Everyone deserves safe drinking water – The Boston Globe
Everyone deserves safe water The Boston Globe
sdgtalks
Protecting Massachusetts Residents’ Drinking Water: The Need for Statewide Regulations
Mary Brolin’s Experience
Mary Brolin, a resident of Boxborough, relies on a private well for her drinking water. Recently, she participated in a pilot testing program run by the state and was alarmed to discover high levels of PFAS contamination in her well water. Although Brolin is not aware of any health issues in her family, she installed a water filtration system under her sink to ensure the safety of her drinking water. Reflecting on her experience, Brolin wishes she had known to test her well water earlier.
The Issue with Private Wells in Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, approximately 500,000 residents rely on private wells for their drinking water, primarily in rural communities. Unlike public water sources, private wells are not subject to statewide regulations. Instead, local boards of health govern private wells under a patchwork of rules, if any. While there is no reliable data on the frequency of illnesses caused by well water, anecdotal reports suggest that it does occur.
The Importance of Statewide Regulations
Implementing a statewide testing standard, coupled with homeowner education and financial assistance for those in need, would better protect the health of rural residents in Massachusetts. One possible approach is to model well regulations after existing regulations for private septic systems, which often coexist with private wells in many homes. These regulations require septic systems to be inspected before a home is sold or when there are significant changes to a home. Additionally, a public fund could be established to offer low-interest loans to low-income homeowners for well repairs.
The Proposed Bill and Rulemaking Process
A bill currently pending in the state Legislature aims to grant the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection the authority to develop statewide regulations for private wells. The agency would undergo a rulemaking process, consulting with experts and the public, to establish requirements. While some advocates may push for more stringent standards, a program that mandates testing at the point of sale, along with education and resources, would strike a balance between protecting public health and avoiding excessive regulation. The state agency should also consider implementing regular testing requirements for wells on properties used for rental income to ensure the safety of tenants and renters.
The Need for Testing and Remediation
Data suggests that many private wells in Massachusetts do not meet the standards applicable to public water sources. A grant from the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts enabled nonprofit RCAP Solutions to test 502 private wells, revealing that approximately 32 percent had contaminant levels exceeding state health standards or indicating potential health risks. Contaminants can enter wells through various sources, such as faulty well caps, nearby bodies of water or landfills, and the ground. It is crucial to test and remediate wells to ensure the health and safety of families in rural areas.
Financial Considerations
Testing and remediating wells can be costly. Therefore, any regulatory requirement should be accompanied by financial assistance for low-income homeowners. The expenses associated with testing a well amount to around $250, while remediating contaminants can cost between $1,000 and $4,000. By educating homeowners about the importance of testing, providing financial support for testing and remediation when necessary, and ensuring transparency for home buyers and renters, equal access to safe drinking water can be achieved for all Massachusetts residents.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
-
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
- Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
- Indicator 6.1.1: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services.
-
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
- Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.
- Indicator 3.9.1: Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution.
- Indicator 3.9.2: Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation, and lack of hygiene.
-
SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
- Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
- Indicator 11.6.1: Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities.
Analysis
The article highlights the issue of private well water contamination in Massachusetts and the need for statewide regulations to protect the health of rural residents. Based on the content of the article, the following analysis can be made:
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
The issues highlighted in the article are connected to the following SDGs:
- SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
- SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
- SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:
- Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
- Target 3.9: Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination.
- Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
The article mentions or implies the following indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:
- Indicator 6.1.1: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services.
- Indicator 3.9.1: Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution.
- Indicator 3.9.2: Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation, and lack of hygiene.
- Indicator 11.6.1: Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities.
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation | Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. | Indicator 6.1.1: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services. |
| SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being | Target 3.9: Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination. |
|
| SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities | Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. | Indicator 11.6.1: Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities. |
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: bostonglobe.com
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
