Skip to content

Independent tap water research

Know what’s in your tap water before anyone sells you a filter.

City-by-city readings from national testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and each utility’s own report: hardness, PFAS (“forever chemicals”), disinfectant and violations, plus what each one means for softeners and filters. Every number is sourced and dated.

40 water systems · EPA data through September 2026

How hard is the water? 40 large US systems

Dot size: people served

Tap water hardness in 40 large US water systemsEach dot is a water system, colored by the hardness its utility publishes: soft, moderately hard, hard or very hard. White dots are utilities that don’t publish hardness.New York: 1.9 gpg, softLos Angeles: 7.5 gpg, hardHouston: 7.9 gpg, hardChicago: hardness not published by the utilitySan Antonio: 17.5 gpg, very hardMiami: hardness not published by the utilityPhoenix: hardness not published by the utilityPhiladelphia: 8.9 gpg, hardBaltimore: 5.5 gpg, moderately hardLas Vegas: 16.4 gpg, very hardSan Diego: 14.0 gpg, very hardDallas: 8.0 gpg, hardColumbus: 6.7 gpg, moderately hardCleveland: 6.8 gpg, moderately hardDenver: 6.1 gpg, moderately hardCharlotte: 1.9 gpg, softSeattle: 1.5 gpg, softAustin: 5.4 gpg, moderately hardAtlanta: hardness not published by the utilitySan Jose: 8.8 gpg, hardFort Worth: 7.5 gpg, hardIndianapolis: 18.5 gpg, very hardSan Francisco: 3.6 gpg, moderately hardJacksonville: 14.4 gpg, very hardLouisville: 7.5 gpg, hardCincinnati: 7.5 gpg, hardNashville: 5.9 gpg, moderately hardEl Paso: 10.2 gpg, hardTampa: 10.8 gpg, very hardTucson: hardness not published by the utilityBoston: 0.9 gpg, softPortland: 0.5 gpg, softMemphis: 2.8 gpg, softOklahoma City: hardness not published by the utilityDetroit: 6.3 gpg, moderately hardWashington: 8.1 gpg, hardMilwaukee: 8.1 gpg, hardAlbuquerque: 8.8 gpg, hardKansas City: 5.8 gpg, moderately hardMinneapolis: 5.5 gpg, moderately hardSan Antonio 18Las Vegas 16Seattle 2Indianapolis 19Jacksonville 14Boston 1Portland 1
SoftModerately hardHardVery hardNot published
Numbers beside labeled cities are grains per gallon. 34 of 40 utilities publish hardness; source for each is on its city page.

Short answer

Of the 34 systems we cover whose utilities publish hardness, Indianapolis has the hardest tap water at about 18.5 grains per gallon and Portland the softest at about 0.5. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2023–25 testing found PFOA or PFOS (two PFAS “forever chemicals”) above its 4 parts per trillion (ppt) limit in samples from Miami, Philadelphia, Dallas, Columbus, Austin, San Jose, Fort Worth, Louisville, Cincinnati, El Paso and Tampa. Lithium was above EPA’s health reference level in Los Angeles, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, El Paso, Tucson, Oklahoma City, Albuquerque and Kansas City. Hardness decides whether you need a softener; PFAS and disinfectant decide which filter.

EPA UCMR 5 (2023–25 sampling), EPA SDWIS 2026Q3, utility water quality reports · Sources and method

01 · Guides and research

What the readings mean, and what to do about them

All guides →

02 · Hardness

Every city’s hardness, hardest first

Hardness decides whether a softener is worth buying. Each figure is from the utility’s own report; where it publishes a range, the outline shows it.

Hardness, by city

0 to 300 mg/L as calcium carbonate

  1. Indianapolis18.5
  2. San Antonio17.5
  3. Las Vegas16.4
  4. Jacksonville14.4
  5. San Diego14.0
  6. Tampa10.8
  7. El Paso10.2
  8. Philadelphia8.9
  9. Albuquerque8.8
  10. San Jose8.8
  11. Washington8.1
  12. Milwaukee8.1
  13. Dallas8.0
  14. Houston7.9
  15. Fort Worth7.5
  16. Los Angeles7.5
  17. Louisville7.5
  18. Cincinnati7.5
  19. Cleveland6.8
  20. Columbus6.7
  21. Detroit6.3
  22. Denver6.1
  23. Nashville5.9
  24. Kansas City5.8
  25. Baltimore5.5
  26. Minneapolis5.5
  27. Austin5.4
  28. San Francisco3.6
  29. Memphis2.8
  30. New York1.9
  31. Charlotte1.9
  32. Seattle1.5
  33. Boston0.9
  34. Portland0.5
Each dot is the utility’s published average or range midpoint; the outline shows its published range. Classes per USGS. Source: each utility’s latest water quality report.
Use this chart:Download imageFree to reuse with credit (CC BY 4.0).

03 · The cities

Every city, side by side

One row per water system. Tap a city for its full report: the source, who else drinks the same water, and what fits it.

CityHardnessgpgHardness classDisinfectantPFOA highpptPFOS highpptLithium highµg/LHealth violations5 years
Albuquerque, NM8.8HardFree chlorinenonenone710
Atlanta, GAnot publishedFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Austin, TX5.4Moderately hardChloraminenone4.8none1
Baltimore, MD5.5Moderately hardFree chlorinenonenonenone3
Boston, MA0.9SoftChloraminenonenonenone0
Charlotte, NC1.9SoftFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Chicago, ILnot publishedFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Cincinnati, OH7.5HardFree chlorinenone6.1none0
Cleveland, OH6.8Moderately hardFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Columbus, OH6.7Moderately hardFree chlorine5.3nonenone0
Dallas, TX8.0HardChloramine6.35.1none0
Denver, CO6.1Moderately hardChloraminenonenone110
Detroit, MI6.3Moderately hardFree chlorinenonenonenone0
El Paso, TX10.2HardFree chlorinenone8.51330
Fort Worth, TX7.5HardChloramine8.37.3none0
Houston, TX7.9HardChloraminenonenone341
Indianapolis, IN18.5Very hardChloraminenonenonenone0
Jacksonville, FL14.4Very hardFree chlorinenonenone140
Kansas City, MO5.8Moderately hardChloraminenonenone590
Las Vegas, NV16.4Very hardFree chlorinenonenone430
Los Angeles, CA7.5HardChloraminenonenone1000
Louisville, KY7.5HardChloramine7.5nonenone0
Memphis, TN2.8SoftFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Miami, FLnot publishedChloramine14.033.0none0
Milwaukee, WI8.1HardChloraminenonenonenone0
Minneapolis, MN5.5Moderately hardChloraminenonenonenone0
Nashville, TN5.9Moderately hardFree chlorinenonenonenone0
New York, NY1.9SoftFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Oklahoma City, OKnot publishedChloraminenonenone680
Philadelphia, PA8.9HardChloramine8.16.0none0
Phoenix, AZnot publishedFree chlorinenonenone1600
Portland, OR0.5SoftChloraminenonenonenone0
San Antonio, TX17.5Very hardFree chlorinenonenone260
San Diego, CA14.0Very hardChloraminenonenone650
San Francisco, CA3.6Moderately hardChloraminenonenonenone0
San Jose, CA8.8HardChlorine and chloraminenone6.2101
Seattle, WA1.5SoftFree chlorinenonenonenone0
Tampa, FL10.8Very hardChloramine4.66.9none0
Tucson, AZnot publishedFree chlorinenonenone640
Washington, DC8.1HardChloraminenonenonenone0
  • Red: above EPA’s level. That’s 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS. For lithium it’s 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L), a health reference level rather than a legal limit, which EPA compares at one significant digit, so up to 15 µg/L counts as at the level.
  • "None" means not detected. "High" is the highest single sample.
  • Sources: hardness from each utility’s published water quality data; PFAS and lithium from EPA’s national testing (UCMR 5), sampled mostly 2023 to 2025; violations from EPA’s federal drinking water database (SDWIS).

04 · Where the numbers come from

Read from the source, not repeated

PFAS and lithium readings come from EPA’s fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, the agency’s national sampling of every large water system from 2023 to 2025. Violations and who buys water from whom come from EPA’s federal drinking water database.

Hardness isn’t in any reliable national file, so we read it from each utility’s own published data, usually its annual water quality report, and cite the document, the year and the day we read it. When a utility publishes a range, we show the range.

How we build every page →