Skip to main content
WaterVerge

Water quality report · updated Jul 2026

Is Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott), WV Tap Water Safe to Drink?

Graded A-, with 3 unresolved violations on record. See what was cited — and what it means for your tap. What to do ↓

0 contaminants over a legal limit
0.0 ppb lead, 90th percentile · low
3 unresolved violations
24K people served by 1 water system

PWSID WV3304011 · high data confidence · local government utility

Reviewed by WaterVerge Editorial Team · Last updated July 2026
A 85.7 / 100

#32 of 245West Virginia cities
How we grade →

01The verdict: is Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) water safe?

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s drinking water has significant quality concerns based on EPA testing data. With a grade of A- (85.7/100), the system has issues across multiple categories. A water filter is recommended for all residents. The city's 1 water system serves approximately 24,020 residents using surface water (rivers, lakes, or reservoirs).

The concern

3 unresolved violations on record

EPA records show open compliance items for this system. Most are administrative, but unresolved items are worth watching.

See what was cited ↓
The good news

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 ↓
Keep watching

Chlorate is approaching its limit

Measured at 210.0 µg/L — 100% of the 210 µg/L limit. Within the rules, but with less headroom than you'd want.

See the ledger ↓

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s drinking water received a grade of A- (85.7 out of 100), indicating good water quality. The city's 1 water system serves approximately 24,020 residents using surface water.

Lead levels were measured at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile), well within EPA limits. PFAS testing under UCMR 5 found no detectable forever chemicals. The system has 7 violations on record, including 0 health-based violations. 3 remain unresolved.

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) ranks #32 out of 245 cities in West Virginia for water quality, placing it above average 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. Haloacetic acid (HAA5) levels were elevated at 30.6 µg/L in UCMR 4 testing, though below the 60 µg/L EPA limit. Activated carbon filtration can help reduce these disinfection byproducts. Hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) was detected at 0.10 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.

How the 85.7/100 breaks down Methodology →
ViolationsHistorical violation record including health-based and monitoring violations.
39 / 45B
Lead & CopperLead at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile).
20 / 20A
ContaminantsNo PFAS compounds detected.
19.7 / 20A
ComplianceMonitoring and reporting compliance with EPA regulations.
3 / 10F
Source RiskWater source: Surface water.
4 / 5B

02What's in Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water

Every contaminant flagged in Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott), 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.

6 detections · sorted by % of legal limit
Over the limit Elevated — watch Within limits
0 50% LEGAL LIMIT 150%
Chlorate Disinfection Byproduct
210.0 µg/L 100% of limit
Strontium Inorganic
170.0 µg/L 11% of limit
Manganese Inorganic
1.7 µg/L 3% of limit
36 contaminants tested under EPA SDWIS, LCR and UCMR programs · 6 detected Contaminants without a federal MCL are shown against the strictest state or advisory level named in each row.

Full contaminants report

Contaminant Detected Level EPA Limit Unit Category Status
Lead (90th percentile) 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 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 ND 0.01 µg/L PFAS Not Detected
lithium 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 ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFBS ND HI µg/L PFAS Not 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 ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFHpS ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFHxA ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFHxS ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFMBA ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFMPA ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFNA ND HI µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFOA ND 0.004 µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFOS ND 0.004 µg/L PFAS Not Detected
PFPeA ND HI µg/L PFAS Not 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
Data source: EPA SDWIS, UCMR 5, local utility CCR.

03Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'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 7 violations on record, including 0 health-based violations. 3 remain unresolved.

7 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.

6 monitoring & paperwork 2 still unresolved
UpdateWater quality data updatedLatest EPA compliance and testing data incorporated into Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water quality assessment. Grade: A- (85.7/100).
Violation1 drinking water violation recordedContaminants: Lead and Copper Rule.Open
Violation2 drinking water violations recordedContaminants: Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5), TTHM.Resolved
DisasterSEVERE STORMS, FLOODING, LANDSLIDES, AND MUDSLIDESFederal disaster declaration (FEMA DR-4787). Flood event — may have impacted local water infrastructure.
DisasterSEVERE STORMS, FLOODING, LANDSLIDES, AND MUDSLIDESFederal disaster declaration (FEMA DR-4756). Flood event — may have impacted local water infrastructure.
Violation1 drinking water violation recordedContaminants: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.Resolved
Lead, 90th percentileppb · lower is better
05101520EPA action level · 15 ppb1992 — 4 ppb1993 — 4 ppb1995 — 2 ppb1996 — 5 ppb1999 — 3 ppb2004 — 5 ppb2007 — 0 ppb2010 — 2 ppb2011 — 0 ppb2013 — 2.5 ppb2016 — 1.6 ppb2019 — 1.3 ppb2022 — 0 ppb2025 — 0 ppb40199219962007201320222025

Down 4 ppb since 1992. Latest reading: 0 ppb (2025) — 0% of the action level. Sampled at higher-risk homes (90th percentile).

04Where Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water comes from

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s drinking water comes primarily from surface water sources such as rivers, lakes, or reservoirs.

Source

Surface Water

Rivers, lakes, or reservoirs — more exposed to runoff, agriculture, and seasonal swings than groundwater.

Treatment

Local treatment

Multi-barrier treatment: coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection to meet EPA standards.

Distribution

1 system

1 water system, operated under local government ownership.

Delivery

24,020 people

Residents served across Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'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 local government ownership and serves approximately 24,020 people through 1 water system.

System namePWSIDPopulationSource
PUTNAM P S D WV3304011 24,020 Surface Water

Water bodies near Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)

Kanawha River · river Coal River · river

As a surface-water system, these water bodies may directly influence Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s drinking water supply.

05Pressure on Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'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.

Flood & storm history

Recurring — declared disasters

10 federal disaster declarations on record for Kanawha County. Flooding and severe storms can overwhelm treatment plants, cause sewage overflows, and push runoff into supplies.

SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING, LANDSLIDES, AND MUDSLIDES May 2024 · DR-4787
SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING, LANDSLIDES, AND MUDSLIDES Jan 2024 · DR-4756
SEVERE STORMS AND FLOODING May 2021 · DR-4605

06How Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) compares

Scores for nearby West Virginia cities on one line, with the average marked.

Charleston
90.1 · A
Beckley
90 · A-
Huntington
89.7 · A-
Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) (this city)
85.7 · A-
Martinsburg
40.2 · F
Morgantown
39.4 · F

dashed line = West Virginia average (68/100)

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) scores 85.7/100above the West Virginia average of 68/100. It outscores 6 of 10 nearby cities. Full West Virginia rankings →

Putnam water quality rankings
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 Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water — not generic advice.

Extra protection

A basic carbon filter still helps

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water meets federal standards, but a simple carbon filter improves taste and adds a margin of safety against short-term issues.

Compare tested filters →
Know your report

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 →
Stay informed

Watch for Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) alerts

This area has a history of flood declarations — after severe weather, watch for boil-water advisories from the utility, and check the live alerts on this page.

All water alerts →

Frequently asked questions

Is Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott), WV tap water safe to drink?

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water quality earned a grade of A- (85.7/100). The water generally meets EPA standards and is considered safe for consumption. The city ranks #32 out of 245 cities tested in West Virginia.

What contaminants are in Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water?

Lead was measured at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile). No PFAS compounds were detected. 7 violations are on record.

How is Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'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 Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)?

Based on current data, basic filtration should suffice for additional peace of mind.

Where does Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water come from?

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water is sourced from Surface water. The city has 1 water system serving approximately 24,020 residents.

How does Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott)'s water compare to other cities?

Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott) ranks #32 out of 245 cities in West Virginia (better than 87% of state cities) and #5107 out of 15382 cities nationally (67th percentile). The grade of A- reflects the combined assessment of violation history, lead and copper levels, PFAS contamination, and regulatory compliance.

Share this reportHelp others learn about their water quality
WhatsAppXFacebookLinkedInEmail
About Scott Depot (Rr Name Scott), WV: Tornado, also called Upper Falls, is a census-designated place (CDP) in Kanawha County, West Virginia, United States. Median household income $79,952 · median home value $149,127 · median age 34.3 · 83.8% homeowners · 26.5% college educated. Wikipedia → Sources: EPA SDWIS & ECHO · UCMR 3–5 · Lead & Copper Rule samples · EPA TRI · U.S. Drought Monitor · FEMA declarations. Data last updated Jul 2026. Analysis by the WaterVerge Editorial Team · methodology.