North Carolina Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
North Carolina 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 50 North Carolina 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 | Robeson County Water System | North Carolina | 74,634 | 95.9 | 78% | 54% | — |
| 2 | Henderson-Kerr Lake Reg Wtr | North Carolina | 16,937 | 94.2 | 70% | 52% | — |
| 3 | City of Lumberton | North Carolina | 17,871 | 93.7 | 67% | 53% | — |
| 4 | Wadesboro, Town of | North Carolina | 3,645 | 93.1 | 62% | 57% | — |
| 5 | Laurinburg, City of | North Carolina | 13,295 | 93 | 63% | 54% | — |
| 6 | Halifax Company--Halifax | North Carolina | 25,517 | 91.8 | 65% | 48% | — |
| 7 | Warren County Water System | North Carolina | 9,273 | 91 | 64% | 47% | — |
| 8 | City of Clinton | North Carolina | 7,461 | 90.7 | 60% | 49% | — |
| 9 | Scotland Company Water-South | North Carolina | 5,571 | 90.6 | 60% | 48% | — |
| 10 | Hertford County Rural Water | North Carolina | 6,960 | 90.2 | 67% | 44% | — |
| 11 | City of Kinston | North Carolina | 22,178 | 89.7 | 59% | 47% | — |
| 12 | Scotland Company Water - North | North Carolina | 8,045 | 89.4 | 53% | 51% | — |
| 13 | Siler City, Town of | North Carolina | 9,634 | 89.2 | 54% | 50% | — |
| 14 | City of Wilson | North Carolina | 43,765 | 88.8 | 59% | 45% | — |
| 15 | Washington County Water System | North Carolina | 5,709 | 88.6 | 54% | 49% | — |
| 16 | Greene Company Regional Water Syst | North Carolina | 8,893 | 88.4 | 54% | 47% | — |
| 17 | Old North Utilities Services/Ft Bragg | North Carolina | 16,733 | 88.4 | 50% | 53% | — |
| 18 | Stokes Regional Water Corporation | North Carolina | 5,143 | 88.2 | 59% | 44% | 1 |
| 19 | Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District | North Carolina | 16,713 | 87.8 | 54% | 47% | — |
| 20 | Bertie County Regional Water | North Carolina | 9,692 | 87.6 | 58% | 44% | — |
| 21 | Farmville, Town of | North Carolina | 6,485 | 87.2 | 51% | 48% | — |
| 22 | Cliffdale West | North Carolina | 17,573 | 87 | 74% | 39% | 1 |
| 23 | Southern Wayne Sanitary District | North Carolina | 3,308 | 86.7 | 58% | 43% | — |
| 24 | Spring Lake, Town of | North Carolina | 9,035 | 86 | 58% | 42% | — |
| 25 | Duplin County Water System | North Carolina | 21,980 | 86 | 52% | 45% | — |
| 26 | Usmc Lejeune--Holcomb Blvd | North Carolina | 10,970 | 86 | 47% | 48% | — |
| 27 | Brookwood Commission Wtr System | North Carolina | 20,974 | 85.6 | 67% | 39% | — |
| 28 | Anson County Water System | North Carolina | 8,227 | 85.4 | 49% | 46% | — |
| 29 | North Lenoir Water Corporation | North Carolina | 13,522 | 85.4 | 50% | 45% | — |
| 30 | Hamlet Water System | North Carolina | 6,180 | 84.9 | 43% | 51% | 5 |
| 31 | Hoke Company Regional Water System | North Carolina | 44,994 | 84.8 | 64% | 39% | — |
| 32 | Richmond County Water System | North Carolina | 11,003 | 84.8 | 45% | 48% | — |
| 33 | Edgecombe Water & Sewer District | North Carolina | 20,826 | 84.8 | 58% | 40% | 7 |
| 34 | City of Rocky Mount | North Carolina | 49,631 | 84.4 | 63% | 39% | — |
| 35 | Tarboro, Town of | North Carolina | 10,273 | 84.1 | 63% | 39% | — |
| 36 | City of Roxboro | North Carolina | 8,343 | 84 | 47% | 45% | — |
| 37 | City of Rockingham | North Carolina | 8,121 | 83.9 | 44% | 47% | 1 |
| 38 | Greenville Utilities Commission | North Carolina | 72,535 | 83.7 | 51% | 42% | — |
| 39 | Mount Olive, Town of | North Carolina | 3,585 | 82.1 | 44% | 44% | — |
| 40 | City of Raeford | North Carolina | 3,648 | 81.2 | 62% | 36% | — |
| 41 | City of Whiteville | North Carolina | 3,843 | 81.2 | 41% | 45% | — |
| 42 | Bell Arthur Water Corporation | North Carolina | 13,465 | 81 | 53% | 39% | — |
| 43 | Deep Run Water Corporation | North Carolina | 13,835 | 80 | 43% | 42% | — |
| 44 | City of Asheboro | North Carolina | 20,496 | 79.9 | 39% | 45% | 1 |
| 45 | Wayne Water Districts | North Carolina | 29,025 | 79.6 | 47% | 40% | — |
| 46 | Smithfield, Town of | North Carolina | 10,055 | 79.5 | 43% | 42% | — |
| 47 | City of High Point | North Carolina | 97,733 | 79.3 | 53% | 37% | — |
| 48 | City of Washington | North Carolina | 9,928 | 79.3 | 41% | 42% | — |
| 49 | Northampton--Milwaukee | North Carolina | 4,155 | 79.3 | 55% | 37% | — |
| 50 | Martin Company Water & Sewer District I | North Carolina | 10,647 | 79 | 47% | 39% | — |
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.