Which US city has the worst tap water?

Of the 100 largest US cities, Reno, NV ranked lowest on our 2026 measures. The bottom 10 above show which pillars cost each city the most points and how often it stayed in the bottom 10 across scenarios.

What are the top 10 US cities for tap water?

On our 2026 measures, the top 10 of the 100 largest US cities are Urban Honolulu, HI, Albuquerque, NM, Virginia Beach, VA, Chesapeake, VA, Seattle, WA, Charlotte, NC, Memphis, TN, Boston, MA, Chula Vista, CA, Raleigh, NC and Nashville, TN. Raleigh, NC and Nashville, TN tie for the last place in the top 10.

Is my city's tap water safe to drink?

This ranking compares the water systems of the 100 largest cities with each other and does not certify any of them. Search for your city above, then open its city page for the system's own test results, violations and lead data.

How is the ranking measured?

Each city's main water system is scored from 0 to 100 on four pillars: lead (30 %), PFAS (25 %), other regulated contaminants (25 %) and EPA compliance history (20 %), from EPA records and utility reports with data to 2026-10-20. A red flag keeps a system out of Tier 1, and tiers come from each city's median rank across the sensitivity scenarios.

Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked (2026)

Name: Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked (2026)
Creator: TapWaterData
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

TapWaterData Editorial

We sorted the 100 largest US cities into five groups, called tiers, by their tap water. Tier 1 is the highest group and Tier 5 the lowest.

Tier 1

80.6–91.3

Tier 2

75.7–80.5

Tier 3

70.4–75.3

Tier 4

63.3–68.4

Tier 5

50.6–62.3

Is your city on the list?

Why groups and not one list: In 42 of the 100 cities, the 90 % rank range spans more than 10 places. So a small gap in score between two cities does not mean much.

By rank, Urban Honolulu, HI placed first and Reno, NV placed last.

30 %lead

25 %PFAS

25 %other regulated contaminants

20 %EPA compliance history

Basis: each city's main water system, scored on lead, PFAS, other regulated contaminants and EPA compliance history (weighted 30, 25, 25 and 20), with data to 2026-10-20.

Key findings

24 ranked water systems had a PFAS monitoring average above an EPA limit that is not yet enforceable (TapWaterData, Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked, 2026 edition).
21 ranked water systems have a lead service-line inventory that lists lines of unknown material (TapWaterData, Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked, 2026 edition).
In 42 of the 100 cities, the 90 % rank range spans more than 10 places (TapWaterData, Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked, 2026 edition).

2026 edition (dataset version 2026.1). Data cutoff 2026-10-20. Last checked 2026-11-09. Changelog

EPA violations: 2021-10-01 to 2026-09-30.
Lead test results: 2016-01-01 to 2026-10-20.
PFAS tests (EPA UCMR 5): 2023-01-03 to 2026-06-16.
Annual water quality reports: 2001-01-01 to 2025-12-31.

Full ranking

The 100 largest US cities by their main water system's 2026 score
	Tie		State	Water system	Tier		Population	Pillars	Red flag	Rank range	Above health goal	Data flags
1		Urban Honolulu	HI	HNL-WINDWARD-PEARL HARBOR	Tier 1	91.3	341,868	Lead 99.7. PFAS 73.2. Other 92.2. Violations 100.0.	None	1 to 1 in 90 % of scenarios	0	Regional system: serves 631,389 people, against a city population of 341,868. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
2		Albuquerque	NM	ALBUQUERQUE WATER SYSTEM	Tier 1	86.6	556,588	Lead 100.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 72.3. Violations 100.0.	None	2 to 2 in 90 % of scenarios	3
3		Virginia Beach	VA	VIRGINIA BEACH, CITY OF	Tier 1	86.1	453,737	Lead 99.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 70.8. Violations 100.0.	None	3 to 4 in 90 % of scenarios	0	Buys water from City of Norfolk, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Chesapeake, VA.
4		Chesapeake	VA	CITY OF CHESAPEAKE - NORTHWEST RIVER SYS	Tier 1	86.0	255,332	Lead 96.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 74.0. Violations 100.0.	None	3 to 4 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Buys water from City of Norfolk, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Virginia Beach, VA.
5		Seattle	WA	SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES	Tier 1	85.2	784,777	Lead 96.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 70.7. Violations 100.0.	None	5 to 6 in 90 % of scenarios	2
6		Charlotte	NC	CHARLOTTE WATER	Tier 1	84.3	964,784	Lead 99.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 64.5. Violations 100.0.	None	6 to 9 in 90 % of scenarios	0	Lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
7		Memphis	TN	MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS, & WATER	Tier 1	83.6	609,647	Lead 73.3. PFAS 74.0. Other 92.3. Violations 100.0.	None	5 to 17 in 90 % of scenarios	3
8		Boston	MA	BOSTON WATER AND SEWER COMMISSION (MWRA)	Tier 1	83.3	672,973	Lead 81.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 81.0. Violations 100.0.	None	7 to 14 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
9		Chula Vista	CA	OTAY WATER DISTRICT	Tier 1	83.2	275,533	Lead 100.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 58.9. Violations 100.0.	None	7 to 12 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Buys water from San Diego County Water Authority, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for San Diego, CA. Also serves about 42 % of the city: SWEETWATER AUTHORITY, score 60.0.
10	Tied	Raleigh	NC	RALEIGH, CITY OF	Tier 1	82.9	506,306	Lead 99.0. PFAS 56.7. Other 76.2. Violations 100.0.	None	7 to 17 in 90 % of scenarios	1	A water system listed for this city is also listed for Durham, NC. Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
10	Tied	Nashville	TN	METRO WATER SERVICES	Tier 1	82.9	721,074	Lead 91.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 68.9. Violations 98.8.	None	8 to 12 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
12		Kansas City	MO	KANSAS CITY PWS	Tier 1	82.8	521,220	Lead 83.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 82.7. Violations 93.8.	None	8 to 16 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
13	Tied	Riverside	CA	RIVERSIDE, CITY OF	Tier 1	82.1	323,057	Lead 98.0. PFAS 69.0. Other 61.6. Violations 100.0.	None	10 to 16 in 90 % of scenarios	4
13	Tied	Tulsa	OK	TULSA	Tier 1	82.1	416,209	Lead 94.4. PFAS 74.0. Other 60.9. Violations 100.0.	None	11 to 15 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
15		Colorado Springs	CO	COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES	Tier 1	82.0	494,743	Lead 85.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 71.5. Violations 100.0.	None	12 to 18 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
16		Long Beach	CA	LONG BEACH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT	Tier 1	81.9	450,469	Lead 98.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 55.8. Violations 100.0.	None	9 to 17 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Los Angeles, CA.
17		Winston-Salem	NC	WINSTON-SALEM, CITY OF	Tier 1	81.8	257,271	Lead 99.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 54.3. Violations 100.0.	None	9 to 19 in 90 % of scenarios	0	Regional system: serves 391,900 people, against a city population of 257,271. Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
18		Irvine	CA	IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT	Tier 1	80.9	318,764	Lead 100.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 49.4. Violations 100.0.	None	15 to 26 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Santa Ana, CA.
19		St. Louis	MO	ST LOUIS CITY PWS	Tier 1	80.6	278,144	Lead 83.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 73.9. Violations 92.5.	None	16 to 30 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
20	Tied	Louisville	KY	LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY	Tier 2	80.5	641,962	Lead 95.1. PFAS 60.2. Other 67.7. Violations 100.0.	None	18 to 28 in 90 % of scenarios	2
20	Tied	Irving	TX	CITY OF IRVING	Tier 2	80.5	257,076	Lead 96.1. PFAS 61.1. Other 65.5. Violations 100.0.	None	19 to 27 in 90 % of scenarios	3
20	Tied	Richmond	VA	RICHMOND, CITY OF	Tier 2	80.5	237,257	Lead 85.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 65.2. Violations 100.0.	None	19 to 26 in 90 % of scenarios	3
23	Tied	Oakland	CA	EAST BAY MUD	Tier 2	80.2	440,838	Lead 97.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 49.5. Violations 100.0.	None	19 to 30 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Regional system: serves 1,468,000 people, against a city population of 440,838.
23	Tied	Arlington	TX	CITY OF ARLINGTON	Tier 2	80.2	402,134	Lead 97.2. PFAS 57.0. Other 67.0. Violations 100.0.	None	20 to 31 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Buys water from Tarrant Regional Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities.
25	Tied	Aurora	CO	AURORA CITY OF	Tier 2	80.0	410,053	Lead 87.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 61.0. Violations 100.0.	None	21 to 28 in 90 % of scenarios	4	A water system listed for this city is also listed for Denver, CO. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
25	Tied	Minneapolis	MN	Minneapolis	Tier 2	80.0	430,324	Lead 78.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 72.7. Violations 98.8.	None	18 to 33 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
27		Atlanta	GA	ATLANTA	Tier 2	79.7	529,110	Lead 93.3. PFAS 74.0. Other 54.0. Violations 98.8.	None	23 to 31 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Regional system: serves 1,089,893 people, against a city population of 529,110. Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
28		Portland	OR	PORTLAND WATER BUREAU	Tier 2	79.6	635,109	Lead 90.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 57.6. Violations 98.8.	None	25 to 31 in 90 % of scenarios	2
29	Tied	San Diego	CA	SAN DIEGO, CITY OF	Tier 2	79.4	1,406,106	Lead 100.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 43.8. Violations 100.0.	None	20 to 35 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Buys water from San Diego County Water Authority, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Chula Vista, CA.
29	Tied	San Francisco	CA	SFPUC CITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION	Tier 2	79.4	826,079	Lead 99.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 44.6. Violations 100.0.	None	21 to 35 in 90 % of scenarios	1
29	Tied	Denver	CO	DENVER WATER BOARD	Tier 2	79.4	740,613	Lead 83.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 76.1. Violations 83.8.	None	21 to 34 in 90 % of scenarios	1	A water system listed for this city is also listed for Aurora, CO. Regional system: serves 1,287,000 people, against a city population of 740,613.
32	Tied	Port St Lucie	FL	PORT ST LUCIE UTILITIES	Tier 2	78.7	268,062	Lead 89.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 67.0. Violations 83.8.	None	29 to 35 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
32	Tied	Oklahoma City	OK	OKLAHOMA CITY	Tier 2	78.7	719,849	Lead 97.5. PFAS 74.0. Other 44.0. Violations 100.0.	None	27 to 37 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
34		Dallas	TX	DALLAS WATER UTILITY	Tier 2Red flag	78.6	1,329,491	Lead 94.2. PFAS 49.7. Other 71.8. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	25 to 37 in 90 % of scenarios	3	A water system listed for this city is also listed for Garland, TX. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
35		Anchorage	AK	MOA MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE	Tier 2Red flag	78.4	287,155	Lead 100.0. PFAS 32.6. Other 84.0. Violations 96.3.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	19 to 44 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
36		Pittsburgh	PA	PITTSBURGH WATER & SEWER AUTH	Tier 2	78.3	307,632	Lead 79.9. PFAS 74.0. Other 71.5. Violations 90.0.	None	29 to 37 in 90 % of scenarios	1	Regional system: serves 520,000 people, against a city population of 307,632. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
37		Cape Coral	FL	CAPE CORAL, CITY OF	Tier 2	77.8	236,264	Lead 95.5. PFAS 74.0. Other 66.6. Violations 70.0.	None	32 to 39 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
38		Cleveland	OH	CLEVELAND PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM	Tier 2	76.8	363,608	Lead 73.4. PFAS 74.0. Other 66.9. Violations 97.5.	None	35 to 45 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Regional system: serves 1,308,955 people, against a city population of 363,608. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
39		Los Angeles	CA	LOS ANGELES-CITY, DEPT. OF WATER & POWER	Tier 2	76.7	3,869,089	Lead 92.2. PFAS 74.0. Other 42.2. Violations 100.0.	None	35 to 40 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Long Beach, CA.
40		McKinney	TX	CITY OF MCKINNEY	Tier 2	75.7	236,001	Lead 93.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 37.2. Violations 100.0.	None	38 to 44 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Buys water from North Texas Municipal Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Frisco, TX. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
41		St. Petersburg	FL	ST PETERSBURG, CITY OF	Tier 3	75.3	264,033	Lead 84.5. PFAS 74.0. Other 51.0. Violations 93.8.	None	40 to 46 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Tampa Bay Water, which also supplies other ranked cities.
42	Tied	Austin	TX	CITY OF AUSTIN WATER & WASTEWATER	Tier 3	75.2	1,002,632	Lead 99.3. PFAS 64.5. Other 57.1. Violations 75.0.	None	39 to 49 in 90 % of scenarios	1
42	Tied	Lubbock	TX	LUBBOCK PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM	Tier 3	75.2	273,071	Lead 93.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 37.4. Violations 96.3.	None	40 to 46 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
44		Corpus Christi	TX	CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI	Tier 3	75.0	317,247	Lead 93.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 33.9. Violations 100.0.	None	40 to 47 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
45		Orlando	FL	ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION	Tier 3	74.8	333,888	Lead 94.3. PFAS 74.0. Other 32.1. Violations 100.0.	None	41 to 48 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Regional system: serves 536,466 people, against a city population of 333,888. Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
46		Tampa	FL	CITY OF TAMPA WATER DEPARTMENT	Tier 3Red flag	74.7	413,554	Lead 95.3. PFAS 35.4. Other 68.9. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	38 to 55 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Tampa Bay Water, which also supplies other ranked cities. Regional system: serves 733,886 people, against a city population of 413,554. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
47		Lexington-Fayette	KY	KENTUCKY-AMERICAN WATER CO	Tier 3	74.3	329,751	Lead 95.4. PFAS 74.0. Other 28.8. Violations 100.0.	None	43 to 50 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Regional system: serves 669,042 people, against a city population of 329,751. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
48		Toledo	OH	TOLEDO CITY OF	Tier 3	73.8	263,423	Lead 73.4. PFAS 74.0. Other 78.3. Violations 68.8.	None	40 to 58 in 90 % of scenarios	0	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
49	Tied	Durham	NC	DURHAM, CITY OF	Tier 3Red flag	73.6	305,561	Lead 99.0. PFAS 42.0. Other 54.5. Violations 98.8.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	42 to 57 in 90 % of scenarios	2	A water system listed for this city is also listed for Raleigh, NC. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
49	Tied	Henderson	NV	HENDERSON CITY OF	Tier 3	73.6	353,289	Lead 92.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 30.0. Violations 100.0.	None	46 to 52 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Southern Nevada Water System, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Las Vegas, NV and North Las Vegas, NV. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
51		Jacksonville	FL	JEA MAJOR GRID	Tier 3	73.3	1,017,689	Lead 88.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 33.8. Violations 98.8.	None	48 to 52 in 90 % of scenarios	4
52		Glendale	AZ	GLENDALE CITY OF	Tier 3	72.9	260,572	Lead 95.5. PFAS 74.0. Other 25.1. Violations 97.5.	None	48 to 55 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Phoenix, AZ and Scottsdale, AZ. Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
53		North Las Vegas	NV	NORTH LAS VEGAS UTILITIES	Tier 3	72.3	296,653	Lead 96.9. PFAS 74.0. Other 19.0. Violations 100.0.	None	49 to 56 in 90 % of scenarios	6	Buys water from Southern Nevada Water System, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Las Vegas, NV and Henderson, NV. Lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
54		Wichita	KS	WICHITA, CITY OF	Tier 3	72.1	400,987	Lead 72.3. PFAS 74.0. Other 47.8. Violations 100.0.	None	50 to 58 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
55		Milwaukee	WI	MILWAUKEE WATERWORKS	Tier 3	71.7	562,407	Lead 57.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 64.3. Violations 100.0.	None	46 to 61 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
56		Scottsdale	AZ	SCOTTSDALE CITY OF	Tier 3	71.6	243,006	Lead 95.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 24.2. Violations 92.5.	None	52 to 57 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Phoenix, AZ and Glendale, AZ. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
57		Frisco	TX	CITY OF FRISCO	Tier 3	71.0	236,955	Lead 97.2. PFAS 74.0. Other 13.3. Violations 100.0.	None	53 to 60 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Buys water from North Texas Municipal Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for McKinney, TX.
58	Tied	Washington	DC	D.C. WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY	Tier 3	70.5	693,645	Lead 62.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 54.7. Violations 97.5.	None	54 to 64 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
58	Tied	Plano	TX	CITY OF PLANO	Tier 3	70.5	293,028	Lead 96.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 11.9. Violations 100.0.	None	55 to 63 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Buys water from North Texas Municipal Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities.
60		Garland	TX	CITY OF GARLAND	Tier 3	70.4	249,625	Lead 97.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 13.6. Violations 96.3.	None	56 to 62 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Buys water from North Texas Municipal Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Dallas, TX.
61		San Jose	CA	SAN JOSE WATER	Tier 4Red flag	68.4	989,814	Lead 100.0. PFAS 50.1. Other 43.5. Violations 75.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	59 to 68 in 90 % of scenarios	4
62		Indianapolis	IN	CITIZENS WATER - INDIANAPOLIS	Tier 4	68.2	901,116	Lead 63.1. PFAS 74.0. Other 43.0. Violations 100.0.	None	59 to 70 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
63		Las Vegas	NV	LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT	Tier 4	67.2	679,817	Lead 95.5. PFAS 74.0. Other 0.0. Violations 100.0.	None	60 to 75 in 90 % of scenarios	6	Buys water from Southern Nevada Water System, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Henderson, NV and North Las Vegas, NV. Regional system: serves 1,539,277 people, against a city population of 679,817. Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
64		Santa Ana	CA	CITY OF SANTA ANA	Tier 4Red flag	67.0	315,586	Lead 100.0. PFAS 7.6. Other 64.4. Violations 95.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	56 to 78 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Buys water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Irvine, CA.
65		Boise	ID	VEOLIA WATER IDAHO	Tier 4	66.9	238,429	Lead 94.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 0.0. Violations 100.0.	None	61 to 76 in 90 % of scenarios	7	Lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
66	Tied	Phoenix	AZ	PHOENIX CITY OF	Tier 4	66.5	1,665,481	Lead 94.2. PFAS 73.9. Other 0.0. Violations 98.8.	None	63 to 78 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Glendale, AZ and Scottsdale, AZ. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
66	Tied	San Antonio	TX	SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM	Tier 4Red flag	66.5	1,548,422	Lead 93.2. PFAS 74.0. Other 0.0. Violations 100.0.	CCR-reported MCL exceedance in the CCR year scored.	63 to 79 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Regional system: serves 2,643,729 people, against a city population of 1,548,422. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
68		Houston	TX	CITY OF HOUSTON	Tier 4	66.4	2,397,315	Lead 86.4. PFAS 74.0. Other 28.0. Violations 75.0.	None	64 to 74 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
69	Tied	Tucson	AZ	TUCSON CITY OF	Tier 4	66.3	548,371	Lead 98.4. PFAS 74.0. Other 6.1. Violations 83.8.	None	64 to 79 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
69	Tied	Cincinnati	OH	CINCINNATI PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM	Tier 4Red flag	66.3	314,367	Lead 69.3. PFAS 42.5. Other 59.6. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	63 to 74 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Regional system: serves 800,000 people, against a city population of 314,367. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
71		Fresno	CA	CITY OF FRESNO	Tier 4Red flag	65.6	555,549	Lead 99.8. PFAS 0.0. Other 62.6. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	60 to 82 in 90 % of scenarios	9
72		El Paso	TX	EL PASO WATER UTILITIES	Tier 4Red flag	65.5	683,012	Lead 96.4. PFAS 27.1. Other 42.3. Violations 96.3.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	65 to 78 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
73		Fort Wayne	IN	FORT WAYNE - 3 RIVERS FILTRATION PLANT	Tier 4	65.4	275,203	Lead 64.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 36.8. Violations 91.3.	None	66 to 77 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
74		Buffalo	NY	BUFFALO WATER AUTHORITY	Tier 4	65.1	274,613	Lead 34.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 70.6. Violations 93.8.	None	60 to 82 in 90 % of scenarios	2
75		Chandler	AZ	CHANDLER CITY OF	Tier 4	64.8	278,748	Lead 96.9. PFAS 74.0. Other 0.0. Violations 86.3.	None	68 to 83 in 90 % of scenarios	6	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
76		Greensboro	NC	GREENSBORO, CITY OF	Tier 4Red flag	64.4	308,667	Lead 99.0. PFAS 2.2. Other 60.6. Violations 95.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	64 to 85 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
77	Tied	Sacramento	CA	CITY OF SACRAMENTO MAIN	Tier 4Red flag	63.6	536,449	Lead 100.0. PFAS 0.0. Other 54.4. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	66 to 87 in 90 % of scenarios	4
77	Tied	New York	NY	NEW YORK CITY SYSTEM	Tier 4	63.6	8,584,629	Lead 41.2. PFAS 74.0. Other 50.9. Violations 100.0.	None	67 to 84 in 90 % of scenarios	2
79		New Orleans	LA	NEW ORLEANS CARROLLTON WATER WORKS	Tier 4	63.3	362,154	Lead 57.0. PFAS 67.8. Other 60.2. Violations 71.3.	None	70 to 83 in 90 % of scenarios	4
80	Tied	Chicago	IL	CHICAGO	Tier 5	62.3	2,731,585	Lead 27.2. PFAS 74.0. Other 70.5. Violations 90.0.	None	67 to 89 in 90 % of scenarios	4
80	Tied	Detroit	MI	DETROIT CITY OF	Tier 5	62.3	649,095	Lead 25.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 65.3. Violations 100.0.	None	67 to 89 in 90 % of scenarios	2
80	Tied	Newark	NJ	NEWARK WATER DEPARTMENT	Tier 5Red flag	62.3	323,808	Lead 72.4. PFAS 46.0. Other 56.5. Violations 75.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	77 to 84 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
83		Mesa	AZ	MESA CITY OF	Tier 5	62.0	513,656	Lead 89.7. PFAS 66.5. Other 0.0. Violations 92.5.	None	74 to 87 in 90 % of scenarios	9	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Gilbert, AZ. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
84		Lincoln	NE	LINCOLN, CITY OF	Tier 5	61.7	301,522	Lead 70.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 8.3. Violations 100.0.	None	75 to 88 in 90 % of scenarios	5	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
85		Miami	FL	MDWASA - MAIN SYSTEM	Tier 5Red flag	61.2	489,812	Lead 92.1. PFAS 3.1. Other 53.1. Violations 97.5.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	75 to 90 in 90 % of scenarios	7	Regional system: serves 2,377,460 people, against a city population of 489,812. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
86		Huntsville	AL	HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES WATER DEPT.	Tier 5Red flag	59.5	233,627	Lead 100.0. PFAS 17.0. Other 21.0. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	79 to 91 in 90 % of scenarios	5
87		St. Paul	MN	Saint Paul Regional Water Services	Tier 5	59.3	306,684	Lead 35.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 69.2. Violations 63.8.	None	79 to 95 in 90 % of scenarios	1
88		Columbus	OH	COLUMBUS PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM	Tier 5	59.1	938,396	Lead 60.4. PFAS 65.7. Other 18.3. Violations 100.0.	None	84 to 91 in 90 % of scenarios	3
89		Jersey City	NJ	JERSEY CITY MUA	Tier 5Red flag	58.9	302,013	Lead 64.9. PFAS 21.9. Other 57.0. Violations 98.8.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	84 to 93 in 90 % of scenarios	4	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
90		Bakersfield	CA	CWS - BAKERSFIELD	Tier 5Red flag	58.5	422,165	Lead 94.2. PFAS 8.8. Other 32.0. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	82 to 94 in 90 % of scenarios	6	Also serves about 39 % of the city: BAKERSFIELD, CITY OF, score 64.3.
91		Omaha	NE	METROPOLITAN UTILITIES DISTRICT	Tier 5	58.2	488,797	Lead 55.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 14.0. Violations 98.8.	None	85 to 94 in 90 % of scenarios	3	Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
92		Baltimore	MD	CITY OF BALTIMORE	Tier 5Red flag	56.8	569,997	Lead 93.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 26.7. Violations 17.5.	Open or unresolved health-based violation at the end of the violations data window.	84 to 97 in 90 % of scenarios	2	Regional system: serves 1,600,000 people, against a city population of 569,997. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
93		Laredo	TX	CITY OF LAREDO	Tier 5Red flag	56.4	269,515	Lead 95.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 1.8. Violations 43.8.	Open or unresolved health-based violation at the end of the violations data window.	86 to 97 in 90 % of scenarios	4
94		Philadelphia	PA	PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT	Tier 5Red flag	55.4	1,574,281	Lead 75.5. PFAS 19.8. Other 36.1. Violations 93.8.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	91 to 96 in 90 % of scenarios	4
95		Madison	WI	MADISON WATER UTILITY	Tier 5	55.1	286,233	Lead 64.1. PFAS 68.5. Other 0.0. Violations 93.8.	None	91 to 99 in 90 % of scenarios	6	Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
96		Gilbert	AZ	GILBERT, TOWN OF	Tier 5Red flag	54.1	287,285	Lead 99.7. PFAS 16.9. Other 17.0. Violations 78.8.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	91 to 97 in 90 % of scenarios	8	Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities. A water system listed for this city is also listed for Mesa, AZ. Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
97		Fort Worth	TX	CITY OF FORT WORTH	Tier 5Red flag	53.4	1,028,117	Lead 68.0. PFAS 18.3. Other 36.9. Violations 96.3.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	93 to 99 in 90 % of scenarios	9	Buys water from Tarrant Regional Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities.
98		Anaheim	CA	CITY OF ANAHEIM	Tier 5Red flag	51.5	341,008	Lead 100.0. PFAS 4.6. Other 4.3. Violations 96.3.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	95 to 99 in 90 % of scenarios	9	Buys water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which also supplies other ranked cities.
99		Stockton	CA	CITY OF STOCKTON	Tier 5Red flag	50.8	324,597	Lead 100.0. PFAS 14.0. Other 43.3. Violations 32.5.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	96 to 100 in 90 % of scenarios	6	Also serves about 42 % of the city: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE - STOCKTON, score 74.0.
100		Reno	NV	TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER AUTHORITY	Tier 5Red flag	50.6	283,621	Lead 100.0. PFAS 2.5. Other 0.0. Violations 100.0.	Above a 2024 PFAS limit (not yet enforceable; compliance from 2029).	97 to 100 in 90 % of scenarios	10	Regional system: serves 442,000 people, against a city population of 283,621.

Ranked highest: the top 10

These cities ranked highest of the 100 largest cities on our 2026 measures.

Rank 1
Urban Honolulu, HI
Tier 1
Score 91.3
HNL-WINDWARD-PEARL HARBOR
Lead 99.7. PFAS 73.2. Other 92.2. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Top 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Regional system: serves 631,389 people, against a city population of 341,868.
Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 2
Albuquerque, NM
Tier 1
Score 86.6
ALBUQUERQUE WATER SYSTEM
Lead 100.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 72.3. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants.
Top 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 3
Virginia Beach, VA
Tier 1
Score 86.1
VIRGINIA BEACH, CITY OF
Lead 99.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 70.8. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Top 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Buys water from City of Norfolk, which also supplies other ranked cities.
A water system listed for this city is also listed for Chesapeake, VA.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 4
Chesapeake, VA
Tier 1
Score 86.0
CITY OF CHESAPEAKE - NORTHWEST RIVER SYS
Lead 96.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 74.0. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Top 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Buys water from City of Norfolk, which also supplies other ranked cities.
A water system listed for this city is also listed for Virginia Beach, VA.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 5
Seattle, WA
Tier 1
Score 85.2
SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES
Lead 96.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 70.7. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Top 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 6
Charlotte, NC
Tier 1
Score 84.3
CHARLOTTE WATER
Lead 99.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 64.5. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Top 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 7
Memphis, TN
Tier 1
Score 83.6
MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS, & WATER
Lead 73.3. PFAS 74.0. Other 92.3. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: lead and other regulated contaminants.
Top 10 in most scenarios (76 %).
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 8
Boston, MA
Tier 1
Score 83.3
BOSTON WATER AND SEWER COMMISSION (MWRA)
Lead 81.8. PFAS 74.0. Other 81.0. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: lead and other regulated contaminants.
Top 10 in most scenarios (87 %).
Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 9
Chula Vista, CA
Tier 1
Score 83.2
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Lead 100.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 58.9. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants.
Top 10 in most scenarios (69 %).
Buys water from San Diego County Water Authority, which also supplies other ranked cities.
A water system listed for this city is also listed for San Diego, CA.
Also serves about 42 % of the city: SWEETWATER AUTHORITY, score 60.0.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank T-10
Raleigh, NC
Tier 1
Score 82.9
RALEIGH, CITY OF
Lead 99.0. PFAS 56.7. Other 76.2. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Top 10 in most scenarios (55 %).
A water system listed for this city is also listed for Durham, NC.
Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank T-10
Nashville, TN
Tier 1
Score 82.9
METRO WATER SERVICES
Lead 91.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 68.9. Violations 98.8.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Top 10 in most scenarios (65 %).
Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row

Ranked lowest: the bottom 10

These cities ranked lowest of the 100 largest cities on our 2026 measures, with the two pillars that cost each the most points.

Rank 91
Omaha, NE
Tier 5
Score 58.2
METROPOLITAN UTILITIES DISTRICT
Lead 55.0. PFAS 74.0. Other 14.0. Violations 98.8.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Bottom 10 in some scenarios (45 %).
Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 92
Baltimore, MD
Tier 5
Score 56.8
CITY OF BALTIMORE
Lead 93.7. PFAS 74.0. Other 26.7. Violations 17.5.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and EPA compliance history.
Bottom 10 in most scenarios (65 %).
Regional system: serves 1,600,000 people, against a city population of 569,997.
Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 93
Laredo, TX
Tier 5
Score 56.4
CITY OF LAREDO
Lead 95.6. PFAS 74.0. Other 1.8. Violations 43.8.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and EPA compliance history.
Bottom 10 in most scenarios (76 %).
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 94
Philadelphia, PA
Tier 5
Score 55.4
PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT
Lead 75.5. PFAS 19.8. Other 36.1. Violations 93.8.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 98 % of scenarios.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 95
Madison, WI
Tier 5
Score 55.1
MADISON WATER UTILITY
Lead 64.1. PFAS 68.5. Other 0.0. Violations 93.8.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and lead.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 96 % of scenarios.
Inventory published; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 96
Gilbert, AZ
Tier 5
Score 54.1
GILBERT, TOWN OF
Lead 99.7. PFAS 16.9. Other 17.0. Violations 78.8.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 97 % of scenarios.
Buys water from Central Arizona Project, which also supplies other ranked cities.
A water system listed for this city is also listed for Mesa, AZ.
Inventory published as a map; lead lines estimated from the EPA state ratio.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 97
Fort Worth, TX
Tier 5
Score 53.4
CITY OF FORT WORTH
Lead 68.0. PFAS 18.3. Other 36.9. Violations 96.3.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Buys water from Tarrant Regional Water District, which also supplies other ranked cities.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 98
Anaheim, CA
Tier 5
Score 51.5
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Lead 100.0. PFAS 4.6. Other 4.3. Violations 96.3.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Buys water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which also supplies other ranked cities.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 99
Stockton, CA
Tier 5
Score 50.8
CITY OF STOCKTON
Lead 100.0. PFAS 14.0. Other 43.3. Violations 32.5.
Biggest measured gaps: PFAS and other regulated contaminants.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Also serves about 42 % of the city: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE - STOCKTON, score 74.0.
Sources: this city's dataset row
Rank 100
Reno, NV
Tier 5
Score 50.6
TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER AUTHORITY
Lead 100.0. PFAS 2.5. Other 0.0. Violations 100.0.
Biggest measured gaps: other regulated contaminants and PFAS.
Among the worst 10: bottom 10 in 100 % of scenarios.
Regional system: serves 442,000 people, against a city population of 283,621.
Sources: this city's dataset row

Not ranked, and why

Every one of the 100 largest cities is ranked in the 2026 edition.

Best tap water by state

State rankings for every state with a city in this study:

All tap water rankings

Questions

Download the data

Dataset version 2026.1, 100 rows. Licensed CC BY 4.0. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.24074052

Cite this study

This page

"Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked (2026)". TapWaterData, last reviewed 2026-11-09. https://www.tapwaterdata.com/rankings/cities (2026 edition)

APA: TapWaterData. (2026, November 9). Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked (2026) (2026 edition). https://www.tapwaterdata.com/rankings/cities

The dataset

"Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked (2026)" dataset, version 2026.1. TapWaterData. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24074052

APA: TapWaterData. (2026, November 9). Tap Water in the 100 Largest US Cities, Ranked (2026) (Version 2026.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.24074052

Corrections

No corrections have been made to this edition.

How we ranked the cities