NATIONAL COMPARISON · 50 STATES + DC
Tap Water Quality Rankings by State 2026
States are ordered by the share of tracked citieswith UCMR5 data flagged over an EPA limit or an active PFAS MCL violation (same bar as our state & city reports). Grades use that percentage only; "safe" cities are tracked locations with no such flag and a low regional concern profile. States without a city guide yet appear at the bottom.
43
states have cities with contaminants above EPA health or enforceable limits in our dataset (UCMR5 flags or MCL violations), among 47 states with at least one tracked city.
HIGH-TRAFFIC CITY REPORTS (FROM SEARCH DEMAND)
Gaithersburg, MD
Grade B · 74/88
WSSC Water · PFAS & testing context
Gaithersburg water quality · water testing Gaithersburg MD · WSSC tap water
Free full report →
San Antonio, TX
Grade D+ · 59/88
272 mg/L hardness · PFAS in UCMR5
San Antonio water quality · PFAS in San Antonio water · water contamination
Free full report →
Chicago, IL
Grade D- · 51/88
400k+ lead lines · PFAS monitoring
Chicago tap water quality · Chicago lead pipes · Chicago water PFAS
Free full report →
Houston, TX
Grade C+ · 67/88
22.4 ppt PFAS · Ship Channel legacy
Houston tap water safe · Houston PFAS · Houston water quality 2026
Free full report →
Phoenix, AZ
Grade C- · 63/88
7.4 ppt PFAS · very hard water
Phoenix tap water quality · Phoenix PFAS · Phoenix water hardness
Free full report →
New York City, NY
Grade B+ · 78/88
PFOS 106 ppt · building lead risk
NYC tap water safe · NYC water PFAS · NYC lead pipes
Free full report →
Miami, FL
Grade F · 43/88
PFOS 33 ppt · MDWASA UCMR5
Miami tap water quality · Miami PFAS · Miami-Dade water safe
Free full report →
Sugar Land, TX
Grade F · 48/88
672 ppt 6:2 FTS peak · PFOA at MCL
Sugar Land PFAS · Sugar Land water quality · 6:2 FTS Texas
Free full report →
Dallas, TX
Grade F · 49/88
PFAS MCL violations · chloramine DBPs
Dallas tap water quality · Dallas PFAS · Dallas water safe
Free full report →
Los Angeles, CA
Grade B- · 71/88
Chromium-6 · 11.4 ppt PFAS
LA tap water quality · Los Angeles PFAS · LA water chromium-6
Free full report →
Click column headers to sort. Default: best rank (lowest % cities at risk) first.
| RANK ▲ | STATE | GRADE | CITIES AT RISK | CITIES SAFE | WORST CONTAMINANT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hawaii 1 tracked | A(0% at risk) | 0 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 2 | Maryland 2 tracked | A(0% at risk) | 0 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 3 | North Dakota 1 tracked | A(0% at risk) | 0 | 0 | PFBA |
| 4 | Washington DC 1 tracked | A(0% at risk) | 0 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 5 | Georgia 2 tracked | C(50% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFBS |
| 6 | Minnesota 2 tracked | C(50% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFBA |
| 7 | Nebraska 2 tracked | C(50% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFHxS |
| 8 | Ohio 6 tracked | C(50% at risk) | 3 | 0 | PFHxA |
| 9 | Pennsylvania 2 tracked | C(50% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFOA |
| 10 | Texas 16 tracked | C(50% at risk) | 8 | 0 | 6:2 FTS |
| 11 | Michigan 3 tracked | D(66.7% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFHxS |
| 12 | Florida 11 tracked | D(72.7% at risk) | 8 | 0 | 6:2 FTS |
| 13 | California 15 tracked | D(73.3% at risk) | 11 | 0 | PFHxS |
| 14 | Virginia 5 tracked | F(80% at risk) | 4 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 15 | North Carolina 7 tracked | F(85.7% at risk) | 6 | 0 | PFOS |
| 16 | Arizona 9 tracked | F(88.9% at risk) | 8 | 0 | PFBS |
| 17 | Alabama 3 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 3 | 0 | PFBS |
| 18 | Alaska 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFOS |
| 19 | Arkansas 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFBA |
| 20 | Colorado 5 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 5 | 0 | PFHxA |
| 21 | Connecticut 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFOS |
| 22 | Idaho 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFNA |
| 23 | Illinois 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFOS |
| 24 | Indiana 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 25 | Iowa 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFBA |
| 26 | Kansas 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 27 | Kentucky 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFBA |
| 28 | Louisiana 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFBA |
| 29 | Maine 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFHxS |
| 30 | Massachusetts 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFOA |
| 31 | Mississippi 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFOS |
| 32 | Missouri 3 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 3 | 0 | PFBA |
| 33 | Nevada 3 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 3 | 0 | PFOS |
| 34 | New Hampshire 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFBA |
| 35 | New Jersey 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFNA |
| 36 | New Mexico 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFPeA |
| 37 | New York 3 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 3 | 0 | PFHxA |
| 38 | Oklahoma 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFOS |
| 39 | Oregon 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFHxS |
| 40 | Rhode Island 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFBS |
| 41 | South Carolina 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | HFPO-DA |
| 42 | South Dakota 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFHxS |
| 43 | Tennessee 5 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 5 | 0 | PFBS |
| 44 | Utah 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFOS |
| 45 | Washington 3 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 3 | 0 | PFOS |
| 46 | West Virginia 1 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 1 | 0 | PFOA |
| 47 | Wisconsin 2 tracked | F(100% at risk) | 2 | 0 | PFBA |
| 48 | Delaware No city data | — | 0 | 0 | — |
| 49 | Montana No city data | — | 0 | 0 | — |
| 50 | Vermont No city data | — | 0 | 0 | — |
| 51 | Wyoming No city data | — | 0 | 0 | — |
LOWEST WATER SAFETY SCORES (TOP 20 CITIES)
Composite 0–88 exposure profile (PFAS MCL, monitoring, lead/DBP flags). Full ranking →
1.PensacolaFL
34/88 · F2.Fort WorthTX
39/88 · F3.SacramentoCA
41/88 · F4.PhiladelphiaPA
42/88 · F5.RochesterNY
42/88 · F6.BoiseID
43/88 · F7.Fort CollinsCO
43/88 · F8.FresnoCA
43/88 · F9.JacksonMS
43/88 · F10.MiamiFL
43/88 · F11.GilbertAZ
44/88 · F12.MadisonWI
44/88 · F13.MilwaukeeWI
44/88 · F14.NewarkNJ
45/88 · F15.AnaheimCA
46/88 · F16.SavannahGA
46/88 · F17.BirminghamAL
48/88 · F18.DetroitMI
48/88 · F19.Grand RapidsMI
48/88 · F20.HartfordCT
48/88 · FMOST UCMR5 DETECTIONS (TOP 20 CITIES)
Top 20 tracked cities by count of distinct contaminants detected above zero in EPA UCMR5 data (not all are above health or legal limits — see each city report).
1.Cape CoralFL
12 contaminants2.West Palm BeachFL
12 contaminants3.PensacolaFL
12 contaminants4.HialeahFL
11 contaminants5.MiamiFL
11 contaminants6.New York CityNY
10 contaminants7.WichitaKS
10 contaminants8.FresnoCA
10 contaminants9.San FranciscoCA
9 contaminants10.Long BeachCA
9 contaminants11.GreensboroNC
9 contaminants12.FremontCA
9 contaminants13.FayettevilleNC
9 contaminants14.JacksonMS
9 contaminants15.Fort LauderdaleFL
9 contaminants16.GlendaleCA
9 contaminants17.PhiladelphiaPA
8 contaminants18.SeattleWA
8 contaminants19.DenverCO
8 contaminants20.DetroitMI
8 contaminantsMethodology:State letter grades are not EPA grades — they reflect the percent of WaterCheckup city pages in that state with UCMR5 exceedance flags (A = 0–10% of those cities, B = 11–25%, C = 26–50%, D = 51–74%, F = 75% or more of those cities at risk). "Worst contaminant" is the analyte with the highest reported detection (ppt) among tracked cities in that state.
MOST TRUSTED FILTERS
Pick a category to see our top certified options — compare a short list, then choose what fits your home.
* Affiliate links — we may earn a commission at no cost to you. Our recommendations are based on certifications and data, not paid placements.