01The verdict: is Springer water safe?
Springer's drinking water has significant quality concerns based on EPA testing data. With a grade of F (43.2/100), the system has issues across multiple categories. A water filter is recommended for all residents. The city's 2 water systems serve approximately 1,379 residents using surface water (rivers, lakes, or reservoirs).
61 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 ↓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 ↓lithium is approaching its limit
Measured at 14.7000 µg/L — 120% of the 0.004 µg/L limit. Within the rules, but with less headroom than you'd want.
See the ledger ↓Springer's drinking water received a grade of F (43.2 out of 100), indicating failing water quality. The city's 2 water systems serve approximately 1,379 residents using surface water.
Lead levels were measured at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile), well within EPA limits. UCMR 5 testing detected 1 PFAS compound in the water supply. The system has 284 violations on record, including 160 health-based violations. 61 remain unresolved.
Springer ranks #116 out of 153 cities in New Mexico for water quality, placing it among the lowest-rated 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. PFAS compounds were detected in testing, though levels remain within current EPA limits. Residents seeking extra precaution may consider an activated carbon or reverse osmosis filter. As a small community water system, Springer may have fewer resources for advanced treatment technologies and infrastructure upgrades compared to larger utilities. The system has seen 104 violations in the past five years, suggesting a pattern of compliance challenges that residents should monitor closely.
02What's in Springer's water
Every contaminant flagged in Springer, 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. | ND | 0.01 | µg/L | PFAS | Not 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. | 14.700 | HI | µg/L | PFAS | 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. | 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 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. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not 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. | ND | HI | µg/L | PFAS | Not 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. | ND | 0.004 | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| 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. | ND | 0.004 | µg/L | PFAS | Not Detected |
| 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. | 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 |
Cities ranked by 90th-percentile lead PF PFAS in New Mexico
Cities ranked by compounds detected Cu Copper in New Mexico
Cities ranked by 90th-percentile copper
03Springer'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 284 violations on record, including 160 health-based violations. 61 remain unresolved.
1 of the last ten years was clean. The numbered years had EPA violations — red when any were health-based, amber when they were paperwork or missed-testing issues.
▼ Down 9 ppb since 2006. Latest reading: 0 ppb (2026) — 0% of the action level. Sampled at higher-risk homes (90th percentile).
04Where Springer's water comes from
Springer's drinking water comes primarily from surface water sources such as rivers, lakes, or reservoirs.
Surface Water
Rivers, lakes, or reservoirs — more exposed to runoff, agriculture, and seasonal swings than groundwater.
Local treatment
Multi-barrier treatment: coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection to meet EPA standards.
2 systems
2 water systems, operated under local government ownership.
1,379 people
Residents served across Springer'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 1,379 people through 2 water systems.
| System name | PWSID | Population | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPRINGER WATER SYSTEM | NM3526604 | 1,170 | Surface Water |
| FRENCH MDWCA/SWA | NM3500204 | 209 | Purchased Surface Water |
Water bodies near Springer
As a surface-water system, these water bodies may directly influence Springer's drinking water supply.
05Pressure on Springer'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
4 federal disaster declarations on record for Colfax County. Flooding and severe storms can overwhelm treatment plants, cause sewage overflows, and push runoff into supplies.
Drought
Colfax County is in D3 (extreme 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 Springer compares
Scores for nearby New Mexico cities on one line, with the average marked.
dashed line = New Mexico average (49/100)
Springer scores 43.2/100 — below the New Mexico average of 49/100. It outscores 6 of 10 nearby cities. Full New Mexico rankings →
40.2 / 100FLas Cruces, NM
40.1 / 100FSanta Fe, NM
35.7 / 100BRio Rancho, NM
83.8 / 100DRoswell, NM
45.8 / 100FFarmington, NM
40.4 / 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 Springer's water — not generic advice.
Filter drinking & cooking water
Activated carbon or reverse osmosis filter. 1 PFAS compound detected
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 Springer 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 Springer, NM tap water safe to drink?
Springer's water quality earned a grade of F (43.2/100). Significant issues have been found. A water filter is strongly recommended. The city ranks #116 out of 153 cities tested in New Mexico.
What contaminants are in Springer's water?
Lead was measured at 0.0 ppb (90th percentile). 1 PFAS compound was detected. 284 violations are on record.
How is Springer'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 Springer?
PFAS compounds have been detected. A filter with activated carbon can help reduce exposure.
Where does Springer's water come from?
Springer's water is sourced from Surface water. The city has 2 water systems serving approximately 1,379 residents.
What health violations has Springer's water system had?
Springer has 160 health-based violations on record. The most recent violation was recorded in December 2025. Health-based violations mean the water exceeded EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for a regulated substance. 61 violations remain unresolved.
How does Springer's water compare to other cities?
Springer ranks #116 out of 153 cities in New Mexico (better than 24% of state cities) and #14322 out of 15382 cities nationally (7th percentile). The grade of F reflects the combined assessment of violation history, lead and copper levels, PFAS contamination, and regulatory compliance.