We analyzed tap water quality data for hundreds of cities in New Mexico to identify the 25 with the most contaminants exceeding health guidelines. This ranking is based on 2026 data from the EPA and EWG databases.
While all public water systems must meet EPA legal limits, many health experts — including the Environmental Working Group — argue that these legal limits are outdated and don't reflect current scientific understanding of safe exposure levels. The cities below have the widest gap between what's in their water and what's considered safe by modern health standards.
Rankings at a Glance
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Las Cruces has 16 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 34 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Las Cruces water report →Albuquerque, New Mexico
Albuquerque has 16 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 30 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Albuquerque water report →Hobbs, New Mexico
Hobbs has 15 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 33 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Hobbs water report →Clovis, New Mexico
Clovis has 15 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 29 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Clovis water report →La Luz, New Mexico
La Luz has 15 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 29 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full La Luz water report →Dona Ana, New Mexico
Dona Ana has 15 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 28 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Dona Ana water report →Ruidoso, New Mexico
Ruidoso has 14 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 27 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Ruidoso water report →Rio Rancho, New Mexico
Rio Rancho has 13 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 26 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Rio Rancho water report →Santa Fe, New Mexico
Santa Fe has 13 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 24 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Santa Fe water report →Los Alamos, New Mexico
Los Alamos has 13 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 24 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Los Alamos water report →Artesia, New Mexico
Artesia has 13 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 21 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Artesia water report →El Rito, New Mexico
El Rito has 13 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 16 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full El Rito water report →Roswell, New Mexico
Roswell has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 26 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Roswell water report →Deming, New Mexico
Deming has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 26 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Deming water report →Ranchos De Taos, New Mexico
Ranchos De Taos has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 21 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Ranchos De Taos water report →Carlsbad, New Mexico
Carlsbad has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 19 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Carlsbad water report →Springer, New Mexico
Springer has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 19 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Springer water report →Sunland Park, New Mexico
Sunland Park has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 18 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Sunland Park water report →Holloman AFB, New Mexico
Holloman AFB has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 18 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Holloman AFB water report →Grants, New Mexico
Grants has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 18 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Grants water report →Flora Vista, New Mexico
Flora Vista has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 17 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Flora Vista water report →San Jon, New Mexico
San Jon has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 17 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full San Jon water report →Mesilla Park, New Mexico
Mesilla Park has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 17 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Mesilla Park water report →Hanover, New Mexico
Hanover has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 17 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Hanover water report →Hillsboro, New Mexico
Hillsboro has 12 contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines out of 17 detected — significantly above the national average. Multiple known carcinogens were found at levels of concern.
See full Hillsboro water report →What We Found: Key Patterns
The most frequently detected contaminants exceeding health guidelines across these cities are Dibromoacetic acid, Dibromochloromethane, Haloacetic acids (HAA5). These appear repeatedly across different water systems and regions.
Water quality varies significantly even within the same state, driven by local geology, agricultural activity, and industrial proximity.
Across all ranked cities, 327 contaminant readings exceed EWG health guidelines, but only 2 exceed EPA legal limits. This gap of 325 highlights how legal standards may not fully protect public health — EPA limits haven't been updated for many contaminants in decades.
Full Rankings Table
| Rank | City | State | Detected | Above Guidelines | Above Legal | People Served |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Las Cruces | NM | 34 | 16 | 0 | 87,389 |
| 2 | Albuquerque | NM | 30 | 16 | 0 | 659,736 |
| 3 | Hobbs | NM | 33 | 15 | 0 | 39,700 |
| 4 | Clovis | NM | 29 | 15 | 0 | 41,066 |
| 5 | La Luz | NM | 29 | 15 | 0 | 36,828 |
| 6 | Dona Ana | NM | 28 | 15 | 0 | 17,067 |
| 7 | Ruidoso | NM | 27 | 14 | 0 | 19,195 |
| 8 | Rio Rancho | NM | 26 | 13 | 0 | 107,350 |
| 9 | Santa Fe | NM | 24 | 13 | 0 | 90,810 |
| 10 | Los Alamos | NM | 24 | 13 | 0 | 25,000 |
| 11 | Artesia | NM | 21 | 13 | 0 | 15,176 |
| 12 | El Rito | NM | 16 | 13 | 0 | 1,200 |
| 13 | Roswell | NM | 26 | 12 | 0 | 54,025 |
| 14 | Deming | NM | 26 | 12 | 0 | 16,236 |
| 15 | Ranchos De Taos | NM | 21 | 12 | 0 | 800 |
| 16 | Carlsbad | NM | 19 | 12 | 0 | 33,626 |
| 17 | Springer | NM | 19 | 12 | 1 | 1,170 |
| 18 | Sunland Park | NM | 18 | 12 | 1 | 19,466 |
| 19 | Holloman AFB | NM | 18 | 12 | 0 | 13,000 |
| 20 | Grants | NM | 18 | 12 | 0 | 8,700 |
| 21 | Flora Vista | NM | 17 | 12 | 0 | 3,788 |
| 22 | San Jon | NM | 17 | 12 | 0 | 453 |
| 23 | Mesilla Park | NM | 17 | 12 | 0 | 448 |
| 24 | Hanover | NM | 17 | 12 | 0 | 203 |
| 25 | Hillsboro | NM | 17 | 12 | 0 | 148 |
Frequently Asked Questions
What city has the worst tap water in New Mexico?
Based on 2026 data, Las Cruces, NM has the most contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines among the cities we analyzed.
How are cities ranked in this report?
Cities are ranked by the number of contaminants exceeding EWG health guidelines. These guidelines are typically stricter than EPA legal limits and reflect current scientific research on safe exposure levels.
Is my tap water safe if my city isn't on this list?
Not necessarily. Even cities not on this list may have contaminants of concern. We recommend checking your specific water quality using our free water scan tool.
What's the best water filter for contaminated water?
A reverse osmosis (RO) system is the most effective for removing the widest range of contaminants. For whole-home protection, a combination of RO for drinking water and a whole-home filter for showers and baths is recommended.
Related Reports
Data sources: Environmental Working Group (EWG) Tap Water Database, U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
Last updated: April 2026
Methodology: Contaminant levels are compared against both EPA legal limits (Maximum Contaminant Levels) and EWG health guidelines, which are often stricter and based on the latest scientific research.
