ABSTRACT Many American Indians and Alaska Natives who live in small, rural communities face a variety of challenges with raw drinking water. Choices that lead to waterborne diseases, cultural factors pertaining to the significance of traditional water sources, and sustainability of these water sources in the face of climate change all have evident impacts depending on the region in which they live. For some, traditional water sources are the only option due to culture and tradition and are currently a viable source for potable drinking water. For others, an increased dependency on more novel and/or small-scale decentralized water systems has become mandatory due to contamination of traditional water sources, even though an aversion to chlorine treated water exists. Although there are loan programs through the USDA for American Indian and Alaska Native communities for decentralized water systems, many small rural communities do not have the funds needed to apply or the ability to repay the original loan. Literature sources have discussed decentralized water treatment possibilities, including rainwater harvesting, solar disinfection, water pasteurization, hypochlorinators, and chlorine tablet feeders as possible solutions. Results show that drinking water system solutions may be regionally and culturally based and include any or all of the above mentioned possibilities, as long as appropriate hygiene and cleanliness procedures are implemented and followed. Small, easily built and maintained systems along with education concerning chlorine specifically and treated water in general in a culturally sensitive manner is needed. Community water boards should be established to garner ownership and empowerment, which will lead to a more sustainable system. Further research and development of traditional and nontraditional water systems, along with inclusion and input from the community, should be examined. Keywords: American Indian, Alaska Native, rural communities, alternative point-of-use systems, rainwater harvesting techniques, solar disinfection, water pasteurization, rainwater harvesting, decentralized water treatment RURAL AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES: DECENTRALIZED WATER QUALITY SOLUTIONS Elizabeth Burton ENVS 390 – Senior Seminar Salem College April 17, 2014
24
Embed
Rural Native American and Alaska Native Communities - Decentralized Water Quality Solutions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ABSTRACT
Many American Indians and Alaska Natives who live in small, rural communities face a
variety of challenges with raw drinking water. Choices that lead to waterborne diseases, cultural
factors pertaining to the significance of traditional water sources, and sustainability of these
water sources in the face of climate change all have evident impacts depending on the region in
which they live. For some, traditional water sources are the only option due to culture and
tradition and are currently a viable source for potable drinking water. For others, an increased
dependency on more novel and/or small-scale decentralized water systems has become
mandatory due to contamination of traditional water sources, even though an aversion to chlorine
treated water exists. Although there are loan programs through the USDA for American Indian
and Alaska Native communities for decentralized water systems, many small rural communities
do not have the funds needed to apply or the ability to repay the original loan. Literature sources
have discussed decentralized water treatment possibilities, including rainwater harvesting, solar
disinfection, water pasteurization, hypochlorinators, and chlorine tablet feeders as possible
solutions. Results show that drinking water system solutions may be regionally and culturally
based and include any or all of the above mentioned possibilities, as long as appropriate hygiene
and cleanliness procedures are implemented and followed. Small, easily built and maintained
systems along with education concerning chlorine specifically and treated water in general in a
culturally sensitive manner is needed. Community water boards should be established to garner
ownership and empowerment, which will lead to a more sustainable system. Further research
and development of traditional and nontraditional water systems, along with inclusion and input
from the community, should be examined.
Keywords: American Indian, Alaska Native, rural communities, alternative point-of-use
systems, rainwater harvesting techniques, solar disinfection, water pasteurization, rainwater
harvesting, decentralized water treatment
RURAL AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES:
DECENTRALIZED WATER QUALITY SOLUTIONS
Elizabeth Burton
ENVS 390 – Senior Seminar
Salem College
April 17, 2014
1
INTRODUCTION
As stated by the United Nations, safe, drinkable water is a basic human right. However,
within the United States alone, many Self-identified American Indian and Alaska Natives
(AI/AN’s) do not enjoy this basic human right. At the end of 2012, the lack of sustainable access
to safe drinking water affected over 7.5% or over 300,000 homes of American Indians and
Alaskan Natives (Indian Health Service 2012). Lack of access can be attributed to multiple
challenges: climate change, population growth, age and condition of the existing infrastructure,
funding limitations, inadequate operation and maintenance (Mintz et al. 2001), and distance and
isolation of homes (Indian Health Service 2012). Homes without access to safe drinking water
must procure their own from raw sources such as rivers, streams, ice, snowpack, oceans,
rainwater, and hand-dug wells. These sources can be contaminated through pollution, animal
and bird droppings, pathogens, and bacteria (Martin et al. 2007), and impractical, depending on
the region in which they live.
Many American Indians and Alaska Natives also have a close cultural relationship to
traditional water sources and hold them in high regard (Marino et al. 2009). They trust in the
cleanliness of traditional water sources, like rivers, streams, ice, and snowpack over chlorine
treated water, state a dislike for the taste of chlorine, think it’s dirty and fouling their traditional
water, and believe traditional water sources are better for their health (Ritter et al. 2014).
American Indians and Alaska Natives are also intimately connected to water resources and
strongly associate cultural identities and traditional knowledge with them, seeking spiritual and
religious inspiration (Cozzetto et al. 2013). They revere the interconnectedness they have with
Mother Earth and Father Sky and hold traditional water as sacred in many aspects of their daily
lives. Motivation to secure treated water, especially through the use of chlorine, is low since
2
such an act could be seen as desecration of a spiritual source of life. However, safe, clean
drinking water is essential for these remote regions. What are the best sources and how can they
be implemented?
Climate change is another aspect that must be addressed. American Indians and Alaska
Natives stem from diverse indigenous groups, each with their own tradition, culture, history, and
language. Each has a long tradition of paying close attention to climate change and how it
affects their lives and livelihoods (Cozzetto et al. 2013; Gautam et al. 2013). Climate change
closely impacts their water supplies, whether via streams, rivers, and groundwater or ice, rain,
oceans, and snowpack. The change in temperature in various regions affects the amount of water
or ice available, thus affecting primary access to water. Flooding and droughts impact both
American Indians and Alaska Natives, leading to lack of access to water sources and an increase
in waterborne diseases.
Remoteness, poverty, and education are particularly problematic obstacles for AI/AN
communities. The most isolated communities are the ones that face the largest challenges when
it comes to sustainable water supplies. Even though the federal government’s USDA loan
program assists American Indians and Alaska Natives with decentralized water systems, these
loans can only be granted and administered through non-profit organizations, public bodies, and
recognized Indian tribes (USDA). Rural communities may not have access to any of these and
must be responsible for their own water systems. This leads many isolated rural communities to
rely on raw water that may be polluted or contain waterborne diseases. Without funds to assist in
development, decentralized water systems are needed. Education and training within these
communities is also essential to the success of any decentralized water system, not only to
3
address why raw water must be treated but also to ensure any system used is being used properly
with proper maintenance and upkeep.
It must be understood that any decentralized water system created within a community
should have a community water board (Henderson et al. 2005) in place to supervise, train, and
maintain any water treatment system. Inclusivity is an essential part of any decentralized water
system. Inclusion and input at the community level will lead to ownership of any water system
and is highly encouraged. In the case of point-of-use systems on a household basis, education on
use, maintenance, sanitation, and hygiene are essential (Rufener et al. 2010). Further research
and development of potential solutions, both traditional and nontraditional, should continue in
order to develop useful, efficient systems on both the community level and household level.
In the face of climate change, population growth, and lack of funding to support
centralized water systems for remote locations, decentralized water systems are the solution.
Decentralized water systems are not dependent on federal funding and can expand and contract
with the needs of the community or household. Decentralized water systems can also expand
and contract with climate change impacts, dependent on the region. Systems include rainwater
harvesting (Gleick 2003; Opare 2012; Rabbani 2012; de Kwaadsteniet et al. 2013; Zaman et al.
2014), water pasteurization (Islam and Johnston 2006; Zaman et al. 2014), solar disinfection
(Rabbani 2012; Zaman et al. 2014), clay pot water filters (Varkey and Dlamini 2012),
hypochlorinators, and chlorine tablet feeders (Henderson et al. 2005). In many cases, more than
one approach is needed. Most decentralized water systems can be used with locally available
supplies and be developed specifically for a particular region. This paper will address each
solution as it pertains to isolated rural American Indian or Alaska Native communities or
households.
4
LACK OF ACCESS
As of 2010, there are 566 federally recognized sovereign tribal nations within the United
States. 229 are located in Alaska and 337 are located in 33 other states, the majority of which
are located west of the Mississippi River. In 2011, 30% of the Alaska Native village population
lived in poverty and 40% of the AI/AN reservation population lived in poverty. This is
compared to 16% of the total US population in 2011 (National Congress of American Indians
2015). To further conceptualize the need for safe drinking water within the AI/AN population,
25% of Alaska Natives and 9% of American Indians lack complete plumbing. In comparison,
only 0.5% of the total US population lack complete plumbing. The Indian Health Service has
defined water supply deficiency levels as follows: Level 1, sanitation systems and water supplies
comply with all applicable control laws and deficiencies relate to routine repair, replacement, or
maintenance needs; Level 2, deficiencies relate to capital improvements; Level 3, inadequate or
partial water supplies do not comply with applicable control laws; Level 4, lacks safe water
supply systems; and Level 5, lacks safe water supply systems (Indian Health Service 2012).
There were no further indications by the Indian Health Service of the difference between Level 4
and Level 5. By the end of 2012, the lack of sustainable access to safe drinking water affected
over 7.5% or over 300,000 homes of AI/ANs (Indian Health Service 2012), falling under Levels
4 and 5. Of these, 34% are located in such remote areas that providing safe drinking water
presents an enormous challenge and is considered economically infeasible. Overcrowding of
homes is an issue so it is impossible to state how many people this affects (National Congress of
American Indians 2015).
Economic infeasibility, in this context, relates to the ability of the National Congress of
American Indians and the Indian Health Service to fund projects or find funding through the
5
USDA Rural Utilities Service that would provide safe drinking water to the most remote areas
within the AI/AN population. The federal government’s USDA loan program assists AI/ANs
with decentralized water systems; however, these loans can only be granted through non-profit
organizations, public bodies, and recognized Indian tribes (USDA). Isolated communities who
do not have access to such organizations must be responsible for their own water treatment
systems. This leads to many relying on raw water that may be polluted or contain waterborne
diseases. In 2012, the Indian Health Service stated the resources to meet the needs of those
living in the most remote areas are finite; this statement does not take into consideration
decentralized water systems.
Challenges faced from a centralized water system approach are numerous. For example,
centralized water systems in an arctic environment are not feasible; there is a delicate balance
between protecting above-ground, piped water from freezing and protecting the permafrost upon
which it lays from thawing (Marino et al. 2009). Piping safe drinking water from a centralized
water system across miles of desert to remote households is also economically infeasible. Thus,
decentralized water systems that produce safe drinking water where it is needed provide an
alternative option for those communities and households outside the economically feasible range
of opportunities.
CULTURE AND TRADITION
American Indian and Alaska Native communities hold a close cultural relationship with
water which must be understood in order to best serve the needs of rural AI/AN communities.
Traditional water sources (which include rivers, streams, springs, rain, oceans, ice, and
snowpack) are held in high regard, thought of as healthful and clean, and are preferred over
6
treated water, especially when treated with chlorine (Marino et al. 2009). Traditional water
sources are strongly associated with cultural identities and traditional knowledge passed down
through generations within the community (Flanagan and Laituri 2004). American Indians and
Alaska Natives seek spiritual and religious inspiration from their waters (Cozzetto et al. 2013)
and hold traditional water sources as sacred in many aspects of their daily lives. Chlorine treated
water is perceived as dirty, possibly a desecration of a spiritual source of life, and the use of
chemicals, the taste associated with them, and the perception of unhealthiness are interrelated as
reasons people do not prefer treated water (Ritter et al. 2014). Cultural sensitivity is essential
when devising decentralized water systems to meet the needs of the disenfranchised.
American Indians and Alaska Natives also have a long tradition of being in harmony with
nature and as such, pay close attention to climate change and pollution and how they affect their
lives and livelihoods (Cozzetto et al. 2013). The rise and fall of sea levels, change in
temperatures, and the freezing and thawing of ice all play a part in AI/AN communities and their
ability to procure water. Climate change is having an impact of snowmelt, ice thinning, and
rising sea levels which could allow sea water to intrude into aquifers leading to possible
contamination of water supplies (Martin et al. 2007). Flooding and droughts also impact AI/AN
communities, leading to a lack of access to safe drinking water as well as an increase in
waterborne diseases (Gleick 2003). Natural and man-made pollution plays a role in
contamination of traditional water sources as well. Naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater
supplies, man-made pollution from business and industry (whether airborne or waterborne), and
human, animal, and avian feces are but some sources of pollution (Martin et al. 2007).
Given that many remote American Indians and Alaska Natives do not have access to
centralized water systems, follow traditional culture as it pertains to water sources, and hold a
7
close relationship to climate change and pollution, decentralized water systems are a feasible
solution, not only from a cultural perspective but from an economically feasible perspective as
well.
DECENTRALIZED WATER SYSTEMS
Water resource development, management, and use are undergoing a major transition.
Common infrastructure forms have been the norm, but due to new challenges in solving water
problems in the face of growing enormous costs as well as social and economic costs, “soft-path”
solutions are in growing demand. This includes developing new ideas and revitalizing old ones.
“Soft-path” solutions depend on current infrastructure as well as small-scale decentralized
facilities with the goal of encouraging efficient use, equitable distribution of water resources, and
sustainable system operations (Gleick 2003). Boiling of water is a well-known measure used to
minimize or eliminate waterborne diseases and is used extensively; therefore, little mention of it
will be made in this paper. To follow are more in-depth discussions regarding rainwater
harvesting, water pasteurization, solar disinfection, clay pot water filters, hypochlorinators, and
chlorine tablet feeders as potential decentralized water system solutions for American Indian and
Alaska Native communities and households.
RAINWATER HARVESTING
The harvesting of rainwater is not a new concept; it has been practiced for thousands of
years across the globe. China’s Gansu province receives 300 to 450 cm of rainfall per year but
has an adequate yearly supply of water through rainwater harvesting. Jordan had an average
annual rainfall of 300 cm where rainwater harvesting is common (Opare 2012). The World
8
Health Organization (WHO) classifies rainwater harvesting as an alternative improved water
source along with protected dug wells, boreholes, and standpipes (de Kwaadsteniet et al. 2013).
The WHO also discourages ingesting untreated rainwater due to evidence of chemical and
microbial contamination. There are many challenges with rainwater harvesting including
knowing the chemical and microbial quality of water collected as well as roof geometry, roof
material, the location of the roof, and the concentration of substances in the atmosphere. Sources
of chemical and microbial pollution as depicted in
Figure 1 (Abassi and Abassi 2011) include atmospheric
deposition, catchment areas (roofs and drainage pipes),