City water profile
Compare local ZIP estimates, evidence quality, associated public systems, and compliance history for Rochester, New Hampshire.
Median indexed hardness
67PPM
3 indexed ZIPs
Range 66.6–66.7 PPM
City summary
Rochester has 3 published ZIP profiles across Strafford County. The indexed median is 67 PPM, compared with 58 PPM across New Hampshire.
Among the 74 New Hampshirecities with an indexed median, Rochester ranks #28from highest to lowest. Across all 90 state ZIP profiles, available estimates run from 16to 102 PPM.
The 66.6–66.7 PPM range shows how much the available ZIP estimates vary within the city label.
Hardness distribution
3 of 3 ZIP profiles have a hardness estimate. Bars count ZIP profiles, not households or laboratory samples.
Evidence quality
Confidence labels
Observation window: Jan 10, 2016 to Jun 8, 2026.
ZIP directory
Open a ZIP for site-level provenance and measurements.
Public water systems
PWSID NH2001010
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2003020
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2001030
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2002020
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2004010
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2002040
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2003090
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2001020
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
PWSID NH2002050
The system names this served city; Census place overlap links the city to this ZCTA.
Compliance history
No active health-based violation appears among the associated systems in the represented EPA reporting quarter. This does not mean every contaminant was tested at every tap.
| Record | System | Period | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revised Total Coliform Rule | NH2002040 | Nov 12, 2024 | Resolved |
| Public Notice | NH2002020 | Oct 24, 2024 | Resolved |
| Public Notice | NH2002020 | Oct 24, 2024 | Resolved |
| Revised Total Coliform Rule | NH2002040 | Oct 1, 2024 | Resolved |
| Revised Total Coliform Rule | NH2002020 | Sep 13, 2024 | Resolved |
| Revised Total Coliform Rule | NH2002020 | Aug 1, 2024 | Resolved |
| Public Notice | NH2002020 | Apr 22, 2024 | Resolved |
| Public Notice | NH2002020 | Apr 22, 2024 | Resolved |
| Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | NH2001020 | Apr 1, 2024 | Resolved · health-based |
| Revised Total Coliform Rule | NH2002020 | Mar 12, 2024 | Resolved |
Practical next steps
Continue comparing
Questions people ask
The indexed city median is 67 PPM. Open the ZIP report to verify the distance and confidence behind that estimate.
Compliance history is utility-wide and cannot guarantee conditions at every tap. Check current notices and test when address-specific evidence is needed.
Choose treatment only after confirming the problem at the property. A softener targets hardness; contaminant treatment requires a matching, verified performance claim.