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),

composition of storage tanks (typically bricks,

stabilized soil, rammed earth, plastic sheets, mortar jars,

pottery, ferrocement, polyethylene), and rainfall timing

and levels (de Kwaadsteniet et al. 2013). Many poverty

stricken rural households cannot afford the installation

of a rainwater tank; hence the use of the above-

mentioned materials. Higher pH levels have been

detected in rainwater stored in concrete tanks when

compared to nonconcrete tanks. This increase could be

ascribed to the leaching of calcium carbonate from the

cistern’s concrete walls. Reported gastroenteritis cases associated with rainwater harvesting

tanks in the US range from 10 to 33%. Methods for disinfecting water collected by rainwater

harvesting include prevention of debris entering the tank through the use of screens or filters,

diverting the first flush by waiting 10 minutes after the start of the rainfall before collection,

Figure 1. Different ways chemical and

microbial contaminants can enter a

domestic rainwater harvesting system

(Abassi and Abassi 2011).

9

disinfection combined with filtration, using granular-activated carbon filters, heat treatment,

chlorination, slow sand filtration, and SODIS. (de Kwaadsteniet et al. 2013).

A study on rainwater harvesting was conducted in two rural villages in Ghana. The

selection was based on certain criteria: population size under 1,000, long residence in their

community, prolonged use of water resources, and an absence of internal disputes. Both

communities’ rainfall averages 2,030 cm per year with a major rain season between April and

June and a minor rain season between September and November. Both lack basic infrastructure

and farming is the major economic activity for both. Rainwater harvesting is a part of both

communities; however, the use of thatched roofs, small containers, the lack of cisterns, and

insufficient trapping materials limit their ability to fully harvest rainwater. The main obstacle in

rainwater harvesting for both communities is the lack of a suitably sized cistern to store

rainwater for future use. If cisterns are able to be installed, user ownership and management of

these cisterns would lead to a sustainable water supply. Regular assessment and maintenance

would be performed to ensure an adequate level of water as well as use for future generations

(Opare 2012).

Rainwater collection is a simple solution using a large sheet of polythene or

polypropylene attached to four poles, one at each corner. The angle could be diagonal to catch

water into a container to the side or at an equal height to collect water through a center hole into

a container. Rainwater can be harvested starting a few minutes after a rain begins in order to

allow dust particles and airborne germs to dissipate. Rooftop rainwater harvesting could pose

more challenges. More equipment is needed along with filtration devices, storage tanks, and

clean transport containers or piped directly into a home. The economic feasibility of this sort of

system should be analyzed before design and installation. One way around this is to cover the

10

roof with polythene sheets just before a rain event. For both methods, the polythene sheets can

be kept clean and dry inside the house until needed (Rabbani 2012).

The sustainability of a rainwater system can only be achieved when all the physical and

socioeconomic attributes are taken into account during the design of the system. Rainwater

harvesting could also contribute to reduced environmental degradation and minimized damage in

ecologically fragile areas. Slow sand filtration, an economically feasible option for any small

community, should be included in any rainwater harvesting and storing option. It is crucial that

the treatment systems are culturally acceptable and will be utilized and sustained by the

community and/or household.

WATER PASTEURIZATION

In 2006, a study was performed by Islam and Johnston on household water pasteurization

through what is called the Chulli water treatment system. By using a large plastic bucket half

filled with clean

sand to be used as a

sand filtration

system, heat

resistant plastic

tubing to connect

the plastic bucket to

an aluminum coil

that has been buried

within a clay oven (called a Chulli) that villagers construct and use in Bangladesh and then to a

Figure 2. Chulli water system components. Photo credit: Richard Johnston, UNICEF

11

tap, water can be brought to a temperature of at least 70 degrees C through the heat give off by

the Chulli. Figure 2 depicts the Chulli water system components. Water is collected at the tap

using any type of reservoir, usually a metal pitcher. 70 degrees C is enough to create large

amounts of steam, which indicates the water is being treated. The thermal sensitivity of common

waterborne diseases is further depicted in Table 1. Through the testing of a bench model using

highly contaminated pond

water, the process took five

minutes to produce hot water

even though the water in the

cooking pot was not warm.

When the treated water

reached the temperature of 70

degrees, coliform tests were conducted. The raw pond water had high total coliform counts

while the treated water was free of coliform bacteria. It took the water 45 seconds to travel

through the aluminum pipe at 70 degrees; milk pasteurizes by holding at 71.7 degrees for 15

seconds. After this bench model, two phases of testing were conducted in a total of six villages

in Bangladesh. Similar results were found in the field. The average amount of treated water

within an average cooking time in a village setting was 30 liters of water, giving a total of 90

liters of water per three times a day cooking on any given day per Chulli. Issues found during

this study were that even though pasteurization of water is a viable option, pasteurization does

not provide protection against recontamination, so cleanliness and hygiene procedures should be

followed closely. Positive impacts of this sort of system include the social acceptance of

12

villagers, the ease of construction and use, and the low cost ($6.00 US for the entire system).

Women are willing and able to rebuild this system by themselves.

The American Indian/Alaska Native cultural acceptance of this sort of system, due to the

natural and sustainable factors associated with it and the lack of chlorine which many AI/ANs

seem to prefer, make this an excellent option. Boiling of water is well known to kill waterborne

pathogens; therefore, pasteurization of water through this type of system would be culturally

acceptable. The extremely low cost associated with this system and the lack of maintenance

required are important factors, especially for remote communities and households where

economies of scale are lacking. This type of system could also be incorporated into many

different applications, including large kiln structures, brick ovens, concrete ovens, or any other

heating system a household or community would use.

SOLAR DISINFECTION

Domestic scale technologies for providing safe drinking water are necessary in many

parts of the world. Many communities cannot afford a centralized water treatment system;

therefore, households and/or villages must take on this task themselves. An issue with

groundwater is the high presence of arsenic, a heavy metal that is not easily removed for

drinking water. Surface water does not have arsenic contamination but it does have pathogenic

contamination. This contamination can be removed easily through solar disinfection (SODIS).

Table 2 summarizes the thermal

destruction of waterborne diarrheal

pathogens. A study conducted in

Bangladesh (Rabbani 2012) shows

Table 2. Thermal destruction of waterborne diarrheal pathogens

Pathogen Disease caused Destruction in deg. C

Salmonella group Typhoid, paratyphiod 20 mins at 60

Vibrio Cholera Cholera 15 mins at 55

E. Coli group Diarrhea 20 mins at 60

Shigella Dysentry 1 hour at 55

Rota virus Infantile diarrhea 30 mins at 60

Adapted from: Rabbani 2012

13

that SODIS can be procured through a simple design of a shallow tray painted black, four sheets

of transparent polythene or polypropylene larger in size than the tray, hay, and weights. The tray

is situated in a four inch bed of hay for insulation. One polythene sheet is then laid over the tray.

Filtered water (through cloth to remove particles) is then poured into the lined tray, no more than

2 cm deep. A second sheet of polythene is then placed on top of the water in full connection in

order to maximize the

solar impact and prevent

evaporation. A few

strands of hay are then

placed on top to create

an air space for

insulation onto which

another sheet of

polythene is placed. This process is repeated once more. Weights are then placed on top of the

sheets outside of the tray in order to keep them in place. Figure 3 shows the function of a solar

disinfection device. Within two hours during a sunny day the water has attained the desired

temperature of 60 degrees C, which destroys all diarrheal germs. The top layers are lifted off

and the bottom layer in which the water sits can be lifted at the corners and harvested using a

clean container. If there is full sun, such a system can produce 10 liters of water from two

harvests (Rabbani 2012).

Arsenic levels in groundwater are an issue across the globe, not only in Bangladesh. As

seen in Figure 4 (Amini et al. 2008), arsenic levels in groundwater can be high across the US,

mainly in areas inhabited by American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Figure 3. Function of a solar disinfection system. Rabbani 2012.

14

SODIS systems, which use arsenic-free surface water versus arsenic contaminated

ground water are inexpensive, use readily available materials, and are easy to build and maintain.

Education on use and sanitation

and hygiene practices would be

simple and effective. Given that

this system could be seen as

‘natural’, it could be assumed as

a practical and culturally

sensitive option for AI/AN

communities or households.

CLAY POT WATER FILTERS

Clay pot water filters (CPWFs) have been constructed for at least a decade for use

throughout developing countries. However, in 2012, Varkey and Dlamini conducted a study to

determine if the addition of copper mesh would create added benefit. CPWF’s were made using

terracotta clay and sawdust. The sawdust was ground and sieved using 300 um, 600 um, and 900

um sieves. The clay and sawdust were mixed in the ratios of 1:1 and 1:2 to make the pots

(Varkey and Dlamini 2012). Table 3 shows the effect of filtering raw water on E. coli using clay

pots. They were then dried for a week before being fired in an electric furnace at 850 degrees C

for eight hours. Testing of the pots with and without a copper mesh installed was then conducted

with raw river water to determine their efficiency for eliminating total coliforms and E. coli, total

hardness, turbidity, anions, and cations. Filtration rates were also tested per the grain size of the

sawdust as well as the height of the water column in the pots. It was determined that the 600 um,

15

1:2 pots with 10 g of copper mesh installed were the most effective within all the above

mentioned test parameters. E. coli levels were reduced by 98% in one hour and to zero in five

hours. Total coliform was reduced to zero after ten

hours.

Even though the CPWFs in this study were

constructed using an electric furnace, the same results

could be found in any area in which AI/AN

communities or households create kiln fired ceramics. Previous CPWFs have included colloidal

silver as a germicide; however, the cost associated with colloidal silver is very high. Also,

copper mesh is much easier and less expensive to obtain. In an AI/AN community or household

situation, proper planning would need to be instilled in order to gain the most benefit from this

sort of system, as the time it takes to fully filter E. coli and total coliforms could be excessive in

a real world situation.

HYPOCHLORINATORS & CHLORINE TABLET FEEDERS

Many American Indian and Alaska Native communities and households, especially those

in isolated areas, have a negative outlook on chlorine-treated water for many reasons. In a study

conducted in four Southwestern Alaska Native communities (Ritter et al. 2014) it was discovered

that chemicals, taste, health, access to water, tradition, and cost all play a role in Alaska Natives’

aversion to chlorine-treated water. 172 participants were interviewed and respondents indicated

that they “disliked the taste and smell of chlorinated water, were concerned about the potential

negative health effects caused by chlorine, and viewed chemical water treatment as a western

practice that conflicted with the widely held preference for things produced naturally” (Ritter et

Water sample

E. coli

(CFU/100mL)

Raw 9600

Filtered with 300 um (1:1) 0

Filtered with 300 um (1:2) 0

Filtered with 600 um (1:1) 0

Filtered with 600 um (1:2) 0

Filtered with 900 um (1:1) 1

Filtered with 900 um (1:2) 1

Table 3. Effect of filtering raw water on E. coli

using clay pots. Varkey and Dlamini 2012.

16

al. 2014). They also stated they did not like the taste of treated water and did not believe

chlorine-treated water held any health benefits. In fact, more than a quarter linked treated water

with health problems, with gastrointestinal problems being the most common. Untreated water

can also be found much closer to home instead of hauling water from a treated source. This

especially affects people with physical or age related limitations who cannot easily access treated

water sources. Consuming untreated water is also seen as tradition; only recently treated

drinking water has become available in the four communities studied and before then, there was

no other choice. Cost is at play as well; untreated water, whether from rivers or rainwater, is free

while chlorine-treated water is not. For people with limited incomes, as is the case in many rural

AI/AN communities and households, drinking treated water is not an option.

However, a review of alternative solutions to raw water for American Indian and Alaska

Native communities and households would not be complete without including possible chlorine

treatments on a community level. A comparison between hypochlorinators and chlorine tablet

feeders was conducted in rural Honduras that could be applicable to rural AI/AN communities in

the US (Henderson et al. 2005). Hypochlorinators use granulated chlorine. In this study, each

community has one or more large storage tanks attached to a distribution system. The

hypochlorinator is located on the top of the tank and houses the chlorine. The majority of water

brought into the tank, either through a gravity fed system or a pump, is fed into the large tank

while a smaller amount is fed into the hypochlorinator before being fed into the large tank to mix

with the raw water. Even though granulated chlorine is more accessible (produced locally), it is

also heavy and has a tendency to settle at the bottom of the hypochlorinator. If it is not regularly

mixed with incoming water, the granulated chlorine will not completely dissolve and the

resulting water will not be adequately chlorinated. Granulated chlorine also has a tendency to

17

obstruct or corrode the tubing leading to the storage tank. Hypochlorinators have a tendency to

require more maintenance, repair, and replenishments of chlorine as well.

Tablet feeders are more efficient and require less maintenance. Each tablet feeder holds

several chlorine tablets that dissolve much slower. This allows for more consistent levels of

residual chlorine in the water. Tablet chlorine costs $1.50 US per person per year whereas

granular chlorine costs $0.60 per person per year. After testing 196 tablet feeders and 354

hypochlorinators for residual chlorine, tablet feeders were determined to be the better option.

The percentage of samples that met the minimum recommended level of chlorine at the tank was

90.3% for tablet feeders and only 13.3% for hypochlorinators. Hypochlorinators also exhibited a

larger degree of variance in residual levels of chlorine. Tablet feeders are more reliable and

effective. However, plumbers or community water boards must be cognizant of the number of

tablets needed per community, which can change with the addition of households.

Tablet feeder systems are a viable option for small rural AI/AN communities, giving

them ownership, capacity building, and empowerment over their water treatment. However,

education regarding chlorine as a disinfectant for raw water is essential for AI/AN communities

that have an aversion to chlorine. Also, both hypochlorinator and tablet feeder systems are only

economically feasible on a community level and community water boards and educated

plumbers should be established in order to maintain either system.

USE OF COAGULANTS

Coagulants are used for treating cloudy or turbid water by collecting together floating

particles, including dirt, other solids, and some pathogens so they ‘coagulate’ and settle at the

bottom of whatever container is being used. Once complete, the clear water can be harvested for

18

further treatment. Coagulants, such as alum, are simple technologies that can be used in concert

with any of the above-mentioned treatment systems to resolve turbidity or cloudiness issues.

Coagulant treatments should be utilized before such other treatments where raw water is cloudy

or turbid in order to minimize possible clogging of any particular system. Alum has been used

for decades and is easily accessible. Other sources include plant coagulants such as

Moringaoleifera and scallop powder, which is a biodegradable sanitizer reported to have

antifungal and antibacterial properties, and commercial coagulants such as FS® or Ultra K1®

(Zaman et al. 2014).

SANITATION & HYGIENE

Of upmost importance in any water treatment system are proper sanitation and hygiene

practices. Safe water can be contaminated during collection, transport, and/or storage. Safe

water storage containers with tight-fitting lids and small mouths allow users to remove water by

pouring or through a tap instead of dipping a cup into the container. Lack of access to safe

drinking water is a primary cause of continuing poverty and the failure to address the immediate

needs of the most disadvantaged will only propagate this issue. Options such as point-of-use

systems target the most affected directly, enhancing health and contributing to development and

productivity (Mintz et al. 2001).

A field study was conducted in Bolivia in 2010 that tested contamination of water at

various points along the pathway from the source to the drinking cup. Water sanitation practices

were also collected through a questionnaire that contained structured questions and was

administered by trained local interviewers (Rufener et al. 2010). The quality of water declined

steadily from the supply source to the drinking cup, regardless of household water treatment

19

systems. These findings suggest that hygiene practices should be emphasized. Contamination

was found in the transport containers, in the boiling pots (if used), and in the drinking cups. The

median concentration of E. coli at the source was 0 CFR/100mL and increased significantly to 8

CFU/100mL at the point-of-consumption in the home. Questionnaire answers indicate that

cleaning of the transport containers with detergent occurred 42% of the time, with 31% of those

doing so on a daily basis. Drinking cups were washed 96% of the time while 48% cleaned them

at least once a day. 70% treated water before consumption. 1 in 15 households that practiced

water boiling still contained E. coli while 10 in 30 households that practiced SODIS still

contained E. coli. According to observations by interviewers, the failure in the SODIS treatment

was due to unsatisfactory exposure of the bottles to sunlight. Although home-based water

treatment improved the water quality immediately, the quality frequently worsened again in the

drinking cups. Inadequate sanitation of storage and transport containers are a key source of

drinking-water contamination as well as personal hygiene when handling water (Rufener et al.

2010).

Safe sanitation practices should be included at the source of the raw water. Rainwater

harvesting from roofs can lead to contamination from airborne particles and bird feces. If not

employed properly, waterborne diseases can still infiltrate SODIS systems, water pasteurization

systems, and clay pot water filters. Personal hygiene practices must be followed or

contamination can occur after any treatment process has been followed effectively. Proper

education regarding sanitation and hygiene practices must coincide with the introduction of any

water treatment process mentioned in this paper.

20

CONCLUSION

As of 2012, 102,000 isolated homes within the American Indian/Alaska Native

community are without sustainable access to safe drinking water and to provide such access is

considered economically infeasible by the Indian Health Service. This number is expected to

increase in direct correlation to population increase. Since households are overpopulated, there

is no real way to determine the amount of people affected. Many households rely on raw,

untreated water, which could lead to numerous waterborne diseases. Decentralized and point-of-

use systems are a viable alternative, as long as sensitivity to AI/AN cultures and traditions are

acknowledged and implemented into any system.

Culture and tradition within the AI/AN community are just as important as safe,

drinkable water. The aversion to chlorine-treated water must be acknowledged as well. This

must be understood while developing any decentralized water system for any community or

household. Any system should coincide with their culture and tradition, unless education

concerning the benefits of chlorine can be realized.

Sanitation and hygiene practices should be a part of any decentralized water system.

Without proper sanitation and hygiene, treated water can become contaminated at any point

along the system, from the point of collection to the point of use. Diarrheal pathogens tend to be

the most harmful and can be deadly in remote locations.

The systems discussed in this paper can be applied to any region within the AI/AN

community and many can be used in combination with another in order to fully sustain a

community or household. Until poverty levels within the communities decrease and/or federal

funding increases or changes, decentralized water systems are the best approach, not only from a

practical perspective but from an economically feasible perspective.

21

On a community level, community water boards should be created in order to best

manage the community’s water system. Inclusion and input at the community level are

important for local ownership of the system, allowing all members of the community to buy in to

the system.

While the decentralized water systems presented in this paper are not all inclusive, they

represent the best alternatives for AI/AN communities. Further research and development of

existing and potential solutions, both traditional and nontraditional, is recommended. Poverty

within the AI/AN community is widespread and persistent; solutions should coincide with the

lack of funds available as well as the remoteness of the communities not economically feasible to

be served by the Indian Health Service or the USDA. Solutions should also have a particular

applicability and be based on the social-economic framework within the AI/AN community, as

the most in need are located in the most remote locations. Research and development directly

related to the needs of the AI/AN community can ultimately address those in other countries as

well, opening an opportunity to serve on a global scale.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to extend my deepest appreciation to Dr. Dane Kuppinger and Dr. Rebecca Dunn

of Salem College who generously shared their personal knowledge and supported my efforts

throughout this work. I would also like to thank Evans Brasfield for his review of the draft

paper.

REFERENCES

Abassi T, Abassi SA. 2011. Sources of pollution in rooftop rainwater harvesting systems and

their control. Crit. Rev. Envionmental Sicence Technol. 41:2097–2167.

22

Amini M, Abbaspour K, Berg M, Winkel L, Hug SJ, Hoehn E, Yang H, Johnson A. 2008.

Statistical modeling of global arsenic contamination in groundwaters. Environ. Sci. Technol.

42:3669–3675.

Cozzetto K, Chief K, Dittmer K, Brubaker M, Gough R, Souza K, Ettawageshik F, Wotkyns S,

Opitz-stapleton S, Duren S, et al. 2013. Climate change impacts on the water resources of

American Indians and Alaska Natives in the U.S. Clim. Change 120:569–584.

Flanagan C, Laituri M. 2004. Local cultural knowledge and water resource management: The

Wind River indian reservation local cultural knowledge and water resource management.

Environ. Manage. 33:262–270.

Gautam MR, Chief K, Smith WJ. 2013. Climate change in arid lands and Native American

socioeconomic vulnerability: The case of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. Clim. Change

120:585–599.

Gleick PH. 2003. Global freshwater resources: Soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science

302:1524–8.

Henderson AK, Sack RB, Toledo E. 2005. A comparison of two systems for chlorinating water

in rural Honduras. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 23:275–81.

Indian Health Service. 2012. The sanitation facilities contruction program of the Indian health

service: Annual report for 2012. US Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human

Services.

Islam MF, Johnston RB. 2006. Household pasteurization of drinking-water: The Chulli water-

treatment system. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 24:356–62.

De Kwaadsteniet M, Dobrowsky PH, van Deventer A, Khan W, Cloete TE. 2013. Domestic

rainwater harvesting: Microbial and chemical water quality and point-of-use treatment systems.

Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 224:1–19.

Marino E, White D, Schweitzer P, Chambers M, Wisniewski J. 2009. Drinking water in

northwestern Alaska: Using or not using centralized water systems in two rural communities.

Arctic 62:75–82.

Martin D, Bélanger D, Gosselin P, Brazeau J, Furgal C, Déry S. 2007. Drinking water and

potential threats to human health in Nunavik: Adaptation strategies under climate change

conditions. Arctic 60:195–202.

Mintz E, Bartram J, Lochery P, Wegelin M. 2001. Not just a drop in the bucket: Expanding

access to point-of-use water treatment systems. Am. J. Public Health 91:1565–70.

National Congress of American Indians. 2015. Tribal nations and the United States: An

introduction.

23

Opare S. 2012. Rainwater harvesting: an option for sustainable rural water supply in Ghana.

GeoJournal 77:695–705.

Rabbani KS-E. 2012. Low cost domestic scale technologies for safe drinking water. In: 7th

International Conference on Appropriate Healthcare Technologies for Developing Countries. p.

1–6.

Ritter TL, Lopez EDS, Goldberger R, Dobson J, Hickel K, Smith J, Johnson RM, Bersamin A.

2014. Consuming untreated water in four southwestern Alaska Native communities: Reasons

revealed and recommendations for change. J. Environ. Health 77:8–13.

Rufener S, Mäusezahl D, Mosler H-J, Weingartner R. 2010. Quality of drinking-water at source

and point-of-consumption-drinking cup as a high potential recontamination risk: A field study in

Bolivia. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 28:34–41.

USDA. USDA Rural utilities service.

Varkey AJ, Dlamini MD. 2012. Point-of-use water purification using clay pot water filters and

copper mesh. Water SA 38:721–726.

Zaman S, Yeasmin S, Inatsu Y, Ananchaipattana C, Bari ML. 2014. Low-Cost sustainable

technologies for the production of clean drinking water-A review*. J. Environ. Prot. 5:42–53.