Clasificaciones 2026

Peor infraestructura: Utah — Clasificaciones 2026

Última actualización: 4 de junio de 2026

340 códigos postales clasificados por Pipe Failure Risk N.º 1: código postal 84520 (East Carbon, UT) — 59%

Out of 340 ZIP codes with infrastructure data in Utah, these areas face the highest estimated risk of water pipe failure based on infrastructure age, funding gaps, and violation history.

Statistic Value
ZIP codes ranked 340
Highest risk 59%
Median risk 31%
Average risk 33%
State Utah

Top 100 Highest Risk ZIP Codes

Rank ZIP Code City State Pipe Failure Risk Risk Level Safety Score
1 84520 East Carbon UT 59% High 65/100
2 84628 Eureka UT 55% High 54/100
3 84008 Bonanza UT 54% High 40/100
4 84529 Kenilworth UT 54% High 40/100
5 84086 Woodruff UT 53% High 81/100
6 84105 Salt Lake City UT 53% High 78/100
7 84715 Bicknell UT 52% High 59/100
8 84766 Sevier UT 51% High 40/100
9 84602 Provo UT 50% High 78/100
10 84635 Hinckley UT 50% High 58/100
11 84744 Koosharem UT 50% High 50/100
12 84329 Park Valley UT 49% High 53/100
13 84338 Trenton UT 49% High 82/100
14 84656 Scipio UT 49% High 73/100
15 84657 Sigurd UT 49% High 47/100
16 84334 Riverside UT 48% High 53/100
17 84103 Salt Lake City UT 47% High 83/100
18 84305 Clarkston UT 47% High 81/100
19 84336 Snowville UT 47% High 83/100
20 84403 Ogden UT 47% High 76/100
21 84535 Monticello UT 47% High 82/100
22 84539 Sunnyside UT 47% High 40/100
23 84624 Delta UT 47% High 67/100
24 84006 Bingham Canyon UT 46% High 53/100
25 84064 Randolph UT 46% High 82/100
26 84102 Salt Lake City UT 46% High 83/100
27 84108 Salt Lake City UT 46% High 78/100
28 84317 Huntsville UT 46% High 43/100
29 84104 Salt Lake City UT 45% High 78/100
30 84112 Salt Lake City UT 45% High 83/100
31 84308 Cornish UT 45% High 81/100
32 84331 Portage UT 45% High 81/100
33 84724 Elsinore UT 45% High 66/100
34 84010 Bountiful UT 44% High 72/100
35 84072 Tabiona UT 44% High 61/100
36 84636 Holden UT 44% High 81/100
37 84061 Peoa UT 43% High 80/100
38 84093 Sandy UT 43% High 82/100
39 84106 Salt Lake City UT 43% High 78/100
40 84109 Salt Lake City UT 43% High 83/100
41 84644 Meadow UT 43% High 70/100
42 84718 Cannonville UT 43% High 78/100
43 84401 Ogden UT 42% High 76/100
44 84526 Helper UT 42% High 70/100
45 84631 Fillmore UT 42% High 82/100
46 84633 Goshen UT 42% High 70/100
47 84649 Oak City UT 42% High 83/100
48 84772 Summit UT 42% High 77/100
49 84083 Wendover UT 41% High 77/100
50 84309 Deweyville UT 41% High 70/100
51 84606 Provo UT 41% High 79/100
52 84646 Moroni UT 41% High 40/100
53 84662 Spring City UT 41% High 69/100
54 84739 Joseph UT 41% High 68/100
55 84117 Salt Lake City UT 40% Moderate 78/100
56 84124 Salt Lake City UT 40% Moderate 83/100
57 84302 Brigham City UT 40% Moderate 81/100
58 84528 Huntington UT 40% Moderate 82/100
59 84623 Chester UT 40% Moderate 40/100
60 84634 Gunnison UT 40% Moderate 83/100
61 84637 Kanosh UT 40% Moderate 82/100
62 84654 Salina UT 40% Moderate 62/100
63 84712 Antimony UT 40% Moderate 82/100
64 84714 Beryl UT 40% Moderate 67/100
65 84731 Greenville UT 40% Moderate 53/100
66 84747 Loa UT 40% Moderate 71/100
67 84094 Sandy UT 39% Moderate 82/100
68 84097 Orem UT 39% Moderate 81/100
69 84115 Salt Lake City UT 39% Moderate 83/100
70 84314 Honeyville UT 39% Moderate 74/100
71 84316 Howell UT 39% Moderate 81/100
72 84328 Paradise UT 39% Moderate 63/100
73 84521 Elmo UT 39% Moderate 53/100
74 84530 La Sal UT 39% Moderate 70/100
75 84604 Provo UT 39% Moderate 74/100
76 84640 Lynndyl UT 39% Moderate 79/100
77 84642 Manti UT 39% Moderate 68/100
78 84726 Escalante UT 39% Moderate 81/100
79 84750 Marysvale UT 39% Moderate 65/100
80 84751 Milford UT 39% Moderate 83/100
81 84755 Mount Carmel UT 39% Moderate 53/100
82 84763 Rockville UT 39% Moderate 79/100
83 84764 Bryce UT 39% Moderate 53/100
84 84776 Tropic UT 39% Moderate 82/100
85 84782 Veyo UT 39% Moderate 81/100
86 84021 Duchesne UT 38% Moderate 68/100
87 84057 Orem UT 38% Moderate 81/100
88 84085 Whiterocks UT 38% Moderate 40/100
89 84111 Salt Lake City UT 38% Moderate 78/100
90 84311 Fielding UT 38% Moderate 78/100
91 84312 Garland UT 38% Moderate 75/100
92 84404 Ogden UT 38% Moderate 76/100
93 84532 Moab UT 38% Moderate 63/100
94 84542 Wellington UT 38% Moderate 70/100
95 84630 Fayette UT 38% Moderate 60/100
96 84652 Redmond UT 38% Moderate 64/100
97 84713 Beaver UT 38% Moderate 63/100
98 84761 Parowan UT 38% Moderate 65/100
99 84038 Laketown UT 37% Moderate 82/100
100 84046 Manila UT 37% Moderate 80/100

Methodology

Infrastructure risk rankings combine four data sources, each weighted equally (25%): (1) EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (DWINS 2023) — state-level 20-year funding gap per capita for pipe replacement, treatment, and storage; (2) Census ACS housing vintage — percentage of homes built before 1980, when lead solder and galvanized pipes were common; (3) EPA SDWIS violation and enforcement data — system-level compliance history; (4) Lead and Copper Rule indicators — service line material inventories and 90th percentile lead testing results. The combined score is normalized to a 0-100% probability scale.

Data sources: EPA DWINS 2023, Census ACS, EPA SDWIS, Lead and Copper Rule data. Last updated: 2026-06-04.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does pipe failure probability mean?

Pipe failure probability estimates the likelihood of water main breaks, lead contamination from corroded pipes, or service disruptions based on infrastructure age, state funding gaps, violation history, and lead indicators. It is not a prediction of imminent failure, but a risk assessment based on known factors.

How is infrastructure risk calculated?

The risk score combines four equally weighted factors: state-level infrastructure funding gap per capita (from EPA DWINS 2023), housing vintage (Census ACS pre-1980 housing percentage), water system violation and enforcement history (EPA SDWIS), and lead exposure indicators (service line probability and testing results).

What can homeowners do about aging infrastructure?

Test your tap water annually, especially for lead. Check if your home has a lead service line through your water utility. Consider a whole-house water filter (NSF/ANSI 53 certified). Review your water system Consumer Confidence Report for violation history.

Does high risk mean my water is unsafe right now?

Not necessarily. Infrastructure risk indicates long-term vulnerability, not current contamination. However, areas with aging pipes and high violation counts have a statistically higher chance of water quality issues. Regular testing is the best way to verify your water safety.

Explore More Rankings

Cómo se calcula esta clasificación, fuentes de datos y limitaciones: Metodología de clasificaciones →


Clasificaciones relacionadas

Seguridad del agua 2026 Infracciones de la EPA y puntuaciones de calidad del agua Riesgo de plomo 2026 Infraestructura de tuberías de plomo y excedencias de la EPA Infraestructura 2026 Tuberías envejecidas, antigüedad del sistema y costos de remediación
Aviso: Las clasificaciones se basan en datos de la EPA, la FEMA y agencias federales. Reflejan patrones históricos e indicadores de riesgo, no necesariamente las condiciones actuales. Para obtener la información más actual, los residentes pueden comunicarse con la compañía local de agua o solicitar un Informe de Confianza del Consumidor (CCR).

Reciba alertas de seguridad para Utah

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.