Data & Methodology — Hardee County

Full contaminant data, sample history, and sourcing for Hardee County. For readers who want to go beyond the summary.

Contaminant Data — All Analytes

1010 well testing events on record, covering 22 analytes. Data spans 1923 to 2025.

Contaminant Samples Years Detection Rate Distribution LowModHigh vs. Limit vs. FL Avg
Iron 505 1923–2025 99%
3% of limit ↓ 99% below
Sulfate 717 1923–2025 100%
10% of limit ↓ 63% below
Lead 46 1976–2024 91%
1% of limit ↓ 58% below
Manganese 468 1986–2025 99%
1% of limit ↓ 96% below
Nitrate 45 1962–1994 82%
0% of limit ↓ 100% below
PFHxS municipal 2 2025 0%
PFOS municipal 2 2025 0%
Uranium 3 1979–1988 33%
0% of limit ↓ 97% below
Arsenic 47 1972–2024 94%
3% of limit ↓ 78% below
Chloride 902 1923–2025 100%
5% of limit ↓ 90% below
PFNA municipal 2 2025 0%
PFOA municipal 2 2025 0%
Fluoride 655 1951–2025 98%
17% of limit ↑ 139% above
HFPO-DA (GenX) municipal 2 2025 0%
Nitrite 34 1971–1994 79%
0% of limit ↓ 100% below
pH 690 1951–2025 100%
~ typical
Sodium 625 1962–2025 100%
↓ 85% below
E. coli 35 2021–2024 100%
~ typical
Fecal Coliform 46 2013–2021 100%
~ typical
PFBS municipal 2 2025 0%
Hardness 101 1923–1996 100%
~ typical
Total Coliform 83 2013–2024 100%
~ typical

Distribution shows the share of samples in each concentration band relative to the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): Low = below half the MCL, Moderate = between half and the MCL, High = above the MCL. Analytes without an MCL (e.g. sodium, pH) show — in the limit columns. State average is based on county median values across FL.

Data Coverage & Gaps

Well-sampled analytes (15+ samples)

  • Iron 505 samples
  • Sulfate 717 samples
  • Lead 46 samples
  • Manganese 468 samples
  • Nitrate 45 samples
  • Arsenic 47 samples
  • Chloride 902 samples
  • Fluoride 655 samples
  • Nitrite 34 samples
  • pH 690 samples
  • Sodium 625 samples
  • E. coli 35 samples
  • Fecal Coliform 46 samples
  • Hardness 101 samples
  • Total Coliform 83 samples

Limited data (<15 samples) — interpret with caution

  • Uranium 3 samples

No private-well PFAS data for Hardee County

We have no private well sampling data for PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and related chemicals) in Hardee County. PFAS testing for private wells requires a dedicated lab panel (~$300–$500). If you are near a military base, airport, or industrial site, consider testing proactively. Learn more about PFAS →

Public vs. Private Water in Hardee County

34 Active public water systems
17,518 Residents on public water

Public water systems in Hardee County are regulated by the EPA and must test and report contaminant levels. Private well owners are responsible for their own testing — there is no routine monitoring of private wells by any government agency.

CDC Health Outcome Correlations

Where contaminants detected in Hardee County have established associations with specific health outcomes, we cross-reference CDC PLACES county-level prevalence data. This is a contextual signal, not a causal claim.

Contaminant Associated Condition Hardee County Prevalence FL Average Source Year
Lead Heart disease rate 7.9% 7.7% 2020

Source: CDC PLACES county-level estimates. Raw data: Download Hardee County CDC PLACES data →

Data Sources

This report aggregates data from the following public databases:

Methodology

Raw records are downloaded from the Water Quality Portal and normalized to µg/L (ppb). Records are deduplicated by sample ID and date, and certified outliers are excluded. Analyte names are mapped to EPA canonical forms. Detection rates, distribution bands, and MCL comparisons are computed from the normalized dataset.

Distribution bands use the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level as the threshold: concentrations below 50% of the MCL are classed as Low, between 50% and 100% as Moderate, and above 100% as High. For analytes without an MCL (sodium, hardness, pH), distribution is not computed.

State comparison uses the median of county median values across all counties in FL with at least one sample for that analyte.

Last updated: 2026-08-12

Full methodology →