Drinking water is one of the most important factors in our day-to-day health. Yet, many Minnesotans rarely think about it, thanks to our abundant water supplies, strong protections, and well-coordinated network of water professionals at the state and local levels.
The new State Drinking Water Action Plan just released by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) details the vulnerabilities in our system and actions for protection.
Peter Calow, a professor in the Humphrey School of Public Affairs’ Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy area, is a water expert who conducted extensive research for the new report. His work reflects the Humphrey School’s commitment to address pressing policy challenges such as the future of water and energy, which is central to the School’s Constellations of M(pact) initiative.
Calow collaborated with Ann Marcelle Lewandowski, a senior research and extension coordinator for the University of Minnesota’s Water Resources Center, on the research. We asked them to answer the following questions about Minnesota’s drinking water.
Where does my drinking water come from?
Lewandowski: Three quarters of Minnesotans get their drinking water from groundwater deep beneath the surface. A recent study of the age of groundwater in southeast Minnesota showed that many wells had water that was only 10 to 40 years old, while water in other aquifers was thousands of years old.
One quarter of Minnesotans — including residents in Minneapolis, St. Cloud, St. Paul, and 20 other communities — get their drinking water from rivers and lakes. You can find more information about your drinking water by searching for the Source Water Assessment for your community on the MDH website or by contacting your local water utility.
Calow: About 20 percent of Minnesota residents get their water from their own private well. The remaining 80 percent are on community water systems, meaning their city, town, or residential community is responsible for drawing, treating, and delivering water to homes and businesses through an extensive system of pipes.
Most of those pipes will be free of lead. But old properties may still have lead service lines that contaminate drinking water. An integral part of the Action Plan is to replace these lead pipes, at state expense. Lead exposure in children can lead to severe health issues, including developmental delays, learning difficulties, and behavioral problems.
We collaborated with MDH to consider the costs of the replacement — potentially billions of dollars — but also the benefits. At a minimum, these will include preventing cognitive impairments in the young that reduce IQ and could have knock-on effects for their employability. On this basis alone, the benefits turn out to be worth twice the cost. This was part of an argument that swayed the Legislature to make the appropriation. The program is underway with a plan to complete it in 10 years.
How can I check my water to see if it's safe for drinking?
Lewandowski: Households using a public water supply should receive an annual report showing the results from testing throughout the year. If you get water from a private well, you will have to test it yourself to ensure the water is safe. Bottled water is also tested, but safety standards are not as high as for community water supplies. Testing is done before bottling and there are opportunities for contamination on the shelf, especially from plastic bottles.
If you want to dig deeper into the safety of your water, here are the important types of contaminants to consider:
- Microbes: A few microbes may cause serious diseases and are the reason most public systems chlorinate water.
- Arsenic and manganese: Dangerous levels of these minerals are naturally present in some groundwater. It is especially important that private well owners check if their supply is safe.
- Lead: Even tiny amounts of lead can permanently impact brain development. Generally, water is contaminated by lead in older plumbing in houses or the connection between the public pipe and the home. Visit the MDH lead webpage to learn how to determine the risk in your home.
- Man-made chemicals such as PFAS, chlorination byproducts, or pesticides can have serious health consequences, but the effects vary greatly depending on the specific chemical and the concentration. Utility managers closely monitor a limited number of these in public water supplies.
Who makes sure Minnesotans have safe tap water?
Calow: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for public water supplies for seven microorganisms; seven disinfectants and their byproducts; 16 inorganic chemicals — including lead, arsenic, fluoride, and nitrate; and 60 organic chemicals, including eight PFAS and four radionucleotides.
Local water suppliers have monitoring programs and are required to notify the state of violations. The state oversees these and reports results to the EPA. This system has been in place since the 1970s, formalized in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Those using private wells have no such protection. Moreover, taking samples and understanding what they mean and how to respond is complicated as contaminants could come from a variety of sources. Due to these challenges, the Action Plan considers more proactive state assistance for those with private wells.
In Minnesota, around 2 percent of the public water systems recorded violations, far better than the national rate of 10 percent. No violations were recorded for pesticides, industrial chemicals, or bacteriological contaminants. Several recorded PFAS above new federal standards.
Although Minnesota has more success in removing contaminants than other states, we still need vigilance as the system is challenged by aging infrastructure, stress from extreme weather events, and new chemicals.
How are we protecting our water?
Calow: Federal and state regulations are in place for protecting all sources of drinking water in Minnesota. The challenge is that protection is delivered by different agencies.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulates chemical and industrial pollution to surface and groundwater, except for agricultural chemicals — which are regulated by the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Natural Resources manages the amount of water drawn from wells, which impacts drinking water quality.
Ultimately, MDH is responsible for the safety of drinking water at the tap, including managing rules for local water utilities and well construction.
Lewandowski: Alongside monitoring and regulation, source water protection involves education, technical support, financial incentives, and a lot of voluntary work. The quality of water in our rivers, lakes, and aquifers is a result of the unique geology, vegetation, and land management across the whole area that drains to each water body. Aquifers are particularly critical to protect because once contaminated, they are extremely difficult to clean up.
Each public drinking water well has a defined area called the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). This is the area at risk of contaminating the well water in the near term. Source water protection requires collaboration among public and private landowners and managers, because every water body is impacted by many people.
How does your work at the University of Minnesota help support safe drinking water across the state?
Lewandowski and Calow: Delivering safe and sufficient drinking water involves complex processes spanning many disciplines: from water chemistry to microbial biology; engineering to economics; and public health to public policy. The University serves communities across Minnesota, with a long history of working with the state and its agencies as a land grant institution.
The Humphrey School and the Water Resources Center have worked with the Minnesota Department of Health on several projects over the past 10 years, to help ensure that MDH processes reflect current science and diverse perspectives.
Most recently, we led an assessment of drinking water governance, which means all the formal and informal ways that decisions are made about our drinking water. We gathered input from water professionals and water users around the state to learn what is working well and how coordination and communication could be improved. Results of this study informed the MDH Action Plan.
