Denver Water
Denver, Colorado
Denver is one of the few utilities that publishes a genuine web-native report, not just a PDF — navigable, per-plant, and upfront about the monitoring requirement it missed. Its transparency is top-tier; its weakest pillar is information design, since the data still arrives as conventional tables rather than visuals.
Scored edition: 2026 Water Quality Report (2025 data).
- Corrected September 13, 2026: Each scorecard now names and links the exact report edition we scored, and notes any newer edition the utility has published. Some report links had pointed to pages that have since moved on to a newer edition.
- Corrected September 13, 2026: The scorecard said the report disclosed two monitoring violations and a treatment deficiency and committed to a 2035 lead line replacement target. The two monitoring violations, and a significant deficiency related to storage conditions, are disclosed in Denver Water's 2025 report; the 2026 report we scored discloses one missed monitoring requirement. Neither report commits to 2035: both say that when the Lead Reduction Program was launched, all lead service lines were slated to be removed by 2035. The scorecard also gave the data year as 2024; the 2026 report covers 2025. Scores are unchanged.
- Corrected September 13, 2026: Verdicts that named one factor as the only thing holding a report back now name it as the main one, matching sub-scores in which more than one pillar is below 5.
- Corrected September 13, 2026: Mount Pleasant Waterworks' transparency score changed from 5 to 4, moving it from #2 to #5 (still Gold, now 80/100); Tucson Water, DC Water and Denver Water each move up one place. Its report prints its PFAS results, including PFOS at 6.6 ppt, in a table that gives no limits and says such compounds may not have health-based standards, without mentioning the EPA's 4 ppt limit that result is above. The top transparency score calls for results shown against the limits and problems disclosed plainly.
- Corrected September 13, 2026: Scores reviewed after these corrections and kept: Denver Water's transparency (5), because its 2026 report shows lead and PFAS results against the limits and explains its missed monitoring requirement plainly; San Francisco's transparency (4), matching other reports that give PFAS as a not-detected statement; Tucson Water's digital accessibility (2), the score every PDF-only report received; and Philadelphia's clarity (5). East Bay MUD's score is for the 2024-data report that was read, which its scorecard notes had already been replaced when the ranking was published.
What their report looks like
How it scored, pillar by pillar
Weighted across five pillars for a 81/100 overall. Each note explains why this report earned that score.
Plain-language clarity25% of score
A plain-language Q&A — what happened, how it affected water quality, what was done — explains the monitoring requirement it missed; most terms are translated, though a few sections still read technical.
A 5/5 looks like: Every term is translated, units are made tangible (e.g. an Olympic-pool analogy), and each section opens with what it means for you.
Contaminant transparency25% of score
Discloses its missed monitoring requirement outright, prints lead and copper 90th-percentile results against the action level and its UCMR5 PFAS results in a table covering all treatment plants, and notes that when its Lead Reduction Program launched, all lead service lines were slated to be removed by 2035, pointing readers to the program dashboard for progress.
A 5/5 looks like: PFAS, lead and any exceedances are shown with real values against the limits, and problems are disclosed plainly rather than buried.
Information design20% of score
The weak point — strong on disclosure, but the numbers stay in conventional regulatory tables with little visual encoding.
A 5/5 looks like: Contaminant data is visually encoded — charts against limits, multi-year trends, comparisons a layperson reads at a glance.
Digital accessibility & delivery20% of score
A real HTML report alongside the PDF, with jump-link navigation, accordion sections, and per-plant results — close to web-native best practice.
A 5/5 looks like: A responsive web-native report with navigation, charts, and an address lookup — not just a PDF.
Timeliness & completeness10% of score
A complete panel including emerging contaminants.
A 5/5 looks like: The most recent data year, with a complete contaminant panel including unregulated/emerging compounds.
marks the cohort average across all 25 reviewed reports.
What it does best
- A genuine HTML report alongside the PDF — jump-link navigation, accordion sections, and per-plant results.
- Explains the monitoring requirement it missed in a plain-language Q&A: what happened, how it affected water quality, what was done.
- Prints its UCMR5 PFAS results in a table covering all treatment plants, and points to a dashboard tracking lead service line replacement.
Where it falls short
The data still arrives as conventional regulatory tables — strong transparency, but little visual encoding of the numbers.
How it compares
Denver Water's report ranks #4 of 25 reviewed utilities, with a report-clarity score of 81/100 against a cohort median of 69. That places it in the top 16%.
See the full leaderboardWhat even this report can't tell you
A report describes the water leaving the plant, not what reaches your tap — your building's plumbing is where lead usually enters.
See Denver's water data
Denver Water, display your badge
Free to use. Both versions link back to this page so residents can see how the report was scored. Paste either one where you list your recognitions; use the text link if your site strips images.
Independent and free. Displaying the badge does not affect rank. If any detail of your score is off, email hello@tapwaterdata.com and we will review the source and correct it.
Get the Weekly Water Brief
One email a week on water testing, treatment, and what water-quality data means for your home.
One email a week. Unsubscribe anytime.