What is the Munimetric score for Alabama?

Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Alabama. The state average, band distribution, and market-level rankings are shown on this page. Higher MISI values indicate greater structural stress.

Which water systems in Alabama face the most infrastructure stress?

The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Alabama by MISI score. Stress reflects operational burden, capital gaps, revenue fragility, rate affordability constraints, and governance risk, not a single compliance event. The headline remains a blended structural stress composite rather than a pure physical-condition index. Workflow actions remain reserved for account access.

How does Alabama compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?

Alabama is compared against all 50 states and territories using average MISI score, market count, and band distribution. Munimetric tracks nationwide coverage across 9,000+ scored service markets.

Are there lead pipe or corrosion-related concerns in Alabama water systems?

Where lead and copper rule compliance data is available from EPA SDWA records, Munimetric factors it into the Operational Stress family score. Specific lead service line inventories vary by system. Individual system profiles contain the most detailed compliance context available.

Does Munimetric include PFAS monitoring context for Alabama water systems?

Munimetric summarizes stored PFAS monitoring context where public contaminant-monitoring records are available. Missing PFAS summaries remain missing records, not non-detections, and this public-record layer does not change the MISI score by itself.

What compliance signals are active in Alabama?

Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Alabama water systems.

Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Alabama?

Munimetric does not track real-time boil water advisories. For current advisories, contact your local water utility or state drinking water program. Munimetric monitors structural conditions that provide context around system reliability over time.

How many covered systems in Alabama have recent recorded drinking-water violations?

Stored public records show 104 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 1,350 recorded violations across 289 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.

How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Alabama?

Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 286 covered systems; 151 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.

How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Alabama?

Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 289 covered systems; 65 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.

What source-water types are represented across covered Alabama systems?

Stored identity records group covered Alabama systems by source-water type: Surface water: 155, Groundwater: 134.

Where can I find official drinking-water records for Alabama?

The Official records drawer lists Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Alabama.

Is this a real-time statewide tap-water condition rating?

No. This is not a real-time tap-water condition determination. Munimetric summarizes stored public-record context for research and navigation, and this layer does not change MISI.

States / Alabama

Alabama

Name: Alabama Drinking Water Infrastructure Stress Data
Creator: Munimetric
License: https://munimetric.com/terms

Explore Alabama drinking-water system scores, stress signals, infrastructure risk, and statewide market context across 289 scored service markets serving approximately 6.0 million people. This state profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Alabama has an average MISI infrastructure stress score of 19.2/100 in the Stable band as of 2026-08-18. Public records summarize recent drinking-water violations, PFAS monitoring records, lead and copper context, and source-water mix across 289 covered systems. Updated May 2026.

National context

States sized by scored-market count. Color reflects average stress band.

289Markets scored

19.2Headline composite

~6.0MPop. served

1053Active signals

Band distribution (MISI)

State headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress16.4 / 100

Physical, compliance, and capital-execution pressure reflected in the blended headline composite.

Socioeconomic Stress2.7 / 100

Affordability, demand-base, and parent-government fiscal pressure reflected in the blended headline composite.

Observability Stress0.0 / 100

Staleness, disclosure freshness, and reporting-visibility effects reflected in the blended headline composite.

19.2 headline compositeAlabama state composite289 markets~6.0M people served

State interpretation guide

How to read Alabama headline composite

Plain-language summary

Alabama currently shows an average MISI headline composite of 19.2 versus a national average of 24.4. In v0.1.2, the headline composite remains a blended structural stress measure rather than a pure physical-condition index. A frozen national reference and a 50 percent single-factor cap reduce the dominance of near-universal and very rare factors, while the component bars continue to separate infrastructure, socioeconomic, and observability readings.

Why this page stands out

289 scored systems are included in this state view, with explicit confidence and source-backed context.
State posture is benchmarked against national averages, not evaluated in isolation.
Top system links below connect state-level findings directly to profile-level diagnostics.

What to do next

Review the executive context to understand the state-level pressure pattern.
Open top system profiles to inspect what is actually driving stress at market level.
Use saved monitoring after research access is enabled to follow high-stress systems over time.

Priority Alabama paths

Public record layer

Statewide Water Quality Context

Stored public-record context for recent drinking-water violations, contaminant monitoring, and source-water mix across covered systems. This is not a tap-water safety determination and does not change the MISI score.

Systems with recent violations

104 of 289Systems with recent public violation rows.

Source-water mix289 systems

Surface water155
Groundwater134
Purchased water0
Mixed source0
Not stored0

Latest identity snapshot: Jun 30, 2026

Coverage

Violation, enforcement, and compliance-burden counts use the recent 3 years window for dated stored records.
Drinking-water identity snapshots are stored for 289 of 289 included scored systems.
PFAS monitoring summary records are stored for 286 of 289 included systems; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
Lead and copper summary records are stored for 289 of 289 included systems; missing records are not treated as absence of lead/copper context.

Water quality questionsDefinitions and public-record context

How many covered systems in Alabama have recent recorded drinking-water violations?: Stored public records show 104 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 1,350 recorded violations across 289 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.
How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Alabama?: Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 286 covered systems; 151 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.
How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Alabama?: Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 289 covered systems; 65 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.
What source-water types are represented across covered Alabama systems?: Stored identity records group covered Alabama systems by source-water type: Surface water: 155, Groundwater: 134.
Where can I find official drinking-water records for Alabama?: The Official records drawer lists Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Alabama.
Is this a real-time statewide tap-water condition rating?: No. This is not a real-time tap-water condition determination. Munimetric summarizes stored public-record context for research and navigation, and this layer does not change MISI.

Official records

Public drinking-water profileEPA ECHO: Federal drinking-water dashboard and public-record search entry point.
Contaminant monitoring recordsEPA UCMR: Federal contaminant-monitoring program reference and public data entry point.

Methodology/source notes

Methodology/source notesDisplayed from stored public drinking-water records and official program references. This layer does not change MISI.
Enforcement historyEPA ECHO / SDWIS: Violation and enforcement counts are aggregated from stored public compliance records across covered systems.
Contaminant monitoring recordsEPA UCMR: PFAS context uses stored contaminant-monitoring summaries where available; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
State drinking-water programOfficial link not currently stored for this state program mapping.

Top recent compliance-burden systemsRecent 3 years

System	Population	Source water	Recent violations	Recent enforcement	Public-record flags
Brewton Water WorksAL0000555	11,430	Groundwater	174	40	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Henry County Water AuthorityAL0000663	11,625	Groundwater	150	20	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures
North Choctaw Water & Sewer AuthorityAL0000243	3,450	Groundwater	114	30	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
South Alabama Utilities Water SystemAL0000967	39,249	Groundwater	108	26	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Green Pond Water SystemAL0000093	8,631	Groundwater	108	16	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures
Hartford, City OfAL0000624	4,140	Groundwater	44	12	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures
Ardmore Water SystemAL0001420	3,903	Surface water	42	4	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Greenville Water WorksAL0000125	9,336	Groundwater	28	25	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records

This is not a real-time tap-water condition determination. For current advisories or health guidance, consult the utility or state drinking-water program.

Executive context

What This Page Shows

289 of the community drinking-water systems in Alabama are currently scored. Analytics below are calculated from this covered subset only. Covered systems serve approximately 6.0M people.

What the Data Suggests

Alabama has 289 scored service markets in the Munimetric coverage set, covering roughly 6.0 million residents in total. At the latest reading, the state-level average lands at 19.2 out of 100, indicating limited signs of structural stress in aggregate. A relatively small share — roughly 2% — currently sit in elevated-stress bands.

Across state markets, Operational Stress (9.1 points average) and Capex Pressure (7.3) are the leading contributors to headline stress. The relatively close spacing suggests pressure is spread across more than one dimension.

1053 active signals are recorded across state markets. The most prevalent is Climate Hazard Exposure, affecting 247 markets.

State-level average stress has been relatively steady between recent observation periods, suggesting the current picture reflects persistent conditions rather than a sudden shift.

This summary is based on structured, source-backed public data and is intended for research and monitoring only. It is not investment advice, a credit opinion, or municipal advisory guidance.

Recent Movement

Latest average MISI is 19.2 as of Aug 18, 2026. Movement since Aug 17, 2026 is flat.

Compact summary from 96 stored state observations.

State Family Contribution Summary

Operational Stress9.1 / 20.0

Capex Pressure7.3 / 20.0

Revenue Fragility2.0 / 20.0

Governance Risk0.7 / 20.0

Rate Constraint0.1 / 20.0

Signals

Signal Frequency

Signal	Severity	Markets affected	% of scored
Climate Hazard Exposure	high	247	85%
Compliance Escalation	high	194	67%
PFAS Contamination Risk	high	151	52%
Infrastructure Capital Gap	high	103	36%
High-AGI Out-Migration	high	89	31%
Lead & Copper Rule Risk	high	65	22%
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress	high	51	18%
Monitoring / Reporting Failures	medium	44	15%
Population Served Decline	high	44	15%
Current Drought Severity	medium	41	14%
Housing Market Weakness	medium	12	4%
Income Erosion	low	9	3%
Utility Data Staleness	high	2	1%
Rapid Score Deterioration	medium	1	0%

Markets

Top Markets

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Gilbertown (utilities Board of Town Of)	46.3	Fragile	8K	8
2	Sumter County Water Authority	42.4	Fragile	11K	6
3	Selma Water Works & Sewer Board	41.9	Fragile	22K	7
4	Eutaw Water Department	41.5	Fragile	5K	7
5	Saraland Water Service	41.2	Fragile	14K	7
6	North Baldwin Utilities	40.0	Watch	29K	7
7	Grove Hill Water Works	38.9	Watch	5K	8
8	Southwest Alabama Water Authority	38.4	Watch	5K	7
9	Snead Water Works	38.3	Watch	6K	5
10	Greenville Water Works	38.2	Watch	9K	7
11	Dekalb-Jackson Water Supply District	38.2	Watch	32K	5
12	Pickens County Water & F. P. Authority	37.6	Watch	14K	7
13	Demopolis Water Works and Sewer Board	37.5	Watch	11K	7
14	Prichard Water Works Board	36.9	Watch	29K	6
15	Opp Utilities Board	36.7	Watch	10K	7
16	Bessemer Water Service	36.6	Watch	86K	6
17	East Cullman Water System	36.5	Watch	13K	4
18	Butler County Water Authority	36.4	Watch	14K	6
19	Albertville Utilities Board	36.1	Watch	29K	5
20	Mobile County Water & Fire Pro Authority	35.7	Watch	40K	7

Comparison

State Comparison

National average: 24.4

Rank	State	Avg Score	Band	Markets	Delta vs State
42	Maine	20.0	Watch	33	+0.9
43	New Hampshire	19.9	Watch	42	+0.7
44	Alabama	19.2	Stable	289	+0.0
45	Montana	18.8	Stable	38	-0.4
46	Michigan	18.7	Stable	304	-0.4

Analytical posture

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Distribution of scored market scores with the state average overlay.

289 markets plotted.

Stress vs Population

Each point is a scored market; tooltip reveals market-level context.

289 markets plotted.

Population View

People served by community water systems in Alabama, colored by stress band.

~6.0M people served by 289 systems in Alabama

Stable

Watch

Fragile

High Stress

Critical

289 scored systems · colored by stress band

Peer Constellation

Select a market to see its nearest peers by score similarity.

Center market:

24 nearest peers by score distance.

Score Trend

Latest

19.2

Trend

+15.2

Observations

Extended layers

Advanced State Context

Priority views, detailed registers, and methodology supporting the analytical core above.

Markets & signals

Priority Views

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Gilbertown (utilities Board of Town Of)	46.3	Fragile	8K	8
2	Sumter County Water Authority	42.4	Fragile	11K	6
3	Selma Water Works & Sewer Board	41.9	Fragile	22K	7
4	Eutaw Water Department	41.5	Fragile	5K	7
5	Saraland Water Service	41.2	Fragile	14K	7
6	North Baldwin Utilities	40.0	Watch	29K	7
7	Grove Hill Water Works	38.9	Watch	5K	8
8	Southwest Alabama Water Authority	38.4	Watch	5K	7
9	Snead Water Works	38.3	Watch	6K	5
10	Greenville Water Works	38.2	Watch	9K	7
11	Dekalb-Jackson Water Supply District	38.2	Watch	32K	5
12	Pickens County Water & F. P. Authority	37.6	Watch	14K	7
13	Demopolis Water Works and Sewer Board	37.5	Watch	11K	7
14	Prichard Water Works Board	36.9	Watch	29K	6
15	Opp Utilities Board	36.7	Watch	10K	7
16	Bessemer Water Service	36.6	Watch	86K	6
17	East Cullman Water System	36.5	Watch	13K	4
18	Butler County Water Authority	36.4	Watch	14K	6
19	Albertville Utilities Board	36.1	Watch	29K	5
20	Mobile County Water & Fire Pro Authority	35.7	Watch	40K	7

Detailed records

Registers

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Gilbertown (utilities Board of Town Of)	46.3	Fragile	8K	8
2	Sumter County Water Authority	42.4	Fragile	11K	6
3	Selma Water Works & Sewer Board	41.9	Fragile	22K	7
4	Eutaw Water Department	41.5	Fragile	5K	7
5	Saraland Water Service	41.2	Fragile	14K	7
6	North Baldwin Utilities	40.0	Watch	29K	7
7	Grove Hill Water Works	38.9	Watch	5K	8
8	Southwest Alabama Water Authority	38.4	Watch	5K	7
9	Snead Water Works	38.3	Watch	6K	5
10	Greenville Water Works	38.2	Watch	9K	7
11	Dekalb-Jackson Water Supply District	38.2	Watch	32K	5
12	Pickens County Water & F. P. Authority	37.6	Watch	14K	7
13	Demopolis Water Works and Sewer Board	37.5	Watch	11K	7
14	Prichard Water Works Board	36.9	Watch	29K	6
15	Opp Utilities Board	36.7	Watch	10K	7
16	Bessemer Water Service	36.6	Watch	86K	6
17	East Cullman Water System	36.5	Watch	13K	4
18	Butler County Water Authority	36.4	Watch	14K	6
19	Albertville Utilities Board	36.1	Watch	29K	5
20	Mobile County Water & Fire Pro Authority	35.7	Watch	40K	7

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 289 community drinking-water systems in Alabama, covering compliance conditions, capital needs, revenue and rate pressure, and governance risk. Use this page to research which systems face the highest structural stress and how Alabama compares nationally.

Which water systems in Alabama face the most infrastructure stress?: The highest-stress systems in Alabama are ranked by MISI score above. Stress reflects operational burden, capital gaps, revenue fragility, rate affordability constraints, and governance risk—not a single compliance event. In v0.1.2, the headline composite remains a blended structural stress measure rather than a pure physical-condition index. A frozen national reference and a 50 percent single-factor cap reduce the dominance of near-universal and very rare factors, while the component bars continue to separate infrastructure, socioeconomic, and observability readings.
How does Alabama compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Alabama is compared against all 50 states and territories using average MISI score, market count, and band distribution. The state comparison table above shows where Alabama ranks nationally and how its average score compares.
Are there lead pipe or corrosion-related concerns in Alabama water systems?: Where lead and copper rule compliance data is available from EPA SDWA records, Munimetric factors it into the Operational Stress family. Specific lead service line inventories vary by system. Individual system profiles contain the most detailed compliance context available.
What compliance signals are active in Alabama?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, data staleness, and financial stress indicators across Alabama systems. The signal frequency table above summarizes which signals are most prevalent statewide.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Alabama?: Munimetric does not track real-time boil water advisories. For current advisories, contact your local water utility or state drinking water program. Munimetric monitors structural conditions—compliance posture, infrastructure stress, and governance risk—that provide broader context around system reliability.

Keep monitoring this state

Research access covers saved monitoring, alerts, recurring briefs, and team review.

Get the Water Stress Brief Request research access

Water Infrastructure in Alabama

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 289 community drinking-water systems in Alabama. Each system receives a Munimetric Infrastructure Stress Index (MISI) score from 0 to 100, calculated across five risk families: Operational Stress, Capex Pressure, Revenue Fragility, Rate Constraint, and Governance Risk. Higher scores indicate more structural stress. Scores are source-backed and deterministic, drawing from EPA SDWA compliance records, American Community Survey demographic and economic data, FEMA National Risk Index hazard profiles, and state financial disclosures.

State-level monitoring shows which systems face the highest structural stress, how Alabama compares against other states nationally, and which monitoring signals are most active across the state. Each individual system profile includes compliance history, score family drivers, peer rankings within population-based cohorts where safeguards pass, and public source context. Full provenance cards and source workbench views remain workflow-gated. Munimetric covers community water systems across all 50 states and territories. This is structural risk research—not a water quality rating, advisory feed, or credit rating. Updated May 2026.

The statewide public-record layer adds drinking-water violation categories, PFAS monitoring summaries where stored, lead and copper context, source-water mix, and official record links across covered systems. These records help explain water-system context alongside infrastructure stress without turning Munimetric into a tap-water safety determination.

What is the Munimetric score for Alabama?: Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Alabama. The state average, band distribution, and market-level rankings are shown on this page. Higher MISI values indicate greater structural stress.
Which water systems in Alabama face the most infrastructure stress?: The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Alabama by MISI score. Stress reflects operational burden, capital gaps, revenue fragility, rate affordability constraints, and governance risk, not a single compliance event. The headline remains a blended structural stress composite rather than a pure physical-condition index. Workflow actions remain reserved for account access.
How does Alabama compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Alabama is compared against all 50 states and territories using average MISI score, market count, and band distribution. Munimetric tracks nationwide coverage across 9,000+ scored service markets.
Are there lead pipe or corrosion-related concerns in Alabama water systems?: Where lead and copper rule compliance data is available from EPA SDWA records, Munimetric factors it into the Operational Stress family score. Specific lead service line inventories vary by system. Individual system profiles contain the most detailed compliance context available.
Does Munimetric include PFAS monitoring context for Alabama water systems?: Munimetric summarizes stored PFAS monitoring context where public contaminant-monitoring records are available. Missing PFAS summaries remain missing records, not non-detections, and this public-record layer does not change the MISI score by itself.
What compliance signals are active in Alabama?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Alabama water systems.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Alabama?: Munimetric does not track real-time boil water advisories. For current advisories, contact your local water utility or state drinking water program. Munimetric monitors structural conditions that provide context around system reliability over time.