Science
How to best filter your L.A. tap water based on your ZIP Code
Nearly a year ago, I scribbled “Replace Brita filter” on my to-do list. But the errand perpetually fell by the wayside. There were so many more pressing tasks to complete.
“Oh, it’s fine,” I thought. “How bad can it be?”
Let’s just say that a day into reporting this story, I ran out to the market and bought a three-pack.
We reach for our water taps more than almost any other object in our homes — to brush our teeth, wash our faces, make coffee or tea in the morning. To cook meals, rinse dishes and wipe countertops. To water the plants, do laundry and fill our pets’ bowls. To shower and shave. And most often for a drink.
In L.A., water rules everything around us. Drink up, cool off and dive into our stories about hydrating and recreating in the city.
But how much do you really know about what’s in your tap water? And if you filter it, are you using the right technology? Many of us may not be fully aware of where our water even comes from.
That’s because the water that flows into our homes in the L.A. area can be surprisingly different, ZIP Code to ZIP Code. The level of arsenic found in Compton’s tap water may differ wildly from that found in Glendale. Malibu’s tap water may have more hexavalent chromium while Pasadena’s doesn’t have any. One tap does not fit all.
“Where you are, the location, it really makes a difference in your water quality,” said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group focusing on environmental health.
We went to the source, so to speak — experts in the realms of science, academia and water filtration — to help you navigate the often complicated, ever-fluid world of residential tap water, so that you can make smarter and more informed choices about how to purify your H20.
L.A.’s water sources | Federal and state protections | Determining your water quality | How to test | How to filter | The bare minimum
L.A.’s water sources
Like most major cities, the Greater Los Angeles area is served by a dizzying number of community water systems. In California, there are 2,913 of them to serve about 39.025 million people — and those are just the larger ones that operate year-round, according to the EWG’s Tap Water Database.
Each utility company treats the water in its assigned municipality differently before it flows through consumers’ faucets. That’s because each draws from different water sources. One area’s tap may be coming from rivers and lakes (otherwise categorized as “surface water”) while another’s could be pumped from wells from beneath layers of rock and sediment (categorized as “groundwater”).
Depending on where the water travels, it may pick up different undesirable contaminants. Surface water, for example, could have runoff that includes nitrate used to fertilize land in agricultural areas. Groundwater could have naturally occurring chemical elements, such as arsenic, that come from bedrock.
More often than not, L.A. area tap water comes from a mix of these sources. Our utility companies draw from different aqueducts, those large, often concrete ditches or canals that extend from the source to the water treatment plant. From there it flows through pipes, underground, to your home.
In 2023, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — which serves about 4 million people throughout the city of Los Angeles — sourced its tap water from the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the California Aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as from local groundwater, according to its most recent drinking water quality report.
The specific geographic location of a water source also determines what ends up in your tap water. A lake near a highly industrial area risks containing more pollutants than water coming from a lake in the High Sierras.
Another reason the water might be different between ZIP Codes: Utility companies have different resources at their disposal.
“The size of the drinking water system can be an indicator of the drinking water quality,” Stoiber said. “It’s based on economy of scale. The larger ones have more resources for treatment. Smaller systems can be at a bit more of an economic disadvantage.”
Federal and state water protections
There are federal regulations that require utility companies to stay below maximum contaminant levels for more than 90 pollutants in drinking water. They’re also required to publish an annual consumer confidence report with information about contaminant levels and water sources.
“But many of our drinking water regulations were set in the ’70s and ’80 and are not as protective as they should be,” Stoiber said. “There are contaminants in your drinking water that don’t have regulations around them.”
How harmful these contaminants are, and how much you’d have to ingest over time to affect your health, is contested. But in general, however many pollutants you might find in L.A.’s tap water, there are not enough to make you seriously ill in one gulp.
Some good news: In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized new regulations around a family of about 15,000 chemicals known as PFAS. They’re often referred to as the “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment. California also voted in April to finalize a limit for hexavalent chromium, or “Chrome 6,” which many people know as the carcinogenic chemical that the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. contaminated residents’ groundwater with, from 1952 to 1966, in Hinkley, Calif. — the legal upshot of which was depicted in the film “Erin Brockovich.” But those changes won’t be immediate.
“Upgrading water treatment plants is expensive and takes years,” said USC’s Daniel McCurry, who researches water supply and treatment. “Most smaller utilities, especially, just won’t have the money to make the upgrades in the initial time frame.”
2027, McCurry notes, is the deadline for utilities to complete their “initial monitoring” before the new regulations for PFAS go into effect in 2029.
(Henry Hargreaves / For The Times)
How to determine your water quality
So where to start? It’s easier than it might seem. First, search for your consumer confidence report on your utility company’s website. You can then cross-reference that information with EWG’s free Tap Water Database, which allows you to type in your ZIP Code (look for the prompt “Is your water safe?”). It then will populate your water utility company and the number of people it serves. From there, you can click on “View Utility” to produce an easy-to-decipher report listing the source of your water and contaminants detected in it.
When I typed my own Silver Lake ZIP Code in for a water quality analysis, the results did not put me at ease. It listed nine contaminants detected in my water, among them bromate and uranium. Some of these were found at levels that far exceeded the standards of the EWG but were still below the legal limit.
I called the LADWP to make sense of what I’ve found.
“There’s no health concern,” LADWP’s director of water quality, Jonathan Leung, said of my findings, stressing that the contaminants were far below the federally mandated legal limit. “That’s where, collectively, all the toxicologists and water quality specialists and scientists have worked together to set national standards. As a water quality utility, that’s what we set our sights on. The public should take confidence that the legal limits are protective of public health — and we strive to do better than that.”
McCurry added that the EWG and EPA have different standards for the amount of contaminants found in water.
“When the EPA sets a water contaminant limit, it’s a balance between protecting public health while staying realistic about the treatment technology we have and how much it costs,” McCurry said. “Everyone’s perception or tolerance of risk is different, but for me, personally, I drink water straight from the tap and don’t worry about it. It’s very unlikely you’ll get sick from tap water, assuming the tap water meets federal regulations.”
How to test your water at home
Whatever your personal tolerance level, you can improve both the quality and taste of your tap water by choosing the right filter, experts say.
But, given the array of filtration products and techniques on the market, that’s easier said than done. Choosing from options like “ion-exchange demineralization,” “ultraviolet sterilization” and “chemical feed pumps” can be intimidating.
Take a breath. Then step back. Filtering should be a tailored approach, said Brian Campbell, founder of Water Filter Guru, which lab-tests and reports on residential water treatment methods and products.
“There’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all water treatment solution,” Campbell said.
He added that even after reading utility consumer reports and nonprofit chemical analyses, you still may need to know more.
“[Those reports] will give you a general sense but not the whole picture, Campbell said. “Because water can be recontaminated after it leaves the treatment plant — like if your home has old plumbing with lead piping. But it’s a start.”
You can test your home’s water quality yourself using fairly affordable water test strips, available for about $15 in stores such as Home Depot. These, Campbell said, will “give you an indication of a handful of the most common 12 to 15 contaminants like lead, arsenic, chromium, nitrate possibly.” However it will only give you a range of those aforementioned contaminants, not the exact concentration in your water.
If you want specific information about the chemical levels, you can run a more in-depth test. The best way to do that, Campbell said, is through a certified lab, where the cost ranges from roughly $100 to more than $1,000 depending on how comprehensive you want to get.
How to choose a filter
Once you know what’s in your water, you’ll be able to choose the right filter technology to treat it, Campbell said. Here’s what he suggests using for some of the most common issues.
PFAS. This is the family of about 15,000 chemicals used for their water repellent and oil repellent properties, such as in nonstick pans or fast food packaging. “The most studied filtration method for this is activated carbon adsorption,” Campbell said. “It’s the most common technology used in pitcher filtration. Even the most simple water pitcher filters should theoretically reduce PFAS.” Reverse osmosis filtration systems also will address PFAS — it’s one of the most thorough techniques and includes activated carbon as one of its stages. Historically, these pricy systems were installed directly into sink pipes, but countertop versions now are available for renters.
Microplastics. “They get into the environment and break down into smaller and smaller pieces — so small you’d need a microscope to see them,” Campbell said. The best technique to address those — because they are suspended particles, floating in the water and not dissolved — is mechanical filtration, he said. The technology removes suspended particles, like pipe rust or sand and grit coming from a hot water heater. Reverse osmosis also would work. Distillation would be effective as well and is, per Campbell, one of the best to get rid of nearly all common contaminants. But, Campbell warned, “It requires a massive amount of energy and time to treat and distill a relatively small volume of water — so not the most practical.”
Disinfection byproducts. This is a group of chemicals created when common water disinfectants — typically chlorine — interact with organic matter (such as dirt or rust) that’s already present in the pipes that run from the distribution plant to your home or office, Campbell said. “Activated carbon adsorption is the best way to deal with this. Reverse osmosis will also deal with them because a component of that [technique] is activated carbon.”
Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. “This is more of an issue in agricultural areas,” Campbell said. Typically, he added, they can be treated using activated carbon and reverse osmosis.
Fluoride. Tap water is fluoridated in many areas because of its dental health benefits. But recent research suggests that prenatal exposure to fluoride may be linked to increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in children at age 3. “Reverse osmosis would be the best treatment for this, but there are a few adsorption media that can reduce fluoride, like a filter using bone char carbon (activated carbon that comes from animal bones) or a filter using activated alumina media, another adsorption media,” said Campbell.
Heavy metals. Lead is obviously the most infamous heavy metal water contaminant, but consumers also should watch out for arsenic (primarily from groundwater) and chromium 6 (which comes from industrial manufacturing). “Typically, for metals, reverse osmosis is the best option,” said Campbell. “Activated carbon works for chromium 6 but not for arsenic. Distillation, again, gets rid of everything but it’s not practical.”
Hard water. Hard water is caused by mineral buildup, which isn’t bad for your health but can create limescale on appliances like your water heater. It also can affect your beauty routine. “Soap doesn’t lather as well with hard water,” said Campbell. “Your hair might feel brittle and it can irritate skin issues like eczema.” He recommends treating the issue at the water point of entry to the home with cation exchange resin, a type of ion exchange.
The best way to know if a product is actually capable of doing what it claims to do, Campbell said, is to look up its performance certifications. “You can do that in databases through the Water Quality Assn., the National Sanitation Foundation and the International Assn. of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.”
The bare minimum
If nothing else, Stoiber urged consumers to peruse the EWG’s guide to countertop filters — and to purchase one.
Though McCurry is content drinking from the tap, he agreed it couldn’t hurt. “If you have reason to believe there are, say, PFAS above the future regulation target, then yeah, get a Brita filter,” he said.
Needless to say, that task is no longer on my to-do list.
Science
What’s in a Name? For These Snails, Legal Protection
The sun had barely risen over the Pacific Ocean when a small motorboat carrying a team of Indigenous artisans and Mexican biologists dropped anchor in a rocky cove near Bahías de Huatulco.
Mauro Habacuc Avendaño Luis, one of the craftsmen, was the first to wade to shore. With an agility belying his age, he struck out over the boulders exposed by low tide. Crouching on a slippery ledge pounded by surf, he reached inside a crevice between two rocks. There, lodged among the urchins, was a snail with a knobby gray shell the size of a walnut. The sight might not dazzle tourists who travel here to see humpback whales, but for Mr. Avendaño, 85, these drab little mollusks represent a way of life.
Marine snails in the genus Plicopurpura are sacred to the Mixtec people of Pinotepa de Don Luis, a small town in southwestern Oaxaca. Men like Mr. Avendaño have been sustainably “milking” them for radiant purple dye for at least 1,500 years. The color suffuses Mixtec textiles and spiritual beliefs. Called tixinda, it symbolizes fertility and death, as well as mythic ties between lunar cycles, women and the sea.
The future of these traditions — and the fate of the snails — are uncertain. The mollusks are subject to intense poaching pressure despite federal protections intended to protect them. Fishermen break them (and the other mollusks they eat) open and sell the meat to local restaurants. Tourists who comb the beaches pluck snails off the rocks and toss them aside.
A severe earthquake in 2020 thrust formerly submerged parts of their habitat above sea level, fatally tossing other mollusks in the snail’s food web to the air, and making once inaccessible places more available to poachers.
Decades ago, dense clusters of snails the size of doorknobs were easy to find, according to Mr. Avendaño. “Full of snails,” he said, sweeping a calloused, violet-stained hand across the coves. Now, most of the snails he finds are small, just over an inch, and yield only a few milliliters of dye.
Science
Video: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order
new video loaded: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order
By Meg Felling and Carl Zimmer
April 20, 2026
Science
Contributor: Focus on the real causes of the shortage in hormone treatments
For months now, menopausal women across the U.S. have been unable to fill prescriptions for the estradiol patch, a long-established and safe hormone treatment. The news media has whipped up a frenzy over this scarcity, warning of a long-lasting nationwide shortage. The problem is real — but the explanations in the media coverage miss the mark. Real solutions depend on an accurate understanding of the causes.
Reporters, pharmaceutical companies and even some doctors have blamed women for causing the shortage, saying they were inspired by a “menopause moment” that has driven unprecedented demand. Such framing does a dangerous disservice to essential health advocacy.
In this narrative, there has been unprecedented demand, and it is explained in part by the Food and Drug Administration’s recent removal of the “black-box warning” from estradiol patches’ packaging. That inaccurate (and, quite frankly, terrifying) label had been required since a 2002 announcement overstated the link between certain menopause hormone treatments and breast cancer. Right-sizing and rewording the warning was long overdue. But the trouble with this narrative is that even after the black-box warning was removed, there has not been unprecedented demand.
Around 40% of menopausal women were prescribed hormone treatments in some form before the 2002 announcement. Use plummeted in its aftermath, dipping to less than 5% in 2020 and just 1.8% in 2024. According to the most recent data, the number has now settled back at the 5% mark. Unprecedented? Hardly. Modest at best.
Nor is estradiol a new or complex drug; the patch formulation has existed for decades, and generic versions are widely manufactured. There is no exotic ingredient, no rare supply chain dependency, no fluke that explains why women are suddenly being told their pharmacy is out of stock month after month.
The story is far more an indictment of the broken insurance industry: market concentration, perverse incentives and the consequences of allowing insurance companies to own the pharmacy benefit managers that effectively control drug access for the majority of users. Three companies — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — manage 79% of all prescription drug claims in the United States. Those companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of three insurance behemoths: CVS Health, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group, respectively. This means that the same corporation that sells you your insurance plan also decides which drugs get covered, at what price, and whether your pharmacy can stock them. This is called vertical integration. In another era, we might have called it a cartel. The resulting problems are not unique to hormone treatments; they have affected widely used medications including blood thinners, inhalers and antibiotics. When a low-cost generic such as estradiol — a medication with no blockbuster profit margins and no patent protection — runs into friction in this system, the friction is not random. It is structural. Every decision in that chain is filtered through the same corporate profit motive. And when the drug in question is an off-patent estradiol patch that has negligible profit margins because of generic competition but requires logistical investment to keep consistently in stock? The math on “how much does this company care about ensuring access” is not complicated.
Unfortunately, there is little financial incentive to ensure smooth, consistent access. There is, however, significant financial incentive to steer patients toward branded alternatives, or simply to let supply tighten — because the companies aren’t losing much profit if sales of that product dwindle. This is not a conspiracy theory: The Federal Trade Commission noted this dynamic in a report that documented how pharmacy benefit managers’ practices inflate costs, reduce competition and harm patient access, particularly for independent pharmacies and for generic drugs.
Any claim that the estradiol patch shortage is meaningfully caused by more women now demanding hormone treatments is a distraction. It is also misogyny, pure and simple, to imply that the solution to the shortage is for women’s health advocates to dial it down and for women to temper their expectations. The scarcity of estradiol patches is the outcome of a broken system refusing to provide adequate supply.
Meanwhile, there are a few strategies to cope.
- Ask your prescriber about alternatives. Estradiol is available in multiple formulations, including gel, spray, cream, oral tablet, vaginal ring and weekly transdermal patch, which is a different product from the twice-weekly patch and may be more consistently available depending on manufacturer and region.
- Consider an online pharmacy. Many are doing a good job locating and filling these prescriptions from outside the pharmacy benefit manager system.
- Call ahead. Patch shortages are inconsistent across regions and distributors. A call to pharmacies in your area, or a broader geographic radius if you’re able, can locate stock that your regular pharmacy doesn’t have.
- Consider a compounding pharmacy. These sources can sometimes meet needs when commercially manufactured products are inaccessible. The hormones used are the same FDA-regulated bulk ingredients.
Beyond those Band-Aid solutions, more Americans need to fight for systemic change. The FTC report exists because Congress asked for it and committed to legislation that will address at least some of the problems. The FDA took action to change the labeling on estrogen in the face of citizen and medical experts’ pressure; it should do more now to demand transparency from patch manufacturers.
Most importantly, it is on all of us to call out the cracks in the current system. Instead of repeating “there’s a patch shortage” or a “surge in demand,” say that a shockingly small minority of menopausal women still even get hormonal treatments prescribed at all, and three drug companies control the vast majority of claims in this country. Those are the real problems that need real solutions.
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, the executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at New York University School of Law, is the author of the forthcoming book “When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide.” Suzanne Gilberg, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Los Angeles, is the author of “Menopause Bootcamp.”
-
New York1 hour agoN.Y.P.D. Narcotics Unit Under Review After a Beating Is Caught on Tape
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoMI Healthy Climate Conference in Detroit focuses on green funding and strong future
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoCalifornia’s New Hotel Edit: The Best Places to Stay Across the Golden State in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoThe Brandon Aubrey Deal | DZTV
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoRanking the Miami Heat’s Top Trade Targets
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoFormer Massachusetts doctor faces 81 new sexual assault charges
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoHouston County murder suspect returns to face charges after her arrest in Denver
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoWest Seattle Tool Library to host annual tool sale this Saturday, April 25 | The White Center Blog