Report on U.S. Drinking Water Contamination and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Executive Summary

A recent analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals that the drinking water for nearly 100 million Americans is contaminated with a combination of three toxic, potentially carcinogenic chemicals. This situation presents a direct challenge to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The report calls for urgent regulatory and infrastructural updates to address the public health crisis posed by co-occurring contaminants, aligning with the principles of sustainable development.

2.0 Key Findings on Water Contamination

Data compiled by the EWG from federal and state water authorities indicates widespread contamination. The findings highlight a failure to meet the targets of SDG 6, which aims to ensure access to safe drinking water for all.

2.1 Identified Contaminants and Affected Populations

• Chromium-6: Water supplies serving over 260 million people are contaminated.
• Arsenic: Water supplies serving 134 million people are affected.
• Nitrate: Found in water supplies for 263 million people.
• Combined Contamination: Nearly 100 million Americans are served by water systems containing all three chemicals simultaneously.

2.2 Geographical Hotspots

The report identifies several states with significant contamination levels, indicating regional disparities in water quality and infrastructure that hinder progress towards universal access to clean water as mandated by SDG 6.

1. California
2. Arizona
3. Texas

3.0 Public Health Impacts and Relation to SDG 3

The presence of these contaminants in drinking water poses a severe threat to public health, directly undermining the objectives of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), particularly Target 3.9, which seeks to reduce illnesses and deaths from hazardous chemicals and water pollution.

3.1 Documented Health Risks

• Cancer
• Birth Defects
• Liver Damage

3.2 Estimated Impact Prevention

The EWG’s peer-reviewed research suggests that implementing advanced, multi-contaminant treatment systems could prevent an estimated 50,000 cancer cases over a lifetime, demonstrating a clear pathway to advance public health in line with SDG 3.

4.0 Regulatory Deficiencies and Infrastructure Challenges

The current regulatory framework for drinking water in the United States is insufficient to address the complex reality of chemical co-contamination, impeding progress on SDG 6 and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

4.1 Single-Contaminant Focus

U.S. drinking water regulations traditionally focus on managing single contaminants in isolation. This approach overlooks the synergistic health effects of exposure to a “toxic soup” of multiple chemicals, a reality for millions of citizens.

4.2 Call for Modernized Treatment Strategies

The EWG advocates for a paradigm shift in water treatment. This aligns with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), which encourages the development of resilient and sustainable infrastructure.

• Adoption of advanced filtration systems capable of removing multiple contaminants simultaneously.
• Recommended technologies include ion exchange and reverse osmosis.
• Such investments are framed as critical not only for public health but also for building resilient community infrastructure (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities).

5.0 Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

To address these findings and accelerate progress towards the SDGs, the EWG urges immediate action from federal and state authorities.

1. Update Drinking Water Standards: Regulators must establish new, health-protective limits that account for the combined risk of multiple contaminants. This action is fundamental to fulfilling the promise of SDG 6.
2. Promote Multi-Contaminant Treatment: Congress and federal agencies should adopt a 21st-century strategy that invests in and mandates water treatment technologies capable of addressing complex chemical mixtures, thereby protecting public health (SDG 3) and modernizing infrastructure (SDG 9).
3. Strengthen Institutional Accountability: State and federal bodies must enhance regulatory enforcement to maximize public health protections, reflecting the principles of effective governance outlined in SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects contaminated drinking water to severe health risks. It states that “Long-term exposure to these contaminants, even at low levels, can pose health risks, such as cancer, birth defects and liver damage.” Furthermore, it quantifies the potential health benefit of addressing the issue, noting that treating the water “could prevent an estimated 50,000 cancer cases over a lifetime.” This establishes a clear link to ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the central theme of the article. The entire piece focuses on the lack of safe drinking water for a significant portion of the U.S. population. It highlights that “nearly 100 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with three toxic chemicals,” specifically naming chromium-6, arsenic, and nitrate. The article discusses the quality of water and the need for access to safe water, which are the core components of SDG 6.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The article identifies a systemic failure in the current infrastructure and calls for innovation. It points out that “U.S. drinking water regulations focus on single contaminants, overlooking the fact that multiple harmful chemicals often co-occur.” The proposed solution involves infrastructure upgrades, with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) calling for “action to update drinking water treatment systems” and the adoption of “advanced filtration systems that can target multiple several contaminants simultaneously.” This directly relates to developing resilient and sustainable infrastructure.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9

   “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.”

   The article’s focus on health problems like cancer and liver damage resulting from toxic chemicals (chromium-6, arsenic, nitrate) in drinking water directly aligns with this target. The statement that improved treatment could prevent 50,000 cancer cases is a direct reference to reducing illnesses from water contamination.

2. Target 6.1

   “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.”

   The article demonstrates that this target has not been met for millions of Americans. The map released by the EWG shows that water supplies are contaminated, meaning the water is not “safe.” The data provided, such as “chromium-6 alone contaminates water serving more than 260 million people,” underscores the lack of universal access to safe drinking water.

3. Target 6.3

   “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…”

   This target is relevant as the article’s central issue is poor water quality due to the presence of hazardous chemicals. The call to remove contaminants like arsenic and nitrate from the water supply is a direct effort to improve water quality as specified in this target.

4. Target 9.1

   “Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure…to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.”

   The article’s critique of current water treatment systems, which handle contaminants one at a time, and the call to “update drinking water treatment systems” to handle multiple contaminants, directly addresses the need for more resilient and effective infrastructure to ensure human well-being.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 3 (Target 3.9)

  The article implies an indicator by quantifying the health impact. The statement that treating water could “prevent an estimated 50,000 cancer cases over a lifetime” serves as a direct measure of reducing illnesses from water contamination.

• Indicators for SDG 6 (Target 6.1 & 6.3)

  The article provides several quantitative indicators:

  • The number of people drinking contaminated water: “nearly 100 million Americans are drinking water contaminated with three toxic chemicals.” This measures the population without access to safely managed drinking water.
  • The presence and concentration of specific contaminants: The article identifies “chromium-6, arsenic, and nitrate” as the key contaminants found in water supplies “above public health goal limits.” Tracking the levels of these specific chemicals in water systems is a direct indicator of water quality.
  • Population exposed to individual contaminants: The article provides specific numbers, such as “arsenic affects the water supply of 134 million,” which can be used as indicators to track progress in reducing exposure.

• Indicators for SDG 9 (Target 9.1)

  The article implies the need for an indicator related to infrastructure capability. The call for “advanced filtration systems that can target multiple several contaminants simultaneously” suggests that a relevant indicator would be the proportion of water systems equipped with multi-contaminant treatment technologies (like ion exchange or reverse osmosis, which are mentioned). This would measure the resilience and quality of the water infrastructure.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: newsweek.com