New York Water Quality Deep Dive — 4,662 Systems Analyzed

Executive Summary

New York operates 4,662 public water systems monitored through state and federal testing programs, serving communities across 2,850 ZIP codes. Our analysis of 73,237 individual test results from EPA, state laboratory data, and Consumer Confidence Reports reveals 1,991 instances where contaminant levels exceeded federal or state Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) — an overall exceedance rate of 2.72%.

The state's primary water quality challenges center on lead pipe replacements in urban systems and PFAS remediation in suburban/rural groundwater. Geographic risk patterns across New York reflect lead service lines in New York City and older urban systems, PFAS plumes from industrial sites in the Hudson Valley and Long Island, and agricultural nitrate in upstate regions.

This report is not a summary — it is a ground-level examination of what the data actually shows. Every number comes from EPA SDWIS enforcement records, state laboratory testing programs, Consumer Confidence Reports filed by utilities, FEMA flood insurance claims, and Census Bureau housing stock data. Where the data tells a clear story, we state it plainly. Where it is ambiguous or incomplete, we note that too.

Contaminant Analysis

State laboratory testing and EPA monitoring data reveal the scope of contamination across New York's water supply. The following analysis covers both regulated contaminants with federal MCLs and state-specific standards — New York set nation-leading MCLs for PFOA (10 ppt) and PFOS (10 ppt) in 2020, stricter than the later federal 4 ppt standard; also regulates 1,4-dioxane at 1 ppb (no federal MCL).

Top Contaminants by MCL Exceedance Rate

Lead (90th percentile) dominates the exceedance data with 1,989 exceedances across 4,655 systems — a 5.1% failure rate. This means that roughly 1 in every 19 tests for this contaminant returned a result above the legal limit. Copper (90th percentile) follows with 2 exceedances across 487 systems (0.1% rate).

It is worth noting what exceedance counts alone do not show: a system with 50 lead exceedances may serve 10,000 people, while a system with 2 arsenic exceedances may serve 500,000. Both matter, but the population-weighted impact differs enormously. The table above should be read as a measure of systemic compliance failure frequency, not necessarily as a direct ranking of public health risk.

PFAS ("Forever Chemicals") in New York

PFAS monitoring in New York covers 21,306 individual tests across multiple PFAS compounds. Current testing shows no exceedances of the 2024 EPA PFAS MCLs, though monitoring is ongoing and detection does not require exceedance to pose health concerns.

For detailed PFAS data by ZIP code, see the PFAS in New York report.

State vs. Federal Standards

New York set nation-leading MCLs for PFOA (10 ppt) and PFOS (10 ppt) in 2020, stricter than the later federal 4 ppt standard; also regulates 1,4-dioxane at 1 ppb (no federal MCL).

This regulatory landscape creates a two-tier compliance reality. A water system in New York may appear "in compliance" on federal reports while actually exceeding stricter state limits. For residents reading their annual Consumer Confidence Report, this distinction matters enormously — the report may reference federal standards while the state is enforcing tighter ones.

The gap between state and federal standards also affects how violations are counted. Our dataset captures both tiers, which is why the exceedance counts above may differ from EPA-only reporting. When we say a system "exceeds the MCL," we mean the applicable limit — federal or state, whichever is stricter.

Worst Water Systems by Violations

The following systems had the highest number of MCL exceedances in our dataset. A critical caveat: exceedance count alone does not mean a system is currently unsafe. Many exceedances are resolved through treatment adjustments, blending, or switching water sources. However, patterns of repeated violations across multiple contaminants or multiple years indicate systemic issues — underfunding, aging treatment infrastructure, or management failures — that are unlikely to resolve without intervention.

SYRACUSE CITY leads with 21 exceedances in our dataset. Unnamed System follows with 15 exceedances.

If you receive water from any of these systems, we recommend checking your specific ZIP code report for the most current violation status and filtration recommendations. Exceedance data tells you what has happened — your ZIP report tells you what to do about it.

Of New York's 4,662 monitored systems, the top 10 worst offenders account for 133 of the state's 1,991 total exceedances. This concentration pattern is common — a small number of chronically non-compliant systems drive a disproportionate share of violations statewide.

Enforcement & Compliance

EPA and state enforcement actions tell the story of how violations translate (or fail to translate) into accountability. The enforcement pipeline works in stages: a violation is detected, an informal action (like a warning letter) may be issued, and if non-compliance persists, formal enforcement — consent orders, administrative orders, or court actions — follows. The ratio between informal and formal actions reveals how aggressively a state pursues compliance.

Only 32% of enforcement actions in New York are formal (court orders, consent decrees, administrative penalties). The remaining 68% are informal — warning letters, compliance schedules, and technical assistance. This ratio matters: informal actions carry no legal penalty and rely on voluntary compliance. When systems repeatedly violate MCLs without facing formal enforcement, the deterrent effect weakens.

2,546 violations remain officially unresolved across the state. Each unresolved violation represents a system where contamination was detected, documented, and — as of our latest data — not yet remediated to the satisfaction of regulators. lead service line inventory mandates under LCRI are driving system-by-system surveys statewide; PFAS remediation at Hoosick Falls and Newburgh set precedents for state action.

Areas with Most Health Violations

Geographic Risk Patterns

Water quality risk in New York is not evenly distributed. Lead service lines in New York City and older urban systems, PFAS plumes from industrial sites in the Hudson Valley and Long Island, and agricultural nitrate in upstate regions create distinct regional patterns that are visible in the data.

Understanding where water quality problems concentrate is as important as understanding what contaminants are present. A statewide average conceals enormous ZIP-to-ZIP variation — two communities 20 miles apart may have completely different risk profiles based on their water source, treatment infrastructure, and local geology.

Data Anomalies & Notable Findings

Our automated anomaly detection system flagged 8+ patterns worth investigation in New York:

High-severity findings:

• ZIP 10901 (severity 8/10): PFAS cluster: 4 adjacent ZIPs near Suffern, NY all exceed limits — View full report
• ZIP 10923 (severity 8/10): PFAS cluster: 3 adjacent ZIPs near Garnerville, NY all exceed limits — View full report
• ZIP 10927 (severity 8/10): PFAS cluster: 3 adjacent ZIPs near Haverstraw, NY all exceed limits — View full report

Lead Exposure & Infrastructure Age

Lead contamination in drinking water is almost never caused by the water source itself — it leaches from lead service lines, lead solder in copper pipes, and brass fixtures as water sits in contact with these materials. This means lead risk is fundamentally an infrastructure problem, and infrastructure age is the single strongest predictor.

In New York, New York City operates one of the largest unfiltered surface water systems in the world, while upstate communities rely on thousands of small groundwater-fed systems with aging pipes. The federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requires utilities to test a sample of high-risk homes and report the 90th percentile lead level — meaning 90% of samples must be below the 15 ppb action level. But this sampling methodology has long been criticized: utilities often avoid the worst homes, and the action level itself is not a health-based standard (the EPA has stated there is no safe level of lead exposure).

Across New York, 2,340 ZIP codes have elevated or high lead pipe risk based on housing age, and 1,624 have elevated electrical system risk. These infrastructure age indicators are derived from Census Bureau American Community Survey data on housing stock vintage.

The connection between housing age and water contamination risk is well-documented: homes built before 1986 (when the federal ban on lead solder took effect) are significantly more likely to have lead in their plumbing. Homes built before 1950 face even higher risk, as lead service lines were standard construction practice in many parts of the country during that era.

Highest Lead Exposure Risk ZIP Codes

Flood Risk & Water Infrastructure

Flooding directly threatens water quality through multiple mechanisms: overwhelmed treatment plants release partially treated water, floodwaters can infiltrate well heads and contaminate groundwater sources, damaged distribution lines create entry points for bacteria and sediment, and power outages disable treatment systems entirely. In the aftermath of major flood events, boil-water advisories become common — but many residents in affected areas may not receive timely notification.

• 1,950 ZIP codes in New York have FEMA flood insurance claims on record
• 183,754 total flood insurance claims filed historically
• $5825.8 million in total flood damage payouts

The average flood insurance claim payout in New York is $31,704. While flood damage is typically associated with structural property damage, the water quality implications are often overlooked. Communities with repeated flooding face compounding infrastructure degradation — each event weakens pipes, treatment facilities, and distribution systems that may not be fully restored before the next event.

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

Water utilities are required to publish annual Consumer Confidence Reports. We have parsed CCR data for 1,587 ZIP codes in New York, documenting 797 self-reported violations and 772 systems with detectable lead levels.

CCR data is self-reported by utilities and may undercount actual contamination events. Cross-referencing CCR data with EPA SDWIS violation records provides a more complete picture — which is exactly what ZipCheckup reports do for every ZIP code.

Trend Analysis & Regulatory Outlook

lead service line inventory mandates under LCRI are driving system-by-system surveys statewide; PFAS remediation at Hoosick Falls and Newburgh set precedents for state action.

Three major regulatory forces are reshaping water quality across New York and the country:

Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI): The 2024 LCRI represents the most significant update to lead regulation since the original 1991 rule. It requires all water systems to complete a lead service line inventory, lower the action level trigger from 15 ppb to 10 ppb, and replace all lead service lines within 10 years. For New York's 4,662 systems, this means billions in infrastructure investment — and a fundamental reshaping of the lead risk landscape we document above.

PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (2024): For the first time, EPA set enforceable MCLs for six PFAS compounds — PFOA and PFOS at 4 ppt, and four others at various levels. Systems nationwide are still in the initial monitoring phase, which is why our PFAS data captures detections that may not yet have triggered formal violations. Treatment to remove PFAS (primarily granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis) is expensive, and many small systems will struggle to comply within the 3–5 year implementation timeline.

State-level action: New York set nation-leading MCLs for PFOA (10 ppt) and PFOS (10 ppt) in 2020, stricter than the later federal 4 ppt standard; also regulates 1,4-dioxane at 1 ppb (no federal MCL). As federal regulation catches up to state standards in some areas, the patchwork of requirements creates an uneven compliance landscape that makes cross-state comparisons complex but ZIP-level analysis essential.

What New York Residents Should Do

Based on our analysis of 73,237 test results and 2,850 ZIP codes, here are specific actions for New York residents:

1. Check your ZIP code report — enter your ZIP at ZipCheckup.com to see contaminant data, violation history, and risk scores specific to your address
2. Request your utility's CCR — if your ZIP is not in our CCR database, request the latest Consumer Confidence Report directly from your water utility
3. Test your water independently — home water testing kits ($30–$150) can detect lead, bacteria, and common contaminants. Lab testing ($100–$400) provides more comprehensive results
4. Consider filtration — for the contaminants most prevalent in New York (Lead, PFAS, Trihalomethanes), reverse osmosis or NSF-certified carbon filters provide the most effective protection
5. Check for lead service lines — if your home was built before 1986, contact your utility to determine if you have a lead service line. Many utilities now offer free inspections
6. Prepare for flood events — if you're in a flood-prone area, keep bottled water reserves and know how to shut off your water main. After any flood, do not use tap water until your utility confirms safety

Methodology & Data Sources

This analysis combines multiple data sources:

• EPA SDWIS — Safe Drinking Water Information System violation and enforcement records
• State laboratory data — NY — Lead & Copper 90th Percentile (EPA ECHO LCR); NY — PFAS Monitoring (UCMR5 National Dataset) (73,237 records)
• EPA ECHO — Enforcement and Compliance History Online, including PFAS detections and enforcement actions
• Consumer Confidence Reports — parsed and cross-referenced with EPA data for 1,587 ZIP codes
• FEMA NFIP — National Flood Insurance Program claims data
• Census ACS — Housing age and demographic data for infrastructure risk modeling
• Lead exposure modeling — ZipCheckup's proprietary lead risk score combining housing age, water test results, and service line data

All data is updated regularly. This report reflects data available as of 2026-06-04.

Related Reports

• New York State Overview — ZIP rankings, county breakdown, and safety scores
• Lead in New York — detailed contaminant breakdown
• PFAS in New York — detailed contaminant breakdown
• Nitrate in New York — detailed contaminant breakdown
• Water Safety Rankings by State — compare New York to other states

Highest-Risk ZIP Codes in New York

• 12209 Albany Water Report — Lead: 16 ppb
• 12202 Albany Water Report — Lead: 16 ppb
• 12210 Albany Water Report — Lead: 16 ppb
• 11530 Garden City Water Report — Lead: 20 ppb
• 12206 Albany Water Report — Lead: 16 ppb