Service Areas
Water Treatment Service Areas in Southwestern PA
Water quality can change from one home to the next, even in the same community. Cesare’s helps homeowners and businesses throughout Southwestern Pennsylvania understand what is in their water and what can be done to improve it.
Our process starts with professional water testing. We identify the issue, explain your results in plain language, and recommend a custom-engineered solution only when it makes sense for your water.
13 Counties. One Standard
Service Area Directory
Cesare’s serves residential and commercial customers throughout 13 counties in Southwestern Pennsylvania, including the greater Pittsburgh area, surrounding suburbs, rural communities, and the Laurel Highlands.
Do not see your town listed? If you are located within one of our 13 service counties, there is a strong chance we can help. Call 724-708-8816 to confirm service in your area.
Common Water Problems by County in Southwestern Pennsylvania
Water conditions vary across Southwestern Pennsylvania. These summaries use drinking-water samples analyzed by Penn State’s Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory to show patterns in the water that was tested — not what is present at every property.
Westmoreland County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 65 of 402 samples tested (16.2%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 106 of 405 samples tested (26.2%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 100.8 mg/L, approximately 5.9 gpg, among 400 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 17.5 mg/L among 99 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 113 of 705 samples tested (16.0%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 233 of 376 samples tested (62.0%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 419 of 783 samples tested (53.5%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 121 of 783 samples tested (15.5%).
- Arsenic — 5 of 140 samples tested (3.6%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 808 Westmoreland County drinking-water submissions between July 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Westmoreland County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Allegheny County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 27 of 115 samples tested (23.5%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 29 of 117 samples tested (24.8%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 118.5 mg/L, approximately 6.9 gpg, among 113 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 169 of 308 samples tested (54.9%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 343 Allegheny County drinking-water submissions between August 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Allegheny County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Armstrong County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 10 of 35 samples tested (28.6%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 15 of 40 samples tested (37.5%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 100.2 mg/L, approximately 5.9 gpg, among 38 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 31.6 mg/L among 15 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 16 of 100 samples tested (16.0%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 24 of 34 samples tested (70.6%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 87 of 124 samples tested (70.2%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 29 of 124 samples tested (23.4%).
- Arsenic — 0 of 18 samples tested (0.0%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 126 Armstrong County drinking-water submissions between November 2007 and May 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Armstrong County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Beaver County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 18 of 87 samples tested (20.7%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 28 of 94 samples tested (29.8%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 153.7 mg/L, approximately 9.0 gpg, among 84 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 42 mg/L among 30 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 22 of 181 samples tested (12.2%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 54 of 80 samples tested (67.5%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 108 of 207 samples tested (52.2%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 25 of 207 samples tested (12.1%).
- Arsenic — 0 of 59 samples tested (0.0%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 220 Beaver County drinking-water submissions between October 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Beaver County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Butler County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 38 of 148 samples tested (25.7%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 44 of 157 samples tested (28.0%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 46 mg/L, approximately 2.7 gpg, among 137 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 224 of 501 samples tested (44.7%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- Arsenic — 1 of 100 samples tested (1.0%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 529 Butler County drinking-water submissions between August 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Butler County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Cambria County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 9 of 41 samples tested (22.0%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 11 of 42 samples tested (26.2%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 43.4 mg/L, approximately 2.5 gpg, among 37 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- pH outside the recommended range — 14 of 98 samples tested (14.3%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 30 of 35 samples tested (85.7%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 58 of 105 samples tested (55.2%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 20 of 105 samples tested (19.0%).
- Arsenic — 1 of 29 samples tested (3.4%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 110 Cambria County drinking-water submissions between October 2007 and May 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Cambria County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Fayette County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 12 of 50 samples tested (24.0%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 15 of 55 samples tested (27.3%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 54.8 mg/L, approximately 3.2 gpg, among 76 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 17.3 mg/L among 24 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 17 of 125 samples tested (13.6%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 51 of 72 samples tested (70.8%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 84 of 141 samples tested (59.6%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 36 of 141 samples tested (25.5%).
- Arsenic — 1 of 58 samples tested (1.7%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 150 Fayette County drinking-water submissions between December 2007 and May 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Fayette County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Greene County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 5 of 18 samples tested (27.8%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 5 of 19 samples tested (26.3%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 182 mg/L, approximately 10.6 gpg, among 65 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 20.9 mg/L among 7 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 10 of 94 samples tested (10.6%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 39 of 63 samples tested (61.9%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 80 of 106 samples tested (75.5%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 41 of 106 samples tested (38.7%).
- Arsenic — 0 of 76 samples tested (0.0%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 110 Greene County drinking-water submissions between June 2008 and May 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Greene County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Indiana County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 15 of 42 samples tested (35.7%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 25 of 50 samples tested (50.0%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 82 mg/L, approximately 4.8 gpg, among 68 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- pH outside the recommended range — 24 of 138 samples tested (17.4%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 44 of 67 samples tested (65.7%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 85 of 153 samples tested (55.6%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 24 of 153 samples tested (15.7%).
- Arsenic — 3 of 59 samples tested (5.1%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 160 Indiana County drinking-water submissions between October 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Indiana County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Lawrence County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 8 of 32 samples tested (25.0%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 14 of 34 samples tested (41.2%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 131.1 mg/L, approximately 7.7 gpg, among 36 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 83.6 mg/L among 8 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 2 of 74 samples tested (2.7%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 20 of 34 samples tested (58.8%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 30 of 92 samples tested (32.6%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 7 of 92 samples tested (7.6%).
- Arsenic — 0 of 33 samples tested (0.0%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 96 Lawrence County drinking-water submissions between December 2007 and May 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Lawrence County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Mercer County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 27 of 97 samples tested (27.8%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 29 of 106 samples tested (27.4%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 79 mg/L, approximately 4.6 gpg, among 97 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
Health-related indicators
- Arsenic — 6 of 98 samples tested (6.1%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 299 Mercer County drinking-water submissions between September 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Mercer County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Somerset County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 13 of 37 samples tested (35.1%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 20 of 40 samples tested (50.0%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 90.8 mg/L, approximately 5.3 gpg, among 33 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- pH outside the recommended range — 19 of 91 samples tested (20.9%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 14 of 31 samples tested (45.2%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 49 of 105 samples tested (46.7%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 10 of 105 samples tested (9.5%).
- Arsenic — 3 of 29 samples tested (10.3%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 107 Somerset County drinking-water submissions between August 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Somerset County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Washington County, PA Drinking-Water Test Summary
Aesthetic and operational conditions
- Iron — 16 of 118 samples tested (13.6%) were above EPA’s 0.3 mg/L secondary standard for staining, color and taste.
- Manganese — 21 of 137 samples tested (15.3%) were above EPA’s 0.05 mg/L secondary standard.
- Median hardness — 235.4 mg/L, approximately 13.8 gpg, among 123 samples tested. No EPA drinking-water standard applies to hardness.
- Median sulfate — 31.8 mg/L among 59 samples tested.
- pH outside the recommended range — 19 of 361 samples tested (5.3%).
- Corrosivity index outside the recommended range — 80 of 114 samples tested (70.2%).
Health-related indicators
- Total coliform — detected in 284 of 418 samples tested (67.9%). An indicator of possible sanitary contamination, evaluated separately from aesthetic conditions such as iron and manganese.
- E. coli — detected in 120 of 418 samples tested (28.7%).
- Arsenic — 1 of 121 samples tested (0.8%) were above EPA’s 10 ppb MCL.
About the data: Penn State AASL analyzed 443 Washington County drinking-water submissions between October 2007 and June 2025. Individual parameters were tested on different numbers of samples. These voluntary submissions are not a representative survey of all homes, wells or public water systems in Washington County. These results cannot determine what is present at an individual property. Test the water at the property before treatment is selected.
Source: Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory — Drinking Water Test Summaries by County.
Water Treatment Built for Southwestern PA Water
Water conditions can change dramatically across Southwestern Pennsylvania. One home may deal with iron staining and sulfur odor, while another may struggle with hard water, low pH, bacteria concerns, or poor-tasting municipal water.
That is why Cesare’s does not use one-size-fits-all systems. We test first, then build a solution around your exact water chemistry.
Not sure what is causing your water problem? Schedule a water test, and we will help you find out.
Ready for Better Water at Home?
Get a professional water analysis and a custom treatment plan—clear answers, no pressure.
What You’ll Get
- In-home water evaluation
- Clear explanation of results
- Custom system recommendations
- Straightforward pricing (after testing)
- Education-first consultation—no pressure