#6 of 25 · Best Water Quality Reports in America 2026SilverPDF report

Greenville Water

Greenville, South Carolina · 2025 data

Greenville does something no other report dares — it throws out the regulatory table and rebuilds every contaminant as a plain-language card with the value, the goal, and the limit. It is the most readable report in the cohort. The trade-off is completeness: the card format surfaces fewer contaminants than a full table, which holds its transparency score down.

View their report Display your badge

74/100

report clarity score

Silver

#6 of 25 reviewed · top 24%

Cohort median: 69/100

What their report looks like

Greenville Water's 'Sample Results' page laying out each contaminant (fluoride, nitrate, sodium, chloramine, TOC) as a big-number card with its detected value, goal, and limit. — Greenville turns dense contaminant data into easy-to-scan cards, one per contaminant.

How it scored, pillar by pillar

Weighted across five pillars for a 74/100 overall. Each note explains why this report earned that score.

Plain-language clarity25% of score

5/5+1.3 vs avg

The most readable in the cohort — it relabels MCLG/MCL as “Ideal Goal” and “Highest Level Allowed” and uses hot-tub, Olympic-pool, and six-acre-lake analogies for the units.

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

3/5-1.0 vs avg

The honest weak spot — the card format is clear but surfaces fewer contaminants than a full regulatory table would, so completeness is traded for readability.

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

4.6/5+1.5 vs avg

The strongest pure information design here — every contaminant is a big-number card showing the value, the goal, the limit, and how it enters the water.

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

2/5≈ cohort avg

Delivered as a PDF with no responsive web-native version.

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

4/5≈ cohort avg

Current (2025) data, though the abbreviated panel is less complete than the leaders'.

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 each pillar means →

What it does best

Abandons the regulatory table entirely: every contaminant is a big-number card with the value, the goal, the limit, and how it gets in the water.
Relabels MCLG/MCL as 'Ideal Goal' and 'Highest Level Allowed' so a layperson can read it.
Illustrated hot-tub / Olympic-pool / six-acre-lake analogies for the units.

Where it falls short

The card format is the most readable in the cohort, but it shows fewer contaminants than a full table would — completeness is traded for clarity.

How it compares

Greenville Water's report ranks #6 of 25 reviewed utilities, with a report-clarity score of 74/100 against a cohort median of 69. That places it in the top 24%.

See the full leaderboard

What 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 Greenville's water data