Sistemas de agua de Minnesota que atienden a las poblaciones más desfavorecidas — 2026

Empresas de agua comunitarias de Minnesota que atienden a poblaciones con el porcentaje combinado más alto de residentes no blancos y hogares por debajo del 200% del nivel federal de pobreza (Censo ACS 2019-2023, agregado a través de los límites del área de servicio del sistema de agua comunitario v3 de la EPA).

50 Sistemas
clasificados
22,183 PWSID
con datos demográficos
2019-23 Versión del
Censo ACS
EPA v3 Límites del área de servicio
de CWS (marzo de 2026)
Cómo leer esta lista Sistemas que atienden al mayor porcentaje combinado de residentes no blancos y hogares por debajo del 200 % del nivel federal de pobreza. Se usan percentiles dentro de cada clase de tamaño para neutralizar el sesgo del tamaño del sistema. Se aplica un tope de cinco sistemas por estado para producir una lista representativa a nivel nacional. Véase la página de metodología para conocer los detalles del cálculo.

These 50 Minnesota water utilities serve populations with the highest combined percent of non-white residents and households below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level. Within-size-class percentile rankings neutralize the confound of system size; no geographic cap is applied at the state level because all utilities are within a single state.

RankWater SystemStatePop servedEquity score% PoC served% Below 200% FPLUnresolved violations
1 Worthington Minnesota 12,509 82.8 58% 39%
2 Waite Park Minnesota 6,299 75.2 46% 37%
3 Willmar Minnesota 18,639 69.6 36% 36%
4 Austin Utilities Minnesota 24,532 58.2 33% 30%
5 Faribault Minnesota 22,878 55.7 29% 30%
6 Mankato Minnesota 38,790 55.1 17% 38%
7 Marshall Minnesota 12,539 55 21% 35%
8 Burnsville Minnesota 43,835 53.2 37% 24%
9 Crookston Minnesota 7,027 52.4 21% 33%
10 Albert Lea Minnesota 16,924 51.6 21% 32%
11 Bemidji Minnesota 11,867 50.2 20% 32%
12 Saint Anthony Village Minnesota 4,428 49.1 34% 23%
13 Minneapolis Minnesota 400,143 46.8 41% 32%
14 Hopkins Minnesota 12,267 46 33% 21%
15 Moorhead Minnesota 31,298 45.2 18% 30%
16 Pipestone Minnesota 3,956 43.7 15% 31%
17 Virginia Minnesota 8,128 43.6 10% 35%
18 Cloquet Minnesota 8,386 42.4 17% 29%
19 Red Rock Rural Water System Minnesota 3,576 42.4 16% 29%
20 Shakopee Minnesota 35,412 42.1 36% 16%
21 Fairmont Minnesota 7,746 42 13% 32%
22 Chisholm Minnesota 4,634 42 3% 40%
23 Waseca Minnesota 8,416 41.8 16% 30%
24 Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water System Minnesota 10,584 41.4 17% 28%
25 Duluth Minnesota 75,601 40.8 13% 31%
26 Winona Minnesota 14,091 40.8 11% 33%
27 Glencoe Minnesota 5,097 40.4 17% 28%
28 Montevideo Minnesota 4,605 38.9 15% 28%
29 East Grand Forks Minnesota 4,157 38.2 18% 25%
30 Hibbing Minnesota 13,118 37.8 7% 34%
31 Red Wing Minnesota 11,075 37.2 14% 28%
32 Fergus Falls Minnesota 12,099 34.2 9% 30%
33 Redwood Falls Minnesota 4,582 33.4 10% 28%
34 Owatonna Minnesota 24,329 33.1 16% 23%
35 Inver Grove Heights Minnesota 21,108 31.9 25% 15% 18
36 Park Rapids Minnesota 3,596 31.8 9% 29%
37 Little Falls Minnesota 7,142 30.4 6% 30%
38 Dilworth Minnesota 4,451 30.3 14% 23%
39 Savage Minnesota 26,434 30 28% 12% 2
40 Thief River Falls Minnesota 7,830 29.9 12% 24% 1
41 Eden Prairie Minnesota 44,874 29.7 29% 10%
42 Grand Rapids Minnesota 7,213 29.2 10% 26%
43 International Falls Minnesota 5,812 29.2 10% 26%
44 Brainerd Minnesota 12,795 28.8 7% 29%
45 Detroit Lakes Minnesota 8,625 28 9% 25%
46 Northfield Minnesota 16,054 27.6 20% 15%
47 Anoka Minnesota 13,535 26.7 18% 16%
48 Luverne Minnesota 3,829 26.4 8% 26%
49 Cottage Grove Minnesota 30,244 26.1 24% 11%
50 Champlin Minnesota 14,138 25.9 22% 13%

How to read this ranking

Each row links to a full utility profile with violation history, lead testing results, and service-area ZIPs. The demographic context columns are from independent data sources (ACS, not EJScreen) and are provided for readers who want to examine equity patterns alongside the operational data.

See the full methodology for calculation details, data vintages, and known limitations.

Frequently asked questions

What does the "equity score" mean?

A 0-100 composite that combines two within-size-class percentile ranks: (1) percent of population served that is non-white (Census ACS B03002), and (2) percent below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (Census ACS C17002). Within-size-class comparison (small, medium, large) is used because small rural systems and large urban systems have structurally different demographic profiles; mixing them in a single ranking produces a methodologically weak list dominated by size rather than disparity.

Why is the list capped at 5 systems per state?

Without a cap, the list concentrates in states with large numbers of historically disadvantaged small-to-medium systems (Texas, California). A geographic diversity cap produces a more nationally-representative snapshot. Per-state rankings, if available, show the full within-state comparison without a cap.

Does this claim discrimination?

No. It reports a demographic fact: these water utilities serve populations that are more non-white and lower-income than the national median, after controlling for system size. Causation — why that pattern exists — is a separate research question requiring different data and methods.

ZipCheckup es una herramienta independiente de datos públicos. Somos un servicio de referencia, no un proveedor de pruebas de agua, remediación ni servicios públicos. Las clasificaciones reflejan datos federales de acceso público y se ofrecen con fines informativos. Para problemas con su sistema de agua específico, el proveedor local de agua o el programa estatal de agua potable son los puntos de contacto adecuados.

Reciba alertas de seguridad para Minnesota

Actualizaciones gratuitas cuando la EPA publique nuevos datos para esta zona. Sin spam.

Puede cancelar la suscripción en cualquier momento. Política de privacidad.

Compartir esta página

X Facebook
Ver opciones de filtros de agua Herramienta gratuita — sin llamada telefónica requerida.