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

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

San Francisco, California · 2025 data

San Francisco leads the cohort on plain language — every section opens with a sixth-grade-reading-level summary box, and it discloses a turbidity monitoring lapse in honest English. It is let down by a serviceable-but-plain layout and by deferring its full PFAS results to the website rather than printing them.

View their report Display your badge

73/100

report clarity score

Silver

#8 of 25 reviewed · top 32%

Cohort median: 69/100

What their report looks like

SFPUC's fluoridation and PFAS page featuring plain-language 'Summary' callout boxes, including a 'Summary: No PFAS Detected' box. — San Francisco frames the science in plain-English summary boxes so residents get the bottom line at a glance.

How it scored, pillar by pillar

Weighted across five pillars for a 73/100 overall. Each note explains why this report earned that score.

Plain-language clarity25% of score

5/5+1.3 vs avg

The plain-language champion — every section opens with a sixth-grade-reading-level summary box that says what the data means before it shows it.

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

4/5≈ cohort avg

Honest about a turbidity monitoring lapse and reports the lead-service-line program at 96% complete, four years early; held back only because the full PFAS results are deferred to the website.

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

3/5≈ cohort avg

Serviceable rather than striking — clear, but without the charts-against-limits or card layouts the top reports use.

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

A PDF with no responsive web-native report.

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

Recent (2025) data with a mostly complete panel, minus the web-deferred PFAS detail.

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

The plain-language champion: every section opens with a sixth-grade-reading-level summary box.
Discloses a turbidity monitoring lapse in honest, plain English.
Reports a lead service line program 96% complete, four years early.

Where it falls short

PFAS results are deferred to the website rather than printed in full, and the layout itself is serviceable rather than striking.

How it compares

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's report ranks #8 of 25 reviewed utilities, with a report-clarity score of 73/100 against a cohort median of 69. That places it in the top 32%.

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 San Francisco's water data