New York Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026

Name: New York Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
Creator: ZipCheckup
Published: 2026-06-02
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

New York 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).

50 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 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 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.