Tap water by city
What your city's water record actually says
The 50 largest US water systems, with every figure taken from the utility's own published report or EPA's national monitoring data. Start by finding yours.
Scored against health guidance rather than legal minimums. Twenty of the fifty carry no score yet, because their reports didn't state enough figures clearly enough to use and we don't fill gaps with guesses.
Seattle, WA
Seattle Public Utilities · Cedar River WatershedSPU reports no known lead service lines in its distribution system, although short lead connections may exist.
Albuquerque, NM
ABCWUA · San Juan-Chama surfaceTucson, AZ
Tucson Water · Colorado River waterTulsa, OK
Tulsa WaterNashville, TN
Metro Water Services · Cumberland RiverCleveland, OH
Cleveland Water · Lake ErieReport states Cleveland Water met or exceeded all regulatory requirements in 2025.
San Diego, CA
San Diego Public Utilities · Blended local reservoirDenver, CO
Denver Water · Mountain snowmeltBoston, MA
MWRA · Quabbin ReservoirPortland, OR
Portland Water Bureau · Bull Run Watershed primaryLos Angeles, CA
LADWP · Los Angeles AqueductNo lead service lines system-wide; blended supplies make some figures ranges rather than single values.
Phoenix, AZ
Phoenix Water Services · About 97-99% surface waterHonolulu, HI
Honolulu Board of Water Supply · GroundwaterNo 2025 violations reported.
Chicago, IL
Chicago DWM · Lake MichiganKansas City, MO
KC Water · Primarily Missouri RiverAdministrative monitoring/notification violations related to the Lead and Copper Rule noted; no lead action-level exceedance.
Dallas, TX
Dallas Water UtilitiesNew York, NY
NYC DEP · Catskill/Delaware SystemUtility reported isolated PFAS detections outside UCMR 5 monitoring; the UCMR 5 record itself is a non-detect.
Austin, TX
Austin Water · Colorado River / HighlandCity reports no public lead pipes; a small galvanized-requiring-replacement category remains.
Aurora, CO
Aurora WaterWashington, DC
DC Water · Potomac RiverLead compliance sampling continues semiannually; lead-service-line replacement program active.
Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia Water · Delaware RiverMiami, FL
Miami-Dade WASD · Biscayne AquiferCharlotte, NC
Charlotte Water · Mountain Island LakeUtility states no 2025 drinking-water violations.
Detroit, MI
Great Lakes Water Authority · Great Lakes surface waterJacksonville, FL
JEA · Groundwater from theAnaheim, CA
Anaheim Public Utilities · Local groundwater plus2025 service-line inventory found no known lead service lines. No TTHM LRAA exceeded the MCL.
Bakersfield, CA
Bakersfield Water · Local groundwaterReport states system met every primary and secondary standard in 2024; multiple sources make results ranges.
Houston, TX
Houston Water · 90.3% surface waterSan Antonio, TX
San Antonio Water System · Multiple groundwaterLas Vegas, NV
Las Vegas Valley Water District · About 90% Lake Mead /Fort Worth, TX
Fort Worth Water · Multiple surface-waterThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Columbus, OH
Columbus Water & Power · Scioto River (Dublin RoadThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Indianapolis, IN
Citizens Energy GroupThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
San Francisco, CA
SFPUC · Tuolumne River watershedThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Memphis, TN
Memphis Light, Gas & Water · Memphis Sand AquiferThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Louisville, KY
Louisville Water Company · Ohio RiverThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Baltimore, MD
Baltimore DPW · Surface water fromThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Milwaukee, WI
Milwaukee Water Works · Lake MichiganThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Fresno, CA
Fresno Water Division · Fresno Sole Source AquiferThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Sacramento, CA
Sacramento Utilities · About 80% AmericanThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Mesa, AZ
Mesa Water Resources · Blended surface waterThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta Watershed ManagementThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Omaha, NE
Metropolitan Utilities District · Two independent waterThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Raleigh, NC
Raleigh Water · Falls LakeThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis Water · Mississippi RiverThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Wichita, KS
Wichita Water UtilitiesThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Arlington, TX
Arlington Water Utilities · Surface waterThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
New Orleans, LA
Sewerage & Water Board · Mississippi RiverThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Tampa, FL
Tampa Water DepartmentThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Santa Ana, CA
Santa Ana Water ResourcesThis utility's current report is published, but the figures we score on were not stated in a form we could read without guessing. No score is shown until they are.
Cities get added by request volume, so asking genuinely moves the queue. If your utility publishes a Consumer Confidence Report, and nearly all do, we can collect and translate it.
Request your cityWhy some cities show more figures than others
The unevenness is not an oversight, and it maps exactly onto which data is machine-readable and which is buried in a PDF.
| Measure | Cities covered | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Lead (90th percentile) | 49 of 50 | EPA SDWIS publishes this nationally in a structured file |
| PFAS | 46 of 50 | EPA UCMR 5 covers every large system in one dataset |
| TTHMs | 26 of 50 | No national table. Only in each utility's own annual report |
| HAA5 | 26 of 50 | Same, and many reports print an ordinary average rather than the running annual average |
| Nitrate | 20 of 50 | Reported inconsistently, often as a range across blended sources |
| Arsenic | 16 of 50 | Only disclosed in detail when detected above half the legal limit |
Where a utility printed a figure we could not read unambiguously, we left it out rather than compare unlike numbers. A city needs at least three inputs to receive a score, which is why 30 are scored and 20 are not. Those twenty still show whatever figures we could confirm, with their source attached.
How to read these cards
Lead is a 90th percentile figure from tap sampling, meaning nine in ten sampled homes were at or below it, and sampling runs on a multi-year cycle, so check the year. TTHM figures are locational running annual averages, not single readings. Everything else is utility-reported from the treatment plant, averaged over a year, so read these as the floor of what is known rather than a reading from your own faucet. Bars are scaled against health guidance, which is why a legal number can still show amber.
City not listed? Request it.
We add cities by request volume. If your utility publishes an annual water quality report, we can collect it, translate it, and score it, usually within one update cycle.
Lab notes, monthly
New reports, score changes, what moved
One email a month. New utility reports as they land, cities that changed score and why, and what the latest EPA monitoring actually showed. No product pitches, because nobody pays us to send one.
Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.