25 Cities With the Most Chloroform in Drinking Water (2026)

By Echo Water Research Team 8 min read
25 Cities With the Most Chloroform in Drinking Water (2026)
25
Cities Analyzed
203
Total Contaminants Above Guidelines
40,241
People Affected

We analyzed tap water quality data for hundreds of cities across the United States to identify those with the highest levels of chloroform. This ranking is based on 2026 data from the EPA and EWG databases.

Chloroform is a contaminant of growing concern in drinking water. The cities below have the highest detected levels based on the most recent testing data available.

Methodology: Cities are ranked by the detected level of chloroform (descending), showing those with the highest concentrations first. Data sourced from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Tap Water Database. Only cities with available EWG testing data are included.
1

Wanette, Oklahoma

Wanette Public Works Authority • 402 people served
8Above EWG Guidelines
12Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
Bromochloroacetic acid*BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)

Wanette has chloroform detected at 167.20 ppb. 12 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

2

Asher, Oklahoma

Asher Utility Dev Authority • 375 people served
8Above EWG Guidelines
11Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
Bromochloroacetic acid*BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)

Asher has chloroform detected at 158.90 ppb. 11 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

3

Maysville, Oklahoma

Maysville • 0 people served
10Above EWG Guidelines
14Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
Bromochloroacetic acidBromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acid

Maysville has chloroform detected at 129.90 ppb. 14 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

4

Statenville, Georgia

Echols County Water Authority • 0 people served
9Above EWG Guidelines
10Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneCarbon tetrachlorideChloroformDibromoacetic acidDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)

Statenville has chloroform detected at 117.60 ppb. 10 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

5

Chalkyitsik, Alaska

Chalkyitsik Village Water • 75 people served
6Above EWG Guidelines
9Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)Trichloroacetic acid

Chalkyitsik has chloroform detected at 115.90 ppb. 9 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

Is your city on this list?

Get a free personalized water quality report for your address.

Check Your Water
6

Nome, Texas

City of Nome • 0 people served
10Above EWG Guidelines
21Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
Bromochloroacetic acidBromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acid

Nome has chloroform detected at 113.60 ppb. 21 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

7

Pittsburg, Oklahoma

Pittsburg • 280 people served
7Above EWG Guidelines
10Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Radium, combined (-226 and -228)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

Pittsburg has chloroform detected at 111 ppb. 10 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

8

Provencal, Louisiana

Bellwood Water System • 1,032 people served
8Above EWG Guidelines
13Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)

Provencal has chloroform detected at 107.60 ppb. 13 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

9

Antlers, Oklahoma

Pushmataha County Rural Water District #3 • 4,825 people served
7Above EWG Guidelines
11Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

Antlers has chloroform detected at 107.60 ppb. 11 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

10

Mount Erie, Illinois

Mount Erie • 0 people served
11Above EWG Guidelines
15Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
ArsenicBromodichloromethaneBromoformChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethane

Mount Erie has chloroform detected at 99 ppb. 15 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

11

Tullos, Louisiana

Town of Tullos Water System • 792 people served
10Above EWG Guidelines
16Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneBromoformChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acid

Tullos has chloroform detected at 96.10 ppb. 16 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

12

Boswell, Oklahoma

Choctaw County Rural Water System & Solid Waste Management District #6 • 850 people served
8Above EWG Guidelines
14Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

Boswell has chloroform detected at 94.10 ppb. 14 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

13

Dixon, Wyoming

Dixon, Town Of • 0 people served
9Above EWG Guidelines
13Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
Bromochloroacetic acidBromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acid

Dixon has chloroform detected at 88.70 ppb. 13 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

14

Fairfax, Oklahoma

Fairfax • 1,555 people served
9Above EWG Guidelines
13Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
UraniumBromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)

Fairfax has chloroform detected at 88.30 ppb. 13 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

15

Rye, Colorado

Rye, Town of • 745 people served
6Above EWG Guidelines
12Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)Trichloroacetic acid

Rye has chloroform detected at 87.60 ppb. 12 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

16

Albion, Oklahoma

Pushmataha County Rural Water District #2 (albion) • 0 people served
6Above EWG Guidelines
9Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)Trichloroacetic acid

Albion has chloroform detected at 86.10 ppb. 9 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

17

Keota, Oklahoma

Keota Public Works Authority • 564 people served
7Above EWG Guidelines
10Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

Keota has chloroform detected at 85.90 ppb. 10 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

18

Kotzebue, Alaska

Kotzebue Municipal Water System • 0 people served
9Above EWG Guidelines
11Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Manganese

Kotzebue has chloroform detected at 85.80 ppb. 11 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

19

Whitesboro, Oklahoma

Leflore County Rural Water District #3 • 1,643 people served
7Above EWG Guidelines
12Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
Bromochloroacetic acidBromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

Whitesboro has chloroform detected at 84.60 ppb. 12 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

20

Sikes, Louisiana

Village of Sikes Water System • 639 people served
8Above EWG Guidelines
14Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromoacetic acidDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)

Sikes has chloroform detected at 84.50 ppb. 14 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

21

Chester, Massachusetts

Chester Water Department • 0 people served
6Above EWG Guidelines
13Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)Trichloroacetic acid

Chester has chloroform detected at 84.20 ppb. 13 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

22

Galena, Alaska

Galena Wtp1 - City • 470 people served
6Above EWG Guidelines
8Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)Trichloroacetic acid

Galena has chloroform detected at 82.80 ppb. 8 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

23

Nashoba, Oklahoma

Pushmataha County Rural Water District #5 (nashoba) • 725 people served
7Above EWG Guidelines
8Total Detected
1Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDibromochloromethaneDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

Nashoba has chloroform detected at 82.70 ppb. 8 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

24

Avant, Oklahoma

Avant Utilities Authority • 361 people served
9Above EWG Guidelines
10Total Detected
2Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformDichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Nitrate and nitriteRadium, combined (-226 and -228)

Avant has chloroform detected at 81.50 ppb. 10 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

25

Plattsburgh, New York

Plattsburgh City • 24,908 people served
12Above EWG Guidelines
21Total Detected
0Above Legal Limit
BromodichloromethaneChloroformChromium (hexavalent)Dichloroacetic acidHaloacetic acids (HAA5)Haloacetic acids (HAA9)

Plattsburgh has chloroform detected at 80.90 ppb. 21 total contaminants were found in the water supply.

What We Found: Key Patterns

The most frequently detected contaminants exceeding health guidelines across these cities are Bromodichloromethane, Chloroform, Dichloroacetic acid. These appear repeatedly across different water systems and regions.

Geographically, the states most represented in this ranking are Oklahoma (12), Alaska (3), Louisiana (3). Regional water sources, industrial activity, and agricultural runoff all contribute to local water quality variation.

Across all ranked cities, 203 contaminant readings exceed EWG health guidelines, but only 41 exceed EPA legal limits. This gap of 162 highlights how legal standards may not fully protect public health — EPA limits haven't been updated for many contaminants in decades.

Full Rankings Table

Rank City State Detected Above Guidelines Above Legal People Served
1 Wanette OK 12 8 2 402
2 Asher OK 11 8 2 375
3 Maysville OK 14 10 2 0
4 Statenville GA 10 9 2 0
5 Chalkyitsik AK 9 6 2 75
6 Nome TX 21 10 2 0
7 Pittsburg OK 10 7 2 280
8 Provencal LA 13 8 2 1,032
9 Antlers OK 11 7 2 4,825
10 Mount Erie IL 15 11 2 0
11 Tullos LA 16 10 2 792
12 Boswell OK 14 8 1 850
13 Dixon WY 13 9 2 0
14 Fairfax OK 13 9 1 1,555
15 Rye CO 12 6 2 745
16 Albion OK 9 6 1 0
17 Keota OK 10 7 1 564
18 Kotzebue AK 11 9 2 0
19 Whitesboro OK 12 7 1 1,643
20 Sikes LA 14 8 2 639
21 Chester MA 13 6 1 0
22 Galena AK 8 6 2 470
23 Nashoba OK 8 7 1 725
24 Avant OK 10 9 2 361
25 Plattsburgh NY 21 12 0 24,908

Don't see your city?

Check your water quality now with a free personalized report.

Check Your Water

Frequently Asked Questions

What cities have the highest levels of chloroform?

Our analysis of 2026 data identified the cities with the highest detected levels of chloroform. See the full ranking above.

Is chloroform dangerous in drinking water?

Chloroform has known health risks at elevated levels. The EWG sets health guidelines that are often stricter than EPA legal limits to account for the latest research on long-term exposure.

How do I remove chloroform from my water?

Reverse osmosis (RO) systems are the most effective at removing a wide range of contaminants. Check the specific contaminant details for recommended filtration technology.

What is the EPA legal limit for chloroform?

EPA legal limits vary by contaminant and may differ from EWG health guidelines. See individual city reports for specific legal limit comparisons.

Data sources: Environmental Working Group (EWG) Tap Water Database, U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)

Last updated: September 2026

Methodology: Contaminant levels are compared against both EPA legal limits (Maximum Contaminant Levels) and EWG health guidelines, which are often stricter and based on the latest scientific research.

Share
Leave a comment

This site is protected by hCaptcha and the hCaptcha Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.