Is Junior Town of Tap Water Safe? Quality Report

Water source: GWP
Ownership: Local government
Counties served: Barbour

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.

health-based violations

violations on file

still open

Violation	Type	Status	Period
Other	Monitoring	Resolved	2025-10-01
Other	Monitoring	Resolved	2025-10-01
Other	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-11-16
Other	Monitoring	Resolved	2023-11-16
MR	Monitoring	Archived	2021-09-01 → 2022-08-31
MR	Monitoring	Archived	2021-09-01 → 2022-08-31
MR	Monitoring	Archived	2021-09-01 → 2022-08-31
Other	Monitoring	Unaddressed	2018-06-09
MON	Monitoring	Resolved	2017-04-01 → 2017-04-30
MON	Monitoring	Resolved	2017-04-01 → 2017-04-30

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.

Contaminant	Level vs EPA limit	Detection rate	Source	Period
Copper	311.75 µg/L 24% of the EPA limit 1300 µg/L worst single sample: 430 µg/L	30/30	SYR4	2014–2019
Lead	1.95 µg/L 13% of the EPA limit 15 µg/L worst single sample: 2.4 µg/L	16/30	SYR4	2014–2019
Lead	0.0038 mg/L 25% of the EPA limit 0.0150 mg/L	15/15	LCR	2025
Bromodichloromethane	6.475 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 6.8 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
Chloroform	15.225 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 15.4 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
Dibromochloromethane	2.45 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 2.6 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
Dichloroacetic Acid	5.9 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 6 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
TTHM	23.625 µg/L 30% of the EPA limit 80 µg/L worst single sample: 24.2 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5)	10.6 µg/L 18% of the EPA limit 60 µg/L worst single sample: 10.9 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
Trichloroacetic Acid	3.8 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 4.2 µg/L	6/6	SYR4	2017–2019
Dibromoacetic Acid	1.74 µg/L No EPA limit set worst single sample: 1.8 µg/L	5/6	SYR4	2017–2019

3 contaminants tested, none detected

BromoformMonobromoacetic AcidMonochloroacetic Acid

Utility contact

Contact: MILLER, GARY
Phone: 304-823-1829

Frequently asked questions about Junior Town of

Is Junior Town of tap water safe to drink?

EPA monitoring detected 11 contaminants in Junior Town of'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 Junior Town of's water?

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

How many people does Junior Town of serve?

Junior Town of reports serving 987 people in West Virginia, per its EPA record.

Has Junior Town of had any water quality violations?

The EPA has 51 violations on file for Junior Town of, of which 0 are health-based (a contaminant limit or required treatment was breached) and 1 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.