Loading water data...
Plumbing corrosion product causing stomach issues at high levels. Below are US cities ranked by their measured Copper levels compared to EPA limits. Higher percentages indicate greater concern.
Vulnerable Populations: People with Wilson's disease (genetic copper accumulation) must strictly limit copper exposure.
Ranked by percentage of the EPA limit, using one real EPA measurement per water system (2012–2019 (SYR4)). Click any city for its full report.
Historical data. Figure shown is the average of the system's 2012–2019 finished-water compliance samples (EPA Six-Year Review 4), non-detects counted as zero. Treat as history, not today's tap water.
| Rank | City | State | Level | Period | EPA Limit | % of Limit | Status | Population |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Oswego | Illinois | 577.35 ppbAverage of 40 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 44.4% | Within Limit | 38,169 |
| #2 | Kokomo | Indiana | 556.40 ppbAverage of 40 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 42.8% | Within Limit | 59,313 |
| #3 | Muscatine | Iowa | 541.60 ppbAverage of 94 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 41.7% | Within Limit | 25,516 |
| #4 | Algonquin | Illinois | 539.88 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 41.5% | Within Limit | 30,700 |
| #5 | Rockford | Illinois | 530.73 ppbAverage of 214 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 40.8% | Within Limit | 147,051 |
| #6 | Bethel | Alaska | 515.71 ppbAverage of 61 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 39.7% | Within Limit | 1,660 |
| #7 | Plano | Texas | 490.00 ppbAverage of 300 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 37.7% | Within Limit | 292,059 |
| #8 | Lawrence | Indiana | 489.27 ppbAverage of 184 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 37.6% | Within Limit | 49,000 |
| #9 | Sioux City | Iowa | 438.84 ppbAverage of 216 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 33.8% | Within Limit | 85,791 |
| #10 | Clinton | Iowa | 386.72 ppbAverage of 98 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 29.7% | Within Limit | 24,769 |
| #11 | Mishawaka | Indiana | 374.73 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 28.8% | Within Limit | 49,675 |
| #12 | Show Low | Arizona | 370.10 ppbAverage of 80 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 28.5% | Within Limit | 17,139 |
| #13 | Newton | Kansas | 368.12 ppbAverage of 93 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 28.3% | Within Limit | 18,433 |
| #14 | West Lafayette | Indiana | 354.10 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 27.2% | Within Limit | 35,533 |
| #15 | Newark | Delaware | 350.46 ppbAverage of 66 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 27.0% | Within Limit | 40,000 |
| #16 | Natchitoches | Louisiana | 338.67 ppbAverage of 66 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 26.1% | Within Limit | 27,693 |
| #17 | Crystal Lake | Illinois | 321.30 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 24.7% | Within Limit | 40,661 |
| #18 | Thibodaux | Louisiana | 311.70 ppbAverage of 95 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 24.0% | Within Limit | 14,862 |
| #19 | Elkhart | Indiana | 305.40 ppbAverage of 98 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 23.5% | Within Limit | 46,455 |
| #20 | Fort Worth | Texas | 297.01 ppbAverage of 224 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 22.8% | Within Limit | 955,900 |
| #21 | Pine Bluff | Arkansas | 291.93 ppbAverage of 83 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 22.5% | Within Limit | 43,438 |
| #22 | Sulphur | Louisiana | 290.00 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 22.3% | Within Limit | 24,489 |
| #23 | Chalmette | Louisiana | 288.17 ppbAverage of 95 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 22.2% | Within Limit | 44,783 |
| #24 | Westfield | Massachusetts | 288.26 ppbAverage of 42 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 22.2% | Within Limit | 41,094 |
| #25 | Lake Havasu City | Arizona | 284.97 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 21.9% | Within Limit | 54,610 |
| #26 | Bossier City | Louisiana | 278.88 ppbAverage of 95 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 21.5% | Within Limit | 79,506 |
| #27 | Alexandria | Louisiana | 276.67 ppbAverage of 150 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 21.3% | Within Limit | 66,798 |
| #28 | Carpentersville | Illinois | 265.02 ppbAverage of 91 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 20.4% | Within Limit | 37,983 |
| #29 | Kodiak | Alaska | 265.50 ppbAverage of 207 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 20.4% | Within Limit | 9,547 |
| #30 | Joliet | Illinois | 260.12 ppbAverage of 123 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 20.0% | Within Limit | 160,000 |
| #31 | Phoenix | Arizona | 256.04 ppbAverage of 233 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.7% | Within Limit | 1,695,000 |
| #32 | Queen Creek | Arizona | 255.38 ppbAverage of 98 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.6% | Within Limit | 95,502 |
| #33 | Valparaiso | Indiana | 252.20 ppbAverage of 94 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.4% | Within Limit | 36,000 |
| #34 | Sitka | Alaska | 252.50 ppbAverage of 101 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.4% | Within Limit | 9,448 |
| #35 | Lafayette | Indiana | 251.40 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.3% | Within Limit | 70,835 |
| #36 | Shelbyville | Kentucky | 249.90 ppbAverage of 104 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.2% | Within Limit | 23,760 |
| #37 | Houma | Louisiana | 247.93 ppbAverage of 65 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.1% | Within Limit | 11,658 |
| #38 | Peoria | Illinois | 246.95 ppbAverage of 461 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 19.0% | Within Limit | 137,575 |
| #39 | Dallas | Texas | 244.35 ppbAverage of 165 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 18.8% | Within Limit | 1,356,479 |
| #40 | San Luis | Arizona | 240.63 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 18.5% | Within Limit | 39,705 |
| #41 | Juneau | Alaska | 238.15 ppbAverage of 93 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 18.3% | Within Limit | 38,526 |
| #42 | Galesburg | Illinois | 236.28 ppbAverage of 371 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 18.2% | Within Limit | 31,620 |
| #43 | Danbury | Connecticut | 233.25 ppbAverage of 61 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 17.9% | Within Limit | 62,055 |
| #44 | Augusta | Maine | 226.66 ppbAverage of 246 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 17.4% | Within Limit | 13,750 |
| #45 | Wasilla | Alaska | 222.88 ppbAverage of 158 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 17.1% | Within Limit | 18,492 |
| #46 | Columbus | Indiana | 218.61 ppbAverage of 31 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 16.8% | Within Limit | 51,122 |
| #47 | Cedar Falls | Iowa | 211.39 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 16.3% | Within Limit | 40,713 |
| #48 | Plainfield | Indiana | 212.17 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 16.3% | Within Limit | 34,477 |
| #49 | Lynwood | California | 210.00 ppbAverage of 1 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 16.2% | Within Limit | 66,967 |
| #50 | Brunswick | Maine | 208.26 ppbAverage of 77 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 16.0% | Within Limit | 18,863 |
| #51 | Salem | Oregon | 207.09 ppbAverage of 261 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 15.9% | Within Limit | 199,820 |
| #52 | Cabot | Arkansas | 206.64 ppbAverage of 96 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 15.9% | Within Limit | 30,063 |
| #53 | DeKalb | Illinois | 201.16 ppbAverage of 91 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 15.5% | Within Limit | 40,290 |
| #54 | Richmond | Indiana | 197.80 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 15.2% | Within Limit | 41,485 |
| #55 | Terre Haute | Indiana | 196.48 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 15.1% | Within Limit | 67,765 |
| #56 | Paragould | Arkansas | 195.86 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 15.1% | Within Limit | 31,188 |
| #57 | Sandy | Utah | 191.51 ppbAverage of 225 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 14.7% | Within Limit | 99,750 |
| #58 | Muncie | Indiana | 189.77 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 14.6% | Within Limit | 74,030 |
| #59 | North Liberty | Iowa | 182.89 ppbAverage of 180 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 14.1% | Within Limit | 23,276 |
| #60 | Anderson | Indiana | 178.55 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 13.7% | Within Limit | 55,212 |
| #61 | Enfield | Connecticut | 174.64 ppbAverage of 95 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 13.4% | Within Limit | 18,544 |
| #62 | Peoria | Arizona | 170.22 ppbAverage of 173 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 13.1% | Within Limit | 187,676 |
| #63 | Compton | California | 170.00 ppbAverage of 1 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 13.1% | Within Limit | 74,877 |
| #64 | Westfield | Indiana | 166.15 ppbAverage of 46 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 12.8% | Within Limit | 61,493 |
| #65 | West Jordan | Utah | 164.03 ppbAverage of 109 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 12.6% | Within Limit | 117,025 |
| #66 | Derby | Kansas | 163.33 ppbAverage of 119 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 12.6% | Within Limit | 25,413 |
| #67 | Hutchinson | Kansas | 160.07 ppbAverage of 96 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 12.3% | Within Limit | 39,712 |
| #68 | Tulsa | Oklahoma | 157.90 ppbAverage of 428 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 12.1% | Within Limit | 413,000 |
| #69 | Kingman | Arizona | 155.12 ppbAverage of 92 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.9% | Within Limit | 45,000 |
| #70 | Biddeford | Maine | 154.52 ppbAverage of 38 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.9% | Within Limit | 42,508 |
| #71 | Saco | Maine | 154.52 ppbAverage of 38 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.9% | Within Limit | 42,508 |
| #72 | Irving | Texas | 153.51 ppbAverage of 150 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.8% | Within Limit | 264,546 |
| #73 | Philadelphia | Pennsylvania | 150.71 ppbAverage of 343 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.6% | Within Limit | 1,600,000 |
| #74 | Seaford | Delaware | 149.04 ppbAverage of 46 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.5% | Within Limit | 6,699 |
| #75 | Pittsburgh | Pennsylvania | 146.78 ppbAverage of 152 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.3% | Within Limit | 686,000 |
| #76 | Schererville | Indiana | 144.23 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.1% | Within Limit | 30,000 |
| #77 | Cottonwood | Arizona | 142.98 ppbAverage of 64 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 11.0% | Within Limit | 11,023 |
| #78 | Flagstaff | Arizona | 142.13 ppbAverage of 62 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.9% | Within Limit | 79,796 |
| #79 | Michigan City | Indiana | 141.90 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.9% | Within Limit | 33,996 |
| #80 | Highland | Indiana | 139.73 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.7% | Within Limit | 23,984 |
| #81 | Waterville | Maine | 138.71 ppbAverage of 99 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.7% | Within Limit | 22,060 |
| #82 | Ketchikan | Alaska | 139.48 ppbAverage of 60 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.7% | Within Limit | 8,937 |
| #83 | Portland | Oregon | 137.78 ppbAverage of 1822 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.6% | Within Limit | 666,200 |
| #84 | Ogden | Utah | 137.19 ppbAverage of 115 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.6% | Within Limit | 87,267 |
| #85 | Wilmington | Delaware | 136.49 ppbAverage of 107 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.5% | Within Limit | 107,976 |
| #86 | El Paso | Texas | 133.78 ppbAverage of 499 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.3% | Within Limit | 747,168 |
| #87 | Payson | Arizona | 134.37 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.3% | Within Limit | 17,682 |
| #88 | Smyrna | Delaware | 134.28 ppbAverage of 245 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.3% | Within Limit | 11,813 |
| #89 | Somerton | Arizona | 131.01 ppbAverage of 90 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 10.1% | Within Limit | 14,197 |
| #90 | Crown Point | Indiana | 126.83 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.8% | Within Limit | 30,000 |
| #91 | Georgetown | Delaware | 127.50 ppbAverage of 42 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.8% | Within Limit | 7,259 |
| #92 | Stamford | Connecticut | 126.56 ppbAverage of 305 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.7% | Within Limit | 119,214 |
| #93 | Fort Thomas | Kentucky | 125.11 ppbAverage of 195 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.6% | Within Limit | 259,949 |
| #94 | San Mateo | California | 125.19 ppbAverage of 7 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.6% | Within Limit | 102,348 |
| #95 | Avondale | Arizona | 125.30 ppbAverage of 106 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.6% | Within Limit | 96,130 |
| #96 | Jeffersonville | Indiana | 125.23 ppbAverage of 30 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.6% | Within Limit | 15,750 |
| #97 | Lewiston | Maine | 124.06 ppbAverage of 222 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.5% | Within Limit | 23,720 |
| #98 | Waterloo | Iowa | 122.25 ppbAverage of 183 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.4% | Within Limit | 69,504 |
| #99 | West Memphis | Arkansas | 122.12 ppbAverage of 61 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.4% | Within Limit | 24,419 |
| #100 | Goodyear | Arizona | 118.45 ppbAverage of 96 samples | 2012–2019 | 1300.00 ppb | 9.1% | Within Limit | 50,001 |
Very effective for copper removal.
Water softeners can reduce copper.
Copper-zinc alloy media effective for copper.
Blue-green staining indicates high copper levels from corroding pipes. The staining itself is not harmful but indicates you should test your water.
Yes. Running cold water for 30 seconds to 2 minutes flushes standing water that may have accumulated copper from pipes.
Copper is an essential nutrient in small amounts. The concern is levels high enough to cause GI symptoms or, with long-term exposure, liver damage.