What is the Munimetric score for Massachusetts?

Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Massachusetts. 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 Massachusetts face the most infrastructure stress?

The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?

Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts?

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

Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Massachusetts?

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 Massachusetts have recent recorded drinking-water violations?

Stored public records show 64 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 975 recorded violations across 255 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.

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

Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 250 covered systems; 142 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.

How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Massachusetts?

Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 251 covered systems; 211 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.

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

Stored identity records group covered Massachusetts systems by source-water type: Surface water: 146, Groundwater: 109.

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

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

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 / Massachusetts

Massachusetts

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

Explore Massachusetts drinking-water system scores, stress signals, infrastructure risk, and statewide market context across 255 scored service markets serving approximately 9.8 million people. This state profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Massachusetts has an average MISI infrastructure stress score of 37.5/100 in the Watch band as of 2026-08-17. Public records summarize recent drinking-water violations, PFAS monitoring records, lead and copper context, and source-water mix across 255 covered systems. Updated May 2026.

National context

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

255Markets scored

37.5Headline composite

~9.8MPop. served

1564Active signals

Band distribution (MISI)

State headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress28.7 / 100

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

Socioeconomic Stress5.8 / 100

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

Observability Stress3.0 / 100

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

37.5 headline compositeMassachusetts state composite255 markets~9.8M people served

State interpretation guide

How to read Massachusetts headline composite

Plain-language summary

Massachusetts currently shows an average MISI headline composite of 37.5 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

255 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 Massachusetts 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

64 of 255Systems with recent public violation rows.

Source-water mix255 systems

Surface water146
Groundwater109
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 254 of 255 included scored systems.
PFAS monitoring summary records are stored for 250 of 255 included systems; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
Lead and copper summary records are stored for 251 of 255 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 Massachusetts have recent recorded drinking-water violations?: Stored public records show 64 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 975 recorded violations across 255 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.
How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Massachusetts?: Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 250 covered systems; 142 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.
How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Massachusetts?: Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 251 covered systems; 211 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.
What source-water types are represented across covered Massachusetts systems?: Stored identity records group covered Massachusetts systems by source-water type: Surface water: 146, Groundwater: 109.
Where can I find official drinking-water records for Massachusetts?: The Official records drawer lists Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Massachusetts.
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
Hudson Water SupplyMA2141000	20,032	Surface water	140	12	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Wannacomet Water CompanyMA4197000	27,703	Groundwater	132	5	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
Norfolk Water DivisionMA2208000	7,602	Groundwater	62	6	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Centerville Osterville Marstons Mills WdMA4020002	50,000	Groundwater	62	4	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Haverhill Water DeptMA3128000	61,277	Surface water	60	2	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
Orleans Water DepartmentMA4224000	17,460	Groundwater	60	2	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures
Hanover Water DeptMA4122000	14,984	Surface water	50	4	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Acton Water Supply DistrictMA2002000	21,285	Surface water	48	10	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context

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

255 of the community drinking-water systems in Massachusetts are currently scored. Analytics below are calculated from this covered subset only. Covered systems serve approximately 9.8M people.

What the Data Suggests

Massachusetts has 255 scored service markets in the Munimetric coverage set, covering roughly 9.8 million residents in total. At the latest reading, the state-level average lands at 37.5 out of 100, indicating early but meaningful signs of structural stress in aggregate. About 40% of scored markets sit in elevated-stress bands, a notable but not extreme share.

Across state markets, Operational Stress stands out as the dominant contributor to headline stress (17.8 points average), with Capex Pressure a distant second at 10.9. That pattern suggests a particular kind of pressure — concentrated rather than broadly distributed.

1564 active signals are recorded across state markets. The most prevalent is Climate Hazard Exposure, affecting 251 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 37.5 as of Aug 17, 2026. Movement since Aug 16, 2026 is flat.

Compact summary from 95 stored state observations.

State Family Contribution Summary

Operational Stress17.8 / 20.0

Capex Pressure10.9 / 20.0

Revenue Fragility5.5 / 20.0

Governance Risk3.3 / 20.0

Rate Constraint0.0 / 20.0

Signals

Signal Frequency

Signal	Severity	Markets affected	% of scored
Climate Hazard Exposure	high	251	98%
Compliance Escalation	high	245	96%
Lead & Copper Rule Risk	high	211	83%
High-AGI Out-Migration	high	198	78%
Current Drought Severity	medium	182	71%
PFAS Contamination Risk	high	142	56%
Utility Data Staleness	high	139	55%
Housing Market Weakness	medium	109	43%
Infrastructure Capital Gap	high	54	21%
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress	medium	22	9%
Monitoring / Reporting Failures	medium	6	2%
Rapid Score Deterioration	high	5	2%

Markets

Top Markets

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Wellesley Water Division	57.0	Fragile	30K	10
2	Boston Water and Sewer Commission (mwra)	54.9	Fragile	676K	8
3	Framingham Water Dept. (mwra)	54.9	Fragile	72K	8
4	Revere Water Dept. (mwra)	54.1	Fragile	62K	9
5	Lowell Regional Water Utility	53.4	Fragile	120K	9
6	Avon Water Department	52.6	Fragile	5K	9
7	Manchester Water Department	51.9	Fragile	5K	9
8	Billerica Water Works	51.5	Fragile	42K	9
9	Cambridge Water Department	50.4	Fragile	118K	9
10	Weymouth Water Department	50.4	Fragile	58K	9
11	Acton Water Supply District	50.2	Fragile	21K	8
12	Pepperell Dpw Water Division	50.2	Fragile	9K	8
13	Ayer Dpw Water Division	49.6	Fragile	8K	8
14	Bellingham Dpw Water Sewer Div.	49.6	Fragile	17K	8
15	Medway Water/Sewer Department	49.6	Fragile	14K	8
16	Millis Water Dept	49.6	Fragile	9K	8
17	Norfolk Water Division	49.6	Fragile	8K	8
18	Mci Shirley	49.6	Fragile	4K	8
19	Needham Water Dept	49.6	Fragile	32K	8
20	North Reading Water Dept.	49.6	Fragile	16K	8

Comparison

State Comparison

National average: 24.4

Rank	State	Avg Score	Band	Markets	Delta vs State
1	Massachusetts	37.5	Watch	255	+0.0
2	Oklahoma	33.3	Watch	148	-4.2
3	New Mexico	32.6	Watch	75	-4.9

Analytical posture

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Distribution of scored market scores with the state average overlay.

255 markets plotted.

Stress vs Population

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

255 markets plotted.

Population View

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

~9.8M people served by 255 systems in Massachusetts

Stable

Watch

Fragile

High Stress

Critical

255 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

37.5

Trend

+24.2

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	Wellesley Water Division	57.0	Fragile	30K	10
2	Boston Water and Sewer Commission (mwra)	54.9	Fragile	676K	8
3	Framingham Water Dept. (mwra)	54.9	Fragile	72K	8
4	Revere Water Dept. (mwra)	54.1	Fragile	62K	9
5	Lowell Regional Water Utility	53.4	Fragile	120K	9
6	Avon Water Department	52.6	Fragile	5K	9
7	Manchester Water Department	51.9	Fragile	5K	9
8	Billerica Water Works	51.5	Fragile	42K	9
9	Cambridge Water Department	50.4	Fragile	118K	9
10	Weymouth Water Department	50.4	Fragile	58K	9
11	Acton Water Supply District	50.2	Fragile	21K	8
12	Pepperell Dpw Water Division	50.2	Fragile	9K	8
13	Ayer Dpw Water Division	49.6	Fragile	8K	8
14	Bellingham Dpw Water Sewer Div.	49.6	Fragile	17K	8
15	Medway Water/Sewer Department	49.6	Fragile	14K	8
16	Millis Water Dept	49.6	Fragile	9K	8
17	Norfolk Water Division	49.6	Fragile	8K	8
18	Mci Shirley	49.6	Fragile	4K	8
19	Needham Water Dept	49.6	Fragile	32K	8
20	North Reading Water Dept.	49.6	Fragile	16K	8

Detailed records

Registers

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Wellesley Water Division	57.0	Fragile	30K	10
2	Boston Water and Sewer Commission (mwra)	54.9	Fragile	676K	8
3	Framingham Water Dept. (mwra)	54.9	Fragile	72K	8
4	Revere Water Dept. (mwra)	54.1	Fragile	62K	9
5	Lowell Regional Water Utility	53.4	Fragile	120K	9
6	Avon Water Department	52.6	Fragile	5K	9
7	Manchester Water Department	51.9	Fragile	5K	9
8	Billerica Water Works	51.5	Fragile	42K	9
9	Cambridge Water Department	50.4	Fragile	118K	9
10	Weymouth Water Department	50.4	Fragile	58K	9
11	Acton Water Supply District	50.2	Fragile	21K	8
12	Pepperell Dpw Water Division	50.2	Fragile	9K	8
13	Ayer Dpw Water Division	49.6	Fragile	8K	8
14	Bellingham Dpw Water Sewer Div.	49.6	Fragile	17K	8
15	Medway Water/Sewer Department	49.6	Fragile	14K	8
16	Millis Water Dept	49.6	Fragile	9K	8
17	Norfolk Water Division	49.6	Fragile	8K	8
18	Mci Shirley	49.6	Fragile	4K	8
19	Needham Water Dept	49.6	Fragile	32K	8
20	North Reading Water Dept.	49.6	Fragile	16K	8

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 255 community drinking-water systems in Massachusetts, 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 Massachusetts compares nationally.

Which water systems in Massachusetts face the most infrastructure stress?: The highest-stress systems in Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Massachusetts is compared against all 50 states and territories using average MISI score, market count, and band distribution. The state comparison table above shows where Massachusetts ranks nationally and how its average score compares.
Are there lead pipe or corrosion-related concerns in Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, data staleness, and financial stress indicators across Massachusetts systems. The signal frequency table above summarizes which signals are most prevalent statewide.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Massachusetts?: 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 Massachusetts

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 255 community drinking-water systems in Massachusetts. 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts?: Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Massachusetts. 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 Massachusetts face the most infrastructure stress?: The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Massachusetts water systems.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Massachusetts?: 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.