State Atlas

PFAS Map: 1,127 Water Systems Averaged Above EPA's PFOA or PFOS Limit

A state-by-state count from EPA's own nationwide 2023 to 2025 sampling of every large water system and a representative set of small ones, with population served and the status of the federal rule.
Primary data
EPA UCMR 5 occurrence data (UCMR5_All.txt), final release
Data period
Samples January 2023 to December 2025
Latest release used
2026-10-15
Next release
None planned for UCMR 5 (final); UCMR 6 proposed July 2026
Geography
50 states, DC, territories and Tribal systems
Sources
21 (19 Tier 1)
Short answer

In our PFAS map of EPA's final UCMR 5 data, 1,127 of 10,128 fully sampled water systems (11.1%), serving 54.3 million people, averaged above the 4.0 ng/L limit for PFOA or PFOS. Connecticut and New Jersey lead at about 44%. Utilities must comply by April 2029; EPA has proposed allowing 2031.

1,127water systems (of 10,128) averaged above 4.0 ng/L for PFOA or PFOS[1][2]
54.3 millionpeople served by those systems (SDWIS, 2026 Q3)[1][4]
44.4%of Connecticut systems averaged above, the highest state share[1]
9of 1,136 above-limit systems exceed only the four standards EPA proposed to drop[1][8]

On the PFAS map, 44% of Connecticut and New Jersey water systems averaged above 4.0 ng/L

Across the 50 states and DC, 43 have at least one water system whose UCMR 5 sampling-point average for PFOA or PFOS was above EPA's 4.0 ng/L limit. The rate ranges from 44.4% of systems in Connecticut to zero in 8 jurisdictions.

Share of water systems averaging above PFOA/PFOS limit

UCMR 5, 2023 to 2025; % of systems with a full set of results

Share of water systems averaging above PFOA/PFOS limitUS tile map. Connecticut (44.4%) and New Jersey (44.2%) have the highest shares of water systems averaging above 4.0 ng/L for PFOA or PFOS, followed by Delaware (33.3%) and Florida (32.2%). The national share is 11.1%.AK: 7.1AK7.1ME: 5ME5VT: 0VT0NH: 17.6NH17.6WA: 8.1WA8.1ID: 3.3ID3.3MT: 0MT0ND: 0ND0MN: 5.1MN5.1IL: 2.7IL2.7WI: 9.4WI9.4MI: 1.6MI1.6NY: 9.7NY9.7RI: 27.6RI27.6MA: 28.8MA28.8OR: 7.9OR7.9NV: 5.6NV5.6WY: 0WY0SD: 2SD2IA: 0IA0IN: 2.6IN2.6OH: 10.8OH10.8PA: 24.1PA24.1NJ: 44.2NJ44.2CT: 44.4CT44.4CA: 18.8CA18.8UT: 1.6UT1.6CO: 2.5CO2.5NE: 5.7NE5.7MO: 2.6MO2.6KY: 3.9KY3.9WV: 10.7WV10.7VA: 7.8VA7.8MD: 18.3MD18.3DE: 33.3DE33.3AZ: 14.7AZ14.7NM: 1.4NM1.4KS: 2.9KS2.9AR: 0AR0TN: 6.2TN6.2NC: 24.5NC24.5SC: 31.8SC31.8DC: 0DC0OK: 5OK5LA: 0.4LA0.4MS: 2.1MS2.1AL: 18.5AL18.5GA: 10.7GA10.7HI: 0HI0TX: 2.4TX2.4FL: 32.2FL32.2PR0 to 0.40.4 to 2.62.6 to 5.65.6 to 10.710.7 to 24.124.1 to 44.4% of systems

Source: EPA UCMR 5 occurrence data (final, 2026). KBR calculation.

Connecticut (28 of 63 systems, 44.4%) and New Jersey (114 of 258, 44.2%) have the highest shares of systems averaging above the PFOA or PFOS limit in EPA's 2023 to 2025 UCMR 5 sampling. The national share is 11.1%, so New Jersey's rate is 4.0 times the national figure. Delaware (33.3%), Florida (32.2%) and South Carolina (31.8%) follow.

Nine jurisdictions have shares of 20% or more, all of them eastern states. The median state share is 5.6%. Several large states sit far lower: Texas 2.4% (27 of 1,124 systems), Illinois 2.7% and Michigan 1.6%. No UCMR 5 system averaged above the limit in Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

PFAS by state: UCMR 5 systems averaging above the PFOA or PFOS limit, 2023 to 2025 Download CSV
Show all 53 rows
StateCodeSystems testedSystems with full setSystems averaging above PFOA/PFOS limitShare of full-set systems (%)Population served by those systemsShare of full-set population (%)Systems with any single PFOA/PFOS result >= 4.0 ng/LShare of tested systems, single result (%)Systems averaging above another 2024 limit
ConnecticutCT63632844.4116705745.03555.60
New JerseyNJ26525811444.2512146259.515558.53
DelawareDE36361233.363720666.81438.91
FloridaFL40839412732.2973705247.516139.55
South CarolinaSC1651544931.8200388247.46740.68
MassachusettsMA2632607528.8134000618.910941.42
Rhode IslandRI2929827.622086421.01137.90
North CarolinaNC2892776824.5254311329.311740.54
PennsylvaniaPA3903869324.1425333140.311830.34
CaliforniaCA70568512918.8889675023.216823.812
AlabamaAL3073025618.5138970823.08226.70
US territories (PR, GU, AS, MP, VI)Territories1101092018.3170897650.73128.22
MarylandMD83821518.31633613.11619.30
New HampshireNH5151917.622270830.41631.40
ArizonaAZ1521502214.784951212.52516.44
OhioOH3473433710.8154516915.76017.31
GeorgiaGA2562532710.7126181012.94517.61
West VirginiaWV1031031110.71048488.62120.41
New YorkNY334329329.7190802611.45015.02
WisconsinWI202202199.41850424.92110.43
WashingtonWA248246208.1117631613.33514.13
OregonOR127127107.92263336.6118.71
VirginiaVA171167137.8176253325.12011.70
AlaskaAK302827.122625142.3413.31
TennesseeTN277273176.23441524.73713.41
NebraskaNE535335.7831585.847.50
NevadaNV595435.648806415.346.81
MinnesotaMN196196105.12703876.4168.23
OklahomaOK16616085.02506118.4137.81
MaineME414025.0223284.2512.20
KentuckyKY23123093.91997624.23013.00
IdahoID616123.3215001.634.92
KansasKS10310332.9774683.365.82
IllinoisIL487485132.73538173.2285.71
IndianaIN23022962.61663893.5219.11
MissouriMO23222962.6733991.593.90
Tribal systems (EPA regions, Navajo Nation)Tribal11511432.6434544.965.20
ColoradoCO16516242.51012071.6159.11
TexasTX11541124272.428374479.51069.210
MississippiMS23923452.1846333.772.90
South DakotaSD494912.041000.624.11
MichiganMI31931951.62193303.282.51
UtahUT12912921.6149750.443.11
New MexicoNM737211.422860.145.50
LouisianaLA26826110.463540.172.60
ArkansasAR17217000.000.010.60
District of ColumbiaDC3300.000.000.00
HawaiiHI454500.000.000.00
IowaIA15214700.000.074.61
MontanaMT454400.000.024.40
North DakotaND383700.000.000.00
VermontVT383800.000.012.60
WyomingWY333300.000.013.01

KBR calculation from EPA UCMR5_All.txt (final, October 2026 file) and ECHO SDWIS population (2026 Q3). Average = mean of a sampling point's full set of results, results below 4 ng/L counted as 0; above = 0.00405 ug/L or more (EPA's cutoff). 'Another 2024 limit' = PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA or Hazard Index.

Source: [1][2][4] U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA ECHO

54.3 million people get water from a system that averaged above the PFOA or PFOS limit

Matching each UCMR 5 system to its population in EPA's SDWIS file (2026 Q3) gives 54,316,137 people served by systems with an above-limit average, 18.1% of the 300.2 million served by all fully sampled systems.

Florida (9.74 million), California (8.9 million) and New Jersey (5.12 million) account for 43.7% of the 54.3 million. 111 of the 1,127 systems serve 100,000 people or more.

People served by systems above the limit

Top 15 states, millions of people, UCMR 5 2023 to 2025

People served by systems above the limitHorizontal bar chart. Florida has 9.74 million people served by systems averaging above the PFOA or PFOS limit, California 8.9 million and New Jersey 5.12 million.million peopleFlorida9.74California8.9New Jersey5.12Pennsylvania4.25Texas2.84North Carolina2.54South Carolina2New York1.91Virginia1.76Ohio1.55Alabama1.39Massachusetts1.34Georgia1.26Washington1.18Connecticut1.17

Source: EPA UCMR 5; EPA ECHO SDWIS population (2026 Q3). KBR calculation.

The largest system on the list is MDWASA – MAIN SYSTEM (FL), serving 2,377,460 people, with a highest sampling-point average of 31.4 ng/L PFOS. A system is counted when any one of its sampling points averaged above the limit, so the population figure is an upper bound on the people actually drinking water above 4.0 ng/L.

The 15 largest systems with a sampling-point average above the PFOA or PFOS limit Download CSV
Water system (EPA name)PWSIDStatePopulation served (SDWIS, 2026 Q3)Highest sampling-point average PFOA (ng/L)Highest sampling-point average PFOS (ng/L)
MDWASA – MAIN SYSTEMFL4130871FL237746012.331.4
PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENTPA1510001PA16000007.45.0
FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYVA6059501VA11216134.62.6
SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYNY5110526NY11000006.012.1
METROPOLITANOPR0002591PR10846372.76.2
CITY OF FORT WORTHTX2200012TX9559005.96.2
AQUA PA MAIN SYSTEMPA1460073PA82260011.88.9
CINCINNATI PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMOH3102612OH8000000.05.2
SUEZ WATER NEW JERSEY HACKENSACKNJ0238001NJ79271313.06.3
EL PASO WATER UTILITIES PUBLIC SERVICE BTX0710002TX7471680.06.4
CITY OF TAMPA WATER DEPARTMENTFL6290327FL7338862.35.7
PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIESFL4504393FL6711148.119.0
NJ AMERICAN WATER – RARITANNJ2004002NJ6154306.66.0
CITY OF FRESNOCA1010007CA54597013.521.5
CITY OF SACRAMENTO MAINCA3410020CA52797916.438.8

Highest average across the system's sampling points; other points may be lower. Not a compliance finding. Names as recorded by EPA.

Source: [1][4] U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA ECHO

Under-sink water filter installed on the cold water line
Illustrative photograph. Generated image, not a specific project.

For a homeowner, the system name and PWSID on the water bill or in the annual water quality report (Consumer Confidence Report) are the link to these results. EPA's UCMR occurrence data page lists every result by system.

One sample at 4 ng/L is not a violation: 1,739 systems hit it once, 1,127 on average

Because UCMR 5 could only report PFOA and PFOS at 4 ng/L or higher, every reported value is at or above the limit. 1,739 systems (16.9% of 10,307 tested) had at least one such result; 612 of them did not average above the limit once all samples were counted, or lacked a full set.

One result vs. the average

Systems flagged for PFOA or PFOS, UCMR 5

One result vs. the averageBar chart. 1,739 systems had at least one PFOA or PFOS result of 4 ng/L or more; 1,127 had a sampling-point average above the limit.05001,0001,5002,000systems1,739One result >= 4 ng/L1,127Average above limit

Source: EPA UCMR 5 occurrence data (final, 2026). KBR calculation.

Compliance under the 2024 rule is judged on a running annual average of quarterly results at each sampling point, not on a single sample. UCMR 5 collected two samples a year at ground water points and four at surface water points, so EPA averaged those and counted an average as above the PFOA or PFOS limit at 0.00405 ug/L or more.

Our reproduction of EPA's method matches the agency's published counts exactly: 662 of 4,277 large systems and 474 of 5,852 smaller systems averaged above at least one 2024 standard. EPA's weighted national estimate, which corrects for the partial small-system sample, is 7.8% of all US public water systems.

Check against EPA: systems averaging above any 2024 PFAS standard, by size Download CSV
System sizeKBR: systems with full setKBR: systems averaging above any 2024 limitKBR share (%)EPA Table 4: systems with full setEPA Table 4: systems aboveCheck
Large (more than 10,000 people)427766215.54277662match
Small and medium (10,000 or fewer)58524748.15852474match

EPA Table 4 of the July 2026 Data Summary splits smaller systems into medium (419 of 5,077) and small (55 of 775).

Source: [1][2] U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA

Share above any limit by size

EPA comparison of UCMR 5 averages with 2024 MCLs

Share above any limit by sizeBar chart. 15.5% of large systems, 8.3% of medium systems and 7.1% of small systems averaged above at least one 2024 PFAS limit; EPA's weighted estimate for all US systems is 7.8%.0510.015.020.0% of systems15.5Large8.3Medium7.1Small7.8US weighted

Source: EPA UCMR 5 Data Summary, July 2026, Table 4.

If EPA drops four of the six standards, 9 systems leave the above-limit list

Of the 1,136 systems that averaged above any 2024 standard, only 9 (0.8%) were above solely the PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA or Hazard Index standards that EPA proposed to rescind on May 20, 2026.

Systems above each 2024 standard

Systems with a sampling-point average above the MCL

Systems above each 2024 standardBar chart. 875 systems averaged above the PFOS limit and 779 above PFOA, against 80 for the Hazard Index, 66 for PFHxS, 9 for PFNA and 8 for HFPO-DA.02004006008001,000systems875PFOS779PFOA80.0Hazard Index66.0PFHxS9PFNA8HFPO-DA (GenX)

Source: EPA UCMR 5 occurrence data (final, 2026). KBR calculation.

PFOS (875 systems) and PFOA (779) drive almost every case. The Hazard Index mixture (80), PFHxS (66), PFNA (9) and HFPO-DA (8) average above their limits far less often, and 77 of the 86 systems above one of them were also above for PFOA or PFOS. The 9 systems above only a proposed-rescission standard serve 0.14 million people.

Systems averaging above each 2024 PFAS standard and its status on 2026-11-02 Download CSV
Standard2024 MCLSystems with full setSystems averaging aboveShare (%)Status on 2026-11-02
PFOS4.0 ng/L101278758.64Kept; EPA proposed optional extension to April 26, 2031
PFOA4.0 ng/L101287797.69Kept; EPA proposed optional extension to April 26, 2031
Hazard Index mixtureHazard Index 110123800.79Proposed for rescission (May 2026)
PFHxS10 ng/L10125660.65Proposed for rescission (May 2026)
PFNA10 ng/L1012890.09Proposed for rescission (May 2026)
HFPO-DA (GenX)10 ng/L1012980.08Proposed for rescission (May 2026)

A system above several standards is counted once in each row.

Source: [1][2][7][8] U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA, Federal Register; U.S. EPA, Federal Register

These counts are UCMR 5 screening results. They show how much of the measured problem the rescission would remove from federal requirements; they do not show the health effect of the change, which EPA did not reopen for comment in the rescission proposal.

When do water utilities have to meet the PFAS limits? April 2029 in law, 2031 if EPA finalizes its proposal

The 2024 rule took effect June 25, 2024. Initial monitoring is due April 26, 2027 and the limits apply from April 26, 2029. A May 2026 proposal would let systems request until April 26, 2031 for PFOA and PFOS; as of 2026-11-02 we found no final rule in the Federal Register.

PFAS drinking water rule timeline, 2021 to 2031 Download CSV
DateEventRecordSource id
2021-12-27UCMR 5 published: 29 PFAS plus lithium, sampling 2023 to 202586 FR 73131
2024-04-10EPA announces final PFAS drinking water rule (six PFAS)EPA rule page
2024-04-26Final rule published; PFOA and PFOS MCLs 4.0 ng/L89 FR 32532
2024-06-07Utility and industry groups file challenge, AWWA v. EPA, No. 24-1188 (D.C. Cir.)Harvard EELP tracker
2024-06-25Rule takes effect89 FR 32532; 89 FR 49101
2025-05-14EPA says it will keep PFOA and PFOS limits, extend compliance to 2031, rescind the other fourEPA news release
2025-09-11EPA asks the court to vacate the four non-PFOA/PFOS standardsHarvard EELP tracker
2026-01-12D.C. Circuit denies summary vacatur; all six limits stay in placeHarvard EELP tracker
2026-03-19D.C. Circuit denies EPA request to sever and pause the four-PFAS claimsHarvard EELP tracker
2026-05-20Two proposals published: optional PFOA/PFOS extension to 2031; rescission of four standards91 FR 29425; 91 FR 29413
2026-07-20Comment periods on both proposals close91 FR 29425; 91 FR 29413
2026-08EPA releases final UCMR 5 datasetEPA UCMR 5 page
2027-04-26Initial monitoring deadline under the 2024 rule89 FR 32532
2029-04-26PFOA/PFOS compliance date in the 2024 rule89 FR 32532
2031-04-26Proposed extended PFOA/PFOS date for systems that request it (not final)91 FR 29425

Dates after 2026-11-02 are deadlines in current or proposed rules.

Source: [5][7][8][9][16][18][19] U.S. EPA, Federal Register; U.S. EPA, Federal Register; U.S. EPA, Federal Register; U.S. EPA; U.S. EPA, Federal Register; U.S. EPA; Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program

The legal challenge, American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, is pending in the D.C. Circuit. The court denied EPA's request to summarily vacate the four non-PFOA/PFOS standards in January 2026 and denied its request to sever and pause those claims on March 19, 2026 (Harvard EELP tracker). With that ruling, all six limits stay in place until a merits decision or a final rescission (MG+M). We found no merits decision as of 2026-11-02.

The April 2024 rule set the PFOA and PFOS health goals at zero and the enforceable limits at 4.0 ng/L; it set 10 ng/L for PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA and a Hazard Index of 1 for mixtures (89 FR 32532). EPA estimated compliance costs and quantified health benefits at about $1.5 billion a year each (EPA fact sheet).

Filters certified to NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 reduce PFAS, but no label yet promises 4 ng/L

EPA tells consumers to look for certification to NSF/ANSI 53 or NSF/ANSI 58 for PFAS reduction, and notes that certifications as of April 2024 do not show removal down to the new limits.

EPA names three point-of-use technologies that can reduce PFAS: activated carbon, ion exchange resin and reverse osmosis. Its April 2024 fact sheet prices home filters from $20 to more than $1,000 before maintenance, and lists 5 ANSI-accredited bodies that certify filters for PFAS reduction (EPA home filter fact sheet; EPA filter page).

Filters only work while cartridges and membranes are replaced on the maker's schedule. An under-sink reverse osmosis unit also needs a drain connection and cabinet space, which is easier to plan during a kitchen remodel; see our kitchen remodel timeline for where plumbing rough-in falls. Mineral scale is a separate question covered in our hard water map.

Bathroom vanity with a filter pitcher on the counter
Illustrative photograph. Generated image, not a specific project.

What EPA and ATSDR link to PFAS exposure

EPA lists 6 groups of health outcomes linked to exposure to certain PFAS, from some cancers to immune and cholesterol effects; ATSDR says research on mixtures and low-level exposure is ongoing.

  • Reproductive effects, including decreased fertility and higher blood pressure in pregnancy (EPA).
  • Developmental effects in children, including low birth weight and accelerated puberty (EPA).
  • Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney and testicular cancers (EPA); kidney and testicular cancer associated with PFOA (ATSDR).
  • Reduced immune response, including lower antibody response to some vaccines (EPA, ATSDR).
  • Interference with the body's hormones (EPA).
  • Higher cholesterol and/or obesity risk (EPA); cholesterol increases associated with PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFDA (ATSDR).

Sources: EPA, updated October 30, 2026; ATSDR. Both agencies say risk depends on dose, duration and individual factors. Our lead service line counts are in the separate lead pipes map.

State-by-state findings

  1. 1,127 of 10,128 UCMR 5 systems (11.1%) averaged above 4.0 ng/L for PFOA or PFOS at one or more sampling points, 2023 to 2025, United States.[1][2]
  2. Systems averaging above the PFOA or PFOS limit serve 54,316,137 people (SDWIS, 2026 Q3).[1][4]
  3. Connecticut has the highest share of systems above the limit, 44.4% (28 of 63), UCMR 5 2023 to 2025.[1]
  4. New Jersey has 114 systems above the limit, 44.2% of its 258 fully sampled systems, serving 5.12 million people.[1][4]
  5. Florida has the most people served by above-limit systems, 9.74 million, UCMR 5 2023 to 2025.[1][4]
  6. 43 of 51 jurisdictions (50 states and DC) have at least one system averaging above the PFOA or PFOS limit.[1]
  7. PFOS averaged above its limit in 875 systems and PFOA in 779, UCMR 5 2023 to 2025.[1][2]
  8. EPA reports 15.5% of large, 8.3% of medium and 7.1% of small UCMR 5 systems averaged above at least one 2024 PFAS limit.[2]
  9. EPA's weighted estimate is that 7.8% of all US public water systems would have an average above a 2024 PFAS limit.[2]
  10. 66% of UCMR 5 sampling locations with any PFAS at or above the reporting level had more than one PFAS (EPA, July 2026).[2]
  11. 9 systems (0.8% of 1,136) were above only standards EPA proposed to rescind on May 20, 2026.[1][8]
  12. The 2024 rule's PFOA and PFOS compliance date is April 26, 2029; EPA proposed April 26, 2031 for systems that request it.[5][7]
  13. EPA says certifications as of April 2024 do not show that a home filter removes PFAS down to the new limits.[11][12]

Rankings and ratios we derived

Signature: systems and people above the PFOA/PFOS limit, by state

Formulacount of systems with any sampling-point full-set average >= 0.00405 ug/L for PFOA or PFOS (results < MRL = 0) / systems with a full set; population = sum of SDWIS POPULATION_SERVED_COUNT for those systems

Inputs: fact sheet rows 35, 36, 40, 46, 49; derived d1, d1b, d3; raw UCMR5_All.txt; raw SDWA_PUB_WATER_SYSTEMS.csv (fact sheet rows)

Result: 1,127 of 10,128 systems (11.1%), 54,316,137 people; Connecticut 44.4%, New Jersey 44.2%

EPA publishes this comparison nationally by size; the state split and the population served are our additions.

Limitations: Screening comparison, not compliance; population counts the whole system if any one sampling point averaged above.

Reproduction check against EPA Table 4

Formulasame method applied to all six standards, split by EPA size code

Inputs: fact sheet rows 29, 30, 31; tables/t2_epa_reproduction.csv (fact sheet rows)

Result: 662 of 4,277 large and 474 of 5,852 smaller systems, identical to EPA's counts

The state numbers are built on the same rules EPA used, so they can be summed back to EPA's totals.

Limitations: We use EPA's size flag (S/L), not SDWIS population, to split sizes.

Single-sample screen versus EPA-method average

Formulasystems with any PFOA or PFOS result reported (MRL = 4 ng/L) minus systems with an average above

Inputs: fact sheet rows 35, 49; derived d5, d1, d15 (fact sheet rows)

Result: 1,739 versus 1,127; a gap of 612 systems

Maps that flag any single detection count roughly half again as many systems as an average-based comparison.

Limitations: Neither is the four-quarter running annual average the rule uses.

Exposure of the above-limit list to the proposed rescission

Formulasystems above any of six standards minus systems above PFOA or PFOS

Inputs: fact sheet rows 18, 37, 38; derived d6, d1, d8, d8c (fact sheet rows)

Result: 9 of 1,136 systems (0.8%), serving 0.14 million people

Nearly every system above a 2024 limit stays above one under the PFOA/PFOS-only rule EPA proposes.

Limitations: Says nothing about health risk from PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA or mixtures below the averaging cutoffs.

Population concentration

Formulasum of population served above the limit in the top 3 states / national population served above

Inputs: tables/t1_state_atlas.csv; derived d3, d12 (fact sheet rows)

Result: 43.7% in Florida, California and New Jersey

A few large coastal utilities carry much of the population figure.

Limitations: Driven by a handful of very large systems, such as the largest Florida system in table t4.

Download the calculations (CSV)

Executive summary

  • 1,127 of 10,128 UCMR 5 water systems (11.1%) had a sampling-point average above EPA's 4.0 ng/L limit for PFOA or PFOS in 2023 to 2025 sampling.
  • Those systems serve 54.3 million people, 18.1% of the population served by all fully sampled systems.
  • Connecticut (44.4%) and New Jersey (44.2%) have the highest state shares; 8 jurisdictions had none.
  • Florida, California and New Jersey hold 43.7% of the people served by above-limit systems.
  • A single-sample screen flags 1,739 systems; averaging, as EPA does, cuts that to 1,127.
  • Only 9 systems exceed solely the PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA or Hazard Index standards EPA proposed to rescind in May 2026.
  • The 2024 rule requires compliance by April 26, 2029; EPA's May 2026 proposal would let systems request April 26, 2031. Neither proposal was final on 2026-11-02.

Questions people ask

Is there PFAS in my tap water?

If your utility took part in UCMR 5, its results are public: 10,307 systems reported PFOA results and 1,739 had at least one PFOA or PFOS result of 4 ng/L or more. Find your system name and PWSID on your water bill or annual water quality report, then look it up in EPA's UCMR 5 Data Finder. Private wells were not tested.

Do water filters remove PFAS?

EPA says carbon, ion exchange and reverse osmosis point-of-use filters can greatly reduce PFAS when maintained. Look for NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 certification for PFAS reduction. EPA adds that certifications as of April 2024 do not yet show removal down to 4.0 ng/L. Prices run from $20 to more than $1,000.

What are the health effects of PFAS?

EPA lists reproductive and developmental effects, increased risk of some cancers (prostate, kidney, testicular), reduced immune response, hormone interference and higher cholesterol or obesity risk. ATSDR notes research on low-level and mixture exposure is ongoing. This is not medical advice.

When do water utilities have to meet the PFAS limits?

Under the April 2024 rule, by April 26, 2029, with initial monitoring due April 26, 2027. EPA proposed on May 20, 2026 to let systems request until April 26, 2031 for PFOA and PFOS, and to drop the other four standards. Neither proposal was final as of 2026-11-02.

Download the data

Every table in this report is available as a CSV under CC BY 4.0. The fact sheet lists each value with its source URL and access date.

For journalists and researchers

If you cite only a few, cite these

  1. 1,127 of 10,128 water systems (11.1%) averaged above 4.0 ng/L for PFOA or PFOS (EPA UCMR 5, 2023 to 2025; KBR calculation).[1]
  2. Those systems serve 54.3 million people (EPA SDWIS, 2026 Q3).[4]
  3. Connecticut (44.4%) and New Jersey (44.2%) have the highest shares.[1]

Most quotable statistics

  • 1,127 US water systems serving 54.3 million people averaged above EPA's 4.0 ng/L PFOA or PFOS limit in 2023 to 2025 testing.[1][4]
  • 44.4% of Connecticut's UCMR 5 water systems averaged above the PFOA or PFOS limit, the highest state share.[1]
  • Only 9 of 1,136 above-limit systems would leave the list if EPA rescinds the four non-PFOA/PFOS standards.[1][8]
  • Florida, California and New Jersey hold 43.7% of the people served by water systems above the PFOA or PFOS limit.[1][4]
  • EPA estimates 7.8% of all US public water systems have an average above a 2024 PFAS limit.[2]
  • EPA proposed moving the PFOA and PFOS compliance date from April 26, 2029 to April 26, 2031 for systems that ask.[7]

Press summary

A Kitchen and Bath Renovators analysis of EPA's final UCMR 5 drinking water data finds that 1,127 of 10,128 public water systems (11.1%) had a sampling-point average above the federal 4.0 ng/L limit for PFOA or PFOS in 2023 to 2025 testing. Those systems serve 54.3 million people, based on EPA's 2026 Q3 population records. Connecticut (44.4%) and New Jersey (44.2%) have the highest shares of systems above the limit; Florida has the most people served by them, 9.74 million. The analysis reproduces EPA's own national counts exactly before splitting them by state. Only 9 of 1,136 systems above any 2024 standard exceed solely the four standards EPA proposed to rescind in May 2026. UCMR 5 results are not compliance findings: utilities must meet the limits by April 26, 2029 under the 2024 rule, and EPA has proposed allowing April 26, 2031 for systems that request it. Neither proposal was final as of November 2, 2026.

Suggested headlines

  • PFAS map: 1,127 water systems serving 54.3 million people averaged above EPA's PFOA or PFOS limit
  • 44.4% of Connecticut water systems averaged above the federal PFAS limit
  • Florida leads in people served by water systems above the PFOA or PFOS limit: 9.74 million
  • EPA's proposed PFAS rollback would remove only 9 systems from the above-limit list
  • PFAS limits still due in 2029 as EPA's 2031 extension remains a proposal

How to cite this report

Kitchen and Bath Renovators. (2026). PFAS Map: 1,127 Water Systems Averaged Above EPA's PFOA or PFOS Limit. Retrieved from https://kitchenandbathrenovators.com/research/pfas-map/

Reuse license

Data and tables are licensed CC BY 4.0. Attribution: “Source: Kitchen and Bath Renovators, PFAS Map: 1,127 Water Systems Averaged Above EPA's PFOA or PFOS Limit” with a link to this page.

Frequently asked questions

What is the PFOA and PFOS limit in drinking water?

4.0 ng/L (parts per trillion) each, set in EPA's April 26, 2024 rule, with a health goal of zero.

How many water systems were above the PFAS limit?

1,127 of 10,128 UCMR 5 systems (11.1%) averaged above 4.0 ng/L for PFOA or PFOS at a sampling point in 2023 to 2025; 1,136 were above any of the six 2024 standards.

Which state has the most PFAS in drinking water?

By share of systems, Connecticut (44.4%) and New Jersey (44.2%). By people served, Florida (9.74 million).

Is a UCMR 5 detection a violation?

No. EPA states UCMR 5 results do not indicate compliance or noncompliance; compliance is based on running annual averages of quarterly samples starting in 2029.

How many people drink water from systems above the limit?

Systems averaging above the PFOA or PFOS limit serve 54.3 million people, an upper bound because some of their sampling points were below.

Did EPA drop the PFAS drinking water rule?

No. EPA kept the PFOA and PFOS limits and on May 20, 2026 proposed rescinding the PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and Hazard Index standards. Those remain in effect until a final rule or court ruling.

What did the court decide in the PFAS rule lawsuit?

As of 2026-11-02 we found no merits decision in AWWA v. EPA, No. 24-1188. The D.C. Circuit denied EPA's vacatur request in January 2026 and its severance request on March 19, 2026.

How many PFAS did UCMR 5 test for?

29 PFAS plus lithium, sampled from 2023 to 2025 at every system serving more than 10,000 people, systems serving 3,300 to 10,000, and a representative sample of smaller systems.

How common are PFAS mixtures in tap water?

66% of sampling locations with any PFAS at or above the reporting level had more than one, and one location had 13 different PFAS (EPA, July 2026).

Does a home filter bring PFAS below 4 ng/L?

Not guaranteed. EPA says certifications as of April 2024 do not show removal down to the new limits, though certified filters reduce PFAS.

Reproduce this analysis

Every figure comes from the files below. The scripts that pulled and computed them are kept with the report and can be re-run.

DatasetPublisherSourceQuery or filterRows usedRetrieved
UCMR 5 Occurrence Data Text Files (UCMR5_All.txt)U.S. EPAFile or endpointContaminant in PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, PFBS; all states; AnalyticalResultsSign '<' set to 010,307 systems with PFOA/PFOS results; 10,128 with a full set2026-11-02
ECHO SDWA public water systems (SDWA_PUB_WATER_SYSTEMS.csv)U.S. EPA ECHOFile or endpointPWSID join to UCMR 5; POPULATION_SERVED_COUNT; submission quarter 2026Q310,307 of 10,307 UCMR 5 systems matched2026-11-02
Federal Register documents APIOffice of the Federal RegisterFile or endpointEPA documents matching 'PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation' (all dates) and 'PFOA PFOS drinking water' published 2026-05-21 or later19 and 2 documents returned; 6 used2026-11-02

Data quality and exclusions

  • Kept only PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS rows from the 30-contaminant file; the other 23 PFAS and lithium were dropped from the state table.
  • 179 tested systems had no sampling point with a full set of PFOA or PFOS results and are excluded from the average-based shares, as EPA does.
  • 13 systems have a population of 0 in SDWIS and add nothing to population totals.
  • Duplicate results for the same sampling point, event and contaminant were collapsed by keeping the higher value.
  • 115 Tribal systems (EPA region codes and Navajo Nation) and 110 territory systems are reported as separate rows and excluded from the tile map.

Methodology

Selection: the primary dataset is EPA's UCMR 5 occurrence file (UCMR5_All.txt in ucmr5-occurrence-data.zip, file dated 2026-10-15), the final release covering samples from January 2023 to December 2025. Population served comes from EPA's ECHO SDWA download (SDWA_PUB_WATER_SYSTEMS.csv, submission quarter 2026Q3). Regulatory dates come from the Federal Register and EPA pages. Litigation events come from the Harvard EELP tracker, with a law firm note as support.

Inclusion: all rows for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS. A system counts as tested if it has any PFOA or PFOS result. A sampling point has a full set when it has 2 results (ground water) or 4 results (surface water, ground water under surface influence, or mixed). Results reported as below the reporting level are set to 0.

Averages and cutoffs follow EPA's July 2026 Data Summary: an average counts as above the PFOA or PFOS limit at 0.00405 ug/L or more, above PFHxS, PFNA or HFPO-DA at 0.015 ug/L or more, and above the Hazard Index at 1.5 or more with at least two of the four PFAS at or above the reporting level. Hazard Index values are computed per sample event, then averaged. These rules reproduce EPA's Table 4 counts exactly (table t2).

Conflicts: EPA says UCMR 5 results do not indicate compliance; we report them as a screening comparison. Where two sources date the same court order differently (January 12 versus January 20, 2026), we use the tracker date and note the other in the fact sheet. Tribal systems without primacy and territories are reported as separate rows and are not drawn on the state map.

Derived metrics are in derived_metrics.csv with formulas and inputs; scripts/build_data.py recomputes everything from raw files. Last updated 2026-11-02.

This report presents published data with its limitations. It is not legal, financial or investment advice.

Sources, ranked by quality

Tier 1: primary and official sources (19)

Tier 2: trade bodies, market research, company data (1)

Tier 3: journalism and expert commentary (1)

Budget planner