South Carolina Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
South 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 South 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 | Dillon City of (Sc1710001) | South Carolina | 6,366 | 93.2 | 63% | 54% | — |
| 2 | Bennettsville City of (Sc3410001) | South Carolina | 7,556 | 93 | 68% | 49% | — |
| 3 | Gsw&Sa-Marion City of (Sc3310001) | South Carolina | 4,624 | 92.9 | 60% | 63% | — |
| 4 | Orangeburg Dpu (Sc3810001) | South Carolina | 40,416 | 92.5 | 72% | 46% | — |
| 5 | Mullins City of (Sc3310002) | South Carolina | 3,763 | 91.6 | 58% | 55% | — |
| 6 | Winnsboro Town of (2010001) | South Carolina | 4,965 | 91.4 | 62% | 49% | — |
| 7 | Darlington City of (Sc1610001) | South Carolina | 7,153 | 90 | 60% | 47% | — |
| 8 | Lake City City of (Sc2110007) | South Carolina | 5,989 | 89.8 | 61% | 46% | — |
| 9 | Bgwc Charleswood S/D (4050008) | South Carolina | 4,953 | 87.1 | 77% | 39% | — |
| 10 | Cheraw Town of (Sc1310001) | South Carolina | 3,633 | 87 | 52% | 46% | 5 |
| 11 | Newberry City of (3610001) | South Carolina | 7,896 | 86.8 | 55% | 44% | — |
| 12 | Homeland Park W/D (Sc0420001) | South Carolina | 6,739 | 86.3 | 45% | 54% | — |
| 13 | Barnwell Town of (Sc0610001) | South Carolina | 3,450 | 85.9 | 47% | 49% | — |
| 14 | Walterboro City of (1510004) | South Carolina | 9,101 | 85.4 | 46% | 48% | — |
| 15 | Gaston Rural Water District (Sc3220002) | South Carolina | 4,753 | 85.3 | 46% | 48% | — |
| 16 | Darlington County W&Sa (Sc1620001) | South Carolina | 32,364 | 83.8 | 48% | 44% | — |
| 17 | Sumter City of (Sc4310001) | South Carolina | 48,708 | 83.6 | 57% | 40% | — |
| 18 | Chester Metropolitan District (1220002) | South Carolina | 7,347 | 83.4 | 47% | 44% | — |
| 19 | Union City of (Sc4410001) | South Carolina | 9,194 | 81.3 | 37% | 49% | — |
| 20 | Clinton City of (Sc3010002) | South Carolina | 8,683 | 79.7 | 41% | 43% | — |
| 21 | Bucksport Water Company (Sc2620003) | South Carolina | 3,734 | 79.1 | 37% | 45% | 1 |
| 22 | Beech Island W/D (Sc0220004) | South Carolina | 3,836 | 77.4 | 41% | 40% | — |
| 23 | Florence City of (Sc2110001) | South Carolina | 86,008 | 76.3 | 50% | 36% | — |
| 24 | Georgetown City of (Sc2210001) | South Carolina | 8,180 | 76 | 48% | 36% | — |
| 25 | Greenwood Cpw (2410001) | South Carolina | 32,354 | 75.7 | 43% | 38% | — |
| 26 | Hartsville City of (Sc1610003) | South Carolina | 12,286 | 75.6 | 37% | 41% | — |
| 27 | Trolley Run Station Development(0220016) | South Carolina | 6,193 | 74.9 | 45% | 37% | — |
| 28 | Gaffney Bpw (1110001) | South Carolina | 14,079 | 74.9 | 34% | 42% | — |
| 29 | Cayce City of (3210003) | South Carolina | 15,897 | 73.4 | 40% | 38% | — |
| 30 | Myrtle Beach City of (Sc2610001) | South Carolina | 36,552 | 72 | 31% | 41% | — |
| 31 | Lancaster City of (Sc2910001) | South Carolina | 19,232 | 71.2 | 38% | 37% | — |
| 32 | Lancaster County W&Sd (Sc2920001) | South Carolina | 4,223 | 71.2 | 38% | 37% | — |
| 33 | Clemson City of (Sc3910004) | South Carolina | 22,849 | 69 | 23% | 47% | — |
| 34 | Electric City Utilities (Sc0410012) | South Carolina | 38,874 | 68.8 | 31% | 38% | — |
| 35 | Valley Psa (Sc0220012) | South Carolina | 5,773 | 68.6 | 29% | 40% | — |
| 36 | Newberry Company W&Sa (Sc3620002) | South Carolina | 5,691 | 68.6 | 38% | 35% | — |
| 37 | Dcws Ashley Phosphate (Sc1820008) | South Carolina | 5,144 | 68.5 | 54% | 29% | — |
| 38 | Columbia City of (Sc4010001) | South Carolina | 327,609 | 68.4 | 57% | 35% | — |
| 39 | West Columbia City of (3210004) | South Carolina | 14,990 | 66.6 | 33% | 35% | — |
| 40 | Central Town of (Sc3910005) | South Carolina | 3,826 | 66.1 | 21% | 45% | — |
| 41 | Camden City of (2810001) | South Carolina | 6,264 | 66 | 38% | 33% | — |
| 42 | West Anderson W/D (0420006) | South Carolina | 14,788 | 63.2 | 25% | 38% | — |
| 43 | Aiken City of (0210001) | South Carolina | 42,344 | 63.1 | 37% | 31% | 6 |
| 44 | Lcf Water District (Sc4220010) | South Carolina | 11,774 | 62.3 | 23% | 38% | — |
| 45 | Breezy Hill W/D (Sc0220006) | South Carolina | 17,185 | 62 | 36% | 31% | — |
| 46 | Conway City of (Sc2610008) | South Carolina | 39,327 | 61.9 | 29% | 35% | — |
| 47 | Jonesville Town of (Sc4410002) | South Carolina | 3,339 | 61.8 | 30% | 33% | — |
| 48 | Broadway W&S District (Sc0420008) | South Carolina | 5,003 | 61.4 | 28% | 35% | — |
| 49 | Bcwsa Sangaree W/D (0820002) | South Carolina | 74,342 | 60.6 | 40% | 28% | — |
| 50 | Seneca City of (Sc3710002) | South Carolina | 16,051 | 60.2 | 23% | 37% | — |
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.