East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, California
East Bay MUD has the smartest table architecture in the cohort — a four-part taxonomy keyed to a color-coded service map, with a numbered walkthrough teaching residents how to read it. It even gives its unregulated detections — PFBA, NDMA and chlorate — a table of their own. A stock-photo cover, a web-deferred PFAS panel, and no online version keep it in the silver tier.
Scored edition: 2024 Annual Water Quality Report (2024 data). By the time this ranking was published on June 13, 2026, East Bay Municipal Utility District had already published its 2025 Annual Water Quality Report (2025 data), which was not scored.
- 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 prints unregulated detections most utilities hide. Utilities must report these contaminants when they are detected, so it now says only that the report gives them a table of their own.
- 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 70/100 overall. Each note explains why this report earned that score.
Plain-language clarity25% of score
A numbered six-step “how to read the tables” walkthrough with an annotated sample lowers the barrier to an otherwise dense subject.
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
Gives its unregulated detections (PFBA, NDMA, chlorate) a table of their own; held back only because the PFAS-6 panel is deferred to the web.
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 smartest table architecture here — a four-table taxonomy (health, aesthetics, unregulated, customer-interest) keyed to a color-coded service map — though it organizes tables rather than charting them.
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
No responsive online report, and the cover leans on stock photography.
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 broad panel including unregulated compounds.
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
- The smartest table architecture in the cohort: a four-table taxonomy (health / aesthetics / unregulated / customer-interest) keyed to a color-coded service map.
- A numbered six-step 'how to read the tables' walkthrough with an annotated sample.
- Gives its unregulated detections (PFBA, NDMA, chlorate) a table of their own.
Where it falls short
The cover is pure stock photography, the PFAS-6 panel is web-deferred, and there is no responsive online report.
How it compares
East Bay Municipal Utility District's report ranks #10 of 25 reviewed utilities, with a report-clarity score of 70/100 against a cohort median of 69. That places it in the top 40%.
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 Oakland's water data
East Bay Municipal Utility District, 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.