New Hampshire Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
New Hampshire community water utilities serving populations with the highest combined percent of non-white residents and households below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (Census ACS 2019-2023, aggregated via EPA CWS Service Area Boundaries v3).
ranked
with demographic data
vintage
boundaries (March 2026)
These 28 New Hampshire 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 | Berlin Water Works | New Hampshire | 8,635 | 53.9 | 14% | 40% | — |
| 2 | Claremont Water Department | New Hampshire | 3,666 | 50.8 | 13% | 39% | — |
| 3 | Pennichuck Water Works | New Hampshire | 76,957 | 39.8 | 28% | 19% | — |
| 4 | Somersworth Water Works | New Hampshire | 7,882 | 37 | 17% | 25% | — |
| 5 | Plymouth Vlg Water and Sewer | New Hampshire | 3,491 | 34.2 | 13% | 26% | — |
| 6 | Lebanon Water Department | New Hampshire | 8,252 | 31.9 | 15% | 23% | 1 |
| 7 | Hanover Water Dept | New Hampshire | 4,436 | 30.6 | 29% | 11% | — |
| 8 | Unh/Durham Water Sys | New Hampshire | 10,455 | 29.8 | 13% | 23% | — |
| 9 | Concord Water Department | New Hampshire | 29,766 | 28.1 | 14% | 21% | — |
| 10 | Laconia Water Works | New Hampshire | 13,589 | 28 | 10% | 25% | — |
| 11 | Seabrook Water Department | New Hampshire | 3,877 | 28 | 10% | 25% | — |
| 12 | Manchester Water Works | New Hampshire | 105,127 | 26.6 | 27% | 26% | — |
| 13 | Salem Water Department | New Hampshire | 11,775 | 25.4 | 18% | 16% | — |
| 14 | Keene Water Department | New Hampshire | 19,374 | 23.1 | 8% | 23% | — |
| 15 | Rochester Water Department | New Hampshire | 16,771 | 22.5 | 8% | 23% | — |
| 16 | Dover Water Department | New Hampshire | 25,765 | 22.3 | 14% | 17% | — |
| 17 | Portsmouth Water Works | New Hampshire | 21,951 | 15.2 | 13% | 13% | — |
| 18 | Milford Water Utilities Department | New Hampshire | 9,239 | 14.6 | 12% | 13% | — |
| 19 | Franklin Water Works | New Hampshire | 4,852 | 13.9 | 6% | 19% | — |
| 20 | Merrimack Village District | New Hampshire | 14,711 | 13.5 | 14% | 8% | — |
| 21 | Newmarket Water Works | New Hampshire | 5,098 | 12.8 | 8% | 16% | — |
| 22 | Derry Water Department | New Hampshire | 15,957 | 12 | 9% | 14% | — |
| 23 | Hudson Water Department | New Hampshire | 13,675 | 10.8 | 12% | 10% | — |
| 24 | Exeter Water Department | New Hampshire | 8,412 | 9 | 9% | 12% | 1 |
| 25 | Aquarion Water/Nh | New Hampshire | 18,229 | 7.2 | 6% | 13% | — |
| 26 | Londonderry | New Hampshire | 3,687 | 4.4 | 8% | 7% | — |
| 27 | Rye Water District | New Hampshire | 3,420 | 1.9 | 2% | 10% | — |
| 28 | Litchfield | New Hampshire | 4,734 | 1 | 5% | 6% | — |
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.