Tap WaterIndex

← Minnesota

Tap water quality report

New Ulm

EPA monitoring tested this supplier for 92 contaminants and detected 16. A detection doesn't automatically mean the water is unsafe — the level and EPA source for each is below.

92
contaminants tested
16
detected
14,052
people served
0
health-based violations
Minnesota rankingsLead in MinnesotaPFAS in Minnesota
Water source
Ground water
Ownership
Local government
Counties served
Brown

Compliance record

Formal violations the EPA has on file for this supplier. A health-based violation means a contaminant limit or a required treatment was breached; the rest are monitoring or reporting failures — still violations, but not a measured health risk.

0
health-based violations
11
violations on file
0
still open
ViolationTypeStatusPeriod
MON Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-01-31
MON Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-01-31
MON Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-01-31
MON Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-01-31
MR Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-03-31
MR Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-03-31
MR Monitoring Resolved 2021-01-01 → 2021-03-31
MR Monitoring Archived 2002-06-01 → 2002-06-30
MR Monitoring Archived 1999-04-01 → 1999-04-30
MR Monitoring Archived 1999-04-01 → 1999-04-30

Other contaminants detected

Each bar shows the measured level as a share of the EPA limit: green is well under, amber is close to it, red is over. For lead and copper the limit applies to exactly the 90th-percentile figure shown, so red there means a real exceedance. For everything else the limit applies to a running annual average while the figure is the 95th percentile of this system's samples — over 100% is worth reading, but is not by itself a violation. Where a single sample came in higher than that percentile, it is noted under the bar. Formal violations are listed separately.
ContaminantLevel vs EPA limitDetection rateSourcePeriod
Copper
1381 µg/L 106%
of the EPA limit, at the 95th percentile of samples — 1300 µg/L
worst single sample: 2400 µg/L
60/60 SYR4 2014–2017
Lead
14.505 µg/L 97%
of the EPA limit 15 µg/L
worst single sample: 181 µg/L
52/60 SYR4 2014–2017
Fluoride
1100 µg/L 28%
of the EPA limit 4000 µg/L
worst single sample: 1200 µg/L
33/33 SYR4 2012–2019
Chloroform
16 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 18 µg/L
31/31 SYR4 2012–2019
Bromodichloromethane
14.1 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 15 µg/L
30/31 SYR4 2012–2019
Dibromochloromethane
9.4 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 9.6 µg/L
30/31 SYR4 2012–2019
Dichloroacetic Acid
5.76 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 6.5 µg/L
29/29 SYR4 2012–2019
Trichloroacetic Acid
5.12 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 5.5 µg/L
29/29 SYR4 2012–2019
Dibromoacetic Acid
2.04 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 2.2 µg/L
27/29 SYR4 2012–2019
Bromoform
1.57 µg/L
No EPA limit set
worst single sample: 1.6 µg/L
24/31 SYR4 2012–2019
Lead
0.0020 mg/L 13%
of the EPA limit 0.0150 mg/L
 16/16 LCR 2023
Nitrate-Nitrite
1700 µg/L 17%
of the EPA limit 10000 µg/L
 16/16 SYR4 2012–2019
Gross Alpha, Excl. Radon And U
4.77 pCi/L 32%
of the EPA limit 15 pCi/L
worst single sample: 4.8 pCi/L
2/2 SYR4 2013–2019
Lithium
21.5 µg/L
No EPA limit set
 2/2 UCMR-5 2023
Chromium
0.2200 µg/L 0.2%
of the EPA limit 100 µg/L
 1/4 SYR4 2013–2014
Pentachlorophenol
0.0600 µg/L 6%
of the EPA limit 1 µg/L
 1/5 SYR4 2012–2019
76 contaminants tested, none detected
1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethylene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE1,2-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloropropane11Cl-PF3OUdS2,4,5-TP2,4-D4:2 Fts6:2 Fts8:2 Fts9Cl-PF3ONSAdonaAtrazineBhc-GammaBenzeneBenzo(A)PyreneChlorobenzeneCarbofuranCarbon TetrachlorideChlordaneDichloromethaneDalaponDi(2-ethylhexyl) AdipateDi(2-ethylhexyl) PhthalateDinosebEthylene DibromideEndrinEthylbenzeneGlyphosateHexachlorobenzeneHfpo-DaHeptachlorHeptachlor EpoxideHexachlorocyclopentadieneLassoMethoxychlorMonobromoacetic AcidMonochloroacetic AcidNetfosaaNfdhaNmefosaaOxamylPfbaPFBSPfdaPfdoaPfeesaPfhpaPfhpsPfhxaPFHXSPfmbaPfmpaPFNAPFOAPFOSPfpeaPfpesPftaPftrdaPfunaPicloramSimazineStyreneTetrachloroethyleneTolueneToxapheneTrichloroethyleneVinyl Chloridecis-1,2-DichloroethyleneO-DichlorobenzeneP-Dichlorobenzenetrans-1,2-Dichloroethylene

Utility contact

Phone
5073598264
Email
[email protected]

Frequently asked questions about New Ulm

Is New Ulm tap water safe to drink?

EPA monitoring detected 16 contaminants in New Ulm's water. A detection isn't the same as a violation — most levels are within federal limits. See each level and source above, and the utility's annual Consumer Confidence Report for its official compliance status.

What contaminants were detected in New Ulm's water?

EPA monitoring detected Copper, Lead, Fluoride, Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane, and others. The full list with the level and data source for each is above.

How many people does New Ulm serve?

New Ulm reports serving 14,052 people in Minnesota, per its EPA record.

Has New Ulm had any water quality violations?

The EPA has 11 violations on file for New Ulm, of which 0 are health-based (a contaminant limit or required treatment was breached) and 0 remain open. The rest are monitoring or reporting failures.

Where does this data come from?

Every figure is official EPA drinking-water monitoring — the Lead & Copper Rule, the UCMR-5 nationwide testing program, and the EPA Six-Year Review — not our own testing. Each number is labelled with its source and period.