Not necessarily, which is also why animals do not have rights. A right isn't always the correct solution to a problem.

For example, if your tap water is poisonous, but you can get safe drinking water from a store, you right to safe drinking water would be satisfied by what the store provides.

I'd say the main issue in this story is that the danger was known, but not disclosed.

> safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions?

If we invert it to the actual reality (many places have unsafe drinking water), then we get "the right to avoid being poisoned by your government".

It sounds obvious to me that that should already be the case.

But I don't know much about water treatment. Maybe it isn't always feasible?

Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places? Or get reverse osmosis filters?