ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
ON
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AFFECTING
ALASKA NATIVES
4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 100
Anchorage,
Alaska 99503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Witness List | Exhibit
List
| PDF Version
Deposition Exhibit
#10 - Testimony of Dennis M. Taddy
TESTIMONY
Presented to ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
July 18, 1992
HEALTH CATEGORY
Environmental Health Issues
by
Dennis M. Taddy
TCC Engineer
SANITATION FACILITIES
The Indian Sanitation Facilities Act, Public
Law 86-121 was enacted to "provide essential sanitation
facilities" for American
Indians and Alaskan Natives. Today, over thirty-three years later
we are still working to provide “essential" facilities
to Alaska's first people. The reasons for this simple task still
being incomplete are as numerous as the number of individuals
working to solve the problem. I believe that some of the major
problems are: a) the funding need is great; b) the myriad of
funding agencies; c) lack of village involvement; d) inappropriate
technology; and e) the training of village people.
The IHS FY92
Sanitation Deficiency System for the State of Alaska reported
378 projects with a total cost of over $1,000,000,000.
Of those projects more than five-hundred million dollars are
to provide or improve potable water systems. In a typical year
10 to 15 projects will be funded. The State of Alaska, Department
of Environmental Conservation, Village Safe Water Program (VSW)
for the same time period had approximately one hundred grant
requests with a cost of over one-hundred million dollars to address
sanitization facilities projects. The state funded approximately
$25,000,000 worth of projects. EPA also funded about $9,000,000
worth of projects, part of that funding was for projects in the
lower forty-eight. EPA funded projects were limited to waste
water system improvements.
This funding problem does not even
address one part of sanitation facilities that we all take for
granted that being running water
in the village health clinic. The vast majority of the clinics
have an igloo cooler which provides water for the Community Health
Aides to wash their hands. The bucket of waste water is dumped
into the pit privy or thrown out the back door at the end of
the day.
Villages face a major obstacle in identifying funding
agencies and completing applications even if they are aware of
the agency.
IHS is the easiest for them to work with because Congress has
along with grant funds they provide staffing specifically to
aide in project development, design, construction, project accounting,
administration and training. The VSW program has engineers to
provide some assistance to the village through the hiring of
a consultant. All other agencies (i.e. HUD-ICDBG, EPA, Soil Conservation
Services, FHA, etc.) provide virtually no assistance to the tribe.
EPA when it initially started funding Indian set-a-side projects
required an entirely different reporting system than what IHS
had been doing. This to me seemed very strange considering that
most of the data used by Congress to create this special legislation
was based on the IHS data system. This lack of technical assistance
leads to communities: not getting projects funded, inappropriate
design, inefficient construction, no training and/or no concept
of the villages long term commitment.
While the dollars needed
to address the sanitation needs of the Alaskan Natives are great,
I don't believe that is the major
obstacle to the provision of sanitation facilities. For many
years those providing technical assistance to the Alaska Natives
failed to work cooperatively with the tribes in the provision
of sanitation facilities. In many cases it has appeared to me
that facilities that were constructed during the 70's and 80's
were built irrespective
of village desires or needs. Even today, technical experts periodically
provide facilities without consideration of tribal desires. This
problem at least for IHS funds is, in part, exacerbated by the
delay in construction dollars getting to the Alaska Area Native
Health Service office. Without village input during the planning
and design phase, it leads to no village☺
There has been in the
past problems with the construction being inappropriate or inadequate.
For the most part that has been
corrected, but there are facilities with some necessary safety
features. The death in Hooper Bay from fluoride poisoning was
in part a result of the lack of several redundant safety features.
Also, of those projects several are to correct past inappropriate
and inadequate facilities. Further, AANHS and VSW have found
it difficult to adopt standards for the various components in
the normal village sanitation facilities.
The last major problem
that has led to deficient sanitation facilities in the villages
has been the training provided was a one time
shot without any follow-up. This coupled with complicated systems
led to failures that have had to be replaced or repaired at huge
costs, many times as an emergency which raises the cost of an
already expensive project. The state has recognized the need
for follow-up on job training for village operators. They have
created a grant that provides Remote Maintenance Workers who
go to village and provide OJT to the operators. But that program
only covers about half the state.
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc.
has taken a very active role in initiating changes that we believe
will help in providing and
maintaining essential sanitation facilities in the villages.
We have strongly urged villages to take charge of their own destiny.
For sanitation facilities to operate successfully the villages
must assume responsibility for the systems presently in. the
village. We recognize that there may be problems with these facilities
and we will help in every way to correct them or identify agencies
that can correct the problem.
The first step to providing sanitation
facilities is for the villages to develop a mater(?) plan for
future sanitation facilities
improvements, and the subsequent acceptance by granting agencies
of that plan. To date that has met varying degrees of acceptance
with the two major grantors in Alaska.
Secondly, TCC through their
Remote Maintenance Worker Program attempted to get AANHS and
VSW to develop standard components
for sanitation facilities. To date that has met complete resistance,
and further, both agencies refuse to develop and/or follow standards
of their own.
Another step in the provision of sanitation facilities
is the coordination of the grant application process for the
multiple
agencies. This one, we to date do not have a clue on how it would
be best accomplished, but it might be possible through the A.S/VSW
as they are the two largest grantors in the state.
TCC has initiated
a very aggressive role in providing training to village operators
for the operation of their facilities. We
have found most all villages, and their respective operators,
ready and willing to accept responsibility and accountability
for the sanitation facilities in the community. In conjunction
with that we have initiated a contract with a private consultant
to develop a Village Utilities Management Guide and a Training
Manual. This is being developed with input from agencies throughout
the state to insure that it is comprehensive and universally
acceptable through-out the state. Further, TCC has signed an
agreement with ADEC to cooperatively work with the member villages
to resolve deficiencies in their system.
In conclusion we here
at TCC believe the first step in solving the problems in bush
Alaska is to recognize that the village
must be an integral member of the team to 'provide essential
sanitation facilities". Our job as team members is to recognize
their needs, knowledge, desires, hopes and dreams for a healthy
and better future.
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every attempt to
keep the online document the same as the original, including
the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
