Sistemas de agua de New York que atienden a las poblaciones más desfavorecidas — 2026
Empresas de agua comunitarias de New York 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).
clasificados
con datos demográficos
Censo ACS
de CWS (marzo de 2026)
These 50 New York 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.
| Rank | Water System | State | Pop served | Equity score | % PoC served | % Below 200% FPL | Unresolved violations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fallsburg Who-Ls-Sf | New York | 3,902 | 86.2 | 46% | 51% | — |
| 2 | Monticello Village | New York | 5,944 | 82 | 57% | 39% | — |
| 3 | Rochester City | New York | 207,181 | 80.8 | 60% | 46% | 1 |
| 4 | Hempstead (V) | New York | 57,583 | 80.2 | 93% | 32% | — |
| 5 | Albany City | New York | 81,155 | 77.8 | 50% | 37% | — |
| 6 | Dunkirk City | New York | 12,596 | 77.6 | 37% | 43% | 1 |
| 7 | Buffalo Water Authority | New York | 269,778 | 77.6 | 56% | 47% | — |
| 8 | Salamanca City | New York | 3,983 | 76.6 | 31% | 49% | — |
| 9 | Yonkers City | New York | 187,563 | 75.6 | 70% | 34% | — |
| 10 | New York City System | New York | 7,952,217 | 75.2 | 69% | 34% | — |
| 11 | Syracuse City | New York | 136,521 | 74.1 | 50% | 53% | — |
| 12 | Niagara Falls Water Board | New York | 45,818 | 73.9 | 33% | 42% | — |
| 13 | Newburgh City | New York | 25,690 | 73.5 | 64% | 31% | — |
| 14 | Fort Drum | New York | 11,799 | 73.2 | 44% | 36% | — |
| 15 | Mount Vernon Water Department | New York | 52,758 | 73.2 | 86% | 28% | — |
| 16 | Newburgh Consolidated Water District | New York | 19,400 | 72.6 | 63% | 30% | — |
| 17 | Mvwa - Mohawk Valley Water Authority | New York | 79,753 | 71.8 | 34% | 39% | — |
| 18 | Schenectady City Water Works | New York | 66,007 | 71.1 | 43% | 35% | — |
| 19 | Poughkeepsie City | New York | 30,331 | 69 | 52% | 30% | — |
| 20 | Monroe Village | New York | 9,494 | 68.6 | 22% | 49% | — |
| 21 | Binghamton, City of | New York | 39,163 | 67.7 | 26% | 42% | — |
| 22 | Ellenville (Village) Water Dis | New York | 4,093 | 66.4 | 37% | 33% | — |
| 23 | Kiryas Joel | New York | 25,438 | 66.3 | 19% | 51% | — |
| 24 | Middletown City | New York | 31,216 | 66 | 61% | 26% | — |
| 25 | Johnson City Water Works | New York | 7,461 | 65.4 | 25% | 40% | — |
| 26 | Elmira Water Board | New York | 36,024 | 65.2 | 22% | 43% | — |
| 27 | Amsterdam (C) | New York | 17,337 | 64.2 | 32% | 35% | 1 |
| 28 | Port Jervis City | New York | 7,656 | 63.8 | 33% | 33% | — |
| 29 | Cohoes City | New York | 7,421 | 62.8 | 30% | 35% | 1 |
| 30 | Troy City Public Water System | New York | 36,657 | 62.6 | 30% | 34% | — |
| 31 | Kingston (City) Water District | New York | 23,491 | 60.6 | 32% | 32% | — |
| 32 | Jamestown Bpu | New York | 34,895 | 60 | 17% | 43% | — |
| 33 | Brunswick Consolidated Water District | New York | 6,858 | 60 | 30% | 33% | — |
| 34 | Freeport (V) | New York | 44,144 | 59.4 | 81% | 18% | — |
| 35 | Peekskill City | New York | 25,178 | 59.2 | 68% | 20% | — |
| 36 | Newark Village | New York | 9,499 | 59.1 | 20% | 38% | — |
| 37 | Hudson City | New York | 5,779 | 59 | 26% | 34% | — |
| 38 | Glen Cove City | New York | 28,049 | 59 | 43% | 26% | — |
| 39 | Wallkill Consolidated Water District | New York | 16,679 | 59 | 59% | 22% | 5 |
| 40 | Riverhead Water District | New York | 28,674 | 59 | 40% | 27% | — |
| 41 | Cayuga Heights Village | New York | 3,475 | 58.4 | 32% | 31% | — |
| 42 | Ithaca Town Water District | New York | 19,405 | 58.4 | 32% | 31% | — |
| 43 | Ithaca City | New York | 24,303 | 58.2 | 31% | 31% | 1 |
| 44 | White Plains City | New York | 45,435 | 57.4 | 53% | 22% | — |
| 45 | Gloversville (C) Water Works | New York | 14,991 | 57.2 | 14% | 44% | 1 |
| 46 | Greenport Water District | New York | 3,930 | 57 | 31% | 30% | — |
| 47 | New Paltz (Village) Water District | New York | 4,760 | 56.5 | 27% | 32% | — |
| 48 | Poughkeepsie Townwide Water District | New York | 33,308 | 56.3 | 42% | 24% | — |
| 49 | Walden Village | New York | 6,616 | 55.6 | 39% | 25% | — |
| 50 | Watervliet City | New York | 8,964 | 55.5 | 28% | 30% | — |
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.