City ranking · updated 2026-11-09

Cities With the Best Tap Water Records in the US (2026): 50 Large Cities Ranked

50 cities ranked by Purity Score, from public EPA records (EPA UCMR 5 (2024) and Lead and Copper Rule records). It ranks the published record, not which water is safest.

Quick answer

Montgomery and Prince George's (WSSC area), MD ranks first in 2026

Montgomery and Prince George's (WSSC area), MD is first. Oakland, CA, San Diego, CA, Florissant, MO and Gwinnett County, GA follow. Vista, CA and Jurupa Community Sd, CA rank last.

The ranking

All 50 ranked cities

  1. 1Montgomery and Prince George's (WSSC area), MD1,900,000 people servedWASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION · PWSID MD0150005 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  2. 2Oakland, CA1,468,000 people servedEAST BAY MUD · PWSID CA0110005 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  3. 3San Diego, CA1,408,937 people servedSAN DIEGO, CITY OF · PWSID CA3710020 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  4. 4Florissant, MO1,111,000 people servedMO AMERICAN ST LOUIS ST CHARLES COUNTIES · PWSID MO6010716 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  5. 5Gwinnett County, GA975,000 people servedGWINNETT CO. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES · PWSID GA1350004 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  6. 6San Francisco, CA848,019 people servedSFPUC CITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION · PWSID CA3810011 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  7. 7Lexington, KY669,042 people servedKENTUCKY-AMERICAN WATER CO · PWSID KY0340250 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  8. 8Oklahoma City, OK644,000 people servedOKLAHOMA CITY · PWSID OK1020902 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  9. 9Albuquerque, NM560,326 people servedALBUQUERQUE WATER SYSTEM · PWSID NM3510701 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  10. 10Irvine, CA450,323 people servedIRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3010092 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  11. 11Virginia Beach, VA437,994 people servedVIRGINIA BEACH, CITY OF · PWSID VA3810900 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  12. 12Greenville (sc2310001), SC426,057 people servedGREENVILLE WATER (SC2310001) · PWSID SC2310001 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  13. 13Winston-Salem, NC391,900 people servedWINSTON-SALEM, CITY OF · PWSID NC0234010 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  14. 14Hartford, CT390,887 people servedMETROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION · PWSID CT0640011 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  15. 15Chesterfield Central, VA389,897 people servedCHESTERFIELD CO CENTRAL WATER SYSTEM · PWSID VA4041845 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  16. 16Fremont, CA344,000 people servedALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA0110001 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  17. 17Loudoun - Central, VA334,808 people servedLOUDOUN WATER - CENTRAL SYSTEM · PWSID VA6107350 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  18. 18Henrico County, VA330,000 people servedHENRICO COUNTY WATER SYSTEM · PWSID VA4087125 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  19. 19Bellevue, WA321,349 people servedBELLEVUE CITY OF · PWSID WA5305575 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: low · Assessed at the water-system level
  20. 20Glen Burnie, MD290,606 people servedGLEN BURNIE-BROADNECK · PWSID MD0020017 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  21. 21El Cajon, CA277,918 people servedHELIX WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3710010 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  22. 22Montgomery, AL276,000 people servedMONTGOMERY, THE WW&SSB OF THE CITY OF · PWSID AL0001070 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  23. 23Sarasota County (county utility area), FL272,267 people servedSARASOTA CO SPECIAL UTIL DIST · PWSID FL6581591 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  24. 24Coachella Valley (Cove Communities), CA270,000 people servedCOACHELLA VWD: COVE COMMUNITY · PWSID CA3310001 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  25. 25Northern Kentucky, KY259,949 people servedNORTHERN KENTUCKY WATER DISTRICT · PWSID KY0590220 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  26. 26La Presa and Rancho San Diego area, CA242,155 people servedOTAY WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3710034 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  27. 27Fontana, CA228,270 people servedSAN GABRIEL VALLEY WC - FONTANA · PWSID CA3610041 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  28. 28Waipahu-Ewa-Waianae, HI217,479 people servedWAIPAHU-EWA-WAIANAE · PWSID HI0000335 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  29. 29Rancho Cucamonga, CA213,375 people servedCUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3610018 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  30. 30Wilmington, NC212,227 people servedCFPUA-WILMINGTON · PWSID NC0465010 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  31. 31Concord, CA210,500 people servedCONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA0710003 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  32. 32Charleston, WV209,283 people servedWVAWC-KANAWHA VALLEY DIST · PWSID WV3302016 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  33. 33Oxnard, CA200,232 people servedOXNARD WATER DEPT · PWSID CA5610007 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  34. 34San Rafael, CA188,116 people servedMARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA2110002 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  35. 35Oceanside, CA174,340 people servedOCEANSIDE, CITY OF · PWSID CA3710014 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  36. 36West Covina, CA170,523 people servedSUBURBAN WATER SYSTEMS-SAN JOSE · PWSID CA1910205 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  37. 37Lafayette, LA169,389 people servedLAFAYETTE UTILITIES WATER SYSTEM · PWSID LA1055017 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  38. 38Laguna Niguel, CA168,315 people servedMOULTON NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3010073 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  39. 39Kent, WA166,421 people servedKENT WATER DEPARTMENT · PWSID WA5338150 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  40. 40Lansing, MI166,000 people servedLANSING BOARD OF WATER & LIGHT · PWSID MI0003760 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  41. 41Roseville, CA165,736 people servedCITY OF ROSEVILLE · PWSID CA3110008 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  42. 42Rancho Santa Margarita area, CA165,275 people servedSANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3010101 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  43. 43Hayward, CA162,954 people servedCITY OF HAYWARD · PWSID CA0110006 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  44. 44Alexandria, VA159,200 people servedALEXANDRIA, CITY OF · PWSID VA6510010 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  45. 45Sunnyvale, CA157,566 people servedCITY OF SUNNYVALE · PWSID CA4310014 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  46. 46Victorville, CA140,721 people servedVICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT · PWSID CA3610052 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  47. 47Linton Hall, VA136,409 people servedPWCSA - WEST · PWSID VA6153251 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  48. 48Carrollton, TX136,170 people servedCITY OF CARROLLTON · PWSID TX0570034 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  49. 49Jurupa Community Sd, CA134,638 people servedJURUPA COMMUNITY SD · PWSID CA3310021 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level
  50. 50Vista, CA134,501 people servedVISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT · PWSID CA3710027 · Purity Score 100/100 · Confidence: moderate · Assessed at the water-system level

Cities serving 100,000+ people without a computed Purity Score are excluded. Smaller systems are not ranked here because hundreds of them tie at 100. Excluded cities are not scored as favourable.

Methodology and limitations

How this snapshot is built

  1. How this snapshot is built

    Every US city report serving at least 100,000 people, ordered by the Purity Score of the city's main water system and then by population served. 72 of the 472 qualifying cities show a main-system score of 100/100, so larger systems come first among ties. The score is computed only from contaminants measured in the published EPA record.

  2. Reading the order

    A high score means few or no measured exceedances in the record, not a guarantee about any tap. Cities with sparse monitoring can score higher simply because less was tested, and household plumbing can add lead after the water leaves the system.

  3. Exclusions

    0 excluded. Cities serving 100,000+ people without a computed Purity Score are excluded. Smaller systems are not ranked here because hundreds of them tie at 100.

Read with care

Comparable does not mean complete.

This ranking compares cities on one measure. It never replaces a full system report, a city-resolution check, or a certified household test, and missing monitoring is excluded, never scored as favourable.