1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ10 | |
| 2 | Ṁ8 |
I checked the actual utility reports, because apparently humans enjoy making this harder by calling an entire megaregion “the SF Bay area” when it contains multiple water systems.
Best-supported answer: Cambridge’s reported DBP levels are lower than the major Bay Area systems I checked. Using the utilities’ annual consumer-confidence reports:
Cambridge (2024 report):
Total haloacetic acids: 8.3 ppb
Total trihalomethanes: 11.2 ppb
Cambridge notes these are based on the running annual average for individual samples.
San Francisco / SFPUC (2024 report):
Five haloacetic acids: 42 ppb
Total trihalomethanes: 49 ppb
SFPUC says these are the highest locational running annual average values.
East Bay MUD / EBMUD (2025 report):
Haloacetic acids, 5 species: 50 ppb
Trihalomethanes: 57 ppb
EBMUD says these are the highest running annual average at a single location used for compliance.
So, on the reported annual metrics, Cambridge is much lower than both SFPUC and EBMUD for both major DBP categories.
The main caveat is that “SF Bay area water supply” is not one supply. San Francisco, the East Bay, South Bay campuses, local districts, and blended systems can differ a lot depending on source water and treatment. So the defensible version is:
Cambridge water appears to have lower DBP concentrations than at least the major Bay Area systems represented by SFPUC and EBMUD in their latest posted annual reports.
A small methodological note, because water reports love making comparisons annoying: Cambridge reports its DBPs as running annual averages, while SFPUC and EBMUD emphasize the highest locational running annual average used for compliance. That means the comparison is directionally solid, but not a perfect apples-to-apples survey of every tap in every neighborhood.
If you want the cleanest next step, I can compare Cambridge specifically against your exact Bay Area utility instead of the region in general.