Screening: quick check, not lab-grade
WeAQUA DoubleCheck Water Hardness Test Strips (200)
WeAQUA
Total water hardness
- Turnaround: About 1 minute
What it can't tell you: It measures hardness only, so it tells you nothing about lead, PFAS or bacteria.
City water report · 2026
Is Rancho Cucamonga Tap Water Safe? 2026 Water Quality Report
Short answer: No measured result is above a legal limit; the water is hard. Cucamonga Valley Water District serves 213,375 residents.
Likely match, check your bill
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT serves Rancho Cucamonga
Your water bill or annual water quality report names your actual supplier.
- Source
- Surface water
- Lead service lines
- 0 lead
- CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICTThis reportCA3610018 · 213,375 served
Your water utility
Every detected result
One detected result
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (EPA PWSID CA3610018) delivers surface water to 213,375 residents. This report reflects 29 individual PFAS result(s) from the source UCMR5 observations and the latest Lead & Copper Rule 90th-percentile result. The utility's 2025 CCR reports hard water.
- Water hardnessUtility CCR · 2025Aesthetic, no federal health limit7.3gpgAbove aesthetic
31 other contaminants tested, none detected
- 11Cl-PF3OUdS
- 4:2 FTS
- 6:2 FTS
- 8:2 FTS
- 9Cl-PF3ONS
- ADONA
- HFPO-DA (GenX)
- NEtFOSAA
- NFDHA
- NMeFOSAA
- PFBA
- PFBS
- PFDA
- PFDoA
- PFEESA
- PFHpA
- PFHpS
- PFHxA
- PFHxS
- PFMBA
- PFMPA
- PFNA
- PFOA
- PFOS
- PFPeA
- PFPeS
- PFTA
- PFTrDA
- PFUnA
- Lithium
- Lead (90th percentile)
Coverage by group
32 results on record- PFAS (forever chemicals)29 not detected
- Metals & lead1 not detected
- Disinfection by-productsNot monitored
- Other1 above · 1 not detected
Track record
0health-based violations in the last 10 years
From EPA SDWIS. A clean violation history means no enforcement action was recorded; it does not cover contaminants without a limit.
Not in this recordDisinfection by-products weren't monitored in this dataset
No result is not a pass. Your utility's annual water quality report may list them, and a certified lab test covers your own tap.
What you can do
Test first, then treat what was found
- 01 · TestTest your own tap
Test your hardness before buying a softener.
Certified labHow to test your tap → - 02 · Hard waterIon-exchange water softener
7.3 gpg (hard)
NSF/ANSI 44 (softeners)Treatment for Hard water →
Test your own tap
Screening tells you if something is worth a closer look; a lab result is the number you can act on.
As an Amazon Associate, PurityMap earns from qualifying purchases. Affiliate disclosure.
When your results arrive, read them here →
Commercial
Certified for a concern found here
Each card names which Rancho Cucamonga findings its current certification covers, and which it doesn't.
As an Amazon Associate, PurityMap earns from qualifying purchases. A product appears here only when a current certification record covers at least one identified concern; every concern stays listed. The retail offer is looked up afterwards and never changes which products appear or their order. Affiliate disclosure.
Whole-House System
GE GXSH35W Water Softener (35,000-grain)
- Hardness / scale: eligible, evidence match
Not suitable for (4)
- Treating only the drinking-water tap
- Lead from plumbing after the point it treats
- Anyone who can't plumb, drill or hire an installer
- Renters who can't modify plumbing
Whole-House System
Kenmore 420 Water Softener (40,000-grain)
- Hardness / scale: eligible, evidence match
Not suitable for (4)
- Treating only the drinking-water tap
- Lead from plumbing after the point it treats
- Anyone who can't plumb, drill or hire an installer
- Renters who can't modify plumbing
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Is Rancho Cucamonga tap water safe to drink?
PurityMap does not give a safe/unsafe verdict; it shows what the public records measured. For Rancho Cucamonga, no regulated PFAS were detected in EPA's 2024 testing. CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (PWSID CA3610018) has a Purity Score of 100/100 (confidence: moderate), assessed at the water-system level and computed only from contaminants that were measured. Water can change in your own pipes, so a certified test is the only way to know what comes out of your tap.
Who provides tap water in Rancho Cucamonga?
CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (PWS ID CA3610018) is the public water system on record for Rancho Cucamonga, California, serving about 213,375 people. Confirm the utility on your water bill before acting on a specific finding.
Where does Rancho Cucamonga get its drinking water?
Surface water (primary source of record in EPA SDWIS).
Are PFAS "forever chemicals" in Rancho Cucamonga's water?
None of the 29 PFAS in EPA's UCMR 5 testing (2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04) was detected. "Not detected" means below the lab's reporting limit, not proven zero.
Is there lead in Rancho Cucamonga's tap water?
Lead is not in Rancho Cucamonga's current published record. Lead usually enters from a building's own pipes and fixtures, so a certified home test is the way to know yours.
What does the latest Rancho Cucamonga water report show?
PurityMap's current record for Rancho Cucamonga holds 32 findings: 1 above a reference and 31 not detected. Each finding links to its dated public record; a parameter that was never monitored is shown as pending, not as a pass.
Is Rancho Cucamonga's water hard?
Rancho Cucamonga's water is recorded as 7.3 gpg, hard. Hardness is an aesthetic and plumbing characteristic, not a health-based limit.
Follow this water
Follow Rancho Cucamonga's water
One email when a new sampling round is published, a result moves above or below its reference, or the system's score changes.
Double opt-in: we email a confirmation link. Unsubscribe anytime. No spam.
Sources and dataAll 32 records and their sourcesEPA UCMR 5 · EPA SDWIS (Lead & Copper Rule) · Utility CCR
| Contaminant | Result | Benchmark | Status | Sampled | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water hardness | 7.3 gpg | Aesthetic, no federal health limit | Above a secondary/aesthetic reference | 2025 | Cucamonga Valley Water District 2025 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) |
31 other contaminants tested — none detected
| Contaminant | Result | Benchmark | Status | Sampled | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS) | < 5 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) | < 5 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| 1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) | < 5 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-sulfonic acid (9Cl-PF3ONS) | < 2 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-09-14 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) (GenX chemicals) | < 5 ng/L | 10 ng/L federal MCL (2024) | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Lead (90th percentile) | Non-Detect (ND) | 15 µg/L federal action level | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2022–2024 monitoring period | Lead & Copper Rule 90th-percentile: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Lithium | < 9 µg/L | 10 µg/L EPA health reference level (screening, not a legal limit)Screening level, not a legal limit | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2024-03-13 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) | < 5 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) | < 6 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid (NFDHA) | < 20 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane) sulfonic acid (PFEESA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (PFMPA) | < 4 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid (PFMBA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) | < 3 ng/L | 2,000 ng/L EPA health advisory (screening, not a legal limit)Screening level, not a legal limit | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) | < 5 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-09-14 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) | < 3 ng/L | 10 ng/L federal MCL (2024) | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) | < 3 ng/L | 400,000 ng/L Michigan EGLE state MCL (strictest US state) | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) | < 4 ng/L | 10 ng/L federal MCL (2024) | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) | < 4 ng/L | 4.0 ng/L federal MCL (2024) | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) | < 4 ng/L | 4.0 ng/L federal MCL (2024) | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS) | < 4 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) | < 3 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) | < 8 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) | < 7 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
| Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) | < 2 ng/L | No federal or state limit; shown for transparency | Not detected above the reporting limit | 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04 | UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018) |
- Result
- 7.3 gpg
- Benchmark
- Aesthetic, no federal health limit
- Status
- Above a secondary/aesthetic reference
- Sampled
- 2025
31 other contaminants tested — none detected
11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS)
- Result
- < 5 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS)
- Result
- < 5 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (4:2 FTS)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS)
- Result
- < 5 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanone-1-sulfonic acid (9Cl-PF3ONS)
- Result
- < 2 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-09-14 to 2026-06-04
Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) (GenX chemicals)
- Result
- < 5 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 10 ng/L federal MCL (2024)
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
- Result
- Non-Detect (ND)
- Benchmark
- 15 µg/L federal action level
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2022–2024 monitoring period
- Result
- < 9 µg/L
- Benchmark
- 10 µg/L EPA health reference level (screening, not a legal limit)Screening level, not a legal limit
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2024-03-13
N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA)
- Result
- < 5 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA)
- Result
- < 6 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid (NFDHA)
- Result
- < 20 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane) sulfonic acid (PFEESA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (PFMPA)
- Result
- < 4 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid (PFMBA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 2,000 ng/L EPA health advisory (screening, not a legal limit)Screening level, not a legal limit
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
- Result
- < 5 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-09-14 to 2026-06-04
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 10 ng/L federal MCL (2024)
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 400,000 ng/L Michigan EGLE state MCL (strictest US state)
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
- Result
- < 4 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 10 ng/L federal MCL (2024)
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
- Result
- < 4 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 4.0 ng/L federal MCL (2024)
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
- Result
- < 4 ng/L
- Benchmark
- 4.0 ng/L federal MCL (2024)
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (PFPeS)
- Result
- < 4 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
- Result
- < 3 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)
- Result
- < 8 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)
- Result
- < 7 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
- Result
- < 2 ng/L
- Benchmark
- No federal or state limit; shown for transparency
- Status
- Not detected above the reporting limit
- Sampled
- 2023-06-15 to 2026-06-04
Every value is the published result from the cited public record. A reporting limit is the lowest level the method could reliably quantify; a non-detect is not a guarantee of zero.
UCMR5 Analytical Results
UCMR5 Analytical Results: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018)
US EPA
State SDWIS Compliance Record
Lead & Copper Rule 90th-percentile: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA3610018)
US EPA SDWIS
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
Cucamonga Valley Water District 2025 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Methodology: how we analyze water. Prepared with AI assistance and reviewed by the PurityMap Editorial Team before publication.
Something off with your water's smell, color or taste?
Start with the hot-or-cold tap check. Where Cucamonga Valley Water District reported something related, it's shown below.
- Rotten-egg smell
- Cloudy or milky water
- Chlorine smell
- Brown or yellow water
- Metallic taste
Lead at Cucamonga Valley Water District: not detected (90th percentile, 2022–2024 monitoring period). Lead has no taste, so a taste neither shows nor rules it out.
ZIP codes in Rancho Cucamonga
A ZIP code is a postal area, not a water service area. Your water bill names your supplier.