Window Washing Guide
REFERENCE DATA · 271 CITIES

Hardest and softest tap water, city by city

Ranked from what each city's water utility prints in its own report, not from a national model. Where a utility prints nothing, the city is listed as unranked rather than guessed at.

Of the 271 cities this site covers, 185 have a utility that publishes a hardness figure. At the top, Sioux City's utility publishes 350–550 mg/L; at the bottom, Bangor's publishes 5.3. The same bucket of rinse water behaves differently at each end of that list, which is why a method copied from a friend in another city can fail for reasons neither of you can see. The Water Atlas explains what each hardness band does to glass; this page answers the narrower question of where a city sits against the others.

Ten hardest

  1. Sioux City, Iowa350–550mid
  2. Gillette, Wyoming315–496mid
  3. Salt Lake City, Utah136–571mid
  4. Grand Island, Nebraska308–377mid
  5. Madison, Wisconsin308–342mid
  6. Fishers, Indiana320
  7. Indianapolis, Indiana320
  8. Henderson, Nevada304
  9. Kansas City, Kansas300
  10. San Antonio, Texas257–342mid

Ten softest

  1. Bangor, Maine5.3
  2. Asheville, North Carolina5.52
  3. South Portland, Maine7.2
  4. Portland, Maine7.2
  5. Concord, New Hampshire9–10avg 9.4
  6. Boston, Massachusetts10
  7. Springfield, Massachusetts10–14mid
  8. Lewiston, Maine17
  9. Eugene, Oregon16–18avg 17
  10. Auburn, Maine17

The map: hardness, dissolved solids, chloramine

Each dot is one of the 271 cities, placed at its Census point. On the hardness layer, filled dots are coloured by the band of the utility's published figure (a range sits at its middle, as in the table); the dissolved-solids layer uses the same 100 and 300 mg/L marks as each city's water panel; the chloramine layer shows which disinfectant each utility reports. A hollow dot is a city whose utility publishes nothing on that measure. Alaska and Hawaii are drawn as insets.

Tuscaloosa, Alabama — not publishedJuneau, Alaska — not publishedSitka, Alaska — not publishedFlagstaff, Arizona — not publishedTucson, Arizona — not publishedFort Smith, Arkansas — not publishedJonesboro, Arkansas — not publishedLittle Rock, Arkansas — not publishedColorado Springs, Colorado — not publishedFort Collins, Colorado — not publishedHartford, Connecticut — not publishedNew Haven, Connecticut — not publishedWaterbury, Connecticut — not publishedMiddletown, Delaware — not publishedSmyrna, Delaware — not publishedHialeah, Florida — not publishedMiami, Florida — not publishedAthens, Georgia — not publishedAtlanta, Georgia — not publishedAugusta, Georgia — not publishedColumbus, Georgia — not publishedSavannah, Georgia — not publishedHilo, Hawaii — not publishedHonolulu, Hawaii — not publishedKahului-Wailuku, Hawaii — not publishedKailua-Kaneohe, Hawaii — not publishedKailua-Kona, Hawaii — not publishedBoise, Idaho — not publishedCaldwell, Idaho — not publishedJoliet, Illinois — not publishedNaperville, Illinois — not publishedRockford, Illinois — not publishedHammond, Indiana — not publishedDes Moines, Iowa — not publishedOwensboro, Kentucky — not publishedBaton Rouge, Louisiana — not publishedLafayette, Louisiana — not publishedNew Orleans, Louisiana — not publishedColumbia, Maryland — not publishedWaldorf, Maryland — not publishedCambridge, Massachusetts — not publishedLowell, Massachusetts — not publishedNew Bedford, Massachusetts — not publishedSterling Heights, Michigan — not publishedBiloxi, Mississippi — not publishedGulfport, Mississippi — not publishedHattiesburg, Mississippi — not publishedJackson, Mississippi — not publishedSouthaven, Mississippi — not publishedButte, Montana — not publishedMissoula, Montana — not publishedKearney, Nebraska — not publishedDover, New Hampshire — not publishedManchester, New Hampshire — not publishedLas Cruces, New Mexico — not publishedRio Rancho, New Mexico — not publishedRoswell, New Mexico — not publishedSanta Fe, New Mexico — not publishedGrand Forks, North Dakota — not publishedToledo, Ohio — not publishedBroken Arrow, Oklahoma — not publishedEdmond, Oklahoma — not publishedNorman, Oklahoma — not publishedOklahoma City, Oklahoma — not publishedGresham, Oregon — not publishedSalem, Oregon — not publishedErie, Pennsylvania — not publishedPittsburgh, Pennsylvania — not publishedReading, Pennsylvania — not publishedCranston, Rhode Island — not publishedEast Providence, Rhode Island — not publishedPawtucket, Rhode Island — not publishedProvidence, Rhode Island — not publishedWarwick, Rhode Island — not publishedMount Pleasant, South Carolina — not publishedAberdeen, South Dakota — not publishedBrookings, South Dakota — not publishedRapid City, South Dakota — not publishedWatertown, South Dakota — not publishedDallas, Texas — not publishedRutland, Vermont — not publishedMartinsburg, West Virginia — not publishedWheeling, West Virginia — not publishedCasper, Wyoming — not publishedLaramie, Wyoming — not publishedRock Springs, Wyoming — not publishedBirmingham, Alabama — 40–156 mg/L hardness published by Birmingham Water Works; rank 107 of 185.Huntsville, Alabama — 68–149 mg/L hardness published by Huntsville Utilities; rank 95 of 185.Mobile, Alabama — 38.3–49.6 mg/L hardness published by Mobile Area Water and Sewer System; rank 152 of 185.Montgomery, Alabama — 4–115 mg/L hardness published by Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board; rank 157 of 185.Anchorage, Alaska — 82–159 mg/L hardness published by Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility; rank 96 of 185.Fairbanks, Alaska — 142 mg/L hardness published by Golden Heart Utilities; rank 54 of 185.Wasilla-Palmer, Alaska — 120–210 mg/L hardness published by Mat-Su Borough mixed; rank 39 of 185.Chandler, Arizona — 173–288 mg/L hardness published by City of Chandler Water Quality Division; rank 24 of 185.Mesa, Arizona — 205–376 mg/L hardness published by City of Mesa Water Resources Department; rank 12 of 185.Phoenix, Arizona — 158–344 mg/L hardness published by City of Phoenix Water Services Department; rank 19 of 185.Scottsdale, Arizona — 215–290 mg/L hardness published by Scottsdale Water; rank 18 of 185.Fayetteville, Arkansas — 74 mg/L hardness published by City of Fayetteville (Beaver Water District supply); rank 127 of 185.Springdale, Arkansas — 74 mg/L hardness published by Springdale Water Utilities (Beaver Water District supply); rank 127 of 185.Fresno, California — 87–150 mg/L hardness published by City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities; rank 75 of 185.Los Angeles, California — 93–275 mg/L hardness published by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; rank 32 of 185.Oakland, California — 12–160 mg/L hardness published by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); rank 116 of 185.San Diego, California — 209–284 mg/L hardness published by City of San Diego Public Utilities Department (imported supply via San Diego County Water Authority); rank 21 of 185.San Francisco, California — 8.1–112 mg/L hardness published by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Hetch Hetchy); rank 134 of 185.San Jose, California — 77–440 mg/L hardness published by San Jose Water (imported supply via Valley Water); rank 16 of 185.Aurora, Colorado — 87–198 mg/L hardness published by Aurora Water; rank 62 of 185.Boulder, Colorado — 42 mg/L hardness published by City of Boulder Public Works Utilities; rank 156 of 185.Denver, Colorado — 34–120 mg/L hardness published by Denver Water; rank 122 of 185.Bridgeport, Connecticut — 34–86 mg/L hardness published by Aquarion Water Company; rank 145 of 185.Stamford, Connecticut — 34–68 mg/L hardness published by Aquarion Water Company; rank 145 of 185.Dover, Delaware — 23–127 mg/L hardness published by City of Dover; rank 125 of 185.Newark, Delaware — 68 mg/L hardness published by City of Newark Water Department; rank 132 of 185.Wilmington, Delaware — 94–228 mg/L hardness published by City of Wilmington Department of Public Works; rank 40 of 185.Jacksonville, Florida — 120–341 mg/L hardness published by JEA; rank 20 of 185.Orlando, Florida — 129 mg/L hardness published by Orlando Utilities Commission; rank 75 of 185.St. Petersburg, Florida — 158 mg/L hardness published by St. Petersburg Water Resources / Tampa Bay Water; rank 42 of 185.Tampa, Florida — 186 mg/L hardness published by Tampa Water Department; rank 31 of 185.Marietta, Georgia — 31.2–33.4 mg/L hardness published by Marietta Board of Lights and Water (supplied by the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority); rank 161 of 185.Idaho Falls, Idaho — 240 mg/L hardness published by Idaho Falls Water; rank 23 of 185.Meridian, Idaho — 87–150 mg/L hardness published by Meridian Water; rank 91 of 185.Nampa, Idaho — 0–121 mg/L hardness published by the City of Nampa Water Division; rank 135 of 185.Aurora, Illinois — 110–160 mg/L hardness published by City of Aurora Water Production; rank 65 of 185.Chicago, Illinois — 126–143 mg/L hardness published by City of Chicago Department of Water Management; rank 67 of 185.Springfield, Illinois — 80–142 mg/L hardness published by City Water, Light and Power; rank 106 of 185.Bloomington, Indiana — 50 mg/L hardness published by City of Bloomington Utilities; rank 147 of 185.Carmel, Indiana — 68–633 mg/L hardness published by Carmel Utilities; rank 25 of 185.Evansville, Indiana — 130 mg/L hardness published by Evansville Water and Sewer Utility; rank 71 of 185.Fishers, Indiana — 320 mg/L hardness published by Citizens Energy Group (Citizens Water, Indianapolis system); rank 6 of 185.Fort Wayne, Indiana — 130 mg/L hardness published by Fort Wayne City Utilities; rank 71 of 185.Gary, Indiana — 130–150 mg/L hardness published by Indiana American Water; rank 57 of 185.Indianapolis, Indiana — 320 mg/L hardness published by Citizens Energy Group; rank 6 of 185.Cedar Rapids, Iowa — 100–150 mg/L hardness published by Cedar Rapids Water; rank 82 of 185.Davenport, Iowa — 136–350 mg/L hardness published by Iowa American Water; rank 22 of 185.Iowa City, Iowa — 50 mg/L hardness published by Iowa City Water; rank 147 of 185.Sioux City, Iowa — 350–550 mg/L hardness published by Sioux City Water; rank 1 of 185.Kansas City, Kansas — 300 mg/L hardness published by Kansas City Board of Public Utilities; rank 9 of 185.Olathe, Kansas — 180 mg/L hardness published by City of Olathe; rank 34 of 185.Overland Park, Kansas — 144 mg/L hardness published by WaterOne; rank 52 of 185.Topeka, Kansas — 154 mg/L hardness published by City of Topeka; rank 47 of 185.Wichita, Kansas — 150 mg/L hardness published by City of Wichita; rank 50 of 185.Bowling Green, Kentucky — 150 mg/L hardness published by Bowling Green Municipal Utilities; rank 50 of 185.Covington, Kentucky — 88–156 mg/L hardness published by Northern Kentucky Water District; rank 86 of 185.Lexington, Kentucky — 149–161 mg/L hardness published by Kentucky American Water; rank 44 of 185.Louisville, Kentucky — 128 mg/L hardness published by Louisville Water Company; rank 78 of 185.Lake Charles, Louisiana — 79.9 mg/L hardness published by City of Lake Charles Water Division; rank 120 of 185.Shreveport, Louisiana — 23.5 mg/L hardness published by City of Shreveport Department of Water and Sewerage; rank 172 of 185.Auburn, Maine — 17 mg/L hardness published by Auburn Water District; rank 176 of 185.Bangor, Maine — 5.3 mg/L hardness published by Bangor Water District (Floods Pond, Otis — unfiltered surface supply); rank 185 of 185.Lewiston, Maine — 17 mg/L hardness published by the Lewiston Water Division; rank 176 of 185.Portland, Maine — 7.2 mg/L hardness published by Portland Water District; rank 182 of 185.South Portland, Maine — 7.2 mg/L hardness published by Portland Water District; rank 182 of 185.Baltimore, Maryland — 76–120 mg/L hardness published by Baltimore City Department of Public Works; rank 107 of 185.Germantown, Maryland — 79–213 mg/L hardness published by Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; rank 47 of 185.Silver Spring, Maryland — 58–213 mg/L hardness published by Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; rank 64 of 185.Boston, Massachusetts — 10 mg/L hardness published by Boston Water and Sewer Commission, supplied by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority; rank 180 of 185.Springfield, Massachusetts — 10–14 mg/L hardness published by Springfield Water and Sewer Commission; rank 179 of 185.Worcester, Massachusetts — 22–55 mg/L hardness published by Worcester DPW & Parks, Water Operations Division; rank 163 of 185.Ann Arbor, Michigan — 74–180 mg/L hardness published by Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant; rank 81 of 185.Detroit, Michigan — 96–142 mg/L hardness published by Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, on treated water from the Great Lakes Water Authority; rank 98 of 185.Grand Rapids, Michigan — 126–164 mg/L hardness published by Grand Rapids Water System; rank 54 of 185.Lansing, Michigan — 89–120 mg/L hardness published by Lansing Board of Water and Light; rank 103 of 185.Warren, Michigan — 96–120 mg/L hardness published by Great Lakes Water Authority (via Warren DPW); rank 100 of 185.Bloomington, Minnesota — 89 mg/L hardness published by Bloomington Utilities; rank 114 of 185.Duluth, Minnesota — 44 mg/L hardness published by Duluth Public Works and Utilities; rank 152 of 185.Minneapolis, Minnesota — 83–106 mg/L hardness published by Minneapolis Water Works; rank 111 of 185.Rochester, Minnesota — 283 mg/L hardness published by Rochester Public Utilities; rank 13 of 185.Saint Paul, Minnesota — 91 mg/L hardness published by Saint Paul Regional Water Services; rank 112 of 185.Columbia, Missouri — 187 mg/L hardness published by Columbia Water and Light; rank 30 of 185.Independence, Missouri — 123 mg/L hardness published by Independence Water Department; rank 85 of 185.Kansas City, Missouri — 100 mg/L hardness published by KC Water; rank 105 of 185.Springfield, Missouri — 74–206 mg/L hardness published by City Utilities of Springfield; rank 60 of 185.St. Louis, Missouri — 80–206 mg/L hardness published by City of St. Louis Water Division; rank 75 of 185.Billings, Montana — 52–233 mg/L hardness published by Billings Water; rank 53 of 185.Bozeman, Montana — 62.4–185.6 mg/L hardness published by City of Bozeman Water; rank 84 of 185.Great Falls, Montana — 127–167 mg/L hardness published by Great Falls Water Utility; rank 44 of 185.Bellevue, Nebraska — 170 mg/L hardness published by Metropolitan Utilities District (M.U.D.); rank 37 of 185.Grand Island, Nebraska — 308–377 mg/L hardness published by Grand Island Utilities; rank 4 of 185.Lincoln, Nebraska — 180–236 mg/L hardness published by Lincoln Water System; rank 29 of 185.Omaha, Nebraska — 170 mg/L hardness published by Metropolitan Utilities District; rank 37 of 185.Henderson, Nevada — 304 mg/L hardness published by City of Henderson Utility Services; rank 8 of 185.Las Vegas, Nevada — 291 mg/L hardness published by Las Vegas Valley Water District; rank 11 of 185.North Las Vegas, Nevada — 280 mg/L hardness published by City of North Las Vegas Utilities Department; rank 14 of 185.Reno, Nevada — 32–238 mg/L hardness published by Truckee Meadows Water Authority; rank 65 of 185.Sparks, Nevada — 68–92 mg/L hardness published by Truckee Meadows Water Authority; rank 119 of 185.Concord, New Hampshire — 9–10 mg/L hardness published by Concord General Services; rank 181 of 185.Nashua, New Hampshire — 20.8 mg/L hardness published by Pennichuck Water Works, municipally owned by the City of Nashua; rank 175 of 185.Portsmouth, New Hampshire — 13–204 mg/L hardness published by City of Portsmouth Department of Public Works, Water Division; rank 152 of 185.Cherry Hill, New Jersey — 128 mg/L hardness published by Cherry Hill Township water system (New Jersey American Water serves adjoining Camden County areas); rank 78 of 185.Jersey City, New Jersey — 57–92 mg/L hardness published by Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority; rank 126 of 185.Newark, New Jersey — 52.6 mg/L hardness published by City of Newark Water Department / Pequannock System; rank 144 of 185.Paterson, New Jersey — 70–140 mg/L hardness published by Passaic Valley Water Commission; rank 100 of 185.Princeton, New Jersey — 90–222 mg/L hardness published by New Jersey American Water; rank 43 of 185.Trenton, New Jersey — 80.1 mg/L hardness published by Trenton Water Works; rank 118 of 185.Albuquerque, New Mexico — 43–230 mg/L hardness published by Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority; rank 49 of 185.Buffalo, New York — 80–100 mg/L hardness published by Buffalo Water (Buffalo Water Board, operations managed by Veolia NA); rank 114 of 185.Hempstead, New York — 22–33 mg/L hardness published by Multiple Nassau County water districts and private systems; rank 166 of 185.New York City, New York — 31–120 mg/L hardness published by NYC Department of Environmental Protection; rank 123 of 185.Rochester, New York — 88–120 mg/L hardness published by City of Rochester Water Bureau (Hemlock and Canadice Lakes, with Lake Ontario supply via Monroe County Water Authority); rank 104 of 185.Syracuse, New York — 127 mg/L hardness published by Syracuse Water Department (Skaneateles Lake); rank 80 of 185.Yonkers, New York — 31–120 mg/L hardness published by City of Yonkers Water Bureau (purchased NYC DEP supply, with Westchester County Water District #1); rank 123 of 185.Asheville, North Carolina — 5.52 mg/L hardness published by Asheville Water Resources; rank 184 of 185.Cary, North Carolina — 25–30 mg/L hardness published by Town of Cary Public Works; rank 166 of 185.Charlotte, North Carolina — 32 mg/L hardness published by Charlotte Water; rank 162 of 185.Durham, North Carolina — 23–24 mg/L hardness published by Durham Water Management; rank 172 of 185.Greensboro, North Carolina — 34–51 mg/L hardness published by Greensboro Water Resources; rank 155 of 185.Raleigh, North Carolina — 24.7–25.5 mg/L hardness published by City of Raleigh Public Utilities; rank 170 of 185.Wilmington, North Carolina — 39–62 mg/L hardness published by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority; rank 147 of 185.Bismarck, North Dakota — 132 mg/L hardness published by the City of Bismarck; rank 70 of 185.Fargo, North Dakota — 120 mg/L hardness published by Fargo Water Treatment Plant; rank 87 of 185.Minot, North Dakota — 100–150 mg/L hardness published by City of Minot; rank 82 of 185.West Fargo, North Dakota — 120 mg/L hardness published by City of West Fargo Utilities; rank 87 of 185.Akron, Ohio — 76–150 mg/L hardness published by City of Akron Water Supply; rank 98 of 185.Cincinnati, Ohio — 126–140 mg/L hardness published by Greater Cincinnati Water Works; rank 69 of 185.Cleveland, Ohio — 105–130 mg/L hardness published by Cleveland Division of Water; rank 92 of 185.Columbus, Ohio — 120 mg/L hardness published by City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities; rank 87 of 185.Dayton, Ohio — 155 mg/L hardness published by City of Dayton Department of Water; rank 44 of 185.Tulsa, Oklahoma — 89–140 mg/L hardness published by Tulsa Water and Sewer; rank 93 of 185.Bend, Oregon — 17–25 mg/L hardness published by City of Bend Utilities; rank 174 of 185.Eugene, Oregon — 16–18 mg/L hardness published by Eugene Water and Electric Board; rank 176 of 185.Portland, Oregon — 7–68 mg/L hardness published by Portland Water Bureau; rank 158 of 185.Allentown, Pennsylvania — 180–284 mg/L hardness published by Lehigh County Authority / City of Allentown; rank 17 of 185.Lancaster, Pennsylvania — 99–223 mg/L hardness published by City of Lancaster Bureau of Water; rank 40 of 185.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — 90–150 mg/L hardness published by Philadelphia Water Department; rank 87 of 185.Charleston, South Carolina — 54–56 mg/L hardness published by Charleston Water System; rank 141 of 185.Columbia, South Carolina — 20–47 mg/L hardness published by Columbia Water (City of Columbia Department of Utility Operations); rank 159 of 185.North Charleston, South Carolina — 54–56 mg/L hardness published by Charleston Water System; rank 141 of 185.Rock Hill, South Carolina — 18–32 mg/L hardness published by Rock Hill Utilities; rank 171 of 185.Sioux Falls, South Dakota — 168–250 mg/L hardness published by City of Sioux Falls Water; rank 28 of 185.Chattanooga, Tennessee — 54–90 mg/L hardness published by Tennessee American Water; rank 129 of 185.Clarksville, Tennessee — 78–132 mg/L hardness published by Clarksville Gas and Water; rank 110 of 185.Knoxville, Tennessee — 91 mg/L hardness published by Knoxville Utilities Board; rank 112 of 185.Memphis, Tennessee — 12–130 mg/L hardness published by Memphis Light, Gas and Water; rank 150 of 185.Nashville, Tennessee — 62–113 mg/L hardness published by Metro Water Services; rank 121 of 185.Austin, Texas — 70–126 mg/L hardness published by Austin Water; rank 107 of 185.El Paso, Texas — 63–236 mg/L hardness published by El Paso Water; rank 36 of 185.Fort Worth, Texas — 76.5–183 mg/L hardness published by Fort Worth Water; rank 74 of 185.Houston, Texas — 44–229 mg/L hardness published by Houston Public Works; rank 62 of 185.San Antonio, Texas — 257–342 mg/L hardness published by San Antonio Water System; rank 10 of 185.Orem, Utah — 112–428 mg/L hardness published by Orem City Public Works; rank 15 of 185.Provo, Utah — 171–257 mg/L hardness published by Provo City Energy and Water; rank 27 of 185.Salt Lake City, Utah — 136–571 mg/L hardness published by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities; rank 3 of 185.West Jordan, Utah — 16–602 mg/L hardness published by West Jordan City Public Works; rank 33 of 185.West Valley City, Utah — 176 mg/L hardness published by West Valley City Water; rank 35 of 185.Burlington, Vermont — 64 mg/L hardness published by Burlington Department of Public Works, Water Division; rank 133 of 185.Colchester, Vermont — 60 mg/L hardness published by Champlain Water District; rank 136 of 185.Essex, Vermont — 60 mg/L hardness published by Champlain Water District; rank 136 of 185.South Burlington, Vermont — 60 mg/L hardness published by Champlain Water District; rank 136 of 185.Alexandria, Virginia — 78–191 mg/L hardness published by Virginia American Water (Alexandria); rank 67 of 185.Arlington, Virginia — 142 mg/L hardness published by Washington Aqueduct (Arlington DES); rank 54 of 185.Chesapeake, Virginia — 32–74 mg/L hardness published by Chesapeake Public Utilities; rank 143 of 185.Hampton, Virginia — 63–75 mg/L hardness published by Newport News Waterworks (Hampton); rank 130 of 185.Newport News, Virginia — 63–75 mg/L hardness published by Newport News Waterworks; rank 130 of 185.Norfolk, Virginia — 32–74 mg/L hardness published by Norfolk Department of Utilities; rank 150 of 185.Richmond, Virginia — 81 mg/L hardness published by Richmond Department of Public Utilities; rank 117 of 185.Virginia Beach, Virginia — 48–74 mg/L hardness published by Virginia Beach Public Utilities; rank 140 of 185.Bellevue, Washington — 24–32 mg/L hardness published by Bellevue Utilities (Cascade Water Alliance, supplied by Seattle Public Utilities); rank 164 of 185.Seattle, Washington — 24–32 mg/L hardness published by Seattle Public Utilities; rank 164 of 185.Spokane, Washington — 90.6–360 mg/L hardness published by City of Spokane Water Department; rank 26 of 185.Tacoma, Washington — 17–34 mg/L hardness published by Tacoma Water (Tacoma Public Utilities); rank 169 of 185.Vancouver, Washington — 79–140 mg/L hardness published by City of Vancouver Water Utility; rank 94 of 185.Yakima, Washington — 27.4 mg/L hardness published by City of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division; rank 168 of 185.Charleston, West Virginia — 17–55 mg/L hardness published by West Virginia American Water; rank 159 of 185.Huntington, West Virginia — 62–154 mg/L hardness published by West Virginia American Water; rank 96 of 185.Morgantown, West Virginia — 104.8 mg/L hardness published by Morgantown Utility Board; rank 102 of 185.Green Bay, Wisconsin — 130 mg/L hardness published by Green Bay Water Utility; rank 71 of 185.Kenosha, Wisconsin — 131–148 mg/L hardness published by Kenosha Water Utility; rank 57 of 185.Madison, Wisconsin — 308–342 mg/L hardness published by Madison Water Utility; rank 5 of 185.Milwaukee, Wisconsin — 112–142 mg/L hardness published by Milwaukee Water Works; rank 60 of 185.Racine, Wisconsin — 140 mg/L hardness published by Racine Water Utility; rank 57 of 185.Cheyenne, Wyoming — 46–69 mg/L hardness published by the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities; rank 139 of 185.Gillette, Wyoming — 315–496 mg/L hardness published by the City of Gillette; rank 2 of 185.
Tap or hover a dot for the city's published figure.
SOFT · 50MODERATELY HARD · 49HARD · 53VERY HARD · 14EXTREMELY HARD · 19NOT PUBLISHED · 86

Hardness: all 185 ranked cities

Figures are mg/L as calcium carbonate, as the utility printed them; grains per gallon is the same number divided by 17.12. 75 utilities publish only a range with no average. Those rank at the middle of the range and carry a mid mark, because the midpoint is this page's sort key, not a number the utility reported. A city with a wide range can sit much higher or lower for a particular address; the two published sorts rank on the ends of the range instead, using only printed numbers.

#CITYPUBLISHED MG/LGPGBANDUTILITY
1Sioux City, Iowa350–550mid26.3extremely hardSioux City Water
2Gillette, Wyoming315–496mid23.7extremely hardthe City of Gillette
3Salt Lake City, Utah136–571mid20.7hard to extremely hardSalt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
4Grand Island, Nebraska308–377mid20extremely hardGrand Island Utilities
5Madison, Wisconsin308–342mid19extremely hardMadison Water Utility
6Fishers, Indiana32018.7extremely hardCitizens Energy Group (Citizens Water, Indianapolis system)
6Indianapolis, Indiana32018.7extremely hardCitizens Energy Group
8Henderson, Nevada30417.8extremely hardCity of Henderson Utility Services
9Kansas City, Kansas30017.5extremely hardKansas City Board of Public Utilities
10San Antonio, Texas257–342mid17.5extremely hardSan Antonio Water System
11Las Vegas, Nevada29117extremely hardLas Vegas Valley Water District
12Mesa, Arizona205–376mid17very hard to extremely hardCity of Mesa Water Resources Department
13Rochester, Minnesota28316.5extremely hardRochester Public Utilities
14North Las Vegas, Nevada28016.4extremely hardCity of North Las Vegas Utilities Department
15Orem, Utah112–428mid15.8moderately hard to extremely hardOrem City Public Works
16San Jose, California77–440mid15.1moderately hard to extremely hardSan Jose Water (imported supply via Valley Water)
17Allentown, Pennsylvania180–284avg 25715extremely hardLehigh County Authority / City of Allentown
18Scottsdale, Arizona215–290mid14.8very hard to extremely hardScottsdale Water
19Phoenix, Arizona158–344mid14.7hard to extremely hardCity of Phoenix Water Services Department
20Jacksonville, Florida120–341avg 25014.6very hardJEA
21San Diego, California209–284mid14.4very hard to extremely hardCity of San Diego Public Utilities Department (imported supply via San Diego County Water Authority)
22Davenport, Iowa136–350mid14.2hard to extremely hardIowa American Water
23Idaho Falls, Idaho24014very hardIdaho Falls Water
24Chandler, Arizona173–288mid13.5hard to extremely hardCity of Chandler Water Quality Division
25Carmel, Indiana68–633avg 22813.3very hardCarmel Utilities
26Spokane, Washington90.6–360mid13.2moderately hard to extremely hardCity of Spokane Water Department
27Provo, Utah171–257mid12.5hard to extremely hardProvo City Energy and Water
28Sioux Falls, South Dakota168–250mid12.2hard to very hardCity of Sioux Falls Water
29Lincoln, Nebraska180–236avg 19211.2very hardLincoln Water System
30Columbia, Missouri18710.9very hardColumbia Water and Light
31Tampa, Florida18610.9very hardTampa Water Department
32Los Angeles, California93–275mid10.7moderately hard to extremely hardLos Angeles Department of Water and Power
33West Jordan, Utah16–602avg 18310.7very hardWest Jordan City Public Works
34Olathe, Kansas18010.5hardCity of Olathe
35West Valley City, Utah17610.3hardWest Valley City Water
36El Paso, Texas63–236avg 17510.2hardEl Paso Water
37Bellevue, Nebraska1709.9hardMetropolitan Utilities District (M.U.D.)
37Omaha, Nebraska1709.9hardMetropolitan Utilities District
39Wasilla-Palmer, Alaska120–210mid9.6moderately hard to very hardMat-Su Borough mixed
40Lancaster, Pennsylvania99–223mid9.4moderately hard to very hardCity of Lancaster Bureau of Water
40Wilmington, Delaware94–228mid9.4moderately hard to very hardCity of Wilmington Department of Public Works
42St. Petersburg, Florida1589.2hardSt. Petersburg Water Resources / Tampa Bay Water
43Princeton, New Jersey90–222mid9.1moderately hard to very hardNew Jersey American Water
44Dayton, Ohio1559.1hardCity of Dayton Department of Water
44Great Falls, Montana127–167avg 1559.1hardGreat Falls Water Utility
44Lexington, Kentucky149–161mid9.1hardKentucky American Water
47Germantown, Maryland79–213avg 1549hardWashington Suburban Sanitary Commission
47Topeka, Kansas1549hardCity of Topeka
49Albuquerque, New Mexico43–230avg 1518.8hardAlbuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority
50Bowling Green, Kentucky1508.8hardBowling Green Municipal Utilities
50Wichita, Kansas1508.8hardCity of Wichita
52Overland Park, Kansas1448.4hardWaterOne
53Billings, Montana52–233mid8.3soft to very hardBillings Water
54Arlington, Virginia1428.3hardWashington Aqueduct (Arlington DES)
54Fairbanks, Alaska1428.3hardGolden Heart Utilities
54Grand Rapids, Michigan126–164avg 1428.3hardGrand Rapids Water System
57Gary, Indiana130–150mid8.2hardIndiana American Water
57Kenosha, Wisconsin131–148avg 1408.2hardKenosha Water Utility
57Racine, Wisconsin1408.2hardRacine Water Utility
60Milwaukee, Wisconsin112–142avg 1378hardMilwaukee Water Works
60Springfield, Missouri74–206avg 1378hardCity Utilities of Springfield
62Aurora, Colorado87–198avg 1367.9hardAurora Water
62Houston, Texas44–229avg 1367.9hardHouston Public Works
64Silver Spring, Maryland58–213mid7.9soft to very hardWashington Suburban Sanitary Commission
65Aurora, Illinois110–160mid7.9moderately hard to hardCity of Aurora Water Production
65Reno, Nevada32–238mid7.9soft to very hardTruckee Meadows Water Authority
67Alexandria, Virginia78–191mid7.9moderately hard to very hardVirginia American Water (Alexandria)
67Chicago, Illinois126–143mid7.9hardCity of Chicago Department of Water Management
69Cincinnati, Ohio126–140mid7.8hardGreater Cincinnati Water Works
70Bismarck, North Dakota1327.7hardthe City of Bismarck
71Evansville, Indiana1307.6hardEvansville Water and Sewer Utility
71Fort Wayne, Indiana1307.6hardFort Wayne City Utilities
71Green Bay, Wisconsin1307.6hardGreen Bay Water Utility
74Fort Worth, Texas76.5–183mid7.6moderately hard to very hardFort Worth Water
75Fresno, California87–150avg 1297.5hardCity of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
75Orlando, Florida1297.5hardOrlando Utilities Commission
75St. Louis, Missouri80–206avg 1297.5hardCity of St. Louis Water Division
78Cherry Hill, New Jersey1287.5hardCherry Hill Township water system (New Jersey American Water serves adjoining Camden County areas)
78Louisville, Kentucky1287.5hardLouisville Water Company
80Syracuse, New York1277.4hardSyracuse Water Department (Skaneateles Lake)
81Ann Arbor, Michigan74–180avg 1267.4hardAnn Arbor Water Treatment Plant
82Cedar Rapids, Iowa100–150mid7.3moderately hard to hardCedar Rapids Water
82Minot, North Dakota100–150mid7.3moderately hard to hardCity of Minot
84Bozeman, Montana62.4–185.6mid7.2moderately hard to very hardCity of Bozeman Water
85Independence, Missouri1237.2hardIndependence Water Department
86Covington, Kentucky88–156mid7.1moderately hard to hardNorthern Kentucky Water District
87Columbus, Ohio1207moderately hardCity of Columbus Department of Public Utilities
87Fargo, North Dakota1207moderately hardFargo Water Treatment Plant
87Philadelphia, Pennsylvania90–150mid7moderately hard to hardPhiladelphia Water Department
87West Fargo, North Dakota1207moderately hardCity of West Fargo Utilities
91Meridian, Idaho87–150avg 1197moderately hardMeridian Water
92Cleveland, Ohio105–130avg 1176.8moderately hardCleveland Division of Water
93Tulsa, Oklahoma89–140mid6.7moderately hard to hardTulsa Water and Sewer
94Vancouver, Washington79–140mid6.4moderately hard to hardCity of Vancouver Water Utility
95Huntsville, Alabama68–149mid6.3moderately hard to hardHuntsville Utilities
96Anchorage, Alaska82–159avg 1086.3moderately hardAnchorage Water and Wastewater Utility
96Huntington, West Virginia62–154mid6.3moderately hard to hardWest Virginia American Water
98Akron, Ohio76–150avg 1076.3moderately hardCity of Akron Water Supply
98Detroit, Michigan96–142avg 1076.3moderately hardDetroit Water and Sewerage Department, on treated water from the Great Lakes Water Authority
100Paterson, New Jersey70–140mid6.1moderately hard to hardPassaic Valley Water Commission
100Warren, Michigan96–120avg 1056.1moderately hardGreat Lakes Water Authority (via Warren DPW)
102Morgantown, West Virginia104.86.1moderately hardMorgantown Utility Board
103Lansing, Michigan89–120mid6.1moderately hardLansing Board of Water and Light
104Rochester, New York88–120mid6.1moderately hardCity of Rochester Water Bureau (Hemlock and Canadice Lakes, with Lake Ontario supply via Monroe County Water Authority)
105Kansas City, Missouri1005.8moderately hardKC Water
106Springfield, Illinois80–142avg 995.8moderately hardCity Water, Light and Power
107Austin, Texas70–126mid5.7moderately hard to hardAustin Water
107Baltimore, Maryland76–120mid5.7moderately hardBaltimore City Department of Public Works
107Birmingham, Alabama40–156mid5.7soft to hardBirmingham Water Works
110Clarksville, Tennessee78–132avg 975.7moderately hardClarksville Gas and Water
111Minneapolis, Minnesota83–106mid5.5moderately hardMinneapolis Water Works
112Knoxville, Tennessee915.3moderately hardKnoxville Utilities Board
112Saint Paul, Minnesota915.3moderately hardSaint Paul Regional Water Services
114Bloomington, Minnesota895.2moderately hardBloomington Utilities
114Buffalo, New York80–100avg 895.2moderately hardBuffalo Water (Buffalo Water Board, operations managed by Veolia NA)
116Oakland, California12–160mid5soft to hardEast Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
117Richmond, Virginia814.7moderately hardRichmond Department of Public Utilities
118Trenton, New Jersey80.14.7moderately hardTrenton Water Works
119Sparks, Nevada68–92mid4.7moderately hardTruckee Meadows Water Authority
120Lake Charles, Louisiana79.94.7moderately hardCity of Lake Charles Water Division
121Nashville, Tennessee62–113avg 784.6moderately hardMetro Water Services
122Denver, Colorado34–120mid4.5soft to moderately hardDenver Water
123New York City, New York31–120mid4.4soft to moderately hardNYC Department of Environmental Protection
123Yonkers, New York31–120mid4.4soft to moderately hardCity of Yonkers Water Bureau (purchased NYC DEP supply, with Westchester County Water District #1)
125Dover, Delaware23–127mid4.4soft to hardCity of Dover
126Jersey City, New Jersey57–92mid4.4soft to moderately hardJersey City Municipal Utilities Authority
127Fayetteville, Arkansas744.3moderately hardCity of Fayetteville (Beaver Water District supply)
127Springdale, Arkansas744.3moderately hardSpringdale Water Utilities (Beaver Water District supply)
129Chattanooga, Tennessee54–90mid4.2soft to moderately hardTennessee American Water
130Hampton, Virginia63–75avg 694moderately hardNewport News Waterworks (Hampton)
130Newport News, Virginia63–75avg 694moderately hardNewport News Waterworks
132Newark, Delaware684moderately hardCity of Newark Water Department
133Burlington, Vermont643.7moderately hardBurlington Department of Public Works, Water Division
134San Francisco, California8.1–112avg 623.6moderately hardSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Hetch Hetchy)
135Nampa, Idaho0–121mid3.5soft to hardthe City of Nampa Water Division
136Colchester, Vermont603.5softChamplain Water District
136Essex, Vermont603.5softChamplain Water District
136South Burlington, Vermont603.5softChamplain Water District
139Cheyenne, Wyoming46–69avg 593.4softthe Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities
140Virginia Beach, Virginia48–74avg 563.3softVirginia Beach Public Utilities
141Charleston, South Carolina54–56mid3.2softCharleston Water System
141North Charleston, South Carolina54–56mid3.2softCharleston Water System
143Chesapeake, Virginia32–74mid3.1soft to moderately hardChesapeake Public Utilities
144Newark, New Jersey52.63.1softCity of Newark Water Department / Pequannock System
145Bridgeport, Connecticut34–86avg 513softAquarion Water Company
145Stamford, Connecticut34–68avg 513softAquarion Water Company
147Bloomington, Indiana502.9softCity of Bloomington Utilities
147Iowa City, Iowa502.9softIowa City Water
147Wilmington, North Carolina39–62avg 502.9softCape Fear Public Utility Authority
150Memphis, Tennessee12–130avg 482.8softMemphis Light, Gas and Water
150Norfolk, Virginia32–74avg 482.8softNorfolk Department of Utilities
152Duluth, Minnesota442.6softDuluth Public Works and Utilities
152Mobile, Alabama38.3–49.6mid2.6softMobile Area Water and Sewer System
152Portsmouth, New Hampshire13–204avg 442.6softCity of Portsmouth Department of Public Works, Water Division
155Greensboro, North Carolina34–51mid2.5softGreensboro Water Resources
156Boulder, Colorado422.5softCity of Boulder Public Works Utilities
157Montgomery, Alabama4–115avg 412.4softMontgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board
158Portland, Oregon7–68mid2.2soft to moderately hardPortland Water Bureau
159Charleston, West Virginia17–55mid2.1softWest Virginia American Water
159Columbia, South Carolina20–47avg 362.1softColumbia Water (City of Columbia Department of Utility Operations)
161Marietta, Georgia31.2–33.4mid1.9softMarietta Board of Lights and Water (supplied by the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority)
162Charlotte, North Carolina321.9softCharlotte Water
163Worcester, Massachusetts22–55avg 301.8softWorcester DPW & Parks, Water Operations Division
164Bellevue, Washington24–32mid1.6softBellevue Utilities (Cascade Water Alliance, supplied by Seattle Public Utilities)
164Seattle, Washington24–32mid1.6softSeattle Public Utilities
166Cary, North Carolina25–30mid1.6softTown of Cary Public Works
166Hempstead, New York22–33mid1.6softMultiple Nassau County water districts and private systems
168Yakima, Washington27.41.6softCity of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division
169Tacoma, Washington17–34mid1.5softTacoma Water (Tacoma Public Utilities)
170Raleigh, North Carolina24.7–25.5mid1.5softCity of Raleigh Public Utilities
171Rock Hill, South Carolina18–32mid1.5softRock Hill Utilities
172Durham, North Carolina23–24mid1.4softDurham Water Management
172Shreveport, Louisiana23.51.4softCity of Shreveport Department of Water and Sewerage
174Bend, Oregon17–25mid1.2softCity of Bend Utilities
175Nashua, New Hampshire20.81.2softPennichuck Water Works, municipally owned by the City of Nashua
176Auburn, Maine171softAuburn Water District
176Eugene, Oregon16–18avg 171softEugene Water and Electric Board
176Lewiston, Maine171softthe Lewiston Water Division
179Springfield, Massachusetts10–14mid0.7softSpringfield Water and Sewer Commission
180Boston, Massachusetts100.6softBoston Water and Sewer Commission, supplied by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
181Concord, New Hampshire9–10avg 9.40.5softConcord General Services
182Portland, Maine7.20.4softPortland Water District
182South Portland, Maine7.20.4softPortland Water District
184Asheville, North Carolina5.520.3softAsheville Water Resources
185Bangor, Maine5.30.3softBangor Water District (Floods Pond, Otis — unfiltered surface supply)

Not ranked: 86 cities

76 utilities were read and print no hardness figure at all. That is a finding about the report, not about the water, and each city page says which document was checked.

Aberdeen, South Dakota · Athens, Georgia · Atlanta, Georgia · Augusta, Georgia · Biloxi, Mississippi · Broken Arrow, Oklahoma · Brookings, South Dakota · Butte, Montana · Caldwell, Idaho · Cambridge, Massachusetts · Casper, Wyoming · Colorado Springs, Colorado · Columbia, Maryland · Columbus, Georgia · Dallas, Texas · Des Moines, Iowa · Edmond, Oklahoma · Erie, Pennsylvania · Flagstaff, Arizona · Fort Smith, Arkansas · Grand Forks, North Dakota · Gresham, Oregon · Gulfport, Mississippi · Hammond, Indiana · Hartford, Connecticut · Hattiesburg, Mississippi · Hialeah, Florida · Hilo, Hawaii · Honolulu, Hawaii · Jackson, Mississippi · Joliet, Illinois · Jonesboro, Arkansas · Juneau, Alaska · Kahului-Wailuku, Hawaii · Kailua-Kaneohe, Hawaii · Kailua-Kona, Hawaii · Kearney, Nebraska · Lafayette, Louisiana · Laramie, Wyoming · Las Cruces, New Mexico · Little Rock, Arkansas · Lowell, Massachusetts · Manchester, New Hampshire · Miami, Florida · Middletown, Delaware · Missoula, Montana · Mount Pleasant, South Carolina · Naperville, Illinois · New Bedford, Massachusetts · New Haven, Connecticut · New Orleans, Louisiana · Norman, Oklahoma · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma · Owensboro, Kentucky · Pawtucket, Rhode Island · Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania · Rapid City, South Dakota · Rio Rancho, New Mexico · Rock Springs, Wyoming · Rockford, Illinois · Roswell, New Mexico · Rutland, Vermont · Santa Fe, New Mexico · Savannah, Georgia · Sitka, Alaska · Smyrna, Delaware · Southaven, Mississippi · Sterling Heights, Michigan · Toledo, Ohio · Tucson, Arizona · Tuscaloosa, Alabama · Waldorf, Maryland · Warwick, Rhode Island · Waterbury, Connecticut · Watertown, South Dakota · Wheeling, West Virginia

6 describe their water in words only, which cannot be ranked against a number:

Baton Rouge, Louisiana · Cranston, Rhode Island (soft) · Dover, New Hampshire (moderately hard to hard) · East Providence, Rhode Island (soft) · Fort Collins, Colorado (naturally soft) · Providence, Rhode Island (soft)

For 4 the utility's figure has not been found yet. They stay open rather than filled in with an estimate:

Boise, Idaho · Martinsburg, West Virginia · Reading, Pennsylvania · Salem, Oregon

Total dissolved solids: 100 ranked cities

Everything that stays behind when the water evaporates, so it predicts spotting better than hardness alone. EPA's secondary standard is 500 mg/L. Hardness is only part of that load; sodium, sulfate and chloride dry on glass too, so two cities with the same hardness can spot very differently. 35 of the ranked cities carry the “spots on dry-down” flag and 15 carry “often dries clean”; the thresholds behind both are on the methodology page.

Fewer utilities report TDS than hardness: 167 of the 271 publish no figure, and 4 have not been read yet, so this table is shorter. Ranges and the mid mark work as in the hardness table.

#CITYPUBLISHED MG/LAT THE GLASSUTILITY
1Minot, North Dakota1490Spots on dry-downCity of Minot
2El Paso, Texas454–862midSpots on dry-downEl Paso Water
3Phoenix, Arizona560–686midSpots on dry-downCity of Phoenix Water Services Department
4Henderson, Nevada577–587midSpots on dry-downCity of Henderson Utility Services
4Las Vegas, Nevada577–587midSpots on dry-downLas Vegas Valley Water District
4North Las Vegas, Nevada577–587midSpots on dry-downCity of North Las Vegas Utilities Department
7Mesa, Arizona190–970midSpots on dry-downCity of Mesa Water Resources Department
8Gillette, Wyoming521–624midSpots on dry-downthe City of Gillette
9Jacksonville, Florida153–864midSpots on dry-downJEA
10Salt Lake City, Utah214–796midSpots on dry-downSalt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
11Philadelphia, Pennsylvania134–808midSpots on dry-downPhiladelphia Water Department
12Scottsdale, Arizona240–675midSpots on dry-downScottsdale Water
13Los Angeles, California215–690midSpots on dry-downLos Angeles Department of Water and Power
14Allentown, Pennsylvania412.5 (range 392–433)avgSpots on dry-downLehigh County Authority / City of Allentown
15Fargo, North Dakota400 (range 247–657)avgSpots on dry-downFargo Water Treatment Plant
15West Fargo, North Dakota400Spots on dry-downCity of West Fargo Utilities
17West Valley City, Utah381 (range 28–652)avgSpots on dry-downWest Valley City Water
18Cambridge, Massachusetts380Spots on dry-downCambridge Water Department
19San Diego, California105–634midSpots on dry-downCity of San Diego Public Utilities Department (imported supply via San Diego County Water Authority)
20Paterson, New Jersey170–533midSpots on dry-downPassaic Valley Water Commission
21Bellevue, Nebraska308–380midSpots on dry-downMetropolitan Utilities District (M.U.D.)
21Omaha, Nebraska308–380midSpots on dry-downMetropolitan Utilities District
23Kansas City, Missouri340Spots on dry-downKC Water
24San Jose, California156–520midSpots on dry-downSan Jose Water (imported supply via Valley Water)
25Lansing, Michigan332 (range 278–410)avgSpots on dry-downLansing Board of Water and Light
26Rochester, Minnesota330Spots on dry-downRochester Public Utilities
27Columbia, Missouri329Spots on dry-downColumbia Water and Light
27Lincoln, Nebraska329 (range 284–354)avgSpots on dry-downLincoln Water System
29Independence, Missouri322Spots on dry-downIndependence Water Department
30Albuquerque, New Mexico302.42 (range 202–394)avgSpots on dry-downAlbuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority
31St. Louis, Missouri298 (range 216–388)avgCity of St. Louis Water Division
32West Jordan, Utah281.2avgWest Jordan City Public Works
33Provo, Utah180–376midSpots on dry-downProvo City Energy and Water
34Dover, Delaware275.1 (range 174–406)avgCity of Dover
35Houston, Texas260 (range 146–331)avgHouston Public Works
36Wasilla-Palmer, Alaska253Mat-Su Borough mixed
37Orem, Utah112–388midSpots on dry-downOrem City Public Works
38Aurora, Colorado240 (range 119–355)avgAurora Water
39Jersey City, New Jersey127–352midSpots on dry-downJersey City Municipal Utilities Authority
40Great Falls, Montana237Great Falls Water Utility
41Lexington, Kentucky168–304midSpots on dry-downKentucky American Water
42Louisville, Kentucky225Louisville Water Company
43Fort Worth, Texas156–289midFort Worth Water
44Missoula, Montana143–299midMissoula Water (City of Missoula)
45Birmingham, Alabama27.5–388midSpots on dry-downBirmingham Water Works
46Montgomery, Alabama110–281midMontgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board
47Fairbanks, Alaska187Golden Heart Utilities
48Fresno, California186.8 (range 87–260)avgCity of Fresno Department of Public Utilities
49Covington, Kentucky107–263midNorthern Kentucky Water District
49Rochester, New York170–200midCity of Rochester Water Bureau (Hemlock and Canadice Lakes, with Lake Ontario supply via Monroe County Water Authority)
51Billings, Montana74–286midBillings Water
51Cleveland, Ohio180Cleveland Division of Water
53Chicago, Illinois174–180midCity of Chicago Department of Water Management
53Saint Paul, Minnesota177Saint Paul Regional Water Services
55Iowa City, Iowa150–200midIowa City Water
56Grand Rapids, Michigan174Grand Rapids Water System
57Milwaukee, Wisconsin165–175midMilwaukee Water Works
58Denver, Colorado91–225midDenver Water
59Austin, Texas154–156midAustin Water
60Minneapolis, Minnesota153Minneapolis Water Works
60Spokane, Washington99–207midCity of Spokane Water Department
62Green Bay, Wisconsin150Green Bay Water Utility
62Knoxville, Tennessee150avgKnoxville Utilities Board
64Richmond, Virginia149Richmond Department of Public Utilities
65Anchorage, Alaska147 (range 110–290)avgAnchorage Water and Wastewater Utility
66Nashville, Tennessee146 (range 128–189)avgMetro Water Services
67Morgantown, West Virginia129avgMorgantown Utility Board
68Virginia Beach, Virginia127 (range 121–131)avgVirginia Beach Public Utilities
69Norfolk, Virginia125 (range 115–131)avgNorfolk Department of Utilities
70Hampton, Virginia120 (range 109–131)avgNewport News Waterworks (Hampton)
70Newport News, Virginia120 (range 109–131)avgNewport News Waterworks
72Fayetteville, Arkansas115City of Fayetteville (Beaver Water District supply)
72Springdale, Arkansas115Springdale Water Utilities (Beaver Water District supply)
74Boston, Massachusetts114Boston Water and Sewer Commission, supplied by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
75Greensboro, North Carolina112–113midGreensboro Water Resources
76Detroit, Michigan112 (range 15–158)avgDetroit Water and Sewerage Department, on treated water from the Great Lakes Water Authority
77Bozeman, Montana68.3–153.6midCity of Bozeman Water
78Wilmington, North Carolina109.1 (range 66.9–323.3)avgCape Fear Public Utility Authority
79Cary, North Carolina109 (range 96–132)avgTown of Cary Public Works
80Warren, Michigan107 (range 15–149)avgGreat Lakes Water Authority (via Warren DPW)
81Charleston, South Carolina101 (range 76–140)avgCharleston Water System
81North Charleston, South Carolina101 (range 76–140)avgCharleston Water System
83Raleigh, North Carolina97–102midCity of Raleigh Public Utilities
84Newark, New Jersey99.4Often dries cleanCity of Newark Water Department / Pequannock System
85San Francisco, California95 (range 24–197)avgOften dries cleanSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Hetch Hetchy)
86Huntsville, Alabama70–117midHuntsville Utilities
87Portland, Oregon44–140midPortland Water Bureau
88Chattanooga, Tennessee85 (range 76–94)avgOften dries cleanTennessee American Water
89Burlington, Vermont81Often dries cleanBurlington Department of Public Works, Water Division
90New York City, New York73 (range 45–240)avgOften dries cleanNYC Department of Environmental Protection
90Yonkers, New York73 (range 45–240)avgOften dries cleanCity of Yonkers Water Bureau (purchased NYC DEP supply, with Westchester County Water District #1)
92Mobile, Alabama65–71midOften dries cleanMobile Area Water and Sewer System
93Oakland, California65avgOften dries cleanEast Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
94Boulder, Colorado62Often dries cleanCity of Boulder Public Works Utilities
94Duluth, Minnesota62Often dries cleanDuluth Public Works and Utilities
96Bellevue, Washington57.7–65.2midOften dries cleanBellevue Utilities (Cascade Water Alliance, supplied by Seattle Public Utilities)
96Seattle, Washington57.7–65.2midOften dries cleanSeattle Public Utilities
98Charlotte, North Carolina59Often dries cleanCharlotte Water
99Eugene, Oregon55 (range 51–61)avgOften dries cleanEugene Water and Electric Board
100Yakima, Washington48Often dries cleanCity of Yakima Water/Irrigation Division

pH: 161 ranked cities, most alkaline first

pH 7 is neutral. EPA's secondary (cosmetic) guideline for drinking water is 6.5 to 8.5, and utilities often run toward the top of that range, or above it, to protect pipes. 27 of the ranked cities publish a figure at pH 9 or above, the level this site flags: strongly alkaline finished water: do not let it dwell on anodised aluminium. 106 utilities publish no pH at all.

#CITYPUBLISHED PHAT THE FRAME
1Kansas City, Missouri10.1Strongly alkaline
2Austin, Texas9.65–9.74midStrongly alkaline
2Boston, Massachusetts9.7Strongly alkaline
4Independence, Missouri9.65Strongly alkaline
5St. Louis, Missouri9.52 (range 8.52–10.05)avgStrongly alkaline
6Lansing, Michigan9.4 (range 9.1–9.8)avgStrongly alkaline
6Minot, North Dakota9.4Strongly alkaline
6Overland Park, Kansas9.1–9.6midStrongly alkaline
6Springfield, Illinois9.4 (range 9.1–9.7)avgStrongly alkaline
10Ann Arbor, Michigan9.3 (range 8.8–9.5)avgStrongly alkaline
10San Francisco, California9.3 (range 9–9.7)avgStrongly alkaline
10Topeka, Kansas9.3Strongly alkaline
13Fargo, North Dakota9.28avgStrongly alkaline
13West Fargo, North Dakota9.28Strongly alkaline
15Iowa City, Iowa9.25 (range 9.15–9.35)avgStrongly alkaline
16Concord, New Hampshire9.22 (range 8.62–9.6)avgStrongly alkaline
17Duluth, Minnesota9.2Strongly alkaline
18Bismarck, North Dakota9.17avgStrongly alkaline
19Aurora, Illinois8.9–9.2midStrongly alkaline
20Minneapolis, Minnesota9.06Strongly alkaline
21Saint Paul, Minnesota9.05Strongly alkaline
22Bellevue, Nebraska8.91–9.08midStrongly alkaline
22Omaha, Nebraska8.91–9.08midStrongly alkaline
24Oakland, California8.2–9.4midStrongly alkaline
25Charleston, South Carolina8.7 (range 8.6–8.8)avg
25North Charleston, South Carolina8.7 (range 8.6–8.8)avg
27Dayton, Ohio8.61avg
28Louisville, Kentucky8.6
29Charlotte, North Carolina8.5 (range 7.4–9.5)avg
29Portland, Oregon7.7–9.3midStrongly alkaline
29Sioux Falls, South Dakota8.3–8.7mid
29Wichita, Kansas8.5
33Nashua, New Hampshire8.42
34Olathe, Kansas8.4
34Raleigh, North Carolina8.4–8.41mid
36Fairbanks, Alaska8.3
37Fayetteville, Arkansas8.23
37Springdale, Arkansas8.23
39Columbia, Missouri8.22
40Bellevue, Washington7.89–8.52mid
40Birmingham, Alabama7.76–8.55mid
40Fort Worth, Texas7.8–8.5mid
40San Diego, California7.4–9midStrongly alkaline
40Seattle, Washington7.89–8.52mid
40St. Petersburg, Florida8.2avg
46Aurora, Colorado8.1 (range 8–8.3)avg
46Bozeman, Montana7.63–8.65mid
46Gary, Indiana7.4–8.8mid
46Greensboro, North Carolina8.1–8.2mid
46Kansas City, Kansas8.1
46Paterson, New Jersey7.78–8.38mid
52Cary, North Carolina8 (range 7.46–8.74)avg
52Green Bay, Wisconsin8
52Los Angeles, California6.9–9midStrongly alkaline
52Lowell, Massachusetts7.5–8.5mid
52Rochester, New York8 (range 7.53–8.53)avg
52Tulsa, Oklahoma7.5–8.5mid
52Wasilla-Palmer, Alaska7.86–8.05mid
59Meridian, Idaho7.94 (range 7.75–8.08)avg
60Billings, Montana7.47–8.39mid
60Chicago, Illinois7.9 (range 7.7–7.9)
60Clarksville, Tennessee7.9 (range 7–8.4)avg
60Columbia, South Carolina7.9 (range 7.5–8.6)avg
60Eugene, Oregon7.9 (range 7.8–8.1)avg
60Montgomery, Alabama7.9 (range 7–8.8)avg
60Reno, Nevada7.59–8.16mid
60Sparks, Nevada7.66–8.06mid
68Tampa, Florida7.88avg
69Syracuse, New York7.86 (range 7.2–8.26)avg
70Lincoln, Nebraska7.85 (range 7.72–7.98)avg
71Baltimore, Maryland7.55–8.07mid
71Columbus, Ohio7.8 (range 7.7–7.9)avg
71Dover, Delaware7.8 (range 6.8–8.2)avg
71Fishers, Indiana7.8 (range 7–8.5)avg
71Henderson, Nevada7.7–7.9mid
71Houston, Texas7.8 (range 7.3–8.3)avg
71Indianapolis, Indiana7.8 (range 7–8.5)avg
71Las Vegas, Nevada7.7–7.9mid
71Milwaukee, Wisconsin7.46–8.1mid
71Morgantown, West Virginia7.8avg
71North Las Vegas, Nevada7.7–7.9mid
71Phoenix, Arizona7.3–8.3mid
71Scottsdale, Arizona7.3–8.2mid
71Vancouver, Washington7.5–8.1mid
71Wheeling, West Virginia7.59–7.93mid
86Richmond, Virginia7.79
87Buffalo, New York7.76 (range 7.38–8.1)avg
88Boulder, Colorado7.73
88Kenosha, Wisconsin7.73 (range 7.57–7.88)avg
90West Jordan, Utah7.71 (range 6.9–8.65)avg
91Chandler, Arizona7.2–8.1mid
91Chesapeake, Virginia7.2–8.1mid
91El Paso, Texas7.3–8.1mid
91Grand Rapids, Michigan7.7 (range 7.2–8)avg
91Manchester, New Hampshire6.86–8.62mid
91Mobile, Alabama6.8–8.5mid
91Orem, Utah7.21–8.28mid
91Salt Lake City, Utah7.19–8.24mid
91Springfield, Missouri7.2–8.2mid
91West Valley City, Utah7.7 (range 6.9–8.7)avg
101Racine, Wisconsin7.68 (range 7.45–8.01)avg
102Albuquerque, New Mexico7.67 (range 7.1–8.37)avg
102Carmel, Indiana7.67 (range 6.91–8.18)avg
104Allentown, Pennsylvania7.66 (range 7.41–8.17)avg
105Colchester, Vermont7.64 (range 7.48–7.85)avg
105Essex, Vermont7.64 (range 7.48–7.85)avg
105South Burlington, Vermont7.64 (range 7.48–7.85)avg
108Newark, New Jersey7.62
109Asheville, North Carolina7.61
110Cheyenne, Wyoming7.6 (range 7–7.9)avg
110Gillette, Wyoming7.4–7.8mid
110Marietta, Georgia7.5–7.6mid
110Mesa, Arizona6.6–8.51mid
110Norfolk, Virginia7.6 (range 7.3–8)avg
110Virginia Beach, Virginia7.6 (range 7.1–8.3)avg
110Wilmington, Delaware7.6 (range 6.7–8.7)avg
117Anchorage, Alaska7.06–8.04mid
117Arlington, Virginia7.5
117Dover, New Hampshire7.25–7.79mid
117Durham, North Carolina7.5 (range 7.4–7.5)avg
117Hempstead, New York7.12–7.9mid
117Honolulu, Hawaii7–8mid
117Kailua-Kaneohe, Hawaii7–8mid
117Lancaster, Pennsylvania7.4–7.5mid
117Lexington, Kentucky6.7–8.2mid
117Portsmouth, New Hampshire7.5 (range 6.3–8)avg
117Princeton, New Jersey6.5–8.5mid
117Rochester, Minnesota7.5
117Wilmington, North Carolina7.5 (range 7.3–7.5)
130Worcester, Massachusetts7.44 (range 6.99–8.59)avg
131Hartford, Connecticut7.41
132Akron, Ohio7.4 (range 7–7.9)avg
132Alexandria, Virginia7.1–7.6mid
132Bridgeport, Connecticut7.4 (range 7–8)avg
132Cherry Hill, New Jersey6.95–7.8mid
132Silver Spring, Maryland7.3–7.5mid
132Stamford, Connecticut7.4 (range 7–8.3)avg
138Covington, Kentucky6.84–7.8mid
138Davenport, Iowa7.3
138Germantown, Maryland7.3 (range 7.1–8.3)avg
138Grand Island, Nebraska7.12–7.51mid
138Huntington, West Virginia7.3 (range 7–7.3)avg
138Jersey City, New Jersey6.97–7.7mid
138Knoxville, Tennessee7.3avg
138New York City, New York7.3 (range 6.9–8.1)avg
138Yonkers, New York7.3 (range 6.9–8.1)avg
147Cleveland, Ohio7.24 (range 7.03–7.57)avg
147Warren, Michigan7.24 (range 7.07–7.81)avg
149Charleston, West Virginia7.2 (range 7–7.5)avg
149Chattanooga, Tennessee6.9–7.4mid
149Detroit, Michigan7.2 (range 6.96–7.92)avg
149Hampton, Virginia7.2 (range 7.2–8.2)avg
149Huntsville, Alabama6.2–8.2mid
149Memphis, Tennessee7.2 (range 6.1–7.9)avg
149Newport News, Virginia7.2 (range 7.2–8.2)avg
149Philadelphia, Pennsylvania7.03–7.34mid
157Nashville, Tennessee7.19 (range 7.05–7.41)avg
158Augusta, Georgia6.8–7.3mid
158Great Falls, Montana6.9–7.39mid
160Middletown, Delaware7.05
161Shreveport, Louisiana6.29

Scale-forming or scale-dissolving: the 20 Langelier cities

Utilities report the Langelier Saturation Index or a similar measure (the Aggressive Index, calcium carbonate precipitation potential, or the Ryznar index); the table names which. On the Langelier scale a positive value means the water tends to deposit calcium carbonate scale and a negative value means it tends to dissolve it; the other indexes use their own scales. Only 20 utilities publish a Langelier figure, so this is a list rather than a national ranking. 11 tend to deposit scale, 8 tend to dissolve it, and 1 publish a range that crosses zero.

CITYLANGELIER INDEXTENDENCY
Topeka, Kansas+1.4deposits scale
Bellevue, Nebraska+0.69 to +1.48deposits scale
Omaha, Nebraska+0.69 to +1.48deposits scale
Overland Park, Kansas+0.79 to +1.4deposits scale
Wasilla-Palmer, Alaska+0.63deposits scale
San Diego, California+0.2 to +1deposits scale
Olathe, Kansas+0.56deposits scale
Wichita, Kansas+0.3deposits scale
Henderson, Nevada+0.09 to +0.27deposits scale
Las Vegas, Nevada+0.09 to +0.27deposits scale
North Las Vegas, Nevada+0.09 to +0.27deposits scale
Orem, Utah-0.301 to +0.458either way
Chicago, Illinois-0.44 (-0.88 to -0.34)dissolves scale
Birmingham, Alabama-1.28 to -0.12dissolves scale
Norfolk, Virginia-1.06 to -0.79dissolves scale
Nashville, Tennessee-0.95 (-1.3 to -0.7)dissolves scale
Covington, Kentucky-1.3 to -0.85dissolves scale
Mobile, Alabama-1.54 to -1.19dissolves scale
New York City, New York-2.13 (-2.75 to -1.08)dissolves scale
Yonkers, New York-2.13 (-2.75 to -1.08)dissolves scale

Chloramine cities: 100 of 271

Utilities disinfect with free chlorine or with chloramine, chlorine combined with ammonia. Free chlorine fades from water left standing; chloramine lasts. Chloramine will not gas off in a bucket, and it wears pure-water resin faster. That matters most to anyone who lets a bucket stand to “air out” before use, and to anyone running a deionising pure-water system, where it shortens the life of the resin.

By each utility's own report, 100 cities in 32 states use chloramine (alone or after ozone or UV treatment, or for part of the year), 167 use free chlorine, and 4 do not say.

STATECITYAS REPORTED
CaliforniaLos Angelesozone + chloramine
Oaklandchloramine
San Diegochloramine
San Franciscouv + chloramine
San Josechloramine
ColoradoAurorachloramine
Denverchloramine
FloridaHialeahchloramine
Miamichloramine
Orlandoozone + chloramine
St. Petersburgchloramine
Tampaozone + chloramine
GeorgiaSavannahchloramine
IllinoisAurorachloramine
Jolietchloramine
Springfieldchloramine
IndianaBloomingtonchloramine
Evansvillechloramine
Fishersuv + chloramine
Fort Wayneuv + chloramine
Garychloramine
Hammondchloramine
Indianapolisuv + chloramine
IowaCedar Rapidsuv + chloramine
Davenportchloramine
Des Moineschloramine
KansasKansas Citychloramine
Olathechloramine
Overland Parkozone + chloramine
Topekachloramine
Wichitaozone + chloramine
KentuckyLexingtonchloramine
Louisvillechloramine
LouisianaBaton Rougechloramine
New Orleanschloramine
Shreveportozone + chloramine
MaineAuburnchloramine
Bangorozone + chloramine
Lewistonchloramine
Portlandchloramine
South Portlandchloramine
MassachusettsBostonchloramine
Cambridgeozone + chloramine
New Bedfordchloramine
MichiganAnn Arborozone + chloramine
Lansingchloramine
MinnesotaDuluthchloramine
Minneapolischloramine
Saint Paulchloramine
MississippiJacksonchloramine
MissouriColumbiachloramine
Independencechloramine
Kansas Citychloramine
St. Louischloramine
MontanaGreat Fallsuv + chloramine
NebraskaBellevuechloramine
Lincolnozone + chloramine
Omahachloramine
NevadaRenoozone + chloramine
Sparksozone + chloramine
New HampshireConcordchloramine
Manchesterozone + chloramine
New JerseyPrincetonchloramine
North CarolinaCaryboth (seasonal switch)
Durhamchloramine
Greensborochloramine
Raleighozone + chloramine
North DakotaBismarckchloramine
Fargochloramine
Grand Forksozone + chloramine
Minotchloramine
OklahomaBroken Arrowchloramine
Normanuv + chloramine
Oklahoma Citychloramine
Tulsachloramine
OregonGreshamchloramine
Portlandchloramine
PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiachloramine
Readingchloramine
South CarolinaCharlestonchloramine
Columbiachloramine
Mount Pleasantchloramine
North Charlestonchloramine
TexasAustinchloramine
Dallasozone + chloramine
Fort Worthchloramine
Houstonuv + chloramine
VermontColchesterchloramine
Essexchloramine
South Burlingtonchloramine
VirginiaAlexandriachloramine
Arlingtonchloramine
Chesapeakechloramine
Hamptonchloramine
Newport Newschloramine
Norfolkchloramine
Richmondchloramine
Virginia Beachchloramine
WisconsinMilwaukeeozone + chloramine
WyomingCasperozone + chloramine

How these rankings are built

Each figure is the one on the city's own page, which names the report, the edition and the table it came from. Report years differ from city to city, so two neighbours in the table may be a year or two apart. A city ranks on its single published figure where there is one, else on the utility's own average (avg), else on the midpoint of the published range (mid). Cities with the same number share a rank.

Nothing is filled in. A city whose utility does not publish a number is listed as unranked with the reason, never given a regional estimate. Band names follow the scale on the methodology page, which also sets out what chloramine and dissolved solids mean for glass. For the state-level picture, start at the Water Atlas.

The whole table is free to reuse with a link back: download it as CSV (271 rows, one per city: the published hardness, dissolved solids and pH with their ranks and ranking basis, the Langelier index where published, the disinfectant, and each city's page, where the source document is named).