Talking safe drinking water with University of Minnesota – University of Minnesota Twin Cities

Report on Minnesota’s Drinking Water Strategy and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A review of Minnesota’s drinking water systems, informed by the state’s Department of Health (MDH) Drinking Water Strategy, reveals a robust framework for providing safe water. However, vulnerabilities persist, including aging infrastructure, emerging contaminants, and protection gaps for private well owners. State initiatives, supported by research from the University of Minnesota, are actively addressing these challenges. This report analyzes Minnesota’s approach through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily focusing on SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Water Access and Infrastructure: Progress Towards SDG 6

Minnesota’s efforts to provide safe drinking water directly contribute to SDG 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. The state’s water distribution highlights different levels of management and access.

Water Sources and Distribution

• Groundwater: The primary source for 75% of Minnesotans, drawn from aquifers of varying ages.
• Surface Water: The source for 25% of residents, including major metropolitan areas like Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• Community Water Systems: Serve 80% of the population, with municipalities responsible for treatment and delivery.
• Private Wells: Used by 20% of residents, who are individually responsible for water safety and testing. This disparity presents a challenge to achieving universal access under SDG 6.

Infrastructure Modernization and Lead Abatement

A significant initiative aligning with SDG 6 and SDG 3 is the state-funded plan to replace lead service lines within 10 years. This addresses a critical public health risk and modernizes aging infrastructure.

1. Health Impact (SDG 3): The program aims to prevent lead exposure in children, which can cause severe cognitive and developmental issues.
2. Economic Justification: A cost-benefit analysis conducted in collaboration with the University of Minnesota demonstrated that the benefits of avoiding cognitive impairments and their societal costs are double the multi-billion dollar cost of replacement.

Water Quality, Safety, and Public Health: Intersections of SDG 3 and SDG 6

Ensuring water is free from contaminants is fundamental to achieving both good health outcomes (SDG 3) and safe water access (SDG 6). Minnesota employs a multi-pronged strategy for monitoring and managing water quality.

Monitoring and Contaminant Management

Public water suppliers conduct regular testing and issue annual reports. However, private well owners must conduct their own tests. Key contaminants of concern include:

• Microbes: Pathogens that can cause serious diseases, managed in public systems through chlorination.
• Natural Minerals: Arsenic and manganese can be present in groundwater at dangerous levels, posing a risk particularly for untested private wells.
• Lead: Contamination typically occurs from older plumbing and service lines, posing a direct threat to brain development.
• Man-made Chemicals: Contaminants such as PFAS and pesticides are monitored in public supplies due to their serious health consequences.

Governance and Collaborative Protection: A Framework for SDG 17

Minnesota’s success in water management is built on a collaborative governance model that exemplifies SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). This involves federal, state, and local entities working in concert.

Regulatory and Protection Framework

1. Federal Oversight: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets national standards for contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
2. State-Level Coordination: Multiple state agencies collaborate to protect water sources, demonstrating an integrated approach.
   • Minnesota Department of Health (MDH): Responsible for the ultimate safety of drinking water at the tap.
   • Pollution Control Agency: Regulates industrial and chemical pollution.
   • Department of Agriculture: Regulates agricultural chemicals.
   • Department of Natural Resources: Manages water extraction quantities.
3. Source Water Protection: This involves defining Drinking Water Supply Management Areas around public wells and fostering collaboration among landowners to prevent contamination, a critical step as cleaning contaminated aquifers is exceedingly difficult.

The Role of Academic and Research Partnerships

The partnership between the State of Minnesota and the University of Minnesota is a key driver of progress. The University’s Water Resources Center and Humphrey School of Public Affairs provide the scientific and policy research necessary to inform effective governance. This collaboration, which included assessing drinking water governance and informing the MDH Action Plan, is a model for leveraging academic expertise to achieve sustainable development outcomes, fully in line with the principles of SDG 17.

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

The article on Minnesota’s drinking water addresses and connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on public health, water quality, infrastructure, and governance. The primary SDGs identified are:

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the most central SDG, as the entire article revolves around the safety, accessibility, and management of drinking water. It discusses sources of water (groundwater, surface water), the quality of water from public systems and private wells, and the importance of protecting water sources from contamination.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article explicitly links water quality to health outcomes. It highlights the severe health impacts of contaminants like lead on children’s development (“developmental delays, learning difficulties, and behavioral problems”), as well as dangers from microbes, arsenic, and man-made chemicals like PFAS.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  This goal is relevant through the discussion of essential public infrastructure. The article mentions the “extensive system of pipes” for water delivery and the challenge of “aging infrastructure,” specifically the presence of lead service lines in older properties that need replacement to ensure safe basic services for communities.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article underscores the importance of collaboration to achieve safe drinking water. It details the partnership between academic institutions (University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School and Water Resources Center) and government bodies (Minnesota Department of Health) to conduct research and inform the state’s drinking water strategy. It also mentions the complex coordination required among various state agencies (Pollution Control Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources).

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

Based on the article’s discussion of safe water access, health impacts, infrastructure upgrades, and collaborative governance, the following 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 addresses this target by examining the state of drinking water for all Minnesotans. It differentiates between the 80% of residents on regulated community water systems and the 20% on private wells who “have no such protection” and must test their own water. The “Action Plan” that considers “more proactive state assistance for those with private wells” is a clear effort towards achieving universal access to safe water.

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 focus on identifying and mitigating water contaminants. The article details the health risks of lead, arsenic, microbes, and PFAS. The state’s 10-year plan to replace lead service lines is a direct action to reduce illness from a hazardous chemical, justified by a cost-benefit analysis showing that avoiding cognitive impairments in children makes the benefits “twice the cost.”

3. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.

   The article connects to this target by discussing the regulation of pollutants. It mentions that the Pollution Control Agency regulates chemical and industrial pollution, while the Department of Agriculture regulates agricultural chemicals. The monitoring of contaminants like PFAS and pesticides in public water supplies is a direct measure of efforts to improve water quality by controlling hazardous chemicals.

4. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

   This target is reflected in the description of the multi-agency and multi-sectoral approach to water management. The article explains how the University of Minnesota worked with the MDH to lead “an assessment of drinking water governance” and gather input from various stakeholders. This collaboration aims to improve coordination and communication among the different agencies responsible for water safety, thereby enhancing policy coherence for the sustainable management of drinking water.

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

Yes, the article mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services (Indicator for Target 6.1)

  The article provides data points that serve as indicators: 80% of Minnesota residents are on community water systems, while 20% use private wells. The progress of the “Action Plan” to provide more assistance to private well owners would be a key metric for improving this indicator.

• Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (Indicator for Target 3.9)

  While not providing mortality rates, the article implies progress through preventative measures. The plan to replace all lead service lines within 10 years is a specific, measurable action. The cost-benefit analysis, which quantifies the economic benefits of “avoiding cognitive impairments in the young that reduce IQ,” serves as a proxy indicator for reducing the burden of disease from water contamination.

• Water quality violation rates (Indicator for Target 6.3)

  The article provides a direct quantitative indicator: “around 2% of the public water systems recorded violations, far better than the national rate of 10%.” It also specifies that “No violations were for pesticides, industrial chemicals or bacteriological contaminants.” Continued monitoring of these violation rates, including for new standards like those for PFAS, serves as a direct measure of water quality.

• Mechanisms for policy coherence (Indicator for Target 17.14)

  The article describes the existence of such mechanisms. The “State Drinking Water Strategy” and the associated “Action Plan” are formal mechanisms. The collaborative research between the University of Minnesota and the MDH, which “informed the MDH Action Plan,” is a tangible example of a partnership mechanism designed to enhance policy coherence.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: twin-cities.umn.edu