Agriculture is the most significant pressure impacting both surface and groundwaters, according to the EEA report ‘Europe’s state of water 2024: the need for improved water resilience’. This results from water use and pollution from the intensive use of nutrients and pesticides, according to Member States’ own monitoring. Agriculture is by far the highest net water consumer in Europe and, without changes in practices, demand from irrigated agriculture is likely to increase with climate change.
The EEA’s report shows that, despite some progress, Europe’s waters and aquatic ecosystems are still severely impacted by chemicals, predominantly by air pollution from coal-powered energy generation and diffuse pollution by nutrients and pesticides from agriculture.Habitat degradation is also widespread. Adding to the challenge to protect aquatic ecosystems is climate change, which is disrupting weather patterns and further increasing pressures on water resources and management.
Only 37% of Europe’s surface water bodies achieved ‘good’ or ‘high’ ecological status, a measure of aquatic ecosystem health, under EU’s Water Framework Directive and only 29% achieved ‘good’ chemical status over the 2015-2021 period, according to data reported by EU Member States.
The health of Europe’s waters is not good. Our waters face an unprecedented set of challenges that threatens Europe’s water security. We need to redouble our efforts to restore the health of our valued rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and other water bodies and to make sure this vital resource is resilient and secure for generations to come.
Limited progress to date
Measures taken by Member States have succeeded in avoiding further deterioration of the state of EU waters by addressing some chemical pollution and improving the prospects of some species, such as mussels and crustaceans, but no overall improvement has been detected since the last monitoring cycle.
Europe’s groundwaters fare better than surface waters, with 77% being in good chemical status and in terms of supply, 91% of groundwaters are reported to be in good quantitative status. But problems remain in terms of pollution by pesticides and nutrients. Groundwater is a key source of our drinking water, and needed by the environment, agriculture and industry.
The deadline set by the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) to meet good status for surface and groundwaters was 2015, and at the latest by 2027. At the rate of current progress, this will not be met.
The way ahead
Europe’s water resilience can be improved. Reducing water use and improving efficiency are key to tackling water stress in agriculture, industry and at home. Target setting, focused on saving water or reducing demand, could help drive action and facilitate monitoring of progress towards water resilience. Up-to-date and more timely information on water quantity and quality is also needed to improve water management.
Pressures should be reduced. Pollution must be prevented in line with the objectives of the EU’s zero pollution action plan. In the short term, there is a need to reduce the use and prevent releases of harmful substances and nutrients to water.
Nature restoration or reconnecting rivers and their floodplains and restoring wetlands and peatlands can lead to healthier, biodiverse freshwater ecosystems, which can supply good quality water while also storing carbon and mitigating the impact of extreme weather events.
About the report
The EEA report is the largest assessment on the health of Europe’s water bodies, involving more than 120 000 surface water bodies and 3.8 million km2 groundwater body area across the EU and Norway. The report is based on data reported from 19 EU Member States. It represents 85% of surface water bodies and 87% of groundwater body area in the EU-27.
The EEA report also complements the upcoming European Commission assessment of the 3rd River Basin Management Plans and of the 2nd Flood Risk Management Plans which will take stock of the state of implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive in the EU.
For Michael Rogal, those first few days back on the water after two hurricanes were memorable.
The professional Tampa Bay fishing charter captain recalls finding a dumpster wedged deep into a mangrove forest. He remembers a portable toilet toppled on its side, submerged in the bay. He noticed the water, still flooded from days of runoff, was a deep brownish hue.
“It was like a super dark sweet tea,” said Rogal, a third generation Floridian and owner of Bay Native Fishing. “You couldn’t see through it.”
Anecdotally, the initial reports from those who spend their careers on the water — anglers, scientists, tour guides — remarked that Tampa Bay’s waters were in rough shape in the first few weeks after hurricanes Helene and Milton. Early notices, warning of spilled pollution, began to paint a clearer picture of the unfolding environmental toll.
Perhaps the most detailed description yet of Tampa Bay’s ecological health was unveiled earlier this week. The stories told by Rogal and others appear backed by the data in the most recent “State of the Bay” report presented Wednesday by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program.
The takeaway: Florida’s largest open-water estuary, which was on a healthy streak, took a major water quality hit from back-to-back hurricanes.
Sewage spills from overloaded wastewater facilities were a big culprit. In 2023, for instance, less than 5 million gallons of dirty wastewater dumped into the Tampa Bay estuary from sewage system overflows.
But last year, because of Milton and Helene, that number ballooned to nearly 90 million gallons — or enough pollution to fill more than 100 Olympic swimming pools.
Most of the reported spills last year affected the Manatee River, the winding waterway south of Pinellas County that empties into the southern edge of the Tampa Bay watershed. In Boca Ciega Bay to the north, which borders the hard-hit Gulfport area, nearly 17 million gallons of wastewater spilled last year, according to the estuary program’s analysis.
It’s not all bad news, though. Tampa Bay’s health had been bolstered by a streak of drier years. That means the amount of pollution it can endure — what scientists call its “adaptive capacity” — was high. Taken together, researchers are still on track with projects to restore the bay.
“That’s kind of the story: the water quality was good, then we had the storms come in, and then it sort of tanked,” said Marcus Beck, a senior scientist with the estuary program.
“We’re in this state now where we’re really hopeful that (2025) will continue to have good water quality, but we can’t say for certain that it will because we just sort of whittled away at the capacity of the bay to assimilate.”
Stormwater an issue, too
It’s hard enough for scientists to pinpoint specific sources of pollution after one hurricane let alone two.
While sewage spills were a big polluter during Helene and Milton, they weren’t the only problem. Another big culprit for declining water quality last year was the rainwater that fell, mixed with pollutants on the ground like fertilizer and gasoline, and ultimately emptied into Tampa Bay through pipes and rivers.
That stormwater runoff turned the water in the Hillsborough and Alafia rivers to a murky brown color, Beck said.
Across the bay, there was a noticeable spike in chlorophyll, a pigment used by plants to photosynthesize. When there’s too much chlorophyll in the water, it’s usually a sign of excess algal blooms. Algae feeds on the nutrient pollution siphoned into the bay during hurricanes — and too much of it usually means the ecosystem is out of balance, Beck said.
In October, chlorophyll levels in Tampa Bay south of Safety Harbor spiked to 71 micrograms per liter of water. That’s nearly five times the annual average for that part of the bay, according to the estuary program’s data.
While there’s still some data to parse, the early take home messages from the most recent “State of the Bay” report underscore the importance of continuing to improve waste and stormwater infrastructure, Beck said.
Each year, the estuary program funds community-led initiatives for education and restoration in the Tampa Bay watershed. Past $5,000 grants have planted oyster gardens, tracked wildlife with cameras and studied seagrass habitats. A new round of applications will be accepted in the spring, according to the program.
For those wanting to help the bay, “there are some real local things you can do,” Beck said. Among them: avoid heavy fertilizing, create a rain garden in your yard and get engaged with local clean-water advocacy.
Nearly a third of people in the U.S. have been exposed to unregulated contaminants in their drinking water that could impact their health, according to a new analysis by scientists at Silent Spring Institute. What’s more, Hispanic and Black residents are more likely than other groups to have unsafe levels of contaminants in their drinking water and are more likely to live near pollution sources.
The findings, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, add to growing concern about the quality of drinking water in the United States and the disproportionate impact of contamination on communities of color.
Close to 100 contaminants are currently regulated under the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act. This means public water utilities must test for these contaminants and take steps to ensure levels don’t exceed certain limits by installing new treatment systems and taking other measures.
Yet, we know there are thousands of other harmful chemicals that are not regulated that make their way into groundwater and surface waters, and some of these chemicals can ultimately end up in drinking water supplies.”
Laurel Schaider, co-author, senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute
Schaider and her team looked at data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collected between 2013 and 2015 under its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule program. The team analyzed data from 4,815 public water systems and found 27 percent-serving 97 million residents-had detectable levels of at least one of the following chemicals:
1,4-dioxane, a solvent classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen, also found in consumer products
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances),non-stick chemicals widely used in consumer products, associated with cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and other health problems
chlorodifluoromethane (Freon 22), an ozone-depleting gas previously used as a refrigerant and used in the production of fluoropolymers (e.g. Teflon)
1,1-dichloroethane, a solvent used in paints, plastics, and pesticides associated with cancer.
Communities with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black residents generally were more likely to be exposed to these unregulated contaminants in their drinking water and were more likely to be situated close to pollution discharge sites including wastewater treatment plants, airports and military training areas, and industrial sites.
“Our findings show that the percentage of Hispanic and Black residents in a community is a consistent predictor of poorer water quality,” says lead author Aaron Maruzzo, a scientist at Silent Spring Institute.
These racial disparities could not be explained by income or other measures of socioeconomic status, he says, suggesting that factors such as racism and the historical practice of redlining that led to the disproportionate siting of industrial facilities in communities of color could be playing a role.
The study builds on previous research by Silent Spring, which found Hispanic residents are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of nitrate in their drinking water. EPA set a legal limit on nitrate decades ago to protect infants from a fatal condition known as “blue baby syndrome.”. Newer evidence suggests exposure to nitrate at levels below the federal standard also can increase the risk of colorectal and bladder cancer.
A 2023 study, co-authored by Schaider, looked at community water systems in 18 states and found those with a higher proportion of Hispanic and Black residents had higher levels of PFAS in their drinking water. The new Silent Spring analysis is the first to look at disparities in exposure to PFAS and other unregulated contaminants in all U.S. states, as well as Tribal lands and U.S. territories.
In addition, recent testing shows PFAS are significantly more widespread in drinking water than previously thought, so the number of residents impacted by contaminants at the time the data were collected is an underestimate, says Schaider.
In April 2024, EPA announced drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals. The study’s findings underscore the need for federal action to regulate more contaminants and provide communities of color with more resources to address the impacts of pollution.
“Ultimately, we need to do a better job at protecting source waters and reducing discharges of pollutants into water bodies that feed into our drinking water supplies,” says Schaider.
Fuelled by climate change, the world’s oceans have broken temperature records every single day over the past year, a BBC analysis finds.
Nearly 50 days have smashed existing highs for the time of year by the largest margin in the satellite era.
Planet-warming gases are mostly to blame, but the natural weather event El Niño has also helped warm the seas.
The super-heated oceans have hit marine life hard and driven a new wave of coral bleaching.
The analysis is based on data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Service.
Copernicus also confirmed that last month was the warmest April on record in terms of global air temperatures, extending that sequence of month-specific records to 11 in a row.
For many decades, the world’s oceans have been the Earth’s ‘get-out-of-jail card’ when it comes to climate change.
Not only do they absorb around a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce, they also soak up around 90% of the excess heat.
But over the past year, the oceans have displayed the most concerning evidence yet that they are struggling to cope, with the sea surface particularly feeling the heat.
From March 2023, the average surface temperature of the global oceans started to shoot further and further above the long-term norm, hitting a new record high in August.
Recent months have brought no respite, with the sea surface reaching a new global average daily high of 21.09C in February and March this year, according to Copernicus data.
As the graph below shows, not only has every single day since 4 May 2023 broken the daily record for the time of year, but on some days the margin has been huge.
Around 47 days smashed the record for that day of the year by at least 0.3C, according to BBC analysis of Copernicus data.
Never before in the satellite era had the margin of record been this big.
The biggest record-breaking days were 23 August 2023, 3 January 2024 and 5 January 2024, when the previous high was beaten by around 0.34C.
“The fact that all this heat is going into the ocean, and in fact, it’s warming in some respects even more rapidly than we thought it would, is a cause for great concern,” says Prof Mike Meredith from the British Antarctic Survey.
“These are real signs of the environment moving into areas where we really don’t want it to be and if it carries on in that direction the consequences will be severe.”
Huge impact on sea life
This human-driven ocean warming is having considerable impacts on global sea life and may even be shifting the seasonal cycle of sea temperatures, according to a recent study.
Perhaps the most significant consequence of the recent warmth has been the mass bleaching of coral globally.
These key ocean nurseries turn white and die because the waters they live in grow too hot. They are a critical element in the ocean ecosystem, home to around a quarter of all marine species.
Unusually warm seas may also have taken a direct toll on one of the most beloved ocean-going creatures in the coldest continent, the emperor penguin.
“There have been examples of the sea-ice collapsing before emperor chicks have properly fledged, and there have been mass drowning events,” says Prof Meredith.
“The emperor penguin is a threatened species because of climate change, and the sea-ice and the ocean temperatures are strongly implicated in that.”
In the UK, rising sea temperatures are having an impact, with a number of creatures having vanished completely from coastal locations – some barnacle species, for example.
“The problem of climate change is that it’s happening too quickly for evolution to catch up with it,” says marine biologist Dr Nova Mieszkowska from the University of Liverpool.
On the Welsh coast, a team from Aberystwyth University use the same technology the police use at a crime scene to track changes in the marine population of Cardigan Bay.
Collecting DNA traces from water samples, they show some invasive species are thriving, including a sea squirt that is believed to have originated in Japan and which grows like a carpet over the sea floor.
“They prevent the growth of native organisms in the areas that they colonise,” says Prof Iain Barber, head of Life Sciences at Aberystwyth University. “Because they do so well in our environment, they can potentially take over huge areas of the seabed.”
Species that are more invasive appear to be responding more strongly to global warming and the increasing water temperatures, Prof Barber says.
The El Niño effect
One important factor that’s made the last year more impactful in seas all over the world has been the El Niño weather phenomenon, adding to human-driven emissions of warming gases.
El Niño sees warmer waters come to the surface of the Pacific. As a result, it tends to push up the global average.
But other ocean basins that aren’t usually affected by El Niño have also experienced record marine heatwaves – leaving scientists trying to work out exactly what is going on.
“The Atlantic has been warmer than usual, and this is not a pattern you normally associate with El Niño – so it’s something somehow different,” explains Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus.
This heat is still persisting in many ocean basins, including the tropical Atlantic.
“There is still a large patch of warmer than usual water in the tropical Atlantic [and] this is the main development region for tropical cyclones,” explains Dr Buontempo.
“We are almost a month ahead in the sea surface temperature in the Atlantic with respect to the annual cycle […] so this is an area that has to be watched.”
As well as these short-term impacts, researchers warn there will be long-term consequences that society will have to adapt to.
For example, ice-sheet melting and deep-ocean warming are likely to continue to fuel sea-level rise in the centuries to come.
“When we talk about climate change, we tend to reduce that to changes on the surface because we live there,” said Angélique Melet, a researcher with Mercator Ocean International.
“However, the deep ocean is one of the aspects [of global warming] that is committing us to centuries and millennia of [climate] change.”
But Dr Melet stresses that is not a reason to give up on cutting emissions.
“Depending on our actions, we can reduce the speed of that warming, and we can decrease the overall amplitude of that warming and sea-level rise.”
The widespread use of pharmaceuticals in America is introducing even more toxic “forever chemicals” into the environment through wastewater, according to a study released Monday, and large municipal wastewater treatment plants are not capable of fully filtering them out.
The plants’ inability to remove compounds known as organofluorines from wastewater before it enters drinking water supplies becomes even more pronounced during droughts and could affect up to 23 million people, scientists wrote in an article published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of the compounds came from commonly prescribed medications including antidepressants and statins, the researchers found.
They found that the organofluorines — a group that includes per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — were found in wastewater in eight large municipal treatment plants. The wastewater continued to contain high concentration of organofluorines and other compounds that meet the definition of PFAS even after treatment.
The researchers found up to three-quarters of the extractable compounds were from 12 commonly prescribed fluorinated medicines, including antidepressants, statins and medications used to treat Type 2 diabetes and HIV. The facilities removed less than 25 percent of the compounds during treatment, the researchers found.
Bridger Ruyle, the study’s lead author, said that the fluorinated chemicals from pharmaceuticals aren’t fully metabolized and leave the body with waste. They then enter the wastewater stream and the environment.
“That means that downstream aquatic organisms and potentially people drinking water may also now be exposed to these pharmaceuticals,” Ruyle said.
The American Chemical Society and the Product Quality Research Institute did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
PFAS, also known as forever chemicals, are a class of thousands of carbon-fluorine bonded compounds manufactured to make products and coatings that repel grease, water, oil and heat. The persistent chemicals are found in hundreds of household items including nonstick cookware, menstrual products, dental floss and medicines.
In the spring, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the nation’s first drinking water standard for PFAS, limiting six specific PFAS chemicals from a class of thousands. The agency acted after mounting evidence suggested those chemicals in water can pose a health risk to people at even the smallest detectable levels of exposure.
Wastewater collected from homes, industrial sites and businesses is typically transported to wastewater treatment plants. There, the wastewater is filtered, disinfected and discharged into streams and rivers. Some communities — particularly in times of drought — draw on water that includes the discharge for drinking water.
But drought only exacerbates the amount of organofluorines found in treated wastewater that is used for drinking, the researchers found. This is because natural water supplies are diminished and do not dilute the treated wastewater before it enters the drinking water supply.
Ruyle said the problem could become more pronounced as water becomes scarcer and populations grow, making it more difficult for natural water systems to dilute waste and communities more reliant on using treated wastewater for drinking.
In the wastewater he tested, Ruyle said, regulated PFAS only made up about 8 percent of the PFAS found. The rest of the fluorinated compounds and PFAS present in the wastewater are not regulated by the EPA, he said. Some included precursor chemicals that can chemically transform into the regulated PFAS once in the environment, he said.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances have been linked to several kinds of cancer, infertility, high cholesterol, low birth weights, and negative effects on the liver, thyroid and immune system.
The EPA does not regulate PFAS in wastewater but has “issued guidance to state permitting programs recommending that wastewater systems monitor for PFAS using the best-available methods and, where they are detected, take steps to reduce them using pretreatment authorities,” said Zachary Schafer, director for policy at EPA’s Office of Water.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, which represents wastewater treatment plants, said that in drought-stricken areas, the connection is closer between drinking water sources and wastewater.
“Anything we eat, drink or put into our bodies … whatever types of compounds, chemicals, pollutants, whatever words you want to use, that’s all going to make its way to a wastewater treatment plant,” said Adam Krantz, the association’s chief executive. “It’s all one water. The water cycle remains the water cycle, and there’s only as much water as we currently have on Earth.”
Krantz said water utilities and wastewater facilities are responsible for following the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water acts.
He said water utilities and wastewater management systems should not bear the brunt of fixing PFAS-related problems; instead, it should be up to manufacturers, which are “the primary source and the ones making the money off of these products to begin with.”
“The major way to avoid all of those concerns is to take the bad stuff out from the source and to make the polluter pay for that, because these things are coming into the water and wastewater treatment plants from manufacturers,” Krantz said.
Water and waste utilities around the country are working to tackle chemicals in drinking water, said Ralph Exton, executive director of the Water Environment Federation, an association of water and wastewater professionals.
“These utilities are largely involuntary receivers of contaminants of emerging concern … like PFAS and pharmaceuticals,” Exton said. “For example, pharmaceuticals tend to enter the waste stream through human excrement and the improper disposal of medications.”
The group has urged Congress to provide more funding for research and innovation so that the cost of mitigation does not fall on utilities and their customers.
Carrie McDonough, an assistant professor of chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University, said the study highlights the prevalence and persistence of fluorinated pharmaceuticals. She said we need to consider using these chemicals only when they are essential, because dilution does not reduce them to low levels.
“Traditional wastewater treatment techniques that work pretty well for a lot of other wastewater-associated contaminants aren’t going to break apart a carbon-fluorine bond,” she said.
While very little is known about the long-term exposures of pharmaceutical waste on people living downstream or how such waste definitively affects drinking water, Ruyle said there needs to be more research done to consider the persistent secondary environmental exposures to pharmaceuticals.
“I think what this study really emphasizes is how prevalent these chemicals are in major PFAS sources and highlights the need for us to better understand what exposures and potential risks are to these classes of chemicals,” Ruyle said.
India, the world’s largest user of groundwater, consumes 87% of it for irrigation and 11% for domestic use. However, this vital resource is increasingly polluted, driven by complex interactions between natural processes and human activities, highlights the Annual Ground Water Quality Report released by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) on December 31.
According to the report, nearly a fifth of the samples collected exceeded permissible limits for pollutants such as nitrates, with significant quantities of radioactive uranium also present. “With increasing population pressures, industrial activities, and agricultural practices, maintaining and improving groundwater quality has become more challenging,” the report says. It cites urbanisation and climate change as additional contributing factors.
The report is prepared based on 15,259 groundwater samples collected in May 2023 for a comprehensive groundwater quality assessment. Among the samples, 19.8% exceeded the permissible limit for nitrate, 9.04% for fluoride and 3.55% for arsenic. A significant portion of the sample was found to exceed the permissible limits for iron (13.20%), chloride (3.07%), electrical conductivity (EC) (7.25%), and uranium (6.60%).
“Arsenic, fluoride, uranium, nitrate pose serious health risks, either through direct toxicity or long-term exposure,” the report says.
Nitrate, a major groundwater pollutant
The report identifies nitrate pollution as the “most significant concern”. About 56% of India’s districts have been found to have nitrates beyond the safe limit of 45 mg/L in their groundwater. This contamination is particularly severe in states like Rajasthan, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, with more than 40% of water samples exceeding the nitrate permissible limit. States like Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh have also shown notable levels of nitrate contamination, pointing towards a growing concern, the report says. Of the 15 most severely affected districts, nearly half belong to Maharashtra, i.e., seven districts. Telangana, which stands second, has three nitrate-affected districts.
The nitrate contamination is primarily caused by agricultural runoff and overuse of nitrogen-based fertilisers. It also emerged in pre- and post-monsoon analysis of 4,982 groundwater samples that CGWB had done to assess the impact of seasonal recharge on groundwater quality. The study reveals a slight increase in nitrate contamination levels beyond the permissible limit after the monsoon recharge, i.e., from 30.77% of samples pre-monsoon to 32.66% post-monsoon.
The report highlights the dual effect of rainfall, which dilutes nitrates in some areas but leads to a higher leaching of contaminants from the surface to the groundwater in states with intensive, synthetic fertiliser-dependent agricultural activities. The report also highlights livestock farming and improper management of animal waste that can contribute to nitrate pollution. The report underlines the risk of high nitrate levels in drinking water, which can cause a potentially fatal condition in infants known as methemoglobinemia, commonly called “blue baby syndrome.”
Uranium contamination, a notable concern
The report terms elevated levels of uranium in several regions as a notable concern. As per the report, 6.60% of the samples have levels of the radioactive element uranium that exceed the safe limit of 30 ppb (parts per billion). Around 42% and 30% of these uranium-contaminated samples are from Rajasthan and Punjab, respectively, where levels exceed even 100 ppb, says the report.
The CGWB report identifies excessive fertiliser use as a potential cause of uranium contamination in Punjab’s groundwater, while it attributes contamination in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Chhattisgarh to geogenic factors.
There are differing views on the issue of uranium contamination. Alok Srivastava, a former chemistry professor at Panjab University, says, “Our study on uranium toxicity in Punjab, particularly in the Malwa region, suggests that this issue could have a geogenic origin. This is based on our findings of uranium-rich fossils and paleosols found in the geochannels of lower Himalayan Shiwalik regions. These fossils and paleosols were likely exposed to the ancient uranium-enriched geogenic channels before being uplifted by tectonic activity, which may still be feeding the current groundwater channels in Malwa.”
Water samples from states such as Haryana, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Bihar were also found to have uranium concentration above the permissible limit in some localised pockets.
While Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka saw a decrease, Uttar Pradesh showed a significant increase in the number of districts with uranium-contaminated groundwater with levels exceeding 30 ppb in 2023 compared to 2019. However, this increase in observations in 2023 is because of more water samples were collected and tested in 2023 (by approximately 700 samples), which likely led to the identification of more contaminated areas, the report clarifies.
Another study mentioned in the CGWB report found a strong correlation between uranium concentration in drinking water and uranium in human bones, suggesting that bones are good indicators of uranium exposure via ingestion of drinking water. Uranium enters human tissues mainly through drinking water, food, air and other occupational and accidental exposures and can lead to cancer and kidney damage.
Fluoride contamination and elevated arsenic levels
The report says that 9.04% of samples had fluoride levels above the limit, while 3.55% had arsenic contamination. This is particularly worrying because long-term exposure to both contaminants can have severe health consequences, including fluorosis (for fluoride) and cancer or skin lesions (for arsenic), the report says. Arsenic concentration has been reported in West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Manipur, Chandigarh, Punjab and Chhattisgarh.
Adding to the concern is fluoride contamination found in 263 districts in the country. Fluoride contamination refers to a situation when levels exceed the permissible limit of 1.5 mg/L. This fluoride contamination is severely prevalent in several districts of states like Rajasthan (31 mg/L), Haryana (17), Karnataka (19), Telangana (28), Gujarat (25), Punjab (17) and Andhra Pradesh (17).
“The fluoride contamination in India occurs in pockets, particularly in confined aquifers of Rajasthan and in select villages of Uttar Pradesh’s Central Ganga Alluvial region, like Fatehpur, where high levels of fluoride have been detected,” says Venkatesh Dutta, a professor at School of Earth & Environmental Sciences (SEES), Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow.
Although the monsoon season led to some improvement in fluoride levels in states like Rajasthan, Haryana, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the overall contamination levels remain alarmingly high, the report states.
Overexploitation fuels contamination
The CGWB report reveals a correlation between areas with high uranium concentrations in groundwater and regions facing significant groundwater stress. “This overlap points to the exacerbating effect of overexploitation and deepening water levels on uranium contamination in these regions,” the report says. This implies groundwater is being overexploited beyond what rainfall or other irrigation sources can replenish.
“With the increasing extraction of water over time, the water levels continue to drop, exposing us to some of the channels high in uranium concentration,” says Srivastava.
In an accompanying report, Dynamic Ground Water Resource of India 2024, the CGWB estimates groundwater extraction at 60.4% in 2024, which hasn’t changed much since 2009, when measurements began biennially (and annually since 2022).
“This is hard to believe, with rising population, agricultural intensity, and urban settlements heavily relying on groundwater instead of surface water. There is a rise in construction on recharge areas and encroachment on floodplains. As a result, we are losing the net total recharge areas. It is concerning that paved areas are expanding at the cost of unpaved lands that are crucial for groundwater recharge,” says Dutta.
Just 2.5 percent of the Earth’s water is fresh, making it crucial for humans to use water in smart, effective ways that preserve this precious resource. Water reuse has become an important part of the solution. In the United States, wastewater is treated and may then be discharged into surface water or ground water aquifers. There, natural processes including volatilization, dilution, sedimentation, and reactions to sunlight may decrease the concentration of contaminants before the water is taken up for further treatment in drinking water facilities.
Although wastewater and drinking water treatment is designed to remove pollutants, there is potential for trace levels of unregulated contaminants to be present in treated drinking water. Improvements in analytical instrumentation now allow scientists to measure these very low concentrations. There is an emerging awareness of the potential for these chemicals to be present in every portion of the water cycle—wastewater, surface water, groundwater, and drinking water. To develop strategies for protecting human health, EPA needs to understand the prevalence of contaminants in both treated drinking water and its source water.
Scientists from EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a multi-phase study to determine the presence of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in treated and untreated drinking water collected from approximately 25 drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) across the United States. Samples were analyzed for 247 chemical and microbiological pollutants, including a wide range of chemicals used in homes, businesses, and industries. Treatment plants chosen for this study receive waters impacted by a variety of waste sources, including municipal waste, septic systems, and livestock production.
The contaminants examined in the study are not regulated in drinking water by EPA, and little is known about their prevalence. The samples were analyzed by 15 methods for chemicals, microorganisms, and estrogen bioactivity. Analyte selection was focused on pharmaceuticals, but also included other classes of analytes, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), hormones, fungi, bacteria, protozoa and viruses.
The studies provide important baseline information on the presence of contaminants in treated and untreated drinking water, as well as qualitative information on the efficacy of differing drinking water treatment technologies in removing contaminants. The results will be used to inform the next generation of EPA drinking water safety standards.
The risk of developing certain cancers may be higher for people exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — also known as “forever chemicals” — in U.S. drinking water, according to a first-of-its-kind ecological study led by researchers at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine.
PFAS are endocrine disruptors widely used in consumer products that persist in the environment and human body. While these manufactured chemicals have been linked to serious health issues including cancer, the researchers say this is the first study to examine the potential association between cancer and public water systems. Drinking water is a significant way people are exposed to PFAS, recent research has shown, based on comparisons of tap water and human blood samples.
The findings, published today [Jan. 9, 2025] in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, suggest—albeit cautiously—that PFAS contamination of drinking water could contribute to nearly 7,000 incidences of cancer cases in the U.S. per year, based on the most recent EPA list of unregulated contaminants that are required to be monitored.
The study also comes nine months after the federal agency announced a final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which sets legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for six PFAS.
“The significant associations identified between PFAS in drinking water and various cancers, including those of the endocrine, digestive, oral cavity, pharynx, skin, and respiratory systems, underscore the urgent need for more comprehensive research,” the researchers say. “Given the recent regulation of PFAS in drinking water by the US EPA, our findings highlight the critical importance of developing effective strategies to mitigate cancer risks from exposure to PFAS through drinking water.”
Researchers looked at PFAS in drinking water measured in two waves (2013–2015 and 2023–2024) and county-level cancer incidence between 2016 and 2021. Cancer data came from theNational Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, which includes cancer registries covering about half of the U.S. population. Information about PFAS levels in public drinking water was obtained from the EPA.
According to the study, the increase in cancer risk (incidence rate ratio, or IRR) ranged from 1.02 to 1.33. The strongest link was between perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and mouth and throat cancers, with an IRR of 1.33—meaning the risk was 33% higher.
While more research is needed, the study suggests drinking water contaminated by various PFAS may lead to an increased risk of leukemia and cancers of:
Brain
Esophagus, colon and rectum (colorectal cancer), rectosigmoid junction, and gallbladder
Large intestine and liver
Respiratory system, mainly lung cancer
Researchers also found that different cancers appeared to be associated with PFAS based on sex. For men, PFAS was linked to cancers in the urinary system, brain, leukemia, and soft tissues. For women, the chemicals were linked to cancers in the thyroid, mouth/throat, and soft tissues.
The study accounted for air pollution, obesity prevalence, smoking rates, and urbanicity (how urban an area is). However, researchers say they could not control for individual-level variables except for age and sex or for potential confounders specific to each cancer type, among other factors.
The researchers say several states were not included in the SEER database, which may not adequately capture areas with the highest levels of PFAS contamination in drinking water.
“This limitation might partly explain the lack of observed associations in our study for cancers such as kidney and testicular cancers found in previous studies, as areas with the most severe contamination, such as Michigan, and potential health effects could be underrepresented,” they say, adding that people may not drink tap water “in regions where PFAS contamination or water contamination is prevalent.”
A damning report into the state of Europe’s surface and groundwaters just three years away from a clean-up deadline increases pressure on EU executive to take action, not least to finalise a water resilience plan it shelved earlier this year.
Only 37% of Europe’s lakes and rivers meet the criteria for good ecological status and over two-thirds are affected by excessive levels of chemical pollutants, the European Environment Agency (EEA) warns in a report published today.
Moreover, nearly a quarter of groundwater, which supplies two-thirds of Europe’s drinking water, failed to reach the legal threshold for good chemical status, with nitrates and pesticides from agriculture responsible for significant pollution.
The EEA concluded that Europe is facing “serious challenges to water security” – a warning that comes eight months after the European Commission shelved a planned water resilience initiative intended to tackle the increasing water stress that the EU environment watchdog says now affects 20% of EU territory and 30% of its population.
“While these stats are alarming, they’re not even giving the full picture as it’s only assessed against a limited and outdated list of pollutants,” said Sara Johansson, a specialist in water pollution prevention at the European Environmental Bureau.
Under the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD), governments are required to ensure – besides some exceptions under extenuating circumstances – that all surface and groundwater achieve good status with regards both chemical pollution and ecosystem health by 2027.
Today’s report follows an equally dire assessment of water quality the EEA published in 2019, and suggests that little progress has been made despite the looming deadline. Green groups have reacted by redoubling a call for the EU executive to ensure that existing legislation is enforced, including new requirements in the Nature Restoration Law.
“Restoring at least 25,000 km of rivers to their free-flowing state is not just an environmental necessity: it’s a commitment to biodiversity and our future,” said Andras Krolopp, head of biodiversity policy at The Nature Conservancy Europe, referring also to a UN treaty that is the subject of a global summit later this month. “Europe has a global commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nature Restoration Law to achieve this goal.”
As well as the ongoing problem of pollution and obstruction of Europe’s natural waterways, industry bodies this week raised the alarm about the huge investment that will be needed to tackle the growing problem of water scarcity, exacerbated by climate change.
Water Europe – a trade association representing researchers and manufacturers of water purification and management technology – published on Monday (14 October) a study suggesting that €255 billion will need to be invested over the next six years to ensure compliance with EU legislation
The lobby group’s director Durk Krol said the investment was essential if the EU was to meet its Green Deal and industrial goals. “Our aim with this study is to provide actionable insights on how we can secure water availability for both nature and economic activities, paving the way towards a Water-Smart Society,” he said.
Meanwhile, a raft of 13 companies, including Siemens, Suez and Veolia, meanwhile, issued a joint statement calling on EU policy makers to deploy digital technologies to harmonise a “highly fragmented” water management landscape that that makes it more difficult to implement the WFD and other directive on drinking water, waste water, industrial emissions and flood prevention.
“[T]here is currently a shortage of reliable data and lack of measurement at EU level, for example on issues such as water leakage – which in turn leads to a lack of insights on which specific actions to pursue,” they write.
In her mission letter to EU commissioner designate for environment Jessica Roswall, president Ursula von der Leyen has tasked tasked her with finalizing the overdue resilience strategy.
“This strategy will address water efficiency, scarcity, pollution and water related risk. It will aim to enhance the competitive innovative edge of our water industry, develop clean tech, take a circular economy approach and include proposal to digitalise water management, cycles and utilities,” von der Leyen wrote.
January 7 – When it comes to corporate exposure to nature risk, water has to be the most salient. Agriculture uses 70% of the world’s freshwater, opens new tab, but it is also critically important to sectors ranging from textiles to pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.
For many years companies took for granted that water would be available in sufficient quantities for whatever they wanted to do. That perception, however, has started to change as the impacts of climate change – from droughts to catastrophic floods to changes in rainfall patterns – start to make themselves felt on water supplies, infrastructure and business operations around the world. Water risks now feature prominently in the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risks Report, opens new tab.
At the same time demand is increasing, in part from new sources, such as the data centres that help to drive the AI revolution. There is also growing concern about pollution from substances such as PFAS forever chemicals, and over-exploitation of reserves.
In the U.S., the Ogallala Aquifer, which runs from South Dakota to Texas, provides a quarter of the water used in U.S. agriculture, irrigating fields that produce $7 billion of crops a year. But water levels in the aquifer have dropped precipitously thanks to drought and abstraction by farmers.
”There’s either too little or too much,” says Alison Gilbert, water stewardship lead at consultancy Anthesis. ”Companies are having to deal with scarcity, floods and poor quality as well as growing regulatory and reputational risks. And they recognise that they need to do something about it.”
Recognition, however, is not necessarily translating into action. At COP16 in Cali in October, Nature Action 100, the investor-led initiative to engage with companies deemed systematically important in stemming nature loss, reported in its inaugural benchmark assessment, opens new tab that while over two-thirds disclose a commitment to protect nature, only one had done a comprehensive materiality assessment of nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks or opportunities.
There are a number of initiatives specifically aimed at helping companies report on and manage their water use, including CDP’s water disclosure programme, the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures and the Valuing Water Finance initiative at sustainable investment advocacy group Ceres.
Ceres’ water lead, Kirsten James heads up the latter initiative, which involves more than 100 investors responsible for $17 trillion in assets engaging with some of the world’s largest water users.
”Investors are concerned about the water risks in their portfolios. They see that water crises are increasing in scope and scale. At the same time, companies are at very different stages of their water stewardship journeys,” says James.
”Many companies have looked at the risks in their own operations but are pretty much ignorant about the risks in their supply chains and the water footprint of their suppliers. … You can do all the work inside your own fence line and still not have enough water.”
She says water risks reside along companies’ entire value chain. ”For example, there is a lot of focus on the water consumption of data centres in the tech industry, but the sector is also affected by disruptions in the semiconductor supply chain and also at the miners that provide the raw materials for chips.”
One company that isn’t taking water for granted is PepsiCo, the beverages and snacks producer. ”Water is a key ingredient for our agricultural raw materials and a central pillar of our sustainability strategy,” says David Grant, senior director for global climate and water solutions at the company.
Besides exceeding targets to improve water efficiency by 25% from 2015 levels by 2025 and to cut water use in agriculture by 15%, PepsiCo is also one of a number of companies with an ambition to have net-positive water impact (NPWI).
The concept was developed by the CEO Water Mandate, opens new tab, and aims to ensure that a company’s contributions towards a healthy water basin exceed their impacts, with a focus on availability, quality and accessibility.
During a session at Climate Week New York, PepsiCo’s vice president, global sustainability, Roberta Barbieri, explained how the company is working with The Nature Conservancy to quantify the ”stacked benefits” of investing in replenishment of watersheds, beyond just saving water.
In one project in Guatemala, TNC used bio-acoustics to get a baseline measure of insect species in that part of the watershed, identifying them by the fluttering of their wings. It will go back in a year’s time to see what impact PepsiCo’s work has had on insect populations.
In another project, in a watershed that provides water to the city of Phoenix, Arizona, PepsiCo worked with TNC to help local farmers convert from growing water-thirsty alfalfa to barley, which needs less water, and is grown at a time of year when there is greater availability.
The farmers have increased their revenue stream because a local distillery is buying the barley and malting it for use in the local craft brewery.
”We’ve expanding our thinking, and are moving from just water-saving benefits, to climate benefits from sequestration and biodiversity benefits,” Barbieri said.
Gilbert of Anthesis says addressing water risk is challenging because water supplies need to be looked at from the perspective of the entire watershed rather than just where the water is withdrawn.
The Colorado river in the U.S., for example, is vital to the economy of California but spans many different states, each with its own regulations, before reaching California.
That means that conservation or restoration projects to improve water resilience, such as restoring wetlands, can happen many miles away from a company’s operations.
It also means that cooperation and collaboration are vital. ”Even the most ambitious company cannot do it alone. We see a big movement towards collective action really starting to gain momentum among companies and investors,” she adds.
One initiative that is facilitating more cooperation is the CEO-led Water Resilience Coalition. It’s Water Action Hub collects information on 100 priority basins ”with the highest level of opportunity for collective action from an economic and shared water risk perspective”.
Last year the coalition and NGO WaterAid launched the Women + Water Collaborative programme, opens new tab, which aims to improve access to clean water and sanitation in water-stressed communities in India. Partners in the project are clothing group Gap, food producer Cargill and pharmaceutical company GSK – companies from different sectors that are all hugely water-reliant, but in different ways.
Besides risks, there are also a lot of economic opportunities arising from the drive to conserve water. PepsiCo, for example, has used advanced water treatment technology such as membrane bioreactors to cut consumption by up to 70%. ”At some sites in Latin America, we are effectively independent of the water utility because we can treat the water we consume and reuse it,” Pepsi’s Grant says.
Justin Winter, co-portfolio manager of asset manager Impax’s Water Strategy, says ”Water efficiency and reuse are two of the biggest opportunity areas. There are already significant issues around water supply conflicts,” he says. ”Semiconductor manufacturers require ultrapure water free from contaminants, for example, so companies like TSMC are looking at reuse rates of around 90%.”
In the UK, water retailer Everflow, which sells only to business customers, expects to see new markets and products open up thanks to the spread of smart meters for water customers. ”There is a huge opportunity to improve water efficiency, reduce consumption by incentivising water-saving and provide better visibility on water use for suppliers and consumers,” says Lois Gill, head of public affairs at Everflow.
And in the U.S., OriginClearis offering decentralised water treatment using the as-a-service model to provide companies with onsite water treatment. Riggs Eckelberry, chairman and CEO, says: ”If you can take industrial users off grid and get them to treat their own effluent, you can provide cheaper water to households and corporates can manage their costs.”
Gilbert of Anthesis says it is vital that businesses take action to reduce their dependence on what is a finite resource. ”It’s not about doing a good deed. It makes strategic business sense to invest in resilience in the face of growing water stress and the risks that creates for business.”
