Irrigation Resources Reaching Indigenous Growers and Tribal Entities

FINAL REPORT

I.R.R.I.G.a.T.E Irrigation Resources Reaching Indigenous Growers and Tribal Entities SUBMITTED BY Mitali Chowdhury, Sonam Deki, Inge Donovan, Jonathan Lee, Oussama Ouadani, Santiago Pardo Sanchez FOR Course 11.171 Indigenous Environmental Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ON 15 May 2023

IRRIGATE | 1

Table of Contents Historical Background Project Context and Purpose General Project Process Deliverable 1: Navajo Nation Farms Interactive Map Significance Process Recommendations for Future Work Deliverable 2: Water Quality Testing Video Storyboard Significance Process Recommendations for Future Work Deliverable 3: Federal Policy Translation Intentions Process Change Rationale Findings Conclusion Appendix A1. Map Screenshot A2. Farm Snapshots A3. Water Storyboard - Selected Images A4. Water Storyboard Script Text A5. Project Timeline

2 3 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 12 12 15 17 17 18 19 23 24

IRRIGATE | 2

Historical Background The Navajo Nation is a Native American territory covering over 27,000 square miles in the southwestern United States, including parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Archaeological evidence and indigenous knowledge and art passed on through millenia show that the Navajo, originally a nomadic people, have lived in this region for at least 1,500 years, with some estimates suggesting they may have inhabited the area as far back as 3,000 years ago.

In the 1600s, Spanish explorers began to make contact with the Navajo, and over the next few centuries, the Spanish waged a number of battles and conflicts against the Navajo, usually in disputes over land. In the mid-1800s, the United States government, as it forcefully expanded into the “Western Frontier”, began to take an interest in the region, and the Navajo were eventually forced onto a reservation in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.

The Navajo Reservation in Arizona covers over 16 million acres, making it the largest Native American reservation in the United States. While the Navajo Nation has always been a sovereign entity with its own government, laws, and cultural traditions, today these characteristics are also codified in law and federally protected. Many Navajo people continue to live on the reservation and are known for their beautiful woven rugs, intricate jewelry, and vibrant arts and crafts.

Farming is a long-standing tradition of the Navajo people, who traditionally depended on corn, squash and beans for nutrition.

In 1962, the US Congress approved of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP), a network of irrigation facilities to improve economic conditions and encourage agricultural settlement for Navajo citizens. NIIP was plagued by poor planning, little funding, a lack of support and a very

IRRIGATE | 3 slow construction process. In light of decades of disinvestment and discrimination, the performance of Navajo irrigation systems has historically lagged behind that of non-native systems in the western US, resulting in lower cropping intensity.

In 2011, the settlement of Keepseagle v. Vilsack demonstrated this discrimination against Native American farmers and ranches by the US Department of Agriculture, resulting in a $760 million dollar litigation, about half of this being placed into the Native American Agriculture Fund. In recent years, Navajo farming has grown substantially, also bolstered by the Inflation Reduction Act, which supported farmers, borrowers, researchers, and educators in the agricultural realm.

Along with financial relief and incentives, food insecurity, dietary needs and a desire to return to traditional agricultural methods and products has resulted in a Navajo farming revival, abetted by investment in modern irrigation methods and sustainability research spearheaded by Native communities. Through IRRIGaTE, Dr. Valerisa Gaddy is building out a knowledge platform to improve communication between tribes, cities, and the state of Arizona on matters surrounding agriculture and irrigation policy to expand the visibility and economic success of Navajo farmers.

Project Context and Purpose In 2011, the Obama administration signed the Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA) into law, with the intention of reducing the number of deaths caused by foodborne illness. In 2022, the FDA suggested a revision that would change the pre-harvest agricultural water requirements for covered produce. Native and non-native farmers, still reeling from the pandemic, were suddenly

IRRIGATE | 4 faced with a radically changed water testing protocol in order to allow their produce to be sold.

This revision has led to widespread confusion, and considerable upset as farmers are expected to purchase significant quantities of water tests out of pocket, and collect samples to be sent to the lab without any state or federal assistance. Furthermore, to interpret and act on test results, it is necessary to have knowledge of unintuitive statistical concepts such as the arithmetic and geometric mean, bell curves, and standard threshold value.

Our project team, in collaboration with the Arizona-based non-profit IRRIGaTE (Irrigation Resources Reaching Indigenous Growers and Tribal Entities), headed by Dr. Valerisa Gaddy, aims to address the communication gap that currently exists between Navajo farmers and the Federal government and its associated agencies. This gap can be accounted for by the differences in communication style, with the US government employing a typically top-down style of governmental communication in the form of dense reports filled with legal jargon, which are not easily understood by non-experts and are difficult to locate and read, especially on a smartphone.

This communication gap has led to problems for Navajo farmers, who do not always meet the USDA agricultural requirements and are therefore unable to sell their produce and goods in markets outside of the Navajo reservation, resulting in considerable impacts on revenue and livelihoods. As such, our goal in addressing this communication gap problem is to support Dr. Gaddy in “translating” important legislative and scientific information in a way that is sensitive towards and useful for Navajo farmers so that their economic opportunities are expanded.

IRRIGATE | 5

General Project Process Our team has produced a mobile-compatible digital interactive map that makes certain natural features, such as rivers and mountains, available in the Navajo language. It also allows the viewer of the maps to click on a farm and see imagery related to that site. Our team has also produced a “storyboard”, which will inform the future production of an animation to distill several crucial statistical concepts.

Our third product of work, translating dense federal legal policy documents into visual imagery, was reevaluated and placed on pause by Dr. Gaddy. More details can be found in the “Deliverable 3” Translating Federal Policy” section below.

In addition to achieving our technical and social goals, our team also succeeded in building strong relationships within our academic setting. By collaborating closely over a semester-long period, each team member developed a deep understanding of each other's strengths and weaknesses and learned to work effectively together. Overall, the project success has been a result of this highly collaborative approach under the direction of Dr. Gaddy and her associates (Kevin Patterson, PhD Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, who assisted in script writing and concept translation; and a web developer, Gabe McGowan, the AZSITE Database Specialist at the University of Arizona who assisted with the GIS portion of the project). This approach is especially evident in our timelines, as we were able to successfully deliver our two final products on time. Throughout, we did not conduct any stakeholder interviews throughout our project process given the nature of the format of our deliverables, which were more oriented towards graphical representation of information. Dr. Gaddy's associates, however, were consulted by our team.

IRRIGATE | 6 Additionally, we consulted the following literature throughout our project process to ensure our work was sensitive, timely, and factually accurate: ● Indigenous Mapping Bibliography, University of Victoria ● Engagement with Indigenous Peoples and Honoring Traditional Knowledge Systems, Maldonado, et al. ● Produce Safety Alliance Information Deck, Cornell University ● Forced to Abandon Their Farms: Water Deprivation and Starvation among the Gila River Pima, 1892-1904, DeJong ● Native Agriculture Never Went Away, Stanford University ● Peer-generated study guides, MIT

Deliverable 1: Navajo Nation Farms Interactive Map Significance The creation of a digital interactive regional map of Navajo Nation farms that include photographs of the farms, names of the farmers, and traditional Navajo geographic landmarks is significant for a few reasons.

First, the map can help to raise awareness about the diversity and importance of Navajo agriculture in the Arizona region. This goal is achieved by calling attention to the locations and identities of individual farms and farmers, in addition to including high-quality photographs of the farmers on their land with an accompanying biography. As such, the map intends to promote

IRRIGATE | 7 greater understanding and appreciation for the cultural and economic contributions of Navajo agriculture to the region, while respecting the farmers’ desire for the exact borders and property lines of their farms to be kept confidential. This issue was mitigated by using a “pin” location at the mailing address of the farm, instead of a polygon.

Second, the inclusion of traditional Navajo geographic landmarks is meant to advance greater cultural awareness and an understanding of the land’s history and significance in the region. By highlighting the connection between Navajo culture and the land, we want the map to pay respects to and encourage a greater appreciation for Navajo history, their storied connection to the land, indigenous perspectives, and their traditional ecological knowledge.

Last, the digital interactive format of the map is designed with accessibility and usability in mind. It will allow users to explore their farms and the surrounding areas in a dynamic and engaging way. For many of the farmers, it will also be the first time they see their farms visually represented in a map, since many of the reservations they operate in are not mapped, representing significant gaps in GIS data available. By incorporating the aforementioned photographs and other visual elements, the map provides an immersive and engaging experience that should generate interest in and engagement with Navajo agriculture, while also acting as a practical tool for Navajo farmers.

Process The process started with a conversation between Dr. Gaddy and the team. We discussed the vision for the map and the functions that it can play for IRRIGaTE. We also discussed initial parameters for the map, including its boundaries, platform, language, and data. We decided that a

IRRIGATE | 8 map that can be used on a smartphone would be ideal, as farmers often only have access to their smartphones and may need to use the map out on the field. We decided to use ArcGIS Online as the platform, since it would be easiest and quickest to create a viable product available for public use. Dr. Gaddy informed us to include waterways as a separate layer viewable on the map as well as the Navajo Nation boundary and significant mountain peaks and other landmarks significant to the Navajo. Dr. Gaddy shared the list of landmarks in both English and Navajo to include on the map.

The team and Dr. Gaddy also discussed how to portray the farms themselves on the map. We considered the pros and cons of either displaying the farms as polygons that represent the boundaries of the farm or as points that represent the mailing address. Due to the sensitive nature of boundaries, particularly as they relate to disputes over property and water rights, Dr. Gaddy advised to use points to represent the farms. We created the first iteration of the map by early April and had a review session with Dr. Gaddy. We discussed things like the basemap, adding more data, and the colors used for the markers. We incorporated the received feedback and created the current version. We are still in the process of transferring the ownership of the map to Dr. Gaddy. It is currently hosted on the Harvard University Center for Geographic Analysis organization server and is owned by Santiago Pardo Sanchez. We will make sure that ownership is transferred over to Dr. Gaddy.

Recommendations for Future Work We were able to create a map that is public facing and allows communication between the farmers and their surrounding communities. Dr. Gaddy also expressed a need and a desire for

IRRIGATE | 9 another map specific and restricted to the Navajo community. Furthermore, beta-testing the map and getting feedback from farmers as they try out the product will be necessary to further improve the functionality of the map.

Deliverable 2: Water Quality Testing Video Storyboard Significance Our second deliverable, a Video Storyboard that explains the Geometric Mean and Statistical Threshold Values (STVs), is also significant to IRRIGATE and Navajo Farmers for several reasons. Water is the source of their sustenance as farmers, yet it is also a source of contention.

The USDA has established scientific water quality standards for agricultural purposes, which includes irrigation water that comes into contact with produce during or after harvest, in the form of the Geometric Mean and STV threshold numbers for pathogens. These standards are intended to help prevent the spread of foodborne illnesses and ensure that fruits and vegetables are safe for consumption, but often the standards are so rigorous or so scientifically dense that they preclude Navajo farmers from full participation.

In this regard, Navajo farmers have been facing significant challenges related to water quality, including contamination from nearby industry, toxic operations, and other harmful human-induced environmental factors. As a result, water quality on Navajo lands usually does not meet the standards outlined by federal regulation, which prevents many farmers from being able to sell their goods in public markets. This reality is accompanied by a knowledge gap, as many Navajo farmers may not be aware of the USDA water standards or know how to comply

IRRIGATE | 10 with them. An additional problem is that water quality testing is expensive and results are not available in a timely manner. While this issue cannot be solved with better education, creating a video storyboard that provides practical guidance on water quality testing and management, and one that distills the complex scientific concepts of the Geometric Mean and STvs into accessible information, the goal is to enable Navajo farmers to understand and comply with the USDA water quality standards.

Finally, we believe the video, in its broadest application and interpretation, can help to highlight the unique environmental challenges faced by Native and non-Native farmers in meeting these standards. By providing guidance on how to test and manage water quality, the video can hopefully help to empower farmers to take a more active role in protecting their water resources and ensuring that their crops meet USDA standards for safety and quality, thus enabling them to fully participate in the agricultural economy.

Process After considerable time spent understanding the key concepts, our team began testing diagrammatic interpretations of these mathematical concepts iteratively, presenting them to both Dr. Gaddy and Kevin Patterson. After several rounds of prototyping, we requested sample data to ensure that our storyboard would be visually similar to true data encountered by farmers testing their water supply. Several rounds of feedback resulted in our final iteration, which incorporated storytelling of examples, visual representations of the mathematical concepts, and intuitive explanations of graphs. Dr. Gaddy also agreed with the team's choice of illustrating the storyboard using photographs and wireframes rather than animation at the present stage.

IRRIGATE | 11

Recommendations for Future Work The intent of this script is to become an animated video, which we believe will significantly increase its effectiveness and reach. Other work that was out of scope, but is also important, is the incorporation of Navajo terminology into the video, to allow it to reinforce Indigenous cultural concepts. While we believe that we have produced an effective and important tool, we are aware of its one-way cultural influence, as it depends on Western scientific modes of thinking, and does not allow room for traditional Navajo agricultural knowledge and practices.

While the outcome of this project was intended to be a tool to directly improve the understanding of scientific concepts, and therefore was very utilitarian in concept, we are still hopeful that future work could incorporate a more bidirectional approach to cultural exchange, and provide a platform for alternate forms of knowledge, especially those relevant to farming.

Deliverable 3: Federal Policy Translation Intentions The third deliverable was supposed to produce a policy analysis of the Food Safety Modernization Act regulations, which we would then “translate”, or adapt, into visual representations. This project area began from the need to distill and express useful legislative documents in such a way that they are accessible to Navajo farmers. Complying with federal policy as farmers, however, is critical to the economic well-being of these Navajo farmers. Yet the ways in which they are written exclude all but lawyers and policy analysts from understanding their contents. As such, Dr. Gaddy centered this work as being of critical importance and already translated some of these policy texts as examples for our team..

IRRIGATE | 12

Process Change Rationale It became evident early on, however, that the outcome of this project area would be unclear, and eventually, due to resource constraints, the scope of the third deliverable was reduced to include only a visual interpretation of the policy work already conducted by Dr. Gaddy. However, this alternative also challenged time constraints and ultimately, after several meetings on the subject, the whole IRRIGATE team collectively opted to discontinue this deliverable.

Findings Our undertakings these past few months have revealed some key findings. First, it became clear to us early on in this project that relationship-building, within a semester-long academic exercise context, though challenging an endeavor, would also be critical to the success of our group and our collaboration with IRRIGATE. Given the history of oppression and institutional violence of indigenous peoples in the US broadly, and the Navajo Nation specifically, it was important for us to quickly establish trust with Dr. Gaddy, her associates, and her mission. We found that reframing ourselves from “consultants” to “thought-partners” enabled us to facilitate Dr. Gaddy’s vision through the channeling of resources and capacity in her direction in a much more effective way. This relationship building foundation, built early on in the semester, was maintained and strengthened throughout the project, as demonstrated by the ways in which our team and Dr. Gaddy’s team worked well together. We regularly accommodated each other’s schedule when externalities would arise and encouraged each other to think creatively and collaboratively in our brainstorming solutions, within a reasonable degree of flexibility and focused direction that we had established as our group’s guiding principles. This finding is of particular note, since it

IRRIGATE | 13 reiterated to us the importance of trust in doing successful work, especially in the sensitive context that we were operating in.

Speaking of trust, we found that data and privacy concerns were of significant concern to Navajo Nation farmers, particularly in the context of Deliverable 1. This finding came as a surprise to us, but through Dr. Gaddy's local knowledge and experience, we learned the reasons why Navajo farmers hesitated to embrace a map concept that strictly delineated borders and boundaries.

Firstly, it is not necessarily a traditional Navajo practice to divide land in such objective and abstract ways, as is done through the creation of borders. Though the context Navajo farmers operate in today is much different, and many farmers, for the sake of their livelihoods, conform to this Western property system, there is still some degree of hesitation in the Navajo community around demarcating land on a map, especially given that a map can stand-in as a symbolism of Western colonialism and land extraction. Related to this finding, we learned also that Navajo farmers preferred not to map the exact extent of their land for fear of government overreach. This finding, taken in the context of American imperialism and governmental abuse of tribal people and lands, makes full sense. Navajo farmers therefore struck a balance; while they did want the map we produced to reference in some shape or form their agricultural lands, they also wanted to protect the specific extents of their assets, and therefore their privacy, from a government that has historically proven to be untrustworthy and in many cases outright violent towards indigenous peoples and their sovereignty.

Throughout our work we also found that bridging the gap between two modes of communication, one primarily written and the other primarily verbal/visualized, was a tall undertaking. This challenge was especially present in our second Deliverable, where we ran into many difficulties attempting to distill complex and dense scientific information, without reducing

IRRIGATE | 14 its essence, into knowledge that was accessible and understandable to Navajo farmers. Though we managed in the end to mitigate the contours of this challenge as best we could given the project circumstances and time constraints, we found that it revealed the very real and often cumbersome ways in which the US government attempts to enforce linguistic, and by extension, intellection and ideological conformity upon its populace. Rather than acknowledging their historical persecution over the indigenous stewards of the land and instead attempting to speak in the language of these First Nation peoples, conformity is the de facto answer pursued by the US Government. So while this “translation” work often felt unidirectional and unjust, we still found that it was of utmost importance to ensure Indigenous visibility and participation in society, even at the risk of conformity. We believed this because in the short-run, we found that raising awareness through communication translation was ultimately a valuable endeavor.

Finally, we found that project hand-off and longevity was important to the ethos of our group and to the sustainable collaboration we had built with IRRIGATE. Considering the short time frame of collaboration, we still found it important to integrate methods of knowledge hand-off into our working processes from the onset of this project. In this regard, we worked primarily in cloud-based softwares that would allow our team, but more importantly, Dr. Gaddy and her team, to access the materials and deliverables we produced on behalf of IRRIGATE at any point beyond the completion of our project. We also ensured that our GIS deliverable and all of its associated rights, basemaps, and other data components would be as transferable as possible to the IRRIGATE team. For example, we met especially with Dr. Gaddy’s GIS Specialist at the University of Arizona to work out the details of this technical hand-off. We found that by thinking of sustainability and longevity early on in our project, we were better able to manage

IRRIGATE | 15 and fine-tune the scope of our project processes, while also integrating this future-minded vision into how we worked.

Conclusion In summary, the IRRIGATE project aimed, broadly speaking, to empower Navajo farmers through an adaptive communication approach that valued the visual alongside the written. This emphasis on communication, in particular visual communication, is the core theme of our project and of IRRIGATE’s mission, and is reflected in both of our deliverables (and our third as well, even though it was paused): we produced a map that would enable Navajo farmers to see their agricultural lands through a new view, and our storyboard for a video that attempt to distill high-level scientific statistics into visually accessible and productive information.

Through the development of our project deliverables, we identified that the key challenge faced

by Navajo farmers in understanding FDA regulations and federal irrigation concepts was the consequence of a communication gap. Holistically speaking, this communication gap does not exist in isolation; it is the product of centuries of violence, displacement, and abusive policy making that characterizes the United State’s treatment of indigenous peoples and their lands.

Further, and more specifically, this communication gap can be accounted for by the differences in communication styles between the two parties in question (the United States and the Navajo Nation), with the United States employing a typically top-down, Western mode of governmental communication that is dense with information and can be difficult to understand by non-specialists; as opposed to the Navajo people, whose communication style is rooted in oral tradition and visual expression. These language barriers and lack of important agricultural

IRRIGATE | 16 information were significant obstacles that needed to be addressed by our team. Our aim was to support IRRIGATE’s broad mission in this domain by boosting Dr. Gaddy’s capacity and by helping to build the beginnings of a communications infrastructure that will someday link the Navajo nation and the United States. We hope that this infrastructure will be bi-lateral in the sense that the Navajo Nation are not forced to conduct or concede their livelihoods at the demands of the American governmental system and its associated agencies.

Overall, the IRRIGATE project demonstrates the power of technology, communication, creativity, visual expression, and kindness to address real-world challenges and the importance of building strong relationships in achieving successful outcomes. We hope that our team's efforts to improve farmers' understanding of irrigation concepts by bridging an identified communication gap will have a positive impact on Dr. Gaddy’s work, IRRIGATE’s mission and direction, and most importantly, Navajo farmers, into the foreseeable future.

IRRIGATE | 17

Appendix A1. Map Screenshot

IRRIGATE | 18

A2. Farm Snapshots

The above diagrams are work-in-progress templates for farm snapshots to accompany our GIS maps. Placeholder text will be replaced with the biography of each farm (this particular farm has no website).

IRRIGATE | 19

A3. Water Storyboard - Selected Images

IRRIGATE | 20

IRRIGATE | 21

IRRIGATE | 22

IRRIGATE | 23

A4. Water Storyboard Script Text Ya'at'eeh, my name is Kevin, and I’ll be covering agricultural water measurements using geometric means and statistical threshold values a little more in-depth to aid in your understanding.

Per the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act’s Product Safety Rule, you must report your agricultural water quality measurements in geometric mean estimates with measured variability around your estimate called a statistical threshold value or STV. Tools are available to help you calculate these values, but before doing so, let’s cover what a geometric mean and STV are, why we use them, and how all this looks with some example water data.

You may remember from grade school another type of mean called the arithmetic mean, an average of added values divided by the total number of values or 𝑛th term(s). For example, in this set of numbers, the arithmetic mean of {2, 4, 8} is (2 + 4 + 8) divided by 3 which equals 4. 67.

On the other hand, the geometric mean is an average of values that are multiplied together rather than added. It is the 𝑛th root of the product of the values, where 𝑛 is the number of values in the set. For example, using the same set of 3 numbers, the geometric mean of {2, 4, 8} is (2 * 4 * 8) which equals 4. The total number of values, or 𝑛, is 3, so we would take the 𝑛th root or, in this case, the cubed root to balance the contribution of each value in the set.

When we multiply values together, smaller values have a relatively proportionally larger effect on the product, and larger values have a relatively proportionally smaller effect. Taking the nth root helps to balance out these contributions, so the average value is closer to the middle of the range of values; therefore, we can better understand the distribution’s central tendency.

In water quality measurements, you may often discover a large spread of values, some greater than three orders of magnitude than the smallest value in your set, which can follow what we call a log-normal distribution. This type of distribution looks visually skewed to the right or the left, depending on your water data set. In this situation, if you took the arithmetic mean, your estimated average would be greatly impacted by outliers. The geometric mean can be particularly helpful in these situations and provide a more balanced estimate for log-normal distributions.

Regarding high measurement values, let's imagine a harsh storm leading to flooding from nearby water sources such as canals, riverways, and streams. A sudden influx of debris n acute introduction of high levels of organic and inorganic matter may impact your water system, so you may ask how do we account for this? Not limited to this scenario, your water system may experience temporal changes that can lead to high levels of contaminants. To account for these short windows of change, you must report a statistical threshold value or STV in addition to your geometric mean estimate.

A statistical threshold value approximates the 90th percentile of your water system’s distribution. In two simplified interpretations, 10 percent of the samples taken should not exceed this value, or 90 percent of the samples taken should be below this value. You, as a farmer, understand better than anyone that events can occur which introduce high levels of contaminants, but these events are rare may not occur often. So, to prevent costs associated with discontinuing the use of your water source due to acute fluctuations, the STV provides the context of variability in your water quality data.

Okay, so we’ve covered what geometric mean and STV are and why we use them, so let's dive into some example water quality data to see these concepts play out. Remember, there are great online tools and built-in commands in software like Microsoft Excel that will do these calculations automatically for you, but here we want to show what’s

IRRIGATE | 24 behind the curtain so that you can understand these concepts fundamentally and why they are important to your reporting.

A5. Project Timeline The schedule presented by our team in its initial project scope remained unchanged throughout each phase of our project, with the exception of one of the GIS deliverables due to a data bottleneck. As such, the deadline for the first iteration of the map was extended from April 3rd to April 10th. The second deliverable remained on schedule throughout the project. The third deliverable was supposed to include a policy analysis of the Food Safety Modernization Act regulations. Due to time constraints, it was eventually altered to visually interpret the policy work already performed by Dr. Gaddy. However, given time restrictions, the team ultimately opted to discontinue this deliverable. Below is an approximate summary of our project timeline over the past several months with key objectives and deliverable due dates.

Timeline for Deliverable 1: March 6 – Discuss what data sources are needed – Completed March 13 – Get data sources – Completed April 10 – First iteration – Completed April 17 – Second iteration – Completed April 17- May 8 Weekly new iteration as/if needed – Completed May 8 – Transfer host rights of map to Dr. Gaddy – Completed

Timeline for Deliverable 2: March 6 - Understand the underlying concepts highlighted in the video – Completed

IRRIGATE | 25 March 13 - Begin planning outline and components of video – Completed March 20 - Receive and incorporate feedback on outline – Completed April 7 - Received cleaned water data – Completed April 3 - Begin planning storyboard for video – Completed April 17 - Receive feedback on storyboard and iterate – Completed May 8 - Finalize storyboard – Completed