San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco, California
San Francisco leads the cohort on plain language — most of its sections carry a plain-language summary box, and it discloses a turbidity monitoring lapse in honest English. It is let down by a serviceable-but-plain layout, and its PFAS testing appears as a statement that all 29 compounds tested were not detected rather than as a results table.
Scored edition: 2025 Annual 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 defers its full PFAS results to the website, that every section opens with a sixth-grade-reading-level summary box, and that its lead service line program is 96% complete. The report states that all 29 PFAS compounds it tested were not detected; five of its seven numbered sections include a plain-language summary box, and it states no reading level; and the 96% figure is its replacement of galvanized service lines that may have lead whips — it removed all known lead service lines in the 1980s. Scores are unchanged.
- 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 73/100 overall. Each note explains why this report earned that score.
Plain-language clarity25% of score
The plain-language champion — five of its seven numbered sections include a plain-language 'Summary' box, four of them at the top of the section, so the reader gets the meaning before the detail.
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
Prints its lead result (4.9 ppb at the 90th percentile, against the 15 ppb action level), is honest about a turbidity monitoring lapse, and reports its replacement of utility-owned galvanized service lines that may have lead whips as 96% complete, four years ahead of schedule; its PFAS testing appears as a not-detected statement rather than a results table.
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
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
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
Its PFAS testing is reported as a statement that all 29 compounds tested were not detected, rather than as a table.
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
- Plain-language 'Summary' boxes in five of its seven numbered sections.
- Discloses a turbidity monitoring lapse in honest, plain English.
- Reports its replacement of utility-owned galvanized service lines that may have lead whips as 96% complete, four years ahead of schedule.
Where it falls short
Its PFAS testing appears as a statement that all 29 compounds tested were not detected, rather than as a results table, 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 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 San Francisco's water data
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 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.