Report on US Drinking Water Quality and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A recent study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) highlights a significant gap in the United States’ water treatment infrastructure, posing a direct challenge to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The majority of US water utilities, particularly those in small, rural areas, lack the advanced filtration systems necessary to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other harmful contaminants from drinking water supplies. This report analyzes the study’s findings, focusing on the implications for public health, environmental justice, and the pursuit of key SDGs.

Analysis of Water Treatment Infrastructure and Public Health (SDG 3 & SDG 6)

Current State of Water Filtration Systems

The widespread contamination of drinking water with PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” necessitates advanced treatment solutions. However, current infrastructure is largely inadequate, undermining the goal of providing safe and clean water for all.

• An estimated 98% of water systems with detected PFAS contamination do not have treatment technologies specifically targeting these chemicals.
• Only 8% of all US water systems are equipped with advanced filters capable of removing PFAS.
• A July analysis indicated that over 73 million people in the US are exposed to toxic PFAS chemicals through their tap water.

Health Implications of Water Contaminants

The failure to ensure water quality directly impacts SDG 3 by exposing populations to substances linked to severe health issues. The presence of multiple contaminants requires a comprehensive treatment approach.

1. PFAS: These chemicals are linked to significant health problems, including certain cancers, thyroid disease, liver damage, and compromised immune systems.
2. Disinfection Byproducts: Chemicals such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid, which are considered potential carcinogens, are also present in many water systems.

Disparities in Access to Clean Water (SDG 10 & SDG 11)

The Urban-Rural Divide

The study reveals a stark disparity in water treatment capabilities that aligns with challenges identified in SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Smaller, less-resourced communities are disproportionately left behind in the effort to secure safe drinking water.

• Only 7% of very small water systems (serving fewer than 500 people) utilize advanced filtration technologies.
• In contrast, 28% of the largest utilities have implemented these more effective systems.
• This gap creates an inequality in public health protection, where access to safe water is dependent on community size and resources.

Economic Barriers to Compliance

The high cost of implementing and maintaining advanced filtration systems is a primary barrier to widespread adoption. While the EPA estimated an annual cost of $1.5 billion for nationwide compliance with proposed PFAS standards, industry groups like the American Water Works Association (AWWA) projected costs ranging from $2.5 to $3.2 billion annually. These financial burdens pose a significant challenge for smaller municipalities striving to meet public health and sustainability goals.

Co-Benefits of Advanced Treatment and Policy Implications (SDG 6 & SDG 16)

Enhanced Public Water Quality through Comprehensive Filtration

Investing in advanced water treatment to address PFAS contamination offers an opportunity to improve overall water quality, directly supporting SDG 6. The EWG study found that the EPA has undervalued the co-benefits of these systems.

• Advanced filtration technologies include granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis.
• In 19 utilities that installed such systems, levels of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid dropped by an average of 42% and 50%, respectively.
• This demonstrates that a nationwide installation of PFAS treatment could simultaneously reduce public exposure to a mixture of other regulated and unregulated contaminants.

Regulatory Framework and Institutional Challenges

Effective and stable regulatory oversight is crucial for achieving national water quality objectives, a key component of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Recent policy shifts have created uncertainty and delayed progress.

• In 2024, the Biden administration established regulations for six PFAS chemicals, which would have mandated the adoption of advanced filtration.
• Subsequently, the EPA announced its intention to rescind limits on four PFAS types and delay the compliance deadline for two of the most toxic forms (PFOA and PFOS) from 2029 to 2031.
• While utility groups cited cost concerns, public health advocates argue that these regulatory delays hinder broader improvements in drinking water quality and undermine public health protections.

Conclusion and Path Forward

The lack of advanced water filtration in the United States represents a critical failure in protecting public health and achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals. The disparity between large and small systems exacerbates inequalities (SDG 10), while the presence of toxic contaminants threatens public health (SDG 3) and the fundamental right to clean water (SDG 6). A nationwide investment in advanced water treatment is not merely a cost but an opportunity to secure long-term health benefits, reduce environmental injustice, and build more resilient and sustainable communities (SDG 11).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article on PFAS pollution in US drinking water supplies connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by highlighting critical issues in public health, water quality, infrastructure, and social equity.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly addresses public health by discussing the severe health risks associated with water contaminants. It states that PFAS are “linked to certain cancers, thyroid disease, liver damage and immune system problems.” It also mentions other harmful contaminants like trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid, which are “considered potential carcinogens.” The entire premise of installing advanced filtration is to protect public health from these threats.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the central SDG discussed. The article focuses on the widespread contamination of drinking water by PFAS and other pollutants, directly challenging the goal of providing safe water for all. It highlights that “over 73 million people in the US are exposed to toxic PFAS chemicals in their tap water,” indicating a failure to ensure water safety and quality.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The article examines the state of water treatment infrastructure in the US. It points out a significant infrastructure gap, noting that “most utilities are lacking advanced filtration systems” and “just 8% of US water systems are equipped with filters that can remove PFAS.” The discussion revolves around the need to upgrade and install modern technologies like granular activated carbon, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis to handle emerging contaminants.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  A key finding highlighted in the article is the disparity in access to safe water infrastructure between different communities. It explicitly states that “Small, rural communities are the least likely to have the advanced systems in place” and that “only 7% of very small water systems serving fewer than 500 people… use advanced filtration, while 28% of the largest utilities use the technologies.” This points to a significant inequality based on geographic location and community size/resources.

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

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

   The article directly relates to this target by showing that access to “safe” drinking water is not universal in the US. The finding that “over 73 million people in the US are exposed to toxic PFAS chemicals” demonstrates a clear gap in achieving this target. The discussion of high compliance costs, which would average “an additional $230 per household per year,” also touches upon the “affordable” aspect of this target.

2. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

   This target is addressed through the article’s focus on the health impacts of “hazardous chemicals” in drinking water. By detailing how PFAS and other byproducts are linked to cancer and other diseases, the article underscores the urgency of reducing exposure to prevent illnesses. The installation of advanced filtration systems is presented as a direct solution to mitigate these health risks and work towards this target.

3. Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.

   The article’s core argument is about the inadequacy of current water infrastructure. The statement that “98% of systems that have PFAS detections do not have treatment targeting the chemicals” points to a lack of “quality, reliable, and resilient” infrastructure capable of handling modern contaminants. The disparity highlighted between small, rural systems and large urban ones directly addresses the need for “equitable access” to this infrastructure.

4. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… location…

   This target is relevant due to the article’s emphasis on the inequality faced by small and rural communities. The finding that “the numbers were significantly higher for the smallest water systems” regarding household costs for treatment shows an economic barrier that disproportionately affects these communities. This lack of access to safe water and modern infrastructure based on location is a form of exclusion from essential public services.

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

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress.

• Indicator for Target 6.1: Proportion of the population using safely managed drinking water services.

  The article provides data that can be used to measure the inverse of this indicator. The statement that “over 73 million people in the US are exposed to toxic PFAS chemicals in their tap water” serves as a baseline measurement of the population *not* receiving safely managed water. Progress would be measured by a reduction in this number.

• Indicator for Target 3.9 & 6.3: Reduction in the concentration of harmful chemicals in drinking water.

  The article implies this indicator by providing specific measurements of contaminant reduction after infrastructure upgrades. It found that after installing advanced filtration, “levels of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid dropped on average 42% and 50%, respectively.” This percentage reduction in specific pollutants is a direct and measurable indicator of improved water quality and reduced health risk.

• Indicator for Target 9.1 & 10.2: Percentage of water systems with advanced filtration, disaggregated by community size and location.

  The article provides a clear baseline for this indicator. It states that “only 7% of very small water systems serving fewer than 500 people… use advanced filtration, while 28% of the largest utilities use the technologies.” Tracking the increase in these percentages, particularly for the smaller systems, would be a direct measure of progress towards building equitable and resilient water infrastructure.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thenewlede.org