For example, a  colonia can be a tribal reservation, a fast-growing retirement community,  or a high-poverty subdivision. 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. Federal agencies generally require the entity  seeking assistance to meet with agency officials prior to submitting an  application. 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. USDA obligated about $509 million, or about 37 percent of the total federal  funding. 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. It obligated over $7 million to individuals in  the border region for household projects, such as installing indoor  plumbing. 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 coordinate policies and processes, and (3) in some cases have not complied with  statutory requirements and agency regulations. Agencies Have Not Comprehensively As Water and Wastewater Conditions, Hampering Their Ability to Meet the Needs of the Region

O ver the years, some federal agencies have conducted assessments to  identify water and wastewater conditions in the border region, but non these assessments either individually or collectively provides a  comprehensive picture of the needs of the region. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. The Government Accountability Office (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.