New Tool Spotlights Areas for Drinking Water Interventions in Texas
Ensuring that everyone has access to safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water is an example of a wicked problem. Wicked problems are issues with numerous complex interdependent factors that make them seem impossible to solve. The problem of drinking water, even today, is particularly wicked in the U.S. Ensuring quality and affordability across communities requires alignment between hydrologic, institutional, and financial resources.
This problem is particularly acute in Texas—a state increasingly known, unfortunately, for its struggles to provide safe and affordable drinking water. There are various strategies aimed at addressing this problem, from an array of new funding sources to targeted technical assistance programs. Still, as we’ve highlighted in earlier analyses, a significant portion of such funding doesn’t ultimately reach communities most in need.
Thankfully, timely, well-organized data can serve as a key for unlocking otherwise hidden connections between funding and those most at risk when it comes to reliable access to safe drinking water. Given the fragmented nature of so much drinking water-related data out there, how should such a key be designed? And, what would using it to prioritize investments in drinking water infrastructure look like in a place like Texas?
How did we create the Texas Water System Prioritization Tool?
-
Using a hierarchy of questions linked to our data—questions rooted in our foundational research question, how durable is your water supply?—we used a mind map to break down this wicked problem into smaller components. This comprehensive framework enabled us to clarify the connections between our questions (large and small) and which datasets would be necessary to answer them.
-
Next, we engaged in dozens of conversations with expert stakeholders—from technical assistance providers, NGOs, government agencies, research institutions, and others working in this space. Across those conversations, we not only learned a tremendous amount about the data and information gaps that stand in the way of better water infrastructure investments, but also iteratively received feedback and encouragement around our goals, our approach to the data, and the features and functionality of our tool.
-
With our framework and guidance from experts in hand, we went out to find the data. We collated all relevant datasets to build a “data universe,” and used that resource to conduct a subset of analyses. This document provides a detailed overview of our process and catalogs how our data sources link to the various variables used in our analysis. It’s designed to be helpful for anyone looking to replicate or build on our work. And for the data nerds out there, check out the GitHub repositories for the analysis and application to learn more!
-
Data visualization can take many forms, and the data universe we curated allowed us to investigate relationships between 134 variables drawn from 20 distinctive datasets sourced from 11 different organizations and agencies. Our tool offers users a sandbox environment to explore numerous data combinations on an interactive map. By illustrating the geographic distribution of variables and their interrelationships, we can more effectively highlight patterns of regional disparities and identify potential areas for future interventions.
Figure 1. Drinking water utility boundaries in East Texas colored by percent unemployment and climate vulnerability. Jefferson County is circled in black as a location of interest.
For example, if someone was interested in providing resources to utilities that serve vulnerable communities at risk of climate change impacts, they could view that relationship in the tool by selecting the “% Unemployment” and “(EDF) Climate Vulnerability Index,” and then clicking the “bivariate mapping” checkbox (Figure 1).
Examining the water utility boundaries in this example—shaded by a two-variable scale—we can see that utilities with both high unemployment rates and high climate vulnerability indices are marked in dark purple. Utilities serving Jefferson County (circled above in Figure 1) rank high in both categories. Further analysis reveals that these utilities are located in severely impaired water basins (over 65% impairment), near water hazards, and within one of the country’s most climate-vulnerable areas. They also face future challenges to meet the projected population growth and municipal water demands by 2070.
While many of these utilities have received funding at least once from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the last time a utility within this county was funded was 2019. Using the tool to explore relationships and trends like these can help users identify target areas for additional research to inform future resource allocation decisions.
How can I use this in my work?
Beyond looking at relationships between variables from different datasets, the tool is also useful for answering more complex questions based on specific research interests or project objectives. Here are some examples to describe how this tool could be used for your own work:
Figure 2. Utility boundaries in the South East Texas Regional Planning region colored by superfund and hazardous waste indicators. Learn how to create maps like this in the tool here.
Figure 3. Map showing characteristics of the Craft Turney Water Supply Corporation and proximity to the City of Carthage. Learn how to create maps like this in the tool here.
-
Scenario one: I’m creating a new planning document for the South East Texas Regional Planning Commission Council of Government that shows water supply risks within their region. I need to figure out if there are any utilities in their region that utilize groundwater and are in close proximity to water-related hazards—and which therefore may be at risk.
How to get there: First, let’s select our counties of interest in the tool: Orange, Hardin, Jefferson, and Jasper. When expanding the “Filter by Categories” section, selecting “Ground” as the primary water source, and then clicking the “filter” button, we can see that out of the 83 utilities located within this region, 70 of them are primarily pulling groundwater. Now, we can select our “(EPA) Hazardous Waste Indicator” and “(EPA) Superfund Proximity Indicator” to identify utilities that rank high for either variable. Utilities colored in dark red, blue, and purple would be at risk of being impacted by the hazards we selected (Figure 2).
-
Scenario two: I’m working for the City of Carthage, which has 5,909 people that are served by a drinking water utility and which have an average median household income of $47,000. We haven’t been successful in receiving Drinking Water State Revolving Funds over the past 10 years. I need to determine if there are any utilities near us with similar characteristics, but which have been successful in receiving funds so I can contact them for tips.
How to get there: Using the tool, let’s select the East Texas and North East Texas regions, and two variables: “Times funded - DW SRF (2009 - 2020)”, and “Annual Median Household Income” so we can filter these variables to those that match the City of Carthage. In the “Times funded - DW SRF (2009-2020)” variable, click and drag your cursor to the right to select utilities that have been funded at least once. Do the same for the “Annual Median Household Income” to select utilities that serve communities that fall within the $35k - $50k income bracket. With some zooming and scrolling, we can see that “Craft Turney Water Supply Corporation” is a similar utility nearby that received funding in 2018 (Figure 3). The City of Carthage decides to reach out to this utility for tips on how to receive funding through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.
Key findings from our analysis.
In addition to creating an interactive tool for users to explore the data we’ve collected, we also did some digging ourselves—focused on East Texas. Our hope is that insights drawn from our initial focus in East Texas can inform future investments (and continued analysis) at scale across (and beyond) the state. Below are some key takeaways from our analysis of utilities located in the region:
Projects in East Texas receive less total assistance under State Revolving Fund programs, but have a higher per capita principal forgiveness rate in comparison to the rest of Texas. Of the 635 drinking water systems in East Texas, there are 41 utilities that have received assistance under the State Revolving Fund program. Further exploration could shed light on utilities that have been unsuccessful in receiving funds, and those that have not applied at all.
Approximately 12% of utilities in East Texas have an open health-based violation, and 24% have had a health-based violation over the past 5 years. All reported violations (health, non-health, total), were not significantly correlated with any socioeconomic or utility characteristics. Additional research could explore violations by system size to elucidate potential relationships with socioeconomic variables or utility characteristics.
With the data available in East Texas, although communities within the lowest 20% of income pay less for water, the cost of water represents a larger share (up to 3.6%) of their annual income in comparison to the highest 20% income bracket (up to 1.5%). More resources are needed to complete this dataset to better understand the relative financial burden of drinking water on communities in Texas.
Based on the data we have available to us, utilities that draw surface water from a reservoir located in a highly impaired basin are reporting health-based violations at a higher frequency in East Texas. It is worth analyzing the link between source water and drinking water quality - once the connection is made, it’s possible that addressing impaired basins may also improve drinking water quality.
Why does this matter and where do we go from here?
Ensuring that everyone has safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water remains a wicked problem. But with this tool’s organized, comprehensive, and accessible data in hand, we can unlock vital connections between available funding and those at risk of losing access to safe drinking water. Leveraging that opportunity to untangle the complex factors that affect drinking water equity, we hope, will position advocates, researchers, policymakers, utilities, and communities to improve the durability of Texas drinking water systems for generations to come. Looking ahead, we see several priority areas that are ripe for action using this tool:
Research: This tool marks the first time that robust drinking water data sources have been integrated in a simple, accessible way for users. By bringing this data together, stakeholders are better positioned to dive deeply into the complex relationships and factors that influence the durability of drinking water. We’ve also added functionality to allow users to download our entire dataset, methodology, and underlying code for more sophisticated analyses that will support holistic understandings of water system durability.
Policy Reform: Findings from this tool can also allow us to support water infrastructure advocacy by identifying current funding gaps and helping to increase equitable investments, targeted interventions, and better outcomes. Insights from the tool can likewise guide the construction of coalitions and lobbying efforts tied to drinking water infrastructure in Texas.
Technical assistance: Data provided by this tool can facilitate coordination among technical assistance (TA) providers, and thereby guide future decision-making, bolster other resources, and inform policies to support such assistance.
Interested in learning more about, or supporting, this work? We want to hear from you!
