assistance by county in the following amounts:
0;
$1 to less than $1 million;
$1 million to less than $10 million;
$10 million to less than $20 million;
$20 million to less than $40 million;
$40 million to $69 million.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data; MapInfo (map).
Note: Figure does not include funding provided by the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds or EPA's tribal programs. As
several tribal nations cross county boundaries, we could not include it
in the analysis conducted for this figure. Tribal data are presented in
detail in appendix VIII.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Total Obligations from Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds and Rural-Urban Categories for Water and
Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008, by
County:
State: AZ;
County: Cochise;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $21,133,687;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $3,001,936;
Total: $24,135,622.
State: AZ;
County: Gila;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $5,120,000;
Total: $5,120,000.
State: AZ;
County: Graham;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $15,695,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $7,723,380;
Total: $23,418,380.
State: AZ;
County: Greenlee;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $145,331,926;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $2,200,000;
Total: $147,531,926.
State: AZ;
County: La Paz;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $247,938,323;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $247,938,323.
State: AZ;
County: Maricopa;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: v193,048,850;
Total: $193,048,850.
State: AZ;
County: Mohave;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $133,120,141;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $9,640,758;
Total: $142,760,899.
State: AZ;
County: Pima;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $27,344,476;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $98,091,704;
Total: $125,436,180.
State: AZ;
County: Pinal;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $375,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $203,195;
Total: $578,195.
State: AZ;
County: Santa Cruz;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: AZ;
County: Yavapai;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $32,852,760;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $11,131,869;
Total: $43,984,629.
State: AZ;
County: Yuma;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $53,339,310;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $46,714,395;
Total: $100,053,705.
State: CA;
County: Imperial;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $22,081,858;
Total: $22,081,858.
State: CA;
County: Los Angeles;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $818,592,156;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $818,592,156.
State: CA;
County: Orange;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $236,224,971;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $22,905,222;
Total: $259,130,193.
State: CA;
County: Riverside;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $69,615,907;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $54,649,148;
Total: $124,265,055.
State: CA;
County: San Bernardino;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $107,938,488;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $8,200,261;
Total: $116,138,749.
State: CA;
County: San Diego;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $231,744,069;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $23,573,374;
Total: $255,317,443.
State: NM;
County: Catron;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: NM;
County: Chaves;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (5);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: NM;
County: Dona Ana;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $5,400,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $7,070,000;
Total: $12,470,000.
State: NM;
County: Eddy;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (5);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $875,304;
Total: $875,304.
State: NM;
County: Grant;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $2,000,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $808,000;
Total: $2,808,000.
State: NM;
County: Hidalgo;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: NM;
County: Lea;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (5);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $40,500,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $8,761,750;
Total: $49,261,750.
State: NM;
County: Lincoln;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $600,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $4,210,206;
Total: $4,810,206.
State: NM;
County: Luna;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $222,309;
Total: $222,309.
State: NM;
County: Otero;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $6,565,000;
Total: $6,565,000.
State: NM;
County: Sierra;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $1,841,089;
Total: $1,841,089.
State: NM;
County: Socorro;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Aransas;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Atascosa;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Bandera;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Bee;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Bexar;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $246,440,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $246,440,000.
State: TX;
County: Brewster;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $4,860,000;
Total: $4,860,000.
State: TX;
County: Brooks;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Cameron;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $4,975,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $5,730,000;
Total: $10,705,000.
State: TX;
County: Concho;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $144,285;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $144,285.
State: TX;
County: Crane;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Crockett;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Culberson;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Dimmit;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Duval;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Ector;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Edwards;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: El Paso;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $104,105,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $10,845,000;
Total: $114,950,000.
State: TX;
County: Frio;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $37,510,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $145,000;
Total: $37,655,000.
State: TX;
County: Gillespie;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Glasscock;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Goliad;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Hidalgo;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $64,395,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $23,612,000;
Total: $88,007,000.
State: TX;
County: Hudspeth;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Irion;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Jeff Davis;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Jim Hogg;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Jim Wells;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Karnes;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $3,600,000;
Total: $3,600,000.
State: TX;
County: Kendall;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $2,500,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $2,500,000.
State: TX;
County: Kenedy;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Kerr;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Kimble;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $3,480,000;
Total: $3,480,000.
State: TX;
County: Kinney;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Kleberg;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: La Salle;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Live Oak;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Loving;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Mason;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Maverick;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (5);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $17,340,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $38,110,000;
Total: $55,450,000.
State: TX;
County: McMullen;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Medina;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Menard;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Midland;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Nueces;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Pecos;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Presidio;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $1,265,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $1,265,000.
State: TX;
County: Reagan;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Real;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Reeves;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $6,870,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $8,375,000;
Total: $15,245,000.
State: TX;
County: Refugio;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $525,000;
Total: $525,000.
State: TX;
County: San Patricio;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (2);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $7,745,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $7,745,000.
State: TX;
County: Schleicher;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Starr;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (4);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $2,885,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $20,900,000;
Total: $23,785,000.
State: TX;
County: Sterling;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Sutton;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $6,000,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $3,000,000;
Total: $9,000,000.
State: TX;
County: Terrell;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (9);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Tom Green;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Upton;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (8);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Uvalde;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $4,000,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $4,000,000.
State: TX;
County: Val Verde;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (5);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $2,190,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $18,008,000;
Total: $20,198,000.
State: TX;
County: Ward;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Webb;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (3);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Willacy;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $3,245,000;
Total: $3,245,000.
State: TX;
County: Wilson;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Urban (1);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
State: TX;
County: Winkler;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $4,595,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: $4,595,000.
State: TX;
County: Zapata;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (6);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $6,415,000;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $14,826,000;
Total: $21,241,000.
State: TX;
County: Zavala;
Rural-urban continuum code[1]: Rural (7);
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: 0;
Total: 0.
Total:
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: $2,709,120,499;
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program: $697,900,607;
Total: $3,407,021,106.
Source: GAO analysis of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program data.
[1] Rural-urban continuum codes with category definitions.
(1) County in metro area with 1 million population or more.
(2) County in metro area of 250,000 to 1 million population.
(3) County in metro area of fewer than 250,000 population.
(4) Nonmetro county with urban population of 20,000 or more, adjacent
to a metro area.
(5) Nonmetro county with urban population of 20,000 or more, not
adjacent to a metro area.
(6) Nonmetro county with urban population of 2,500-19,999, adjacent to
metro area.
(7) Nonmetro county with urban population of 2,500-19,999, not adjacent
to metro area.
(8) Nonmetro county completely rural or less than 2,500 urban
population, adjacent to metro area.
(9) Nonmetro county completely rural or less than 2,500 urban
population, not adjacent to metro area.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Total HUD Obligations and Rural-Urban Categories for
Water and Wastewater Projects in the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-
2008, by County:
The following figure displays the ranges of HUD funding obligated to
counties in the border region for water and wastewater projects.
Figure 6: Federal Funding Obligated from HUD:
The map depicts a 150-mile boundary from the U.S.-Mexico border, as
well as counties within that boundary.
Also depicted is HUD assistance by county in the following amounts:
0;
$1 to less than $1 million;
$1 million to less than $5 million;
$5 million to less than $10 million;
$10 million to $18 million.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD IDIS data; MapInfo (map).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Total Obligations for Water and Wastewater Projects in
the Border Region, Fiscal Years 2000-2008, by Tribal Nation:
Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $1,030,600;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $1,030,600.
Tribe: Ak Chin Indian Community, Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $880,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $109,500;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $989,500.
Tribe: Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $170,377;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $491,000;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $661,377.
Tribe: Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $1,506,990;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: [Empty];
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $502,474;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $763,815;
HUD Indian CDBG: [Empty];
USDA: $1,000,000;
Tribe total: $3,773,279.
Tribe: Cocopah Tribe of Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $220,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $170,300;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $1,058,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: [Empty];
HUD Indian CDBG: [Empty];
USDA: [Empty];
Tribe total: $1,448,300.
Tribe: Colorado River Indian Tribe, Arizona and California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $689,880;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $505,100;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $4,746,800;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $5,941,780.
Tribe: Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $760,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $760,000.
Tribe: Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona and California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $434,100;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $686,900;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $921,000.
Tribe: Gila River Indian Community, Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $5,307,700;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $1,855,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $6,754,100;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $13,916,800.
Tribe: Iiapay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $1,346,781;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $1,227,900;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $2,574,681.
Tribe: Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Jamul Indian Village of California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $233,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $40,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $273,000.
Tribe: La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $160,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $2,407,999;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $559,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $3,126,999.
Tribe: La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $244,500;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $244,500.
Tribe: Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $217,127;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $217,127.
Tribe: Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $47,600;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $760,000;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $518,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $1,325,600.
Tribe: Mescalero Apache Tribe, New Mexico;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $2,334,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $1,100,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $823,500;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $4,257,500.
Tribe: Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $3,022,440;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $3,022,440.
Tribe: Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $982,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $109,500;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $1,091,500.
Tribe: Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $60,000;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $60,000.
Tribe: Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $278,621;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $278,621.
Tribe: Quechan Tribe, California and Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $2,180,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $1,729,300;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $550,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $115,000;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $4,574,300.
Tribe: Ramona Band or Village of Cahuilla Mission Indians of
California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $140,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $1,785,000;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $1,925,000.
Tribe: Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $2,645,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $559,992;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $2,943,200;
HUD Indian CDBG: $2,000,000;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $9,938,992.
Tribe: San Carlos Apache Tribe, Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $10,337,500;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $50,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $1,790,800;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $12,178,300.
Tribe: San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $161,732;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $1,047,515;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: $605,000;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $1,814,247.
Tribe: Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $484,000;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $484,000.
Tribe: Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $176,000;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $55,400;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $231,400.
Tribe: Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $13,163,776;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $4,796,032;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $3,018,732;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $6,286,097;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $27,264,637.
Tribe: Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $1,424,469;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $545,790;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $1,970,259.
Tribe: Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians, California;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $500,000;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: $500,000.
Tribe: Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: 0;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: 0;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: 0;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: 0;
HUD Indian CDBG: 0;
USDA: 0;
Tribe total: 0.
Tribe: Total;
IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program: $45,151,536;
EPA Tribal Border Infrastructure: $19,973,103;
EPA Drinking Water Tribal Set-aside: $11,346,088;
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-aside: $25,129,212;
HUD Indian CDBG: $2,605,000;
USDA: $1,000,000;
Tribe total: $106,795,739.
Source: GAO analysis of IHS, EPA, USDA, and HUD data.
Note: Additional USDA funds were provided to tribal nations through
USDA's colonia program. These funds are not represented in this table.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Rural Development:
Office of the Under Secretary:
1400 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington. DC 20250-0700:
[hyperlink, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov]
"Committed to the future of rural communities"
December 8, 2009:
Anu Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for providing the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) your Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled, "Rural Water
Infrastructure: Improved Coordination and Funding Processes Could
Enhance Federal Efforts to Meet Needs in the U.S.-Mexico Border
Region," Report Number GAO-10-126. For your consideration, USDA offers
the following comments to the draft report and requests that a copy of
these comments be included in your final report. USDA's response is
limited to portions of the GAO report relating to USDA.
We commend GAO for providing this report and recommendations on the
pressing issue of the needs along the U.S.-Mexico border for clean
drinking water and sanitation service. The report notes conditions in
the border area that create increased instances of water-borne
illnesses and other unsafe living conditions.
USDA is undertaking a major effort to better address the issues you
raise. In early October 2009, we began a project that will improve
program delivery and make funding intended for Colonias more effective.
Our goals are to not only build water systems, roads and community
centers but to provide tools for the communities to develop
economically and to become sustainable. We are committed to improving
the quality of life and providing economic opportunity for all of rural
America, including the U.S.-Mexico border region.
The backbone of an improved quality of life is basic infrastructure
such as utilities (i.e., water, electric, and telecommunications), road
systems and housing. Essential community facilities and local business
development are also critical to community growth and sustainability.
Through the delivery of more than 40 loan and grant programs in the
Rural Development mission area, USDA is uniquely positioned to help
rural community leaders in their efforts to provide economic
opportunities, create sustainable communities and improve the quality
of life for their residents. Our programs build utility systems,
affordable single and multi-family housing, essential community
facilities, businesses and cooperatives.
Programs are administered by over 6,000 Rural Development staff with
nearly 500 field offices throughout Rural America. Rural Development
field staff is well-trained Rural Development specialists who work
across all the programs Rural Development offers and often assist in
bringing other Federal and State programs to the rural areas they
serve.
The U.S.-Mexico border region is a challenging area in which to
successfully deliver programs. The Rural Community Assistance
Partnership through Community Resource Group, Inc. (CRG), a technical
assistance provider funded through the USDA Rural Development Technical
Assistance and Training Grant Program, has worked in the border region
of Texas for over 20 years. The CRG Director states, "Generally
speaking, this is a very difficult area to work in because of: (1) the
very low income of most of the residents, demanding that user costs he
kept low, and often resulting in deferred maintenance of existing
facilities, (2) a lack of understanding of State and Federal regulatory
requirements for providing water and wastewater disposal services, (3)
a lack of understanding of fiduciary responsibilities from utility
boards and/or management, (4) frequent drought conditions, often
resulting in a lack of adequate water supply, (5) poor planning to meet
future demands, or maintain and replace critical system components and
equipment, and (6) areas have very high growth rates making it
difficult for existing providers to keep up with demand." Another
technical assistance provider, the National Rural Water Association
(NRWA), and its Arizona affiliate, tells of very remote areas in the
border area that have water systems that were developed originally to
support a migrant worker population and have often deteriorated. NRWA
states: "Water systems are often privately owned and have no structured
operation. The owner takes the profits and returns nothing to the
infrastructure. The residents lack the authority by ownership or
capability to organize and make improvements. Language, poverty and
suspicion of the government compound the problem. The results are
inadequate water systems. Addressing these technical, financial, and
managerial capacity inadequacies is necessary to achieving sustainable
water system improvements.
Water system financing is critical in solving the inadequate water
system issue in the U.S.-Mexico border area. USDA Rural Development
utilizes authorizations provided in Section 306 of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT), Water and Waste Disposal Loans
and Grants (codified at 7 U.S.C. 1926) and Section 306C of the CONACT
(Section 306C), Water and Waste Facility Loans and Grants to Alleviate
Health Risks (codified 7 U.S.C. 1926c), as the basis for financial
assistance in the U.S.-Mexico border area. Congress has acknowledged
the significant need for better access to clear water in certain
regions of Rural America, including the U.S.-Mexico border and the
areas known as Colonias, with set-asides within annual appropriations.
Your report accurately reflects the assistance USDA programs have
provided for delivery of new or improved water service to over 110,000
households and rural businesses over the last 5 years with funding set-
aside for the Colonias.
In February 2009, Congress provided additional resources for the USDA
RUS Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). As a result, communities
across Rural America, including the Colonias, will benefit from more
than $3 billion in new or improved water and waste infrastructure. As
an example, the Yuma County Improvement District in Arizona is
assisting a Colonia area by providing service through the centralized
sewer system. Total project costs are estimated at over $19 million and
Rural Development is providing over $12 million in ARRA grant and $2
million in ARRA loan funding. This project will improve the wastewater
system and remove the potential health and safety concerns.
Significant effort and funding have been brought to the Colonias areas,
and those benefiting from the funding have an improved quality of life.
More work and additional funding are needed to continue the progress
being made. Your report concluded that Federal efforts have not been
effective in meeting the water and wastewater needs of the border
region because agencies (1) have not comprehensively assessed the needs
of the region, (2) lack coordinated policies and processes, and (3) in
some cases have not complied with statutory requirements and agency
regulations.
I would like to address the findings in your report and provide some
clarification.
Agencies have not comprehensively assessed the water and wastewater
conditions, hampering their ability to meet the needs of the region.
There is no dispute that a Federal level comprehensive assessment of
the water systems in the U.S.-Mexico border region does not exist. The
issue is whether such an assessment at the Federal level would be the
most effective method of addressing the water system inadequacies in
the region. Given our experience in the region, we believe that local
officials have the greatest awareness of the areas most in need and the
capacity of those areas to sustain services and infrastructure. The
report acknowledges this through its discussion of interviews with
local officials, stating "According to several State and local
officials, it is often the communities in the border region that do not
have the institutional capacity to identify solutions or apply for
funding that are in need of assistance.- We believe that our program
delivery through the USDA network of field offices ensures a locally-
based Federal presence that leverages local knowledge to identify local
needs. [See comment 1]
In the report, you state that most Federal programs generally provide
funds to those communities with the ability to initiate projects and
seek assistance, which may not be the ones with the greatest need. We
believe USDA is funding needed projects for communities that are
sustainable or are headed in the direction of becoming sustainable.
These sustainable communities or, in some cases, county governments are
the key to solving the border area water system inadequacies. The local
units of government that have the ability to initiate projects and seek
assistance need to work together with the funding agencies to reach the
very needy areas you mention in your report. We will work to improve
that partnership and its reach as part of our Colonia initiative.
Agencies lack coordinated policies and processes for providing Federal
assistance in the border region. A joint memorandum between USDA,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) was issued in 1997 to foster cooperation among
the programs at the delivery level, which is primarily at the State
level. The memorandum was designed to encourage State-level program
managers to develop policies and processes that would best work within
their State, rather than to prescribe a National approach.
We believe the reported examples of coordination at the State level in
California. Texas. Arizona, and New Mexico accomplish what the writers
of the joint USDA, EPA and HUD memorandum intended and demonstrate that
effective coordination is occurring amongst the programs where they are
delivered.
The cited examples of efforts where coordination would have improved
the project outcome are rare instances, but we note that we must
continue our efforts to improve coordination and the effectiveness of
the funding. [See comment 2]
Agencies have not always ensured compliance with statutory requirements
in implementing programs for the border region. The report states that
the CONACT language requires USDA to give preference to water and waste
projects in Colonias that are characterized by substandard housing,
inadequate roads and drainage, and a lack of adequate water or waste
facilities. The statute on its face clearly states that the Secretary
shall give preference to eligible entities that propose to provide
water supply or waste disposal services to the residents of those rural
subdivisions commonly referred to as Colonias and lists certain
characteristics, 7 U.S.C. 1926c (c)(1). The preference is limited to
providers who serve the Colonias. [See comment 3]
The report states that USDA has failed to provide any guidance
elaborating on the meaning of an adequate water or waste disposal
system, or of Colonia. Congress established the Clean Water Act (CWA),
P.L. 92-500 and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), P.L. 93-523 to set
the standard for what is an adequate water or waste disposal system.
The EPA implementation of the CWA and SDWA established compliance
requirements for water systems. A noncompliant water system is
inadequate. The USDA Regulation, 7 C.F.R. 1777, defines a Colonia as
any identifiable community designated in writing by the State or county
in which it is located; determined to be a Colonia on the basis of
objective criteria including lack of potable water supply, lack of
adequate sewage systems, and lack of decent, safe, and sanitary
housing, inadequate roads and drainage; and that existed and was
generally recognized as a Colonia before October 1, 1989. We believe
this definition meets the statutory intent. [See comment 4]
In response to your Recommendations for Executive Action. USDA offers
the following:
Recommendation: To ensure that funding established to meet the needs of
the Colonias are used consistent with statutory and regulatory
requirements, GAO recommends the Secretary of Agriculture direct Rural
Development to revise its process of determining eligibility to ensure
that the agency only provides Section 306C Colonia funds for projects
that benefit Colonias, as defined by Federal statute, and to revise its
priority process to better target limited funds to those projects
meeting statutory preference criteria.
USDA Response: USDA believes that it is providing Section 306C Colonia
funds in a manner consistent with the statute. These funds are
available only to eligible entities with projects proposing to provide
water and/or waste services to designated Colonias. The statute is very
clear that preference in awarding loans and grants is to be given to
rural water supply corporations, cooperatives, or similar entities or
public agencies that propose to provide water services to residents of
those rural subdivisions commonly referred to as Colonias. The
substandard housing, inadequate roads and drainage. and a lack of water
or wastewater systems are all characteristics of a Colonia, but, in our
opinion. do not constitute a statutory definition. In other words, the
preference is to the entity proposing to provide service to the
Colonias. Pursuant to the statute and agency regulations, applications
from entities proposing to serve Colonias are assigned 50 priority
points in the review process. Additional points are assigned to
projects proposing to serve areas with lower population and income
levels. Collectively, these priority points help identify and direct
assistance to those eligible areas that meet the statutory preference.
[See comment 4]
Through the aforementioned Rural Development Colonia initiative, USDA
will make improvements in program delivery to make the congressionally-
directed funding intended for Colonias more effective by not only
building water systems, roads and community centers, but also providing
tools for the communities to develop economically and to become
sustainable. We are committed to improving the quality of life and
providing economic opportunity for all of Rural America, including the
U.S.-Mexico border region.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report. If you have any
questions, please contact John Purcell. Director, Financial Management
Division, at (202) 692-0080.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dallas Tonsager:
Under Secretary:
The following are GAO's comments to the Department of Agriculture's
letter dated December 8, 2009.
GAO Comments:
1. We agree with USDA that local knowledge of local needs is an
important element that can help federal agencies identify the water and
wastewater needs of the border region. However, while local officials
can play a key role and assist federal agencies, without a
comprehensive assessment of needs of the regions federal agencies will
continue to lack necessary information on the magnitude of the problem
and will not have the information they need to prioritize assistance
and target limited federal resources. We made no modifications to the
report in response to this comment.
2. We disagree with USDA's characterization of the examples cited in
our report. Throughout the review we contacted various officials in the
border region--including local, state, and tribal officials; engineers
and other consultants; nonprofit representatives; water and wastewater
utility representatives; and residents--and these officials provided us
with numerous examples of the types of concerns they have experienced
as a result of ineffective coordination among federal agencies. The
examples cited in the report were not intended to be inclusive of all
of the instances shared with us by officials and instead were only used
to provide more specifics of certain types of concerns expressed by the
officials we spoke with. We have not modified the report in response to
this comment.
3. We believe the report accurately reflects that USDA provides funds
to eligible entities, rather than directly to colonias. We have not
modified the report in response to this comment.
4. We disagree with USDA's comment that it is providing Section 306C
colonia funds in compliance with the existing statutory requirements.
Specifically, we disagree with the agency's comment that preference can
be provided to entities proposing to serve a colonia, regardless of
whether the area meets the characteristics outlined in the statute. As
stated in the report, we believe that USDA's current practice of
awarding preference to applications without independent verification
that the colonia meets all statutory requirements fails to ensure
compliance with statutory requirements. In addition, while USDA states
that the definition of adequate is determined through compliance with
the Safe Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act, it was unable to
provide evidence that this interpretation has ever been formally
communicated to staff in guidance or other direction. Without guidance
explaining USDA's interpretation of this term, as well as what support
is required, we believe that this threshold requirement is open to
interpretation by USDA field offices. We made no changes to the report
in response to this comment.
[End of section]
Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development:
Office of Community Planning and Development:
Washington, DC 20410-7030:
December 10, 2009:
Memorandum For: Anu Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Government Accountability Office, GAO:
From: [Signed by] Yolanda Chavez, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant
Programs, DG:
Subject: U.S. Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee
on Agriculture, House of Representatives: "Rural Water Infrastructure:
Improved Coordination and Funding Processes Could Enhance Federal
Efforts to Meet Needs in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region."
This memorandum provides the response of HUD's Office of Community
Planning and Development (CPD) to the recommendations for executive
action made in the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft
report entitled "Rural Water Infrastructure: Improved Coordination and
Funding Processes Could Enhance Federal Efforts to Meet Needs in the
U.S.- Mexico Border Region" (GAO-10-126). The Department appreciates
the opportunity to provide this response.
I. OGA's general responses to interpretations of federal statute:
The GAO draft report addressing the Office of Block Grant Assistance
(OBGA) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program's colonias set-
aside makes a few recommendations for executive action by the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development. Prior to responding to the, specific
reommendations, OBGA will clarify its interpretations of Section 916 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (NAHA) as
indicated below:
a. Ensuring compliance with statutory requirements: Maximum Feasible
Deference:
The GAO draft report indicates that /IUD is not ensuring compliance
with eligibility requirements because the CDBG program allows states to
interpret the regulations (GAO draft report pages 26-27, 49-50). The
GAO suggests that it is problematic to allow individual states to
interpret the legislation for their state-specific situations. [Now on
pages 25-26 and 44-45]
The GAO disagrees with HUD's granting of "maximum feasible deference"
to the states in the interpretation of statutory requirements related
to the colonias set-aside. "Maximum feasible deference" per 24 CFR
570.480(c), means that HUD will: [See comment 1]
"give maximum feasible deference to the state's interpretation of the
statutory requirements and the requirements of this regulation
provided that these interpretations are not plainly inconsistent with
the Act and the Secretary's obligation to enforce compliance with the
intent of the Congress as declared in the Act."
The "Act" referred to by 24 CFR 570.480(c) is the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (HCDA), and not the NAHA, as the GAO points out
in the draft report. It is for this mason that the GAO indicates that
it is inappropriate to give states maximum feasible deference in the
interpretation of the statutory requirements related to the colonias
set-aside. The colonias set-aside is created by the NAHA, while,
according to the GAO, the concept of maximum feasible deference is only
applicable to the statutory requirements of the HCDA.
HUD disagrees with the GAO's interpretation of maximum feasible
deference. Section 916(d) of the NAHA clearly states that:
"Except to the extent inconsistent with this section, assistance
provided pursuant to this section shall be subject to the provisions of
title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974."
Therefore, it would follow that any regulations established pursuant to
title I of the HCDA would also apply to the colonias set-aside, except
to the extent inconsistent. Accordingly, the principle of maximum
feasible deference is applicable to the colonias set-aside, to long as
the state's interpretation are not plainly inconsistent with the HCDA,
including section 916 of the NAHA, which is codified at 42 USC 5306
note.
b. Ensuring compliance with statutory requirements: Eligible
Activities:
The GAO draft report indicates that HUD is not ensuring compliance with
eligibility requirements because the CDBG program allows colonias set-
aside funds to be used for any eligible CDBG activity pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 5305. The GAO interprets the NAHA as limiting the eligible uses
of colonias set-aside funds to those activities addressing water,
sewage, and housing (GAO draft report pages 27 and 49). [Now on pages
24-25 and 48] The GAO cites section 916(a) of the NAHA, which
introduces the section as follows: [See comment 2]
"(a) Set-Aside for Colonias. - The States of Arizona, .California, New
Mexico. and Texas shall each make available, for activities designed to
meet the needs of the residents of colonies in the-State relating to
water, sewage, and housing..."
The GAO draft report states that section 916(a) limits the eligible
activities-to those activities relating to water, sewage, and housing.
However, section 916(b) is more explicative regarding eligible
activities. Section 916(b)(3) states:
"(b) Eligible Activities. - Assistance distributed pursuant to this
section may be used only to carry out the following activities:..."
"3) Other improvements. - Other activities eligible under section 105
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. 5305]
designed to meet the needs of residents of colonias."
The GAO interprets section 916(a) as limiting section 916(b)(3),
stating that the eligible activities are those CDBG eligible activities
per section 916(b)(3) which are related to water, sewage, and housing
per section 916(a).
HUD interprets the relationship between section 916(a) and section
916(b)(3) differently. The legislative history of Public Law 102-550
(H.R.5334), which added section 916(b)(3) to the NAHA, shows that one
proposed amendment of section 916(b) (in the House version of the bill)
would have required that the colonias set-aside 'be used only for the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
installation of public water projects and public sewage projects,
including any activities necessary to furnish water and sewage services
to persons of low- or moderate-income." Although limiting in nature,
this language was actually considered by the House Banking, Finance,
and Urban Affairs Committee in order to expand the eligible activities,
which were previously limited to only planning, so that "real
improvements" could be made in the colonies (House Report No. 102-760,
July 30, 1992). The Senate version of the bill, which included the
language currently found in section 916(b)(3) of the NAHA, expanded the
eligible activities even further. The Senate Banking, Finance, and
Urban Affairs Committee noted that the amendment would:
"allow grants to be made for any CDRG-eligible activity that serves the
needs of the residents of the colonies-particularly those related to
housing and water and sewage facilities" (Senate Report No. 102-
332. July 23, 1992).
Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret section 916(b)(3) as allowing
grantees to undertake any eligible activity listed in section 105 of
the HCDA, rather than a subset of activities related only to water,
sewer, and housing. No limiting language is provided in section
916(b)(3) and in addition, pursuant to section 916(b)(1), grantees are
allowed to expend funds for community development planning costs which
could potentially cover a wide range of activities, not just those
relating to water, sewage and housing.
c. Ensuring compliance with statutory requirements: Prioritization of
Need:
The GAO draft report indicates that HUD is not ensuring compliance with
eligibility requirements because HUD has not ensured that state
distribution plans are designed to give priority to colonies having the
greatest need for such assistance per section 916(c). The GAO draft
;pan also noted that HUD believes that states are distributing the
colonies set-aside funds on a greatest needs basis. (GAO draft report
pages 30, 48-49) [Now on pages 28-29 and 48] In July of 2008, an audit
report by the Office of the Inspector General asserts that cases exist
where colonies set-aside funds were not being distributed on a greatest
needs basis. In response, HUD has conducted monitoring and is in the
process of releasing guidance that will address the proper
administration of the colonies set-aside. [See comment 3]
d. Clarification: Objective Criteria:
The GAO apparently disagreed with HUD's interpretation of section
916(e)(1)(C) on pages 4748 of appendix I1 of the draft report. Section
916(e)(1)(C) states that a colonia is an identifiable community that:
[See comment 4]
"is determined to be a colonia on the basis of objective criteria,
including lack of potable water supply, lack of adequate sewage
systems, and lack of decent, safe, and sanitary housing..."
HUD allows states to interpret section 916(e)(1)(C) to mean that only
one of the three criteria be met to be determined a colonia. The GAO
draft report footnote on page 47 [Now on pages 44-45] implies that it
would be more appropriate to define a colonia as a community with a
lack of decent housing and a lack of basic services (water and/or
sewer). However, HUD does not consider the language of section
916(e)(1)(C) to be limiting. HUD considers the inclusion of "objective
criteria" to be requiring an unbiased determination of the needs of the
residents of the colonies. Lack of water, lack of sewage, and lack of
decent housing would have been listed as separate items under section
916(e)(1) had the intent been to specifically require all three.
The GAO draft report also suggests that HUD has been inconsistent with
its interpretation of section 916(e)(1)(C). The report refers to HUD
notice CPD-03-10 as "HUD's sole interpretation of the definition (of a
colonia)," wherein HUD "asserts that all three criteria must be met"
(GAO draft report pages 47-48)[Now on pages 44-45]. However, Notice CPD-
03-10 does not specifically address or "assert" a definition of a
colonia outside of a paraphrased definition in the "background" section
of the notice. The purpose of that notice is to address best practices
for helping the residents of colonias, which include: Contract for Deed
conversion, alternative building technologies, needed infrastructure,
individual development accounts and Self-Help/One Stop service centers.
Furthermore, the draft report addresses the varying interpretations of
section 916(e)(1)(C) by California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. HUD
would like to note that it does not appear that the GAO has given the
corresponding states the opportunity to respond to the GAO's draft
report, and further explain their interpretations of section
9l6(e)(1)(C) per local housing markets, development patterns, socio-
economic conditions, etc. HUD contacted the Texas Department of Rural
Affairs regarding the GAO's implication that Texas only funds colonias
in unincorporated areas, which is a criteria not found in the NAHA. The
Texas Department of Rural Affairs reported . that their state CDBG
program utilizes 100% of the colonia set-aside in colonias located in
unincorporated areas, and uses additional Community Development Funds
to address colonies located within corporate limits. [See comment 5]
e. Clarification: Funding Amounts:
The GAO draft report states on page 14 that HUD obligated about $218
million to the border region. GAO's methodology notes that they
identified county information for activities in HUD's database, the
Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), and extracted
those data for their review. Lacking this extract, HUD cannot reconcile
our original data with the GAO's draft report. The $218 million
referenced on page 14 does not correspond to the $213.9 million
reported in Appendix III. It is unclear if the $2.6 million of Indian
CDBG funds (GAO draft report page 14 [Now on pages 14-15] and Appendix
VIII) are added to the $213.9 million (Appendix III), thus making the
total $246.6 million., or approximately $217 million. This is unclear
clue to a lack of explanation: and because the draft report suggests
that the $2.6 million of Indian CDBG funds are "in addition" to the
$218 million reported on page 14. Furthermore, page 38, paragraph 1,
[Now on page 36] references "state CDBG" funding, but table in Appendix
DI apparently includes all CDBG funds for water and wastewater projects
in the 97 border region counties, without distinction between the State
CDBG and Entitlement CDBG program. [See comment 6]
HUD would also like to add to the last paragraph on page 38 of the
"Scope and Methodology', section of the draft report, regarding the
amounts of funding in IDIS. In the future, States will be able to
indicate in the database if a project was funded with the colonias set-
aside, in addition to indicating if a project occurred Ma colonia. This
is an important distinction because HOD will be able to verify that all
projects that are funded with the set-aside are located in a colonia.
Additionally, it will allow HUD to track the additional CDBG hinds,
beyond the set-aside, that states have been known to give to projects
in colonias. [Now footnote 17 on page 13] [See comment 7]
f. Clarification: Formal Colonia Designation:
The GAO draft report indicates on pages 47-48 [Now on pages 44-45] that
HUD still requires colonies to have a formal designation from the
state. In 1992, Public law 102-550 (H.R. 5334) removed the requirement
that colonias be formally designated by the state or county.
Consequently, HUD does not require a formal designation by the state.
HUD relies upon states to administer CDBG funds, including the use of
colonies set-aside funds for projects in communities determined to be
colonies according to section 916(e). States, counties, local
governments, and others, such as community groups, could all
theoretically determine that a community meets the criteria of section
916(e) and "designate" that community as a colonist. In practice,
states and units of general local government usually make the
determinations because states administer the funds, and units of
general local government have jurisdiction over the colonies, which
most often occur in unincorporated areas. HUD is not in the best
position to make such local determinations. In the end, it is the state
that reports to HUD on its use of CDBG funds, including the use of the
colonies set-aside. HUD is only concerned that the colonies set-aside
is used in communities determined to meet the criteria of section
916(e). [See comment 8]
g. Clarification: Anecdotes:
The GAO draft report indicates anecdotal examples of projects funded
with the colonies set-aside, including Hudspeth County, Texas (GAO
draft report page 23) [Now on page 22]. As this project was
administered by the State of Texas, HUD contacted the Texas Department
of Rural Affairs to obtain information about these projects. The Texas
Department of Rural Affairs reported that due to complications with the
project's water quality, additional funding was required. Furthermore.,
the project has not been closed and will not be closed until all issues
have been addressed. [See comment 9]
II. OBGA's responses to GAO's recommendations for executive action:
The GAO draft report makes several recommendations for executive action
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development:
a. Ensure that slate agencies only provide colonies set-aside funds for
projects that benefit colonies, as defined by federal statute.
HUD is committed to assisting the residents of colonies by ensuring
that state agencies are providing the colonies set-aside funds to
communities that are, in fact, colonies. HUD will continue to rely upon
local expertise in the determination of which communities meet the
criteria in the federal statute. Local and state officials have the
best understanding of the myriad of factors influencing a lack of
affordable housing that can manifest itself as colonies. HUD will
continue its monitoring efforts to ensure that states are appropriately
administering the colonies set-aside. To assist in these efforts, HUD
recently developed a new monitoring exhibit specifically to assist in
the review of the colonies set-aside. Additionally, HUD will soon
release guidance for the State CDBG program that will address the
proper administration of the colonias set-aside.
b. Promptly establish guidance to ensure states follow a method of
distribution that results in the prioritization of colonies set-aside
funds to those colonists with the greatest need.
As recommended previously by the 1nspector General's Office, HUD is
currently finalizing the guidance to steles which addresses the GAO's
recommendation that states have a method of distribution giving
priority to the colonies with the greatest need.
c. Monitor the states' uses of all colonias set-aside funds as a
distinct component of CDBG monitoring:
HUD already monitors distinct components of the State CDBG Program that
present high risk, including the colonies set-aside. The Office of
Community Planning and Development (CPD) uses a risk analysis process
to identify those grantees and activities that represent the greatest
vulnerability for fraud, waste, and mismanagement to the Department.
Based on this information, CPD's field offices determine the grantees
that will be monitored on-site and remotely, the program areas to be
covered (or portions thereof, such as the colonies set-aside), and the
depth of the review. In FY2009. OBGA and HUD Field Staff conducted on-
site monitoring of the colonies set-aside in Arizona and New Mexico.
HUD appreciates the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report.
Should you have any questions about the Department's comments, please
contact Diane Lobasso at 202-402-2191.
The following are GAO's comments to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's letter dated December 10, 2009.
GAO Comments:
1. We disagree with HUD's granting of "maximum feasible deference" to
the states in the interpretation of statutory requirements related to
the colonia set-aside. As stated in our report, we do not believe the
maximum feasible deference regulation--which does not appear in
statute--applies to the colonia set-aside program. This is because the
regulation itself does not refer to the codified law concerning the
CDBG program, but only to the Housing and Community Development Act
(HCDA). In its comments, HUD cites section 916(d) of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (NAHA), which is the
statute that established the colonia set-aside program, to support its
position that the agency's regulations pursuant to Title I of the HCDA
also apply to the colonia set-aside program. However, the relevant
passage cited by HUD only subjects the colonia set-aside program to the
provisions of Title I of the Act to the extent consistent with NAHA,
and applying them in this context is inconsistent. We did not revise
our report in response to this comment.
2. We continue to believe that HUD does not have a process to ensure
that Colonia Set-aside funds are limited to those activities authorized
by statute. HUD has not provided guidance to states on this topic and
we disagree with HUD's interpretation of the law with respect to
allowed set-aside activities. We believe that HUD's interpretation does
not give full recognition to all sections of the law and that HUD is
neglecting the overall requirement for Colonia Set-aside funds to be
limited to activities related to water, sewage, and housing. We believe
the logical interpretation of the law is that funds are to be used for
various activities--e.g., planning, construction, etc.--relating to
water, sewage, and housing. HUD notes that when Congress amended the
relevant section to incorporate by reference another section which
lists the types of activities allowed under CDBG, that one proposed
amendment would have expressly limited activities to those related to
public water and sewage. HUD also stated that because the enacted law
featured a different version of this provision that did not contain the
express language, the limitation should be understood as having been
rejected. However, the history supports another conclusion--that
because the limitation already existed in the law, the water and sewage
language in the failed amendment was simply not needed. Thus, we
believe that the Senate committee clearly articulated that the new
activities were to be those that "specifically" or "especially" related
to water, sewage, and housing. We did not make any change to our report
in response to HUD's further explanation.
3. Our report recognizes that HUD has stated its intent to issue
guidance to assist states to more clearly articulate the priorities in
developing their method of distribution. However, during the course of
the engagement, we asked HUD for a draft version of the guidance or
other documentation so that we could review the contents of the
guidance and assess whether it would adequately address our concerns.
Because HUD did not provide us with any documentation, we have made no
modifications to the report in response to this comment.
4. We disagree with HUD's characterization of our discussion regarding
the interpretation of the colonia definition. As stated in our report,
HUD has failed to provide guidance on the interpretation of colonia.
During our review, the only documented definition we found that HUD
issued in relation to the Colonia Set-aside is in a HUD Office of
Community Planning and Development Notice, which as HUD indicates in
its response, is not followed by the agency, and is not considered to
be an official interpretation of the statute. We continue to believe
that to ensure compliance with statutory guidance; HUD should undertake
a review of the statute and issue clear guidance to states concerning
its interpretation of the definition. We did not revise the report in
response to this comment.
5. During our review, we conducted interviews with numerous state and
local officials throughout the border region--including officials
representing the state agencies that administer HUD's CDBG funds.
However, our review focused on the federal efforts to meet needs in the
U.S.-Mexico border region and not the state efforts. We made no changes
in response to this comment.
6. We have modified the report and clarified that the total funding HUD
obligated (about $218 million) is a combination of CDBG funds (about
$214 million), Indian CDBG funds (about $3 million), and funds provided
through the Economic Development Initiative Special Account (about $1
million).
7. Our report already recognizes the changes HUD intends to make to its
data system. However, we have added an additional statement to our
discussion that the change will allow HUD to verify that all projects
funded with Colonia Set-aside funds are located within a colonia.
8. We disagree with HUD's characterization that our report suggests
that HUD still requires the states to formally designate colonias, or
that HUD should be the party to designate colonias. Our report clearly
states that we believe that HUD should be conducting activities as
necessary to ensure that the states' use of funds is compliant with the
law. As stated in the report, soon after the enactment of the law that
established the Colonia Set-aside requirement, Congress amended the law
to remove a requirement that a colonia be designated by the state or
county, and as a result we recognize that no formal designation is
required. Yet, in implementing the program, states are informally
designating colonias, HUD is deferring to the state determinations as
though they were formal designations, and HUD has not provided guidance
concerning state implementation of the Colonia Set-aside as to how
eligible colonias are to be identified. We have made no revisions to
the report in response to this comment.
9. The report does not include any information that would indicate that
the project in Hudspeth County, Texas has been closed. The report
clearly states that HUD provided a utility over $860,000 in grant funds
from 2004 to 2006 to extend water distribution lines and waste
collection lines for residents of a colonia; and that as of September
2009, the distribution lines remain unused because the utility does not
have enough water to serve the additional households and the utility
has not been able to obtain the funding needed to construct a new well.
We made no changes to the report in response to this comment.
[End of section]
Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Department Of The Army:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary:
Civil Works:
108 Army Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20310-0108:
December 10, 2009:
Ms. Anu Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. General Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report "Rural Water Infrastructure:
Improved Coordination and Funding Processes Could Enhance Federal
Efforts to Meet Needs in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region," dated November
24 2009, (GAO-10-126/Code 361034). GAO recommended that, if the Army
Corps of Engineers continues to assist communities through the colonias
program, the Corps should develop eligibility criteria and a standard
process to review and select activities for funding that target the
assistance to those with the greatest need.
Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended,
authorizes the Corps to provide planning, design, technical, and
construction assistance for wastewater treatment facilities, water
systems and related structures for colonias in the United States along
the United States and the United States-Mexico border. As water systems
and wastewater treatment are not within the Corps' primary mission
areas, the budget for the Civil Works program of the Corps does not
include funds for Section 219 assistance. However, using funds added by
the Congress through the appropriations process, the Corps has
undertaken Section 219 assistance for colonias in the Lower Rio Grande
Basin along the U.S. border between Texas and Mexico. In those cases,
the Corps consulted with the State of Texas for assistance in
determining which colonias lacked water and wastewater infrastructure
and could satisfy the requirements of local cooperation. The Corps
developed Letter Reports to confirm whether proposed projects and
localities were appropriate for assistance under the colonies program.
[See comment]
The DoD believes that this method of determining which communities
received Corps assistance is appropriate, because the Corps is
providing individualized assistance to produce planning, engineering
and design products (such as facility plans, environmental compliance
documents and permits, plans and specifications, land surveys, and real
estate ownership searches) that will assist colonias, based on their
specific needs, in developing water connections and services to those
communities. The DoD concurs with formalizing the process through the
development of written guidance on eligibility criteria and selection
of activities for funding when additional Section 219 funding for
colonias is provided.
The draft GAO report, at pages 10, 12, 39, and 50, refers to the Corps
providing "grants." Please note that under the Section 219 colonias
program, the Corps provides planning, design, technical, and
construction assistance. Section 219 does not authorize the Corps to
provide grants.
Very truly yours,
Signed by:
Jo-Ellen Darcy:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report — Dated November 24 2009:
GAO-10-126 (GAO Code 361034):
Rural Water Infrastructure — Improved Coordination And Funding
Processes Could Enhance Federal Efforts To Meet Needs In The U.S.—
Mexico Border Region:
Department Of The Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation: If the Corps continues to assist communities with water
and wastewater related activities through the colonia program, the
Secretary of Defense direct the Chief of Engineers and Commanding
General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop eligibility
criteria and a standard process to review and select activities for
funding that target the assistance to those with greatest need. The
process should comply with all applicable regulations and include
verification of eligibility.
DOD Response: Partially Concur. At such time as the Congress
appropriates additional funding for colonias assistance pursuant to
Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended,
the Corps will formalize its existing process through the development
of written guidance on eligibility criteria and selection of activities
for funding. In those cases where funds were provided previously for
colonias in the State of Texas, the Corps consulted with the State to
determine which colonias lacked water and wastewater infrastructure and
could satisfy the items of local cooperation. In addition, the Corps
developed Letter Reports to verify whether proposed projects and
localities were appropriate for assistance under the colonias program.
The DoD believes that this method of determining which communities
received Corps assistance is appropriate, because the Corps is
providing individualized assistance to produce planning, engineering
and design products (such as facility plans, environmental compliance
documents and permits, plans and specifications, land surveys, and real
estate ownership searches) that will assist colonias, based on their
specific needs, in developing water connections and services to those
communities. Further, the DoD believes that this approach is consistent
with and meets the requirements of the law, which does not require a
competitive ranking of communities to target "those with the greatest
need."
The following is GAO's comment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's
letter dated December 10, 2009.
GAO Comment:
Our report recognized that the Corps had prepared letter reports, which
are brief project reports that the Corps prepares before providing
assistance to an entity, prior to undertaking each project. However,
our report clearly states that the Corps does not have criteria for
identifying eligible colonias. Therefore, while these letter reports
are prepared, it is unclear by what basis the Corps has verified they
are colonias as meant in the authorizing statute. We made no changes to
the report in response to this comment.
[End of section]
Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841, or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Sherry L. McDonald,
Assistant Director; Elizabeth Beardsley; Virginia Chanley; Bernice
Dawson; Teague Lyons; Benjamin Shouse; and Jay Spaan made significant
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this report, we identify the border region as
the area within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.
[2] Peter Applebome, "Along U.S. Border, a Third-World Is Reborn," New
York Times, March 27, 1988. Ken Flynn, "Lack of Clean Water, Sewers
Breed Disease In Border Settlements," Los Angeles Times, March 19,
1989. Brenda Miller, "Senator Sees Colonia Water Woes First-hand," The
Monitor, Sept 18, 1994.
[3] In addition to funding dedicated for colonias, the United States
and Mexican governments established the Border Environment and
Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank
(NADB) following the 1993 ratification of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, to help implement a NAFTA provision that recognized the need
for additional water and wastewater infrastructure in the border
region.
[4] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916 (Nov. 28, 1990); Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-624, § 2327 (Nov. 28, 1990); Water
Resources Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, § 219 (Oct. 31,
1992).
[5] According to the La Paz Agreement on cross-border environmental
cooperation between the United States and Mexico, the U.S.-Mexico
border region extends 100 kilometers (approximately 62.1 miles) on
either side of the border.
[6] BECC and NADB are jointly financed through both the U.S. and
Mexican governments.
[7] Congress last appropriated funding for this program in fiscal year
1998; EPA last obligated funding in fiscal year 1999.
[8] The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program was established to
make funds available to drinking water systems to finance
infrastructure improvements. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Program was established to fund wastewater treatment projects.
[9] USDA defines a rural area as a city of 10,000 or fewer residents or
any unincorporated area.
[10] See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-
161 (Dec. 26, 2007), 121 Stat. 1866-67; Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2006, Pub. L. No. 109-97 (Nov. 10, 2005) 119 Stat. 2136; 7 U.S.C. §
1926C (2009).
[11] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916 (Nov. 28, 1990).
[12] EDA defines an area as economically distressed if it meets one of
the following three conditions: (1) an unemployment rate that is at
least 1 percent greater than the national average, (2) a per capita
income that is 80 percent of the national average or less, or (3) the
area has experienced or is about to experience a special need arising
from sudden and severe changes in economic conditions.
[13] EPA obligations have benefited both urban and rural communities.
[14] A 2008 EPA Inspector General report found that nearly 10 years
after EPA Region 6 awarded the last CWTAP grant to the Texas Water
Development Board, funding remained unspent. The report further states
that if Region 6 does not improve its oversight of the program, the
funds will probably not be fully spent by the current CWTAP grant fund
drawdown projection of 2010. However, the report acknowledges that EPA
has taken some positive steps to address unliquidated obligations in
the CWTAP, such as working with the board to establish a schedule for
using the remaining funds. EPA, Millions of Federal Dollars Remain for
Colonias Projects, 08-P-0184 (Washington, D.C.: 2008). EPA obligated
the $173 million in Colonias Wastewater Treatment Assistance Program
funding prior to fiscal year 2000. However, although EPA obligated
these funds to the Texas Water Development Board prior to fiscal year
2000, the Texas Water Development Board continued to obligate the funds
to local communities and other entities from fiscal year 2000 through
fiscal year 2008.
[15] We do not report this sum as part of our total for federal funding
to the border region because these funds are loans from a nonfederal
fund and thus do not represent the same kind of outlays as direct
federal funding.
[16] USDA also provides grants from the Technical Assistance and
Training Grant Program to national nonprofit organizations, such as the
National Rural Water Association and the Rural Community Assistance
Program, which may have provided technical assistance to entities in
the border region.
[17] In addition, HUD provides funds for a variety of planning
activities, some of which are used for water and wastewater projects.
However, because of data limitations we could not accurately determine
whether a planning activity was related to water or wastewater
projects. These activities are not included in the totals presented in
the report.
[18] HUD officials reported that $118.8 million was to the Colonia Set-
aside Program from fiscal years 2000 through 2008. The agency currently
does not require states to distinguish these funds when reporting on
CDBG fund uses in HUD's data system. States currently have the option
to identify if a project occurred in a colonia by using a check box in
HUD's data system, but HUD acknowledges that states have not been
consistent about using this check box. HUD officials reported that the
agency intends to issue guidance in the future to remind states of the
importance of using the check box and have requested the agency include
a new data field specifically to identify states' use of Colonia Set-
aside funds. HUD reports that once this change to the data system is
made, it will be able to identify all projects funded with the set-
aside, and could then verify that all such projects are located in a
colonia.
[19] Along with the cost for the modular bathrooms, this total also
includes improvements to the water and wastewater systems that serve
them.
[20] Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, §
219 (1992).
[21] Rural Water Supply Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-451 § 103 (2006).
[22] GAO, Water Resources: Four Federal Agencies Provide Funding for
Rural Water Supply and Wastewater Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1094], (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7,
2007).
[23] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5,
p. 23 (2009).
[24] Senate Report 110-134, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008.
[25] USDA, Report on Water and Waste Programs--Resources Provided and
Needs of the Native Americans, Including Alaskan Natives and the
Colonias Populations (November 2008).
[26] When we shared this concern with the agencies, EPA officials told
us that Clean Water Act regulations limit the agency's ability to
provide assistance to unincorporated communities without the
establishment of a utility or improvement district.
[27] EPA, How Investment in Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation
Infrastructure Has Affected the Mexico-Texas Border, EPA-X4-976742-01,
Prepared by the University of Texas at Austin (Austin, Tex.: 2007).
[28] In addition, BECC provides some assistance for these activities
through nonfederal funds.
[29] USDA-Rural Utility Service, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Joint
Memorandum: Cooperation and Coordination on Jointly Financed Water and
Wastewater Activities (Washington, D.C.: 1997).
[30] For projects that receive technical assistance from EPA's U.S.-
Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program, the agency will tailor
engineering and environmental reports to meet the standards of the
primary funding agency.
[31] EPA and USDA officials commented that the numerous instances of
jointly funded projects show that agencies are coordinating. We do not
disagree that projects often rely on multiple sources of funding, but
we found that the lack of coordinated policies placed additional burden
on applicants and delayed project completion.
[32] EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program recently
adopted a process to coordinate with federal agencies that are
providing funding for a project the program may fund.
[33] The funding obligated by the agency was initially intended to
cover full project costs, but because of cost increases caused by
various reasons the funding was insufficient.
[34] State of New Mexico, Office of the Governor, Executive Orders 2005-
031 and 2007-050.
[35] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005), and Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-00-106] (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15].
[37] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916 (Nov. 28, 1990). The act originally required the set- aside
only for fiscal years 1991 to 1994. Appropriations acts made the set-
aside mandatory in fiscal year 1996 and then permanently required
beginning in fiscal year 1997. Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat 1321-272 (Apr.
26, 1996); Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 Pub. L.
104-204, 110 Stat 2874, 2887 (Sept. 26, 1996).
[38] Pub.L. No. 102-580, § 219 (Oct. 31, 1992); Water Resources
Development Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-114 § 5006(a) (Nov. 8, 2007).
[39] Moreover, the Corps' field personnel initially told us that they
rely on a state agency to determine which projects should receive
assistance. While the Corps asserted it has flexibility in determining
whether a community is an eligible colonia, it cannot reasonably make a
determination without any criteria at all.
[40] Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Pub. L.
No. 101-624 § 2327, Nov. 28, 1990.
[41] In addition, USDA said it awards funds to them on a first-come,
first-served basis and there is no need for ranking and comparing the
projects to establish funding priorities.
[42] The legislative history of the colonias provision describes them
as the poorest areas with no infrastructure. Floor statements describe
colonias as areas completely lacking water supply and wastewater
systems, rather than having such systems that are inadequate in the
sense of needing upgrade; for example, colonias are described as
without running water, or as having wells inadequately separated from
waste disposal.
[43] For example, a state might identify the universe of colonias and
then prioritize them based on need, or identify key characteristics of
that category of colonias having the greatest need and then identify
and prioritize colonias with those characteristics.
[44] In July 2008, the HUD Inspector General issued a report auditing
the Colonias Set-aside program, including HUD actions to ensure
compliance and detailed review of uses of funds by states. Our findings
are consistent with those reported by the Inspector General. HUD, HUD's
Community Development Block Grant Set-Aside for Colonias Was Not Used
for Its Intended Purposes, 2008-FW-0001 (Washington, D.C.: July 29,
2008).
[45] GAO, 21st Century Challenges, Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb.1, 2005).
[46] Corps officials first told us that they considered the colonias
projects as congressional directives, but later acknowledged that no
specific projects had been identified by Congress.
[47] Washington State Department of Health, "Guidelines for Using Rural-
Urban Classification Systems for Public Health Assessment," 2001.
[48] GAO, 21st Century Challenges, Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-325SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb.1, 2005), GAO, Effectively Implementing the
Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1,
1996); and Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration
Among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct.21,
2006).
[49] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916 (Nov. 28, 1990); Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-624, § 2327 (Nov. 28, 1990) (amending the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act); Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-580, § 219 (Oct. 31,
1992).
[50] See, e.g., S. Rep. 102-283 (May 15, 1992) at 10 ("Colonias are
rural, often remote communities along the U.S.-Mexico border. It is
estimated that some 350,000 people live in colonias and most generally
lack sewage treatment facilities and safe drinking water....Provision
of adequate water and sewer facilities to colonias....is especially
important in light of the risk of cholera spreading to these
communities from Central America."). The history also includes several
recitations of statistics of increased incidence of hepatitis and other
diseases in the colonias.
[51] See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. H6122 (daily ed. July 31, 1990)
(Statement of Mr. Ortiz speaking on the amendment adding the provision
for the CDBG set-aside) ("For those of our colleagues who are still
unfamiliar with the plight of the impoverished men, women and children
living in colonias, let me make a comparison with which you can
identity. The colonias are America's version of the Third World. These
people have never known clean drinking water, simply because they have
no access to an adequate water supply. Additionally, they lack any sort
of wastewater disposal system, exposing them to serious health risks.
These people are the most vulnerable citizens in our society, making it
incumbent on us to make life as safe for them as possible."); 134 Cong.
Rec. H10161 (daily ed. Oct. 13, 1988) (Statement of Mr. Bartlett on a
predecessor bill) ("Mr. Speaker, today literally tens of thousands of
individuals along the borders live in circumstances of the worst and
most unsupportable kinds of living conditions, unsupportable and
comparable in many areas with conditions found in Third World
countries. The reason for that is they live in these areas called
colonias, which are small plots of land side by side, sold and
subdivided as plots of land, but without the basic urban infrastructure
put into those colonias. They are sold without sewer and water and
other items of infrastructure.").
[52] See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 100-1101 (1988) at 3 (concerning a
predecessor bill of the Community Development Block Grant set-aside)
("According to estimates by Congressional Research Service, over
180,000 persons live in the subdivision areas, known as 'colonias.'
Most of these subdivisions are located in unincorporated areas of poor,
essential rural counties of these states. The inhabitants of these
areas lack such basic facilities, as waste and sewage systems, as well
as safe and sanitary housing").
[53] 136 Cong. Rec. H6122 (daily ed. July 31, 1990) (Statement of Mr.
Coleman).
[54] 138 Cong. Rec. S17233 (Oct 7, 1992) (Statement of Mr. Ford
regarding HR 6138, which became Pub. L. 102-554 and allowed an
exception to one of the eligibility requirements for recognized
colonias).
[55] 138 Cong. Rec. H9239 (Sept. 23, 1992).
[56] Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, Pub. L.
No. 101-624, § 2327, Nov. 28, 1990 (emphasis added) (amending the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, § 306c), codified at 7
U.S.C. § 1926c (2009). The act also requires funds to be available only
if they will be used primarily to provide services to residents of a
county meeting certain per capita income and unemployment criteria; as
an exception, this requirement may be satisfied if a rural area was
recognized as a colonia as of Oct. 1, 1989. 7 U.S.C. § 1926c(2) (2009).
[57] In addition to these statutory eligibility requirements,
appropriations acts have limited funds for the 306C colonias program to
those colonias along the United States/Mexico border, which USDA has
interpreted to mean within 150 miles of the border. See, e.g.,
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-78 (Oct. 22,
1999), 113 Stat. 1150-51; Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L.
No. 109-97 (Nov. 10, 2005), 119 Stat. 2136.
[58] Recent appropriations acts have provided either an upper limit or
a fixed amount, within the Rural Community Advancement Program funds,
to be used in colonias for water and wastewater improvements. See,
e.g., Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-97 (Nov. 10,
2005), 119 Stat. 2136 (stating that "not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be
for water and waste disposal systems to benefit the Colonias....
including grants pursuant to section 306C"), Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 Pub. L. No. 110-161 (Dec. 26, 2007) (providing
$65 million for colonias, Alaskan villages, and Native Americans, to be
allocated consistent with the historical allocation). USDA has a
similar set-aside program for Native American tribes.
[59] While an amended provision of the statute refers to areas
"recognized as" colonias, this provision serves only as an exception to
threshold income and unemployment criteria, and does not apply to the
preference provision. See Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992,
Pub. L. No. 102-554 § 24 (October 28, 1992); 7 U.S.C. §§ 1926c(a)(2),
(c)(1) (2009).
[60] USDA regulations provide for a numerical score to be assigned to
each application. 7 C.F.R. § 1777.13(d) (2009). The scores include
points for a "colonia" but do not reflect whether a colonia meets the
statutory preference criteria. 7 C.F.R. 1777.13(d)(4) (2009). USDA
officials initially confirmed the regulation does not include priority
points for the specified group in the statute (explaining its position
that "the preference group listed is equal to the eligible
applicants"). USDA officials later stated that the regulation sets up a
scoring system whereby statutory preference characteristics are
identified and points are awarded based on the preference. However, the
regulation merely awards points to colonias, and does not provide for
identification of the individual characteristics. 7 C.F.R. §
1777.13(d)(4) (2009). In addition, USDA generally does not use the
scores, but awards funds on a rolling basis. While the regulations
provide that scores are to be used when requests exceed available
funds, 7 C.F.R. § 1777.13(c), this condition does not occur, since
instead of having periodic deadlines at which points USDA could
determine whether requested amounts exceed those available, USDA awards
funds until they are gone. Thus, even if USDA changes its practice and
develops scores to identify projects qualifying for the preference as a
subset of colonias, its practice of awarding funds on a rolling basis
would fail to give effect to the scores.
[61] 7 C.F.R. § 1777.12 (b) (2009).
[62] 7 C.F.R. § 1777.4 (2009) (The regulatory definition differs from
the statute's articulation of colonias in the context of preference.
Compare the regulation's "Any identifiable community designated in
writing by the State or county in which it is located; determined to be
a colonia on the basis of objective criteria including lack of potable
water supply, lack of adequate sewage systems, and lack of decent,
safe, and sanitary housing, inadequate roads and drainage; and existed
and was generally recognized as a colonia before October 1, 1989" to
the statute's preference to entities proposing to serve residents of
rural subdivisions "commonly referred to as colonias, that are
characterized by substandard housing, inadequate roads and drainage,
and a lack of adequate water or waste facilities."). USDA acknowledged
the two are not identical, but stated its position that they are
substantially similar.
[63] The legislative history of the colonias provision describes them
as the poorest areas with no infrastructure. A committee report on a
predecessor bill describes colonias as follows: "It is not uncommon for
colonia residents to rely on water from irrigation ditches or from
shallow wells drilled on the lot where their home is located, in some
cases dangerously close to outhouses or pit latrines. In other areas,
colonia residents are forced to transport and store water from many
miles away, often in used, 55-gallon chemical drums. The water from
such sources is often dangerously contaminated. In colonias without
adequate wastewater systems, heavy rains can cause raw sewage overflows
or seepage to the soil's surface. Residents are sometimes forced to
wade through the overflow to get to school or work." H.R. Rep. 101-415
(1990). Floor statements describe colonias as areas completely lacking
water supply and wastewater systems, rather than having such systems
that are inadequate in the sense of needing upgrade; for example,
colonias are described as without running water, or as having wells
inadequately separated from waste disposal. See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec.
H796-97 (Statement of Mr. De La Garza, "This title seeks to provide
assistance to all identified colonias which have substandard housing,
inadequate roads and drainage, and a lack of adequate water or
wastewater facilities;" statement of Mr. Coleman, "These residents live
in homes without running water or sewage collection facilities").
[64] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916 (Nov. 28, 1990), as amended by Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550, § 810 (Oct. 28, 1992); 42
U.S.C. § 5306 Note (2009) the act originally required the set-aside
only for fiscal years 1991 to 1994 (emphasis added). Appropriations
acts made the set-aside mandatory in fiscal year 1996 and then
permanently required beginning in fiscal year 1997. Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-
134, 110 Stat 1321-272 (April 26, 1996); Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 Pub. L. 104-204, 110 Stat 2874, 2887 (Sept.
26, 1996).
[65] Statements throughout the legislative history of the act
consistently depict colonias as lacking in drinking water and sewer
facilities. Conversely, there are no statements in the history
suggesting a colonia could be a community merely featuring substandard
housing, but having adequate water and wastewater. See, e.g., 134 Cong.
Rec. H10161 (daily ed. Oct. 13, 1988) (Statement of Mr. Bartlett) ("Mr.
Speaker, today literally tens of thousands of individuals along the
borders live in circumstances of the worst and most unsupportable kinds
of living conditions, unsupportable and comparable in many areas with
conditions found in Third World countries. The reason for that is they
live in these areas called colonias, which are small plots of land side
by side, sold and subdivided as plots of land, but without the basic
urban infrastructure put into those colonias. They are sold without
sewer and water and other items of infrastructure").
[66] E.g., HUD OGC-CD Div., interview. HUD's Web site describes
colonias: "Colonias are rural communities located within 150 miles of
the US-Mexican Border. They often lack the basic necessities most
Americans take for granted--running water, electricity, and paved
roads… Without safe, sanitary and affordable housing, drinkable water,
sewer and drainage systems, colonias struggle with issues often
associated with 'Third World' countries." [hyperlink,
http://www.hud.gov/groups/farmwkercolonia.cfm] (last visited Oct. 22,
2009).
[67] HUD Office of Community Planning & Development, Notice CPD-03-10:
Use of HUD Resources to Assist Colonias (Oct. 8, 2003). The notice
expired in 2004. However, in its response to the IG report, HUD stated
it would reissue the notice. HUD Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report 2008-FW-0001, p. 26 (July 29, 2008).
[68] E.g., HUD OGC-CD Div., interview.
[69] Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-
550, § 810 (Oct. 28, 1992).
[70] According to a relevant committee report, the state designation
requirement had frustrated the purposes of the colonias grant program
because some states and counties had designated few, if any,
recipients. H.R. Rep. No. 102-760 at 146, 152-53. (1992) (accompanying
H.R. 5334).
[71] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916(c) (November 28, 1990); 42 U.S.C. § 5306 Note (2009).
[72] For example, a state might identify the universe of colonias and
then prioritize them based on need, or identify key characteristics of
that category of colonias having the greatest need, and then identify
and prioritize colonias with those characteristics.
[73] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916(a) (Nov. 28, 1990); 42 U.S.C. § 5306 Note (2009). HUD
officials stated that the agency considers the separate provision
itemizing activities, section (b), to conflict with and supersede the
limitation of section (a) for funds to be set-aside for activities
relating to water, sewage, and housing. However, the provisions are
harmonious, as the limitation in section (a) acts to modify the
activities listed in (b). Thus, the statute indicates that set-aside
funds are to be used for those activities in (b) that relate to water,
sewage, and housing.
[74] 24 C.F.R. §§ 570.480(c), 570.3 (2009).
[75] Pub. L. No. 101-625, § 916 (Nov. 28, 1990).
[76] In the 2003 notice, HUD, by contrasting the colonia set-aside
requirement with the general policy of maximum feasible deference,
recognized the set-aside as an exception to that policy ("Although
States are afforded maximum feasible deference in choosing which
projects and grantees to fund with CDBG dollars, the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA) established the Colonia Set-
Aside, which mandated that Texas, New Mexico, California and Arizona
spend up to 10% of their FY 1991 CDBG grant on projects that benefit
colonias."). HUD Office of Community Planning & Development, Notice CPD-
03-10: Use of HUD Resources to Assist Colonias (Oct. 8, 2003).
[77] 24 C.F.R. §§ 570.480(c), 570.3 (2009).
[78] Pub.L. No. 102-580 § 219 (Oct. 31, 1991); Pub.L. No. 110-114 §
5006(a)(3) (Nov. 8, 2007), 121 Stat 1192 (authorizing appropriation of
$35 million "for providing construction assistance" to the colonias
project).
[79] The Corps considers the colonias funds to be a congressional add.
In the absence of specific projects identified by Congress, the Corps
has exclusively awarded assistance to projects recommended by a Texas
state agency. The Corps implements the assistance, as with all other
section 219 projects, using cost-share agreements, a form of
cooperative agreement.
[80] 138 Cong. Rec. H9239 (daily ed. Sept. 23, 1992) (statement of Mr.
Laughlin, offering colonias amendment on predecessor bill to WRDA
1992). See also id. at H9240 (statement of Mr. Coleman describing
"these communities, in which people live without running water or safe
sewage disposal are...In the colonias, residents live with the ever
present threat of cholera--a Third World disease that menaces only
where people live, in the most unsanitary conditions. This disease
threatens because many of the people must draw their water from wells
that are dangerously close to substandard septic systems and,
therefore, contaminated with human waste").
[81] Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 101-
625, § 916(e)(1) (November 28, 1990), 42 USC § 5306 note (2009).
[82] Moreover, the Corps' field personnel initially told us that they
rely on a state agency to determine which projects should receive
assistance. While the Corps asserted it has flexibility in determining
whether a community is an eligible colonia, it cannot reasonably make a
determination without any criteria at all.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: