01The verdict: is Fort Jackson water safe?
Fort Jackson's tap water meets most EPA standards but has areas that warrant attention. With a grade of A- (85.2/100), some contaminant levels or compliance issues suggest that residents may benefit from additional filtration. The city's 1 water system serves approximately 31,000 residents using surface water (rivers, lakes, or reservoirs).
1,4-Dioxane is over its legal limit
Measured at 0.39 µg/L against the EPA Health Advisory of 0.35 µg/L. The ledger below shows how far over — and which filter removes it.
See the measurement ↓Lead is well under the limit
90th-percentile lead is 0.0 ppb — beneath the 15 ppb federal action level and under the 5 ppb watch threshold.
See the trend ↓PFPeA is approaching its limit
Measured at 0.0095 µg/L — 120% of the 0.004 µg/L limit. Within the rules, but with less headroom than you'd want.
See the ledger ↓Fort Jackson's drinking water received a grade of A- (85.2 out of 100), indicating good water quality. The city's 1 water system serves approximately 31,000 residents using purchased surface water.
Lead levels were measured at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile), well within EPA limits. UCMR 5 testing detected 7 PFAS compounds, with levels exceeding EPA maximum contaminant levels in the water supply. The system has 16 violations on record, including 8 health-based violations. 2 remain unresolved.
Fort Jackson ranks #94 out of 195 cities in South Carolina for water quality, placing it mid-range in the state. The city draws from surface water sources, which are more susceptible to seasonal runoff and agricultural contamination, requiring extensive multi-barrier treatment including coagulation, filtration, and disinfection. Of particular concern: PFAS "forever chemical" levels exceed the 2024 EPA maximum contaminant levels. These synthetic compounds don't break down naturally and require specialized filtration such as reverse osmosis or granular activated carbon. Hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) was detected at 0.12 µg/L in UCMR 3 testing. While below California's 10 µg/L limit and with no federal MCL set, residents sensitive to this contaminant may consider reverse osmosis filtration.
02What's in Fort Jackson's water
Every contaminant flagged in Fort Jackson, on one shared scale: distance to its own legal limit. The red line is the limit — anything past it is out of compliance, and the closer a bar gets, the less headroom the system has.
Full contaminants report
| Contaminant | Detected Level | EPA Limit | Unit | Category | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead (90th percentile) LeadHeavy Metal A toxic heavy metal that can leach into drinking water from older pipes, solder, and fixtures. No amount of lead in water is considered safe. Health EffectsBrain and nervous system damage in children, kidney damage, high blood pressure, and reproductive problems in adults. EPA Limit15 ppb action level Common SourcesCorrosion of lead pipes, lead solder, brass faucets, and household plumbing. | 0.0 | 15 | ppb | Inorganic | Safe |
| 11Cl-PF3OUdS | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| 4:2 FTS | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| 6:2 FTS 6:2 FTSPFAS A fluorotelomer sulfonate commonly found at sites contaminated with aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in firefighting. Health EffectsPotential liver toxicity and endocrine disruption. Less studied but identified as a contaminant of concern. EPA LimitNo individual MCL (not yet regulated) Common SourcesFirefighting foam (AFFF), airports, military bases, and industrial facilities. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| 8:2 FTS | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| 9Cl-PF3ONS | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| ADONA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| HFPO-DA HFPO-DA (GenX)PFAS A replacement for PFOA in manufacturing, marketed as safer but still a persistent "forever chemical." Also known as GenX. Health EffectsLiver and kidney effects, reproductive toxicity, immune system effects, and potential cancer risk. EPA Limit10 ppt MCL Common SourcesFluoropolymer manufacturing (used as PFOA replacement), industrial wastewater discharge. | 0.008 | 0.01 | µg/L | PFAS | Detected |
| lithium LithiumInorganic A naturally occurring alkali metal found in groundwater. Monitored under UCMR 5 to assess occurrence in drinking water. Health EffectsKidney effects at high doses. Low-level exposure effects under study; some research suggests neurological effects. EPA LimitNo MCL (monitoring only under UCMR 5) Common SourcesNatural mineral deposits, geothermal water, and industrial discharge. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| NEtFOSAA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| NFDHA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| NMeFOSAA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFBA PFBAPFAS One of the shortest-chain PFAS compounds. Very mobile in water and difficult to remove with standard filtration. Health EffectsThyroid effects, potential developmental toxicity. Shorter half-life in body than long-chain PFAS. EPA LimitNo individual MCL (not yet regulated) Common SourcesDegradation of longer-chain PFAS, industrial discharge, and firefighting foam. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFBS PFBSPFAS A short-chain PFAS used as a replacement for PFOS. While it clears the body faster than long-chain PFAS, it still persists in the environment. Health EffectsThyroid effects, reproductive and developmental toxicity, kidney effects. EPA LimitPart of Hazard Index (1.0) Common SourcesIndustrial discharge, firefighting foam, and as a replacement chemical in manufacturing. | 0.006 | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Detected |
| PFDA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFDoA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFEESA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFHpA PFHpAPFAS A medium-chain PFAS compound found in various environmental samples. Less studied than PFOA/PFOS but still considered a contaminant of concern. Health EffectsLiver effects, potential developmental toxicity, and endocrine disruption. EPA LimitPart of Hazard Index (1.0) Common SourcesDegradation of longer-chain PFAS, industrial discharge, and contaminated water sources. | 0.003 | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Detected |
| PFHpS | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFHxA PFHxAPFAS A short-chain PFAS replacement chemical widely used after manufacturers phased out longer-chain PFAS. Very commonly detected in water. Health EffectsLiver and kidney effects, potential thyroid disruption. Considered less toxic than long-chain PFAS but still persistent. EPA LimitNo individual MCL (not yet regulated) Common SourcesIndustrial processes, firefighting foam (AFFF), food packaging, and textile treatment. | 0.007 | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Detected |
| PFHxS PFHxSPFAS A medium-chain PFAS found in firefighting foam and consumer products. It has a long half-life in the human body, similar to long-chain PFAS. Health EffectsImmune system effects, thyroid disruption, and potential reproductive and developmental harm. EPA LimitPart of Hazard Index (1.0) Common SourcesFirefighting foam (AFFF), waterproof textiles, food packaging, and industrial discharge. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFMBA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFMPA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFNA PFNAPFAS A long-chain PFAS compound used in manufacturing fluoropolymers. It bioaccumulates in the body and is very persistent in the environment. Health EffectsDevelopmental effects, liver toxicity, immune suppression, and potential cancer risk. EPA LimitPart of Hazard Index (1.0) Common SourcesFluoropolymer manufacturing, industrial emissions, and contaminated water sources. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFOA PFOAPFAS A long-chain PFAS ("forever chemical") once widely used in nonstick coatings and firefighting foam. It persists in the body and environment for years. Health EffectsLinked to kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, and reproductive issues. EPA Limit4.0 ppt MCL Common SourcesIndustrial discharge, firefighting foam (AFFF), nonstick cookware manufacturing, and contaminated groundwater. | 0.007 | 0.004 | µg/L | PFAS | Over MCL |
| PFOS PFOSPFAS A long-chain PFAS compound historically used in stain-resistant coatings and firefighting foam. One of the most studied and persistent PFAS chemicals. Health EffectsLiver damage, immune system suppression, thyroid disruption, increased cholesterol, and potential cancer risk. EPA Limit4.0 ppt MCL Common SourcesFirefighting foam (AFFF), industrial sites, stain-resistant fabric treatments, and contaminated groundwater. | 0.007 | 0.004 | µg/L | PFAS | Over MCL |
| PFPeA PFPeAPFAS A short-chain PFAS compound commonly detected in drinking water. One of the most frequently found PFAS in UCMR 5 monitoring. Health EffectsLess studied than PFOA/PFOS. Potential liver and thyroid effects. Research is ongoing. EPA LimitNo individual MCL (not yet regulated) Common SourcesIndustrial discharge, firefighting foam degradation, and consumer products. | 0.009 | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Detected |
| PFPeS | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFTA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFTrDA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| PFUnA | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
Cities ranked by 90th-percentile lead PF PFAS in South Carolina
Cities ranked by compounds detected Cu Copper in South Carolina
Cities ranked by 90th-percentile copper
03Fort Jackson's ten-year track record
Each box is one year. A green check means no EPA violations; a numbered badge counts that year's violations — red if any were health-based, amber if they were monitoring or paperwork issues. The system has 16 violations on record, including 8 health-based violations. 2 remain unresolved.
9 of the last ten years were clean. The numbered years had EPA violations — red when any were health-based, amber when they were paperwork or missed-testing issues.
▼ Down 85 ppb since 1992. Latest reading: 0 ppb (2025) — 0% of the action level. Sampled at higher-risk homes (90th percentile).
04Where Fort Jackson's water comes from
Fort Jackson's drinking water comes primarily from surface water sources such as rivers, lakes, or reservoirs.
Purchased Surface Water
Rivers, lakes, or reservoirs — more exposed to runoff, agriculture, and seasonal swings than groundwater.
Wholesale supplier
Multi-barrier treatment: coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection to meet EPA standards.
1 system
1 water system, operated under federal ownership.
31,000 people
Residents served across Fort Jackson's service area.
Surface water systems require multi-stage treatment including coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection to meet EPA Safe Drinking Water Act standards. These sources can be impacted by seasonal changes, stormwater runoff, upstream agriculture, and industrial discharge. The system is operated by federal ownership and serves approximately 31,000 people through 1 water system.
| System name | PWSID | Population | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| FORT JACKSON (SC4010501) | SC4010501 | 31,000 | Purchased Surface Water |
05Pressure on Fort Jackson's watershed
Outside forces that shape what reaches the treatment plant. None of these is a verdict on the tap by itself — but each adds pressure worth knowing about.
Drought
Richland County is in D2 (severe drought) per the U.S. Drought Monitor (week of Jul 2026). Drought can raise disinfection-byproduct levels and taste/odor issues as utilities draw from lower reservoirs.
06How Fort Jackson compares
Scores for nearby South Carolina cities on one line, with the average marked.
dashed line = South Carolina average (77/100)
Fort Jackson scores 85.2/100 — above the South Carolina average of 77/100. It outscores 7 of 10 nearby cities. Full South Carolina rankings →
92.1 / 100BCharleston, SC
82.8 / 100FColumbia, SC
37.1 / 100CConway, SC
67.5 / 100BOkatie, SC
83.8 / 100ASpartanburg, SC
91.4 / 100
Compare all cities in the county — grades, violations, and contaminant data side by side.→
07What to do at home
Steps matched to what testing actually found in Fort Jackson's water — not generic advice.
Filter drinking & cooking water
Reverse osmosis system. PFAS compounds exceed EPA maximum contaminant levels
Compare tested filters →Read your utility's annual report
Every utility must publish a yearly Consumer Confidence Report with its own testing results. It pairs well with the independent data on this page.
How to read a CCR →Watch for Fort Jackson alerts
We refresh EPA data monthly and surface new violations, advisories, and boil-water notices for your county on this page.
All water alerts →Frequently asked questions
Is Fort Jackson, SC tap water safe to drink?
Fort Jackson's water quality earned a grade of A- (85.2/100). The water generally meets EPA standards and is considered safe for consumption. The city ranks #94 out of 195 cities tested in South Carolina.
What contaminants are in Fort Jackson's water?
Lead was measured at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile). 7 PFAS compounds were detected. 16 violations are on record.
How is Fort Jackson's water quality grade calculated?
The grade is based on four factors: violation history (40%), lead and copper levels (25%), PFAS contamination (25%), and regulatory compliance (10%). The score is also adjusted based on how complete the available data is. See our methodology page for full details.
Do I need a water filter in Fort Jackson?
PFAS compounds exceed EPA limits — a reverse osmosis or activated carbon filter is recommended.
Where does Fort Jackson's water come from?
Fort Jackson's water is sourced from Purchased surface water. The city has 1 water system serving approximately 31,000 residents.
What health violations has Fort Jackson's water system had?
Fort Jackson has 8 health-based violations on record. The most recent violation was recorded in May 2024. Health-based violations mean the water exceeded EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for a regulated substance. 2 violations remain unresolved.
Why does Fort Jackson have so many PFAS compounds in its water?
7 different PFAS "forever chemical" compounds were detected in Fort Jackson's water supply during UCMR 5 testing. PFAS contamination often originates from proximity to military installations (AFFF firefighting foam), airports, industrial manufacturing sites, or wastewater treatment facilities. Some levels exceed the 2024 EPA maximum contaminant levels — a reverse osmosis or NSF-certified activated carbon filter is strongly recommended.
How does Fort Jackson's water compare to other cities?
Fort Jackson ranks #94 out of 195 cities in South Carolina (better than 52% of state cities) and #5388 out of 15382 cities nationally (65th percentile). The grade of A- reflects the combined assessment of violation history, lead and copper levels, PFAS contamination, and regulatory compliance.