Washington Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
Washington 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 Washington 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 | Toppenish Water Department | Washington | 8,839 | 97.2 | 92% | 51% | — |
| 2 | City of Sunnyside | Washington | 14,488 | 97 | 85% | 54% | — |
| 3 | Wapato Waterworks | Washington | 6,198 | 96.2 | 88% | 49% | — |
| 4 | City of Grandview | Washington | 9,126 | 95.7 | 82% | 50% | — |
| 5 | Othello Water Department | Washington | 7,814 | 93.1 | 75% | 47% | — |
| 6 | Yak Company - Terrace Heights | Washington | 8,376 | 89.5 | 61% | 46% | — |
| 7 | City of Yakima Water Division | Washington | 70,914 | 85.8 | 57% | 42% | — |
| 8 | Pasco Water Department | Washington | 71,297 | 78.8 | 63% | 35% | — |
| 9 | Washington State University | Washington | 4,321 | 76.6 | 31% | 49% | — |
| 10 | City of Pullman Water Department | Washington | 25,288 | 76.4 | 30% | 48% | — |
| 11 | Forks Municipal Water Department | Washington | 4,110 | 75.9 | 36% | 42% | — |
| 12 | City of Quincy Water Department | Washington | 6,276 | 73.6 | 75% | 29% | — |
| 13 | King County Water District #125 | Washington | 15,462 | 73 | 66% | 30% | — |
| 14 | Ephrata Water Department | Washington | 7,915 | 71.4 | 36% | 38% | — |
| 15 | Parkland Light & Water Company | Washington | 22,701 | 71.2 | 55% | 31% | — |
| 16 | Lakewood Water District | Washington | 59,360 | 69.8 | 55% | 30% | — |
| 17 | King County Water District #20 | Washington | 30,437 | 68.8 | 59% | 29% | — |
| 18 | City of Omak | Washington | 3,635 | 68.8 | 34% | 37% | — |
| 19 | Kent Water Department | Washington | 70,455 | 68.4 | 63% | 27% | — |
| 20 | Highline Water District | Washington | 63,728 | 67.7 | 60% | 27% | — |
| 21 | City of Moses Lake | Washington | 27,834 | 66.6 | 42% | 32% | — |
| 22 | City of Aberdeen | Washington | 16,013 | 66.2 | 30% | 37% | — |
| 23 | Skyway Water & Sewer | Washington | 6,616 | 65.9 | 70% | 24% | — |
| 24 | Centralia Public Works - Water | Washington | 21,490 | 65.8 | 26% | 40% | — |
| 25 | City of Wenatchee | Washington | 36,190 | 64.2 | 39% | 31% | — |
| 26 | City of Kennewick | Washington | 85,580 | 63.7 | 39% | 31% | — |
| 27 | Prosser City of | Washington | 6,595 | 63.5 | 50% | 27% | — |
| 28 | Nob Hill Water Association | Washington | 34,790 | 61.4 | 37% | 30% | — |
| 29 | City of Pacific | Washington | 3,960 | 60.8 | 50% | 25% | — |
| 30 | City of Cheney | Washington | 11,723 | 60.5 | 21% | 39% | — |
| 31 | Hoquiam Water Department | Washington | 8,106 | 59.7 | 19% | 40% | — |
| 32 | Soos Creek Water & Sewer District | Washington | 68,567 | 59.2 | 57% | 22% | — |
| 33 | Chelan Company PUD 1 | Washington | 71,038 | 58.6 | 38% | 28% | — |
| 34 | Mukilteo Water & Wastewater Distr | Washington | 27,454 | 57.9 | 46% | 24% | — |
| 35 | Naval Base Kitsap At Bangor | Washington | 3,384 | 57.8 | 43% | 25% | — |
| 36 | City of Auburn | Washington | 62,751 | 57.4 | 51% | 22% | — |
| 37 | City of Shelton | Washington | 17,259 | 57 | 28% | 32% | — |
| 38 | City of Everett Public Works Department | Washington | 99,503 | 56.4 | 41% | 25% | — |
| 39 | Walla Walla Water Division | Washington | 30,641 | 55.6 | 31% | 29% | — |
| 40 | Spanaway Water Company | Washington | 18,358 | 55.4 | 46% | 22% | — |
| 41 | Longview Water Department | Washington | 38,448 | 55.3 | 22% | 34% | — |
| 42 | City of Renton | Washington | 62,698 | 55.3 | 57% | 19% | — |
| 43 | Grays Harbor Company Water District 2 | Washington | 3,365 | 54 | 23% | 32% | — |
| 44 | City of Lynnwood | Washington | 36,969 | 54 | 48% | 21% | — |
| 45 | Lakehaven Water and Sewer District | Washington | 105,646 | 53.6 | 61% | 27% | — |
| 46 | City of Elma | Washington | 4,518 | 53.4 | 20% | 34% | — |
| 47 | Ellensburg Water Department | Washington | 12,745 | 52.8 | 21% | 33% | — |
| 48 | City of Bremerton | Washington | 54,414 | 52 | 33% | 25% | — |
| 49 | Skagit County PUD 1 Judy Res | Washington | 82,018 | 51.9 | 33% | 25% | — |
| 50 | City of Bellingham-Water Division | Washington | 92,212 | 51.8 | 24% | 31% | — |
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.