Jim Hogg County WCID 2 water quality report, rewritten
- Serves
- 5,397
- Connections
- 1,799
- Water source
- Groundwater
- Based in
- Hebbronville, TX
- County
- Jim Hogg
- Owner
- Local government
The ZIP code it serves
PWSID TX1240001 · EPA data
Read this first
- Lithium (above EPA’s health benchmark) was found in six of 6 samples, highest 90.9 ppb. Above EPA’s health reference level of 10 ppb, a screening level rather than an enforceable limit.
39 health-based violations since 2016. Details are below.
What was found
Highlighted: above the health goal, or EPA’s health benchmark where there is no goal. Circled: above the legal limit in at least one sample, or the action level. Every scale puts that line at its middle.
PFAS and lithium: EPA UCMR 5, samples taken from Jan. 23, 2024 to Sept. 4, 2024. Each blue tick on a scale is one sample where it was found.
Lithium (above EPA’s health benchmark)
Comes from the source
90.9ppb
Highest of 6 samples; found in six
Health reference level 10
90.9
Above EPA’s health reference level of 10 ppb, a screening level rather than an enforceable limit.
What handles it
No certification claim covers this compound yet.
Tested and not found
Below EPA’s minimum reporting level in every sample taken from Jan. 23, 2024 to Sept. 4, 2024. Not found means not measured above that level, which is not the same as zero.
All 30 compounds tested and not found
- 11Cl-PF3OUdS
- 4:2 FTS
- 6:2 FTS
- 8:2 FTS
- 9Cl-PF3ONS
- ADONA
- HFPO-DA (GenX)
- Lead
- NEtFOSAA
- NFDHA
- NMeFOSAA
- PFBA
- PFBS
- PFDA
- PFDoA
- PFEESA
- PFHpA
- PFHpS
- PFHxA
- PFHxS
- PFMBA
- PFMPA
- PFNA
- PFOA
- PFOS
- PFPeA
- PFPeS
- PFTA
- PFTrDA
- PFUnA
Violations since 2016
| Contaminant or rule | Type | Period | Measured | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2025 to Sept. 30, 2025 | 0.015 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2025 to Sept. 30, 2025 | 0.019 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 | 0.03 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 | 0.02 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 | 0.026 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 | 0.042 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2024 | 0.051 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2024 | 0.026 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2024 to Sept. 30, 2024 | 0.039 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2024 to Sept. 30, 2024 | 0.021 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 | 0.031 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 | 0.016 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 | 0.018 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2023 to Sept. 30, 2023 | 0.013 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023 | 0.011 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023 | 0.014 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2022 to Dec. 31, 2022 | 0.013 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 | 0.011 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 | 0.013 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2019 to March 31, 2019 | 0.015 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2019 to March 31, 2019 | 0.019 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2018 to Dec. 31, 2018 | 0.018 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2018 to Dec. 31, 2018 | 0.021 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2018 to Sept. 30, 2018 | 0.021 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2018 to Sept. 30, 2018 | 0.026 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018 | 0.034 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018 | 0.021 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 | 0.02 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018 | 0.027 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017 | 0.02 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017 | 0.022 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2017 to Sept. 30, 2017 | 0.016 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2017 to Sept. 30, 2017 | 0.018 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017 | 0.023 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017 | 0.023 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Oct. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2016 | 0.023 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | July 1, 2016 to Sept. 30, 2016 | 0.026 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 | 0.027 MG/L | Resolved |
| Arsenic | The running average was above the legal limit.EPA: Maximum Contaminant Level Violation, Average | Jan. 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016 | 0.038 MG/L | Resolved |
| Health-based violations only. Resolved and archived mean the utility returned to compliance or the state closed the record. 11 monitoring or reporting violations not shown. | ||||
What this report cannot tell you
- Levels of everything else. Federal bulk data carries results for PFAS, lithium, lead and copper, and violations for the rest. Nitrate, arsenic, disinfection byproducts and other levels are in Jim Hogg County WCID 2’s own annual report, which it must send you every year.
- Your own plumbing. Lead results are the 90th percentile across homes the utility samples. Your home’s service line, solder and fixtures decide yours. A certified lab test is the only way to know.
- Anything after the latest data. SDWIS data is from 2026 Q2; UCMR 5 samples are from Jan. 23, 2024 to Sept. 4, 2024.
Other Texas utilities
- City of Houston3 million
- San Antonio Water System2.6 million
- Dallas Water Utility1.4 million
- City of Austin Water & Wastewater1.1 million
- City of Fort Worth955,900
- El Paso Water Utilities747,168
- City of Arlington413,955
- City of Corpus Christi318,387
- City of Plano292,059
- Lubbock Public Water System275,041
- City of Irving264,546
- City of Laredo260,046
Sources
- EPA UCMR 5 occurrence data, file of Aug. 27, 2026
- EPA SDWA bulk download (SDWIS federal data), 2026 Q2
- Limits and goals: each contaminant’s page, with its EPA source.
- How this page is built: methodology.
What to do next
Read up on Lithium
What each one does to health, where it comes from, and the certification claim that addresses it.
About LithiumGet the utility’s own report
Jim Hogg County WCID 2 must send you a water quality report every year. It lists nitrate, arsenic and byproduct levels this page cannot.
How to read itTest your own tap for lead
Your service line, solder and fixtures decide the lead at your faucet, not the utility’s average.
Lead in your water: what to doDecide if you want a filter at all
A filter for taste or chlorine is a preference, not a need. The standards say what each kind can do.
NSF/ANSI standards, decoded