PFAS in Your Tap Water: Look Up Your Water System
Between 2023 and 2025, about 10,000 U.S. public water systems tested their water for 29 PFAS under EPA's fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5). EPA published the final results in August 2026. Search them below by ZIP code or by the name of your water utility.
EPA states that UCMR 5 results do not indicate compliance or noncompliance with the PFAS drinking water limits. Compliance is judged on later monitoring reported to each state. What this lookup shows is how the samples taken in 2023 to 2025 compare with the 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt) limits for PFOA and PFOS, calculated the way EPA itself did in its July 2026 data summary.
Search the results
How to read a result
- PFOA and PFOS average: the highest location average for the system. EPA averaged each sampling point over a full set of samples, two for groundwater and four for surface water, counting results below the reporting level as zero. A system can have several sampling points.
- Above or below 4.0 ppt: EPA counts an average as above the PFOA or PFOS limit when it is 4.05 ppt or more, because the limits are written with two significant digits. We use the same cut-off.
- Highest single sample: the largest individual result. One high sample is not an average and is not compared with the limit.
- PFAS found: how many of the 29 PFAS were measured at or above EPA's minimum reporting level in at least one sample. Zero means none reached that level, not that none were present at all.
What the national data shows
From EPA's July 2026 data summary: the share of systems with one or more location averages above a PFAS limit was 15.5% of large systems serving more than 10,000 people, 8.3% of systems serving 3,300 to 10,000, and 7.1% of systems serving fewer than 3,300. Because only a sample of the smallest systems took part, EPA also gives a weighted nationwide estimate: 7.8% of public water systems. EPA notes that PFAS usually occur together: 66% of sampling locations with at least one PFAS at or above the reporting level had more than one.
PFAS results by state
These are counts of systems that took part in UCMR 5, not estimates for every system in the state. Small systems were sampled, not tested in full, so a state with few large utilities can look better or worse than its water as a whole. "Above 4.0 ppt" means at least one location average for PFOA or PFOS at or above EPA's cut-off. Across all 10,128 systems with a full set of results, 1,127 were above it.
| State | Systems tested | Any PFAS found | PFOA or PFOS average above 4.0 ppt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 307 | 117 (38.1%) | 56 of 302 (18.5%) |
| Alaska | 30 | 9 (30%) | 2 of 28 (7.1%) |
| American Samoa | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 of 1 (0%) |
| Arizona | 152 | 57 (37.5%) | 22 of 150 (14.7%) |
| Arkansas | 172 | 10 (5.8%) | 0 of 170 (0%) |
| California | 707 | 239 (33.8%) | 129 of 685 (18.8%) |
| Colorado | 165 | 39 (23.6%) | 4 of 162 (2.5%) |
| Connecticut | 63 | 40 (63.5%) | 28 of 63 (44.4%) |
| Delaware | 36 | 17 (47.2%) | 12 of 36 (33.3%) |
| District of Columbia | 3 | 3 (100%) | 0 of 3 (0%) |
| Florida | 409 | 195 (47.7%) | 127 of 394 (32.2%) |
| Georgia | 256 | 81 (31.6%) | 27 of 253 (10.7%) |
| Guam | 5 | 3 (60%) | 1 of 5 (20%) |
| Hawaii | 45 | 2 (4.4%) | 0 of 45 (0%) |
| Idaho | 61 | 9 (14.8%) | 2 of 61 (3.3%) |
| Illinois | 487 | 128 (26.3%) | 13 of 485 (2.7%) |
| Indiana | 230 | 55 (23.9%) | 6 of 229 (2.6%) |
| Iowa | 152 | 32 (21.1%) | 0 of 147 (0%) |
| Kansas | 103 | 35 (34%) | 3 of 103 (2.9%) |
| Kentucky | 231 | 87 (37.7%) | 9 of 230 (3.9%) |
| Louisiana | 268 | 48 (17.9%) | 1 of 261 (0.4%) |
| Maine | 41 | 10 (24.4%) | 2 of 40 (5%) |
| Maryland | 83 | 30 (36.1%) | 15 of 82 (18.3%) |
| Massachusetts | 263 | 144 (54.8%) | 75 of 260 (28.8%) |
| Michigan | 319 | 44 (13.8%) | 5 of 319 (1.6%) |
| Minnesota | 196 | 88 (44.9%) | 10 of 196 (5.1%) |
| Mississippi | 239 | 9 (3.8%) | 5 of 234 (2.1%) |
| Missouri | 232 | 73 (31.5%) | 6 of 229 (2.6%) |
| Montana | 45 | 5 (11.1%) | 0 of 44 (0%) |
| Nebraska | 53 | 7 (13.2%) | 3 of 53 (5.7%) |
| Nevada | 59 | 10 (16.9%) | 3 of 54 (5.6%) |
| New Hampshire | 51 | 18 (35.3%) | 9 of 51 (17.6%) |
| New Jersey | 266 | 174 (65.4%) | 114 of 258 (44.2%) |
| New Mexico | 73 | 11 (15.1%) | 1 of 72 (1.4%) |
| New York | 334 | 100 (29.9%) | 32 of 329 (9.7%) |
| North Carolina | 291 | 146 (50.2%) | 68 of 277 (24.5%) |
| North Dakota | 38 | 7 (18.4%) | 0 of 37 (0%) |
| Northern Mariana Islands | 2 | 1 (50%) | 1 of 1 (100%) |
| Ohio | 347 | 142 (40.9%) | 37 of 343 (10.8%) |
| Oklahoma | 166 | 68 (41%) | 8 of 160 (5%) |
| Oregon | 127 | 18 (14.2%) | 10 of 127 (7.9%) |
| Pennsylvania | 390 | 176 (45.1%) | 93 of 386 (24.1%) |
| Puerto Rico | 99 | 39 (39.4%) | 17 of 99 (17.2%) |
| Rhode Island | 29 | 15 (51.7%) | 8 of 29 (27.6%) |
| South Carolina | 165 | 91 (55.2%) | 49 of 154 (31.8%) |
| South Dakota | 49 | 7 (14.3%) | 1 of 49 (2%) |
| Tennessee | 277 | 87 (31.4%) | 17 of 273 (6.2%) |
| Texas | 1,154 | 622 (53.9%) | 27 of 1,124 (2.4%) |
| U.S. Virgin Islands | 3 | 1 (33.3%) | 1 of 3 (33.3%) |
| Utah | 129 | 16 (12.4%) | 2 of 129 (1.6%) |
| Vermont | 38 | 3 (7.9%) | 0 of 38 (0%) |
| Virginia | 171 | 54 (31.6%) | 13 of 167 (7.8%) |
| Washington | 248 | 68 (27.4%) | 20 of 246 (8.1%) |
| West Virginia | 103 | 34 (33%) | 11 of 103 (10.7%) |
| Wisconsin | 202 | 52 (25.7%) | 19 of 202 (9.4%) |
| Wyoming | 33 | 3 (9.1%) | 0 of 33 (0%) |
| Navajo Nation | 13 | 2 (15.4%) | 0 of 13 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 1 | 2 | 1 (50%) | 1 of 2 (50%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 10 | 10 | 0 (0%) | 0 of 10 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 2 | 2 | 0 (0%) | 0 of 2 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 4 | 2 | 0 (0%) | 0 of 2 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 5 | 13 | 1 (7.7%) | 0 of 13 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 6 | 18 | 2 (11.1%) | 0 of 18 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 7 | 1 | 0 (0%) | 0 of 1 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 8 | 13 | 1 (7.7%) | 0 of 12 (0%) |
| Tribal systems, EPA Region 9 | 41 | 8 (19.5%) | 2 of 41 (4.9%) |
Each state has its own link: click the state name, or add its postal code to this page's address, for example /pfas-water-lookup/#tx for Texas. Download this table: ucmr5-states.csv. Free to reuse with a link to this page; the underlying data is EPA's and public.
Where the PFAS limits stand
In April 2024 EPA set enforceable limits of 4.0 ppt each for PFOA and PFOS, along with limits for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX) and a mixture of those plus PFBS. On May 18, 2026, EPA proposed two changes: keep the PFOA and PFOS limits while letting water systems request two more years to comply, and rescind the limits for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and the mixture. Those are proposals, so check EPA's PFAS drinking water page for the current status.
If your system shows PFOA or PFOS
- Read your utility's latest annual water quality report (Consumer Confidence Report); it covers newer monitoring than UCMR 5.
- Ask the utility what it is doing about PFAS; its answer is more current than any data set.
- If you want to filter at home, look for a filter certified by name for PFOA and PFOS reduction, under NSF/ANSI 53 or 58. PFAS water filters and what NSF certifications mean cover how to check.
Questions about health effects belong with your doctor; EPA's PFAS pages explain what the limits are based on.
Method and sources
Data: EPA, UCMR 5 occurrence data text files, final release of August 27, 2026, from EPA's UCMR occurrence data page: all analytical results and the ZIP codes each system serves. Method: EPA, UCMR 5 Data Summary, July 2026 (EPA 815-S-26-007), Table 4 and its notes. Our script recalculates EPA's Table 4 from the raw files before publishing anything, and it matches exactly: for PFOA, 472 of 4,276 large systems and 307 of 5,852 smaller systems above the cut-off; for PFOS, 523 of 4,275 and 352 of 5,852. Lithium, also part of UCMR 5, is not shown here. Read and checked October 4, 2026.
Found an error, or a system that looks wrong? Tell us through the contact page with the system name and ZIP code.