U.S. Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026

Community water utilities serving populations with the highest percent of non-white residents and households below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, using Census ACS 2019-2023 demographic data aggregated via EPA Community Water System Service Area Boundaries v3.

100 Systems
ranked
22,183 PWSIDs
with demographic data
2019-23 Census ACS
vintage
EPA v3 CWS service area
boundaries (March 2026)
How to read this list Systems serving the highest combined percent of non-white residents and households below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level. Within-size-class percentiles are used to neutralize the confound of system size. A cap of five systems per state is applied to produce a nationally-representative list. See the methodology page for calculation details.

These 100 U.S. 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 are used to avoid conflating system size with disparity, and a maximum of 5 systems per state is applied to produce a nationally-representative list.

RankWater SystemStatePop servedEquity score% PoC served% Below 200% FPLUnresolved violations
1 City of Mendota California 8,464 99.8 97% 71%
2 North Alamo WSC Texas 192,637 99.8 96% 58% 2
3 City of Roma Texas 18,790 99.8 98% 69% 1
4 Union Water Supply Corporation Texas 6,805 99.6 98% 61% 1
5 City of Donna Texas 16,044 99.5 96% 72%
6 Arvin Community Services District California 9,637 99.4 96% 64% 1
7 Lamont Public Utility District California 10,080 99.4 95% 71%
8 Orosi Public Utility District California 7,316 99.4 96% 71%
9 Earlimart PUD California 7,202 99.4 98% 58% 1
10 Riverdale Illinois 4,934 99.4 98% 59%
11 City of Mercedes Texas 12,207 99.4 95% 66%
12 City of Camden New Jersey 35,577 99.1 95% 61% 1
13 Camino Real Regional Utility Authority New Mexico 9,903 99.1 95% 61% 12
14 City of Douglas Arizona 14,123 98.8 92% 62%
15 Anthony W&Sd New Mexico 6,392 98.8 95% 57% 1
16 City of Nogales Arizona 17,336 98.6 95% 55% 1
17 City of Opa Locka Florida 11,755 98.6 97% 53%
18 Lake Section Water Company New Mexico 9,570 98.6 93% 59% 1
19 City of San Luis Arizona 23,211 98.5 97% 53%
20 East Chicago Water Works Indiana 19,040 98.4 93% 56%
21 Newark Water Department New Jersey 256,503 98.4 91% 50%
22 Highland Park Michigan 8,713 98.3 92% 58%
23 City of Belzoni Mississippi 3,425 97.8 84% 64%
24 Atlantic City Mua New Jersey 32,881 97.7 84% 62%
25 City of Detroit Michigan 527,645 97.6 87% 57%
26 Union Springs Util Board Alabama 4,081 97.4 82% 63%
27 Clarksdale Public Utilities Mississippi 12,653 97.2 82% 59% 2
28 Clarkdale Water Assn # 1 Mississippi 12,653 97.2 82% 59%
29 Toppenish Water Department Washington 8,839 97.2 92% 51%
30 Pbcwud - Lake Region WTP - System 11 Florida 27,557 97.1 88% 53%
31 City of Sunnyside Washington 14,488 97 85% 54%
32 Nellis Air Force Base Nevada 4,925 96.9 83% 54% 1
33 City of Hialeah Florida 183,561 96.8 97% 43%
34 Immokalee Water Florida 18,505 96.6 84% 52%
35 Gallup Water System New Mexico 19,516 96.6 85% 52%
36 Tuskegee, Utilities Board of the City of Alabama 7,915 96.5 88% 50%
37 Winslow City of Arizona 7,458 96.4 83% 51%
38 Harvey Illinois 17,401 96.4 95% 47%
39 Inkster Michigan 27,820 96.4 80% 54%
40 Wapato Waterworks Washington 6,198 96.2 88% 49%
41 City of Somerton Arizona 14,109 96.1 95% 47%
42 Grambling Water System Louisiana 3,903 96 73% 69% 9
43 City of Greenville Mississippi 20,649 96 79% 54%
44 City of Yazoo City Mississippi 10,880 96 74% 61%
45 Homestead, City of Florida 74,366 95.9 91% 48%
46 Robeson County Water System North Carolina 74,634 95.9 78% 54%
47 City of Grandview Washington 9,126 95.7 82% 50%
48 Mansfield Water System Louisiana 4,045 95.6 72% 60% 11
49 Tallulah Water System Louisiana 5,558 95.6 71% 62% 9
50 Buena Vista Township Michigan 5,523 95.4 71% 61%
51 New Brunswick W Dept New Jersey 41,993 95.2 74% 54%
52 West Memphis Waterworks Arkansas 21,389 95 71% 57%
53 West Helena Water Works Arkansas 5,522 94.8 71% 55%
54 Robbins Illinois 3,946 94.7 86% 47%
55 Forrest City Waterworks Arkansas 12,710 94.6 67% 59%
56 Lower Rio Grande Pwwa South Valley New Mexico 13,331 94.6 82% 47%
57 Reading Area Water Authority Pennsylvania 92,870 94.6 74% 51%
58 Calumet City Illinois 18,296 94.5 92% 45% 1
59 Parish Utilities of Ascension Louisiana 3,992 94.4 73% 51% 1
60 Lawrence Water Works Massachusetts 87,032 94.4 87% 46%
61 Pontiac Michigan 61,455 94.4 76% 49%
62 Orange Water Department New Jersey 34,056 94.4 95% 44%
63 Henderson-Kerr Lake Reg Wtr North Carolina 16,937 94.2 70% 52%
64 City of Selma, the Ww and Sb of the Alabama 18,271 94.1 73% 50%
65 Duquesne Water Dept Pennsylvania 4,807 93.8 63% 64%
66 City of Lumberton North Carolina 17,871 93.7 67% 53%
67 North Chicago Illinois 24,913 93.5 76% 47%
68 Pahoa Hawaii 3,328 93.4 63% 57%
69 Dillon City of (Sc1710001) South Carolina 6,366 93.2 63% 54%
70 Wadesboro, Town of North Carolina 3,645 93.1 62% 57%
71 Othello Water Department Washington 7,814 93.1 75% 47%
72 Laurinburg, City of North Carolina 13,295 93 63% 54%
73 Bennettsville City of (Sc3410001) South Carolina 7,556 93 68% 49%
74 Brownsville Water Department Tennessee 10,753 93 65% 52%
75 Gsw&Sa-Marion City of (Sc3310001) South Carolina 4,624 92.9 60% 63%
76 City of Rocky Ford Colorado 3,501 92.6 60% 61%
77 City of Opelousas Water System Louisiana 14,662 92.5 63% 51% 3
78 Orangeburg Dpu (Sc3810001) South Carolina 40,416 92.5 72% 46%
79 Albany Georgia 71,952 92.4 71% 47%
80 Chelsea Water Department (Mwra) Massachusetts 39,118 92.2 80% 44%
81 City of Emporia Virginia 5,290 92.2 73% 46% 4
82 Clayton County Water Authority Georgia 311,052 91.9 87% 40%
83 Mullins City of (Sc3310002) South Carolina 3,763 91.6 58% 55%
84 Eufaula Water Works Alabama 5,891 91.4 59% 52%
85 Liberty Utilities Arkansas 38,352 91.4 67% 46%
86 Aqua Ohio - Blacklick Ohio 4,901 91.1 74% 44%
87 Americus Georgia 11,302 90.9 62% 48%
88 Charleston Public Water System Missouri 3,524 90.9 55% 56%
89 Capital Region Water Pennsylvania 47,976 90.8 67% 45%
90 Ashburn Georgia 3,497 90.6 55% 54%
91 Jones County Georgia 7,281 90.5 62% 47%
92 Osceola Waterworks Arkansas 4,626 90.4 64% 45%
93 Bessemer Water Service Alabama 43,436 90.2 69% 44%
94 Town of Princess Anne Maryland 4,687 90 60% 47%
95 Hca Hazleton Division Pennsylvania 41,450 89.8 55% 50%
96 Guymon Oklahoma 11,398 89.6 69% 43% 1
97 Memphis Light, Gas, & Water Tennessee 663,715 89.3 74% 43%
98 City of Lexington Nebraska 9,815 88.8 77% 40%
99 City of Alamosa Colorado 9,152 88.6 56% 47%
100 Hammond Water Works Department Indiana 56,731 88.4 68% 42%

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 is an independent public-data tool. We are a referral service and do not provide water testing, remediation, or utility services. Rankings reflect publicly-available federal data and are provided for informational purposes. For issues with your specific water system, contact your local water utility or state drinking water program.

Get safety alerts

Free updates when EPA data changes for this area. No spam.

Unsubscribe anytime. Privacy Policy.

Share This Page

X Facebook
Check your water filter options Free tool — no phone call required.