Tennessee Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
Tennessee 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 Tennessee 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 | Brownsville Water Department | Tennessee | 10,753 | 93 | 65% | 52% | — |
| 2 | Memphis Light, Gas, & Water | Tennessee | 663,715 | 89.3 | 74% | 43% | — |
| 3 | Lauderdale Company Water System | Tennessee | 11,170 | 81.6 | 42% | 45% | — |
| 4 | Ripley Water System | Tennessee | 6,612 | 81.2 | 43% | 43% | — |
| 5 | Madison Suburban U.D. | Tennessee | 38,753 | 76.8 | 53% | 35% | — |
| 6 | Jackson Water System | Tennessee | 83,765 | 76.4 | 45% | 38% | — |
| 7 | Covington Water Department | Tennessee | 9,505 | 75.7 | 39% | 40% | — |
| 8 | Mason Water Department | Tennessee | 3,580 | 75.1 | 53% | 34% | — |
| 9 | Millington Water Department | Tennessee | 7,212 | 72.7 | 43% | 36% | — |
| 10 | Halls Water System | Tennessee | 4,795 | 72.4 | 29% | 44% | — |
| 11 | Shelbyville Water System | Tennessee | 22,340 | 72.4 | 33% | 40% | — |
| 12 | Shelbyville Flat Creek W.S. | Tennessee | 13,066 | 71.8 | 33% | 40% | — |
| 13 | Morristown Utilities Commission | Tennessee | 28,817 | 70.5 | 26% | 45% | — |
| 14 | Humboldt Utilities-Water Department | Tennessee | 8,850 | 69.9 | 34% | 37% | — |
| 15 | Gibson Company Mun Water District #4 | Tennessee | 10,554 | 69.2 | 26% | 43% | — |
| 16 | Witt Utility District | Tennessee | 4,870 | 68.6 | 22% | 48% | — |
| 17 | Union City Water Department | Tennessee | 13,131 | 68.6 | 28% | 40% | — |
| 18 | Pigeon Forge Water Department | Tennessee | 7,559 | 67.4 | 25% | 42% | — |
| 19 | County Wide Utility District | Tennessee | 6,865 | 67.3 | 28% | 39% | — |
| 20 | Somerville Water System | Tennessee | 3,989 | 66.4 | 36% | 34% | — |
| 21 | Gibson Company Muni Water District #1 | Tennessee | 4,674 | 65 | 24% | 40% | — |
| 22 | Martin Water Department | Tennessee | 12,566 | 64.6 | 23% | 40% | — |
| 23 | Dyersburg Water Department | Tennessee | 15,948 | 63.7 | 26% | 38% | — |
| 24 | First U.D. of Tipton County | Tennessee | 7,939 | 63 | 28% | 36% | — |
| 25 | Newbern Water Department | Tennessee | 4,202 | 61.2 | 20% | 41% | — |
| 26 | Sevierville Water System | Tennessee | 25,004 | 59.3 | 19% | 40% | — |
| 27 | Bedford County U.D. | Tennessee | 12,383 | 59 | 26% | 35% | 5 |
| 28 | Mcminnville Water Department | Tennessee | 12,224 | 58.8 | 16% | 42% | — |
| 29 | Paris Bd of Public Utilities | Tennessee | 11,574 | 58.8 | 16% | 42% | — |
| 30 | Russellville Whitesburg U.D. | Tennessee | 8,373 | 58.8 | 16% | 42% | — |
| 31 | Milan Water Department | Tennessee | 7,125 | 58.4 | 25% | 34% | — |
| 32 | Murfreesboro Water Department | Tennessee | 76,920 | 58.4 | 34% | 30% | 1 |
| 33 | Sweetwater Utility Board | Tennessee | 7,652 | 58.4 | 16% | 42% | — |
| 34 | Smyrna Water System | Tennessee | 36,837 | 58 | 40% | 26% | — |
| 35 | Tennessee American Water | Tennessee | 140,482 | 57.8 | 44% | 36% | — |
| 36 | Alpha-Talbott Utility District | Tennessee | 12,521 | 57 | 19% | 38% | — |
| 37 | Dekalb Utility District #1 | Tennessee | 8,911 | 56.6 | 13% | 44% | — |
| 38 | Savannah Utility Department | Tennessee | 12,342 | 56.6 | 11% | 50% | — |
| 39 | Dayton Water Department | Tennessee | 22,652 | 56.2 | 15% | 42% | 1 |
| 40 | Warren County Utility District | Tennessee | 13,937 | 55.7 | 15% | 41% | 1 |
| 41 | West Warren-Viola U.D. | Tennessee | 8,993 | 55.5 | 15% | 40% | — |
| 42 | Pikeville Water System | Tennessee | 3,749 | 55.3 | 13% | 43% | — |
| 43 | Pulaski Water System | Tennessee | 6,691 | 55.3 | 22% | 34% | — |
| 44 | Lexington Water Systems | Tennessee | 22,044 | 54.8 | 14% | 41% | — |
| 45 | Double Springs U.D. | Tennessee | 6,691 | 54.4 | 15% | 40% | — |
| 46 | Selmer Water System | Tennessee | 13,453 | 54.2 | 14% | 40% | — |
| 47 | Springfield Water System | Tennessee | 25,178 | 54.2 | 30% | 28% | 1 |
| 48 | Cookeville Water Department | Tennessee | 39,999 | 54 | 15% | 39% | — |
| 49 | Trezevant Water System | Tennessee | 6,048 | 54 | 16% | 38% | — |
| 50 | Dekalb Utility District #4 | Tennessee | 6,374 | 54 | 12% | 43% | — |
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.