INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES • PUBLIC HEALTH • WATER INFRASTRUCTURE • FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Water Project Was Built. The Missing Money Was for Keeping It Alive.

Washington likes to cut the ribbon when a water system is built. A new federal audit shows what happens when the rules do not cover every home and the money to keep the system working is treated as somebody else’s problem.

Safe water should not depend on who owns the house, how many years remain on a lease or whether three federal agencies can make their paperwork agree.

But a September 2026 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows that those details can decide whether a home or community building is included in a federally supported tribal water project.

The Indian Health Service works with Tribes to build drinking-water and wastewater infrastructure. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture also fund tribal water projects. That sounds like a system with multiple doors to help. In practice, it can mean multiple rulebooks, applications and funding transfers before a pipe reaches the people who need it.

GAO found another problem waiting after construction is finished. Tribes are generally responsible for operating and maintaining the infrastructure. Many have limited revenue and difficulty hiring and retaining certified water operators. Indian Health Service usually does not pay routine costs such as operator salaries and electricity. When those costs are not covered, systems can deteriorate and fail early.

Washington may pay to build the water project, then leave the community to find the money that keeps it alive.

That is not efficiency. It is a ribbon-cutting system that can ignore the bill arriving after the cameras leave.

A definition can keep a home out

Indian Health Service says its authority allows it to build water infrastructure for “Indian homes, communities, and lands.” Its interpretation excludes some properties inside tribal communities.

GAO reported that an otherwise eligible project may not fully cover a home owned by a tribal member’s nontribal spouse or grandparent. A tribally owned home rented to another tribal member may be excluded if fewer than five years remain on the lease. Community-service providers such as teachers or law-enforcement officers who are not tribal members may also live in properties that the program will not fund.

Those categories may look tidy on a federal form. They do not always match how families live or how a community functions.

When a project includes a property Indian Health Service considers ineligible, the Tribe and federal staff have to find money elsewhere for that part of the work. GAO described one case in which Indian Health Service officials spent more than 80 hours helping a Tribe obtain an $8,000 grant, plus additional time tracking how it was spent.

The paperwork may cost as much as the pipe.

GAO asked Congress to define the disputed language in law and allow limited exceptions when the cost of navigating another funding program would exceed the cost of serving the excluded property. That recommendation is open. It is a proposal, not a change already made.

Building the system is only the first promise

The bigger lesson is what happens after construction.

A water system needs trained people, regular inspections, repairs, treatment supplies and electricity. None of those responsibilities disappears because the construction grant has closed.

GAO said limited tribal financial capacity can make operation and maintenance difficult. According to the report, those difficulties can lead systems to deteriorate and fail early, threaten health and force the federal government to pay again for repairs or replacement.

Indian Health Service estimated in November 2025 that $6 billion was needed to ensure all tribal communities had access to safe water. That estimate concerns the unfinished construction need. It does not solve the separate question of how completed systems will be maintained year after year.

Indian Health Service officials told GAO that the agency lacks authority and funding to pay routine operation and maintenance costs. GAO recommended that Congress establish a pilot program, designed with Tribes and coordinated with EPA, to test assistance for costs such as operator salaries and energy.

The pilot has not been created. The recommendation remains open.

Who is missing?

The missing seat belongs first to tribal residents who need safe water but can be excluded by a property definition that does not reflect their household or community.

It belongs to the workers expected to keep complex systems operating where the money may not support recruitment and retention.

It also belongs to tribal governments forced to spend scarce time translating one federal program into another. GAO found differing agency requirements and transfer processes that can create expensive administrative work before construction even begins.

Tribes were not absent from GAO’s research. The agency visited Alaska and Arizona and interviewed Tribes, tribal organizations and federal officials. But the policy choices still sit with Congress and federal agencies. Consultation matters only if the people with authority use what they hear.

Who held power, who benefited and who carried the burden?

Congress held the power to define which homes and community properties can receive Indian Health Service assistance. Indian Health Service, EPA and USDA controlled the programs, applications and funding-transfer rules. Federal officials also controlled whether operation and maintenance could be supported through existing authority or would require new legislation.

The federal government benefits when a project can be announced as completed. Contractors and agencies can point to construction totals. The public also benefits when safe water prevents disease and supports schools, homes and local services.

Tribal communities carry the burden when eligibility rules leave holes inside a single project. Tribal staff carry it when they must chase small grants through another agency. Operators carry it when a system must be maintained without stable support. Families carry it when a failing system turns a basic public-health protection into a daily uncertainty.

Taxpayers can carry the burden twice: once to build the infrastructure and again to repair or replace it after preventable deterioration.

Why should an ordinary person care?

Because infrastructure is not finished when the construction crew leaves.

Every community depends on public systems that must be maintained after the ribbon is cut. Water pipes, schools, bridges and hospitals all fail when leaders fund the visible beginning but ignore the ordinary work that keeps them useful.

This story is sharper in tribal communities because the federal government has specific responsibilities and because many Tribes do not have the same tax base or financing options available to other local governments. Chronic underfunding did not appear by accident, and the health risk does not become smaller because it is far from Washington.

There is also a basic fairness question. If the government decides to build a public-health system, it should not design the rules so narrowly that one household is connected and the next one is treated as an administrative exception.

The fair counterargument

Federal agencies must protect public money. Eligibility rules can keep a program within the authority Congress gave it. Financial information can help an agency decide whether a project will be sustainable. Operation and maintenance is normally a local responsibility, and permanent federal support could create costs that grow beyond the original program.

Those are real concerns.

USDA disagreed with GAO’s recommendation to streamline or eliminate some financial-information and underwriting requirements. EPA also disagreed with the original wording of one recommendation about its application process, and GAO revised that recommendation for clarity. Those disputes should not be erased.

But oversight is supposed to protect results as well as rules. If staff spend more money navigating the funding structure than it would cost to connect a property, the structure is not protecting the taxpayer. If a completed system fails early because no one could afford the operator or electricity, separating construction from maintenance did not save money. It postponed the bill and increased the health risk.

Pull Up a Chair

Congress should hold a public hearing on GAO-26-107178 and require a written response to its three open matters: define which homes and buildings qualify, authorize a common-sense exception when administrative costs exceed the work itself and create a tribal operation-and-maintenance pilot with measurable results.

The pilot should be designed in consultation with participating Tribes. It should track system reliability, boil-water notices, operator vacancies, repair costs, energy costs and whether preventive maintenance reduced later federal replacement spending. The results should be public without exposing sensitive infrastructure details.

People can ask the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Natural Resources Committee for a hearing and an implementation timeline. Do not ask for another general promise to support safe water. Ask which recommendation will be acted on, by what date and how Tribes will help design the response.

The federal government already knows how to build a water project. The missing test is whether it will fund the boring, essential work that keeps safe water flowing after the ceremony ends.

Ally = Action. 🪑

Who is missing?

• Tribal members living in homes excluded by the current interpretation of federal eligibility rules.
• Tribal water operators and local staff responsible for keeping systems safe and reliable.
• Families relying on aging or underfunded systems.
• Tribal governments spending limited staff time navigating conflicting federal processes.

Power, benefit and burden check

• Who held power? Congress and the federal agencies that define eligibility, applications, funding transfers and allowable costs.
• Who was affected? Tribal residents, governments, water operators, schools, service providers and other people relying on community water systems.
• Who benefited? Communities receiving safe water, agencies and contractors completing projects, and taxpayers when infrastructure remains reliable.
• Who carried the burden? Tribal governments navigating fragmented programs, residents excluded from projects and communities responsible for maintenance without sufficient resources.
• Why should an ordinary person care? A public investment that is not maintained can fail early, endanger health and make taxpayers pay twice.

Receipts

• U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-26-107178, September 22, 2026

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107178

Primary source for the eligibility gaps, administrative costs, operation-and-maintenance findings, $6 billion IHS estimate, agency positions and open recommendations.

• GAO report in accessible online format

https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-26-107178/index.html

Full methodology, evidence and agency-response record.

• Indian Health Service, Sanitation Facilities Construction Program

https://www.ihs.gov/dsfc/

Program background and current agency description of its role in delivering sanitation facilities to American Indian and Alaska Native communities.

• EPA, Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside Program

https://www.epa.gov/tribaldrinkingwater

Current federal program information for tribal drinking-water infrastructure assistance.

Verification and evidence notice

• Verified fact: GAO published the report on September 22, 2026 after reviewing agency data and documents, visiting Alaska and Arizona, and interviewing Tribes, tribal organizations and federal officials.
• Verified fact: IHS estimated in November 2025 that $6 billion was needed to ensure all tribal communities had access to safe water.
• Verified fact: GAO reported that IHS generally does not fund routine operation and maintenance and that limited tribal capacity can contribute to early system deterioration.
• Verified fact: GAO presented one example in which officials spent more than 80 hours helping a Tribe obtain an $8,000 grant.
• Proposal, not completed action: GAO recommended statutory clarification, a limited eligibility exception and an operation-and-maintenance pilot. The matters and recommendations were open when checked on October 1, 2026.
• Dispute: USDA disagreed with a recommendation concerning financial-information and underwriting requirements. EPA disagreed with the original wording of an application-process recommendation; GAO revised it and maintained that action was needed.
• Inference: Funding construction without adequately planning for maintenance can shift costs into later failures and replacement. GAO identified that risk, but did not calculate a nationwide savings total.
• Opinion: A water project should not be called complete if the community lacks a realistic way to keep it operating.

← Return to all editorials