Weighing the opportunity cost of treating PFAS in drinking water – MinnPost

Report on Drinking Water Quality Management and Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Aligning Water Safety with Global Sustainability Targets

Access to clean water is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of public health, directly supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). This report analyzes the complex challenges in managing drinking water quality in the United States, focusing on the competing priorities of addressing chemical contaminants, such as Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and the critical need for maintaining and upgrading aging water infrastructure. The allocation of limited financial resources presents a significant challenge to achieving these sustainable development objectives comprehensively.

2.0 State of Water Quality and Infrastructure

The management of drinking water involves a spectrum of quality considerations, from acute biological threats to long-term chemical exposure. While significant progress has been made since the Safe Drinking Water Act of the 1970s, new challenges have emerged that test the resilience of current systems.

2.1 Health and Sanitation Imperatives (SDG 3 & SDG 6)

• Global Health Context: The absence of safe drinking water remains a critical global issue, with diarrheal diseases causing approximately 1,000 child deaths per day worldwide, underscoring the importance of SDG 3.
• Domestic Contaminant Concerns: In the United States, concerns include both pathogens like Legionella, which can proliferate in decaying infrastructure, and chemicals with long-term health effects, such as PFAS.

2.2 Infrastructure Deficit and Sustainable Communities (SDG 9 & SDG 11)

The reliability of clean water is contingent upon robust infrastructure, a key component of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). However, decades of underinvestment have created a significant deficit.

• Investment Gap: The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a required investment of $625 billion over the next 20 years merely to maintain existing drinking water systems.
• Risks of Inaction: Failure to invest in infrastructure leads to service interruptions, water shortages, and increased public health risks from waterborne pathogens, undermining the goal of creating safe and resilient communities.

3.0 Analysis of PFAS Regulation and Resource Allocation

Recent federal regulations targeting PFAS in drinking water have focused national attention and resources on a specific class of contaminants. While addressing chemical pollution is vital for SDG 6.3, the financial implications warrant careful consideration.

3.1 Regulatory Impact and Costs

1. New Federal Limits: In 2024, the United States passed strict limits for PFAS in drinking water, compelling municipalities to invest in advanced treatment technologies.
2. Compliance Costs: An estimated 15% of public water systems will require new treatment, with nationwide costs projected at $2 billion to $3 billion annually.
3. Exposure Context: The EPA estimates that drinking water constitutes less than 20% of the average American’s total PFAS exposure, raising questions about the cost-effectiveness of focusing solely on this pathway.

3.2 The Opportunity Cost of a Singular Focus

The substantial financial commitment required for PFAS removal creates a critical resource allocation dilemma. Funds directed towards PFAS treatment are unavailable for other pressing needs that also contribute to achieving SDG 6 and SDG 3.

• Infrastructure vs. Contaminant Removal: Communities with low PFAS levels may achieve greater overall public health benefits and water security by investing in infrastructure replacement rather than expensive PFAS-specific treatment.
• Prioritizing Health Risks: A holistic approach is necessary to determine whether removing low levels of PFAS provides a greater health benefit than addressing other local water contaminants or fixing infrastructure vulnerabilities that pose more immediate risks.

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations for Achieving SDG 6

To effectively advance toward SDG 6, a balanced and evidence-based strategy for managing drinking water is essential. The current focus on PFAS, while important in high-contamination areas, must be integrated into a broader framework of risk management and infrastructure renewal.

1. Adopt Holistic Risk Assessments: Municipalities should conduct comprehensive risk assessments to prioritize investments based on the most significant local threats to public health, whether they are chemical, biological, or infrastructural.
2. Prioritize Foundational Infrastructure: Sustained investment in the maintenance and modernization of water infrastructure must be a national priority to ensure the long-term delivery of safe water, directly supporting SDG 9 and SDG 11.
3. Balance Regulatory Goals with Financial Realities: Policymakers must consider the total public health impact and opportunity costs when implementing new regulations, ensuring that financial resources are allocated to achieve the greatest improvements in water safety and public well-being.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text revolves entirely around the quality of drinking water, the challenges of contamination (specifically with PFAS), the importance of safe water for society, and the infrastructure required to deliver it. The article’s opening statement, “Everyone deserves clean water,” directly aligns with the core principle of SDG 6.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article explicitly connects water quality to human health. It discusses both long-term health risks from chemicals like PFAS and acute illnesses such as cholera, typhoid, and Legionnaire’s disease. The statement, “Clean water should not make you sick,” and the reference to diarrheal diseases killing “1,000 children per day worldwide” firmly link the topic to public health outcomes.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  A significant portion of the article is dedicated to the state of water infrastructure. It highlights the problem of “decaying infrastructure,” the lack of investment since the 1970s, and the massive financial need for maintenance and upgrades, estimated at “$625 billion in the next 20 years.” The article posits that “Reliable clean water requires reliable water infrastructure,” making this SDG central to the discussion.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The issues are framed within the context of urban and community management. The article mentions specific cities like Bloomington, Woodbury, and the challenges they face in managing their water systems. It discusses how infrastructure failures lead to “water shortages and service interruptions” and how the costs of new regulations and upgrades are passed on to residents through “water rates,” directly impacting the sustainability and resilience of communities.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

• Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

  The article addresses this target by discussing the efforts to ensure water is “safe” through regulations like the Safe Drinking Water Act and new limits on PFAS. It also touches on the “affordable” aspect by highlighting how the high costs of infrastructure upgrades ($625 billion) and PFAS treatment ($2-3 billion annually) are likely to increase water rates for consumers.

• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…

  This target is directly relevant to the discussion on PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which are described as hazardous chemicals. The article details the new national limits for PFAS in drinking water and describes how the city of Woodbury’s source water was “contaminated by local 3M activities decades ago,” pointing to the need to reduce chemical pollution at its source.

• 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 connects directly to this target by discussing the health risks of contaminated water. It mentions long-term health impacts from chemicals like PFAS and the risk of “outbreaks of Legionnaire’s disease and other pathogens” from decaying infrastructure. The global statistic on deaths from diarrheal diseases is used to emphasize the life-or-death importance of clean water.

• Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… to support economic development and human well-being…

  The article’s focus on “decaying infrastructure” and the lagging investment in water systems is a direct reflection of this target. It argues that reliable infrastructure is essential for reliable clean water and points out that failure to maintain it leads to “water shortages and service interruptions.” The mention of Bloomington’s meticulous tracking and maintenance schedule is presented as a positive example of working towards this target.

• Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses… caused by disasters, including water-related disasters…

  While not about natural disasters, the article discusses infrastructure failures that can be considered man-made, water-related disasters for a community. “Water shortages and service interruptions” caused by decaying pipes and pumps directly affect people. The “higher costs for each person” and the massive investment needed for repairs represent the direct economic losses associated with these infrastructure challenges.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

• Indicator related to SDG 3 (Mortality from unsafe water):

  The article explicitly mentions a global indicator: “diarrheal diseases still kill 1,000 children per day worldwide.” While this is a global statistic, it is used to frame the importance of preventing waterborne illnesses. Locally, the potential for “outbreaks of Legionnaire’s disease and other pathogens” serves as an implied indicator of health risks from poor infrastructure.

• Indicator related to SDG 6 (Safely managed drinking water):

  The article provides a specific statistic that can be used as an indicator: “around 15% of public water systems in the United States will require treatment to comply with current [PFAS] law.” This percentage directly measures how many systems are not yet meeting the new safety standards for this specific contaminant.

• Indicators related to SDG 9 (Infrastructure investment and condition):

  The article implies several financial and operational indicators. The most direct is the estimated investment gap: “$625 billion in the next 20 years just to maintain drinking water systems.” Other implied indicators include the frequency of “water shortages and service interruptions” and the annual national cost to comply with new regulations, estimated at “$2 billion to $3 billion nationwide every year” for PFAS removal.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: minnpost.com