West Virginia Water Systems Serving the Most Disadvantaged Populations — 2026
West Virginia 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 38 West Virginia 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 | City of Martinsburg | West Virginia | 16,808 | 70.6 | 29% | 42% | — |
| 2 | Wvawc Bluefield District | West Virginia | 7,031 | 63 | 18% | 46% | — |
| 3 | Bluewell Public Service District | West Virginia | 4,181 | 59.4 | 15% | 44% | 2 |
| 4 | Morgantown Utility Board | West Virginia | 64,900 | 56 | 15% | 40% | — |
| 5 | Raleigh County Public Service District Arnett | West Virginia | 3,374 | 54.8 | 13% | 43% | 11 |
| 6 | Beckley Water Company | West Virginia | 13,582 | 54.6 | 14% | 41% | — |
| 7 | Berkeley Company P S W D-Bunker Hill | West Virginia | 60,387 | 53.2 | 22% | 32% | — |
| 8 | Green Valley Glenwood Public Service District Glenwood | West Virginia | 6,582 | 51 | 11% | 41% | — |
| 9 | Buckhannon Water Board | West Virginia | 6,751 | 51 | 9% | 44% | — |
| 10 | Wvawc - Huntington District | West Virginia | 69,348 | 50.8 | 11% | 40% | — |
| 11 | St Albans Water | West Virginia | 5,681 | 50.6 | 11% | 41% | 1 |
| 12 | Wvawc Bluestone Plant | West Virginia | 18,245 | 50.2 | 10% | 42% | — |
| 13 | Parkersburg Utility Board | West Virginia | 27,487 | 50 | 7% | 48% | — |
| 14 | Mingo County Public Service District - Naugatuck | West Virginia | 4,110 | 49.2 | 5% | 51% | 10 |
| 15 | Logan County Psd - Northern Regional | West Virginia | 7,516 | 48.2 | 5% | 47% | — |
| 16 | Wvawc New River Regional Wtr Trtmt Plt | West Virginia | 9,707 | 46 | 8% | 40% | — |
| 17 | Clarksburg Water Board | West Virginia | 17,211 | 45 | 8% | 39% | — |
| 18 | Berkeley County Pswd-Potomac River | West Virginia | 51,124 | 44.6 | 20% | 28% | — |
| 19 | Wvaw - Weston | West Virginia | 6,475 | 44.3 | 7% | 40% | — |
| 20 | Summersville Municipal Water | West Virginia | 3,634 | 41.6 | 5% | 39% | — |
| 21 | Lavalette Public Service District | West Virginia | 3,639 | 41.6 | 5% | 39% | — |
| 22 | Summit Park Public Service District | West Virginia | 3,456 | 41.2 | 5% | 39% | — |
| 23 | Wheeling Water | West Virginia | 22,623 | 40.7 | 10% | 34% | 2 |
| 24 | Lewisburg | West Virginia | 5,122 | 39.5 | 7% | 35% | 1 |
| 25 | Mineral Wells Public Service District | West Virginia | 4,978 | 39.4 | 3% | 38% | — |
| 26 | Weirton Area Water Board | West Virginia | 9,016 | 38.7 | 9% | 33% | — |
| 27 | Clinton Water Assoc - Route 119 | West Virginia | 5,213 | 38.4 | 12% | 30% | — |
| 28 | Wvaw - Walnut Grove Utilities | West Virginia | 6,225 | 34.2 | 21% | 20% | — |
| 29 | Lubeck Psd | West Virginia | 3,679 | 33.8 | 5% | 33% | — |
| 30 | Greater Harrison Public Service District Valley of Good Hope | West Virginia | 3,707 | 33.6 | 6% | 32% | 3 |
| 31 | Wvawc-Kanawha Valley Dist | West Virginia | 118,373 | 33.4 | 14% | 33% | — |
| 32 | Claywood Park Public Service District | West Virginia | 5,953 | 32.2 | 4% | 32% | — |
| 33 | City of Fairmont | West Virginia | 27,919 | 31.4 | 10% | 28% | — |
| 34 | Vienna | West Virginia | 9,633 | 28 | 9% | 25% | — |
| 35 | Follansbee Hooverson Heights | West Virginia | 4,199 | 27.4 | 5% | 29% | — |
| 36 | Milton Water | West Virginia | 3,826 | 23.4 | 4% | 26% | — |
| 37 | City of Bridgeport | West Virginia | 8,882 | 20.2 | 10% | 20% | — |
| 38 | Putnam P S D | West Virginia | 12,985 | 19.2 | 7% | 22% | — |
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.