What is the Munimetric score for Michigan?

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

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

Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan?

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

Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Michigan?

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 Michigan have recent recorded drinking-water violations?

Stored public records show 136 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 640 recorded violations across 304 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.

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

Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 285 covered systems; 77 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.

How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Michigan?

Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 289 covered systems; 154 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.

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

Stored identity records group covered Michigan systems by source-water type: Surface water: 191, Groundwater: 113.

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

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

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 / Michigan

Michigan

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

Statewide Munimetric profile for Michigan, covering drinking-water market scores, signal activity, infrastructure stress context, and population insights across 304 scored service markets serving approximately 6.6 million people. This state profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Michigan has an average MISI infrastructure stress score of 18.8/100 in the Stable band as of 2026-05-26. Public records summarize recent drinking-water violations, PFAS monitoring records, lead and copper context, and source-water mix across 304 covered systems. Updated May 2026.

National context

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

304Markets scored

18.8Headline composite

~6.6MPop. served

1082Active signals

Band distribution (MISI)

State headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress15.0 / 100

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

Socioeconomic Stress3.8 / 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.

18.8 headline compositeMichigan state composite304 markets~6.6M people served

State interpretation guide

How to read Michigan headline composite

Plain-language summary

Michigan currently shows an average MISI headline composite of 18.8 versus a national average of 25.0. 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

304 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 Michigan 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

136 of 304Systems with recent public violation rows.

Source-water mix304 systems

Surface water191
Groundwater113
Purchased water0
Mixed source0
Not stored0

Latest identity snapshot: Dec 31, 2025

Coverage

Violation, enforcement, and compliance-burden counts use the recent 3 years window for dated stored records.
Drinking-water identity snapshots are stored for 290 of 304 included scored systems.
PFAS monitoring summary records are stored for 285 of 304 included systems; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
Lead and copper summary records are stored for 289 of 304 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 Michigan have recent recorded drinking-water violations?: Stored public records show 136 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 640 recorded violations across 304 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.
How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Michigan?: Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 285 covered systems; 77 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.
How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Michigan?: Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 289 covered systems; 154 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.
What source-water types are represented across covered Michigan systems?: Stored identity records group covered Michigan systems by source-water type: Surface water: 191, Groundwater: 113.
Where can I find official drinking-water records for Michigan?: The Official records drawer lists Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Michigan.
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
Frenchtown TownshipMI0002500	16,481	Surface water	52	24	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Dearborn HeightsMI0001740	57,774	Surface water	20	39	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
GladstoneMI0002640	4,632	Surface water	20	8	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Battle Creek - Verona SystemMI0000450	43,975	Groundwater	19	49	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Oronoko TownshipMI0005034	1,610	Groundwater	19	38	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
Kimball TownshipMI0003628	5,170	Surface water	18	43	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures
River RougeMI0005690	7,224	Surface water	16	39	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
BellevilleMI0000580	3,964	Surface water	12	39	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, 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

304 of the community drinking-water systems in Michigan are currently scored. Analytics below are calculated from this covered subset only. Covered systems serve approximately 6.6M people.

What the Data Suggests

Michigan has 304 scored service markets in the Munimetric coverage set, covering roughly 6.6 million residents in total. At the latest reading, the state-level average lands at 18.8 out of 100, indicating limited signs of structural stress in aggregate. No markets currently sit in elevated-stress bands.

Across state markets, Operational Stress (8.8 points average) and Capex Pressure (6.1) are the leading contributors to headline stress. The relatively close spacing suggests pressure is spread across more than one dimension.

1082 active signals are recorded across state markets. The most prevalent is Climate Hazard Exposure, affecting 281 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 18.8 as of May 26, 2026. Movement since May 24, 2026 is flat.

Compact summary from 46 stored state observations.

State Family Contribution Summary

Operational Stress8.8 / 20.0

Capex Pressure6.1 / 20.0

Revenue Fragility3.0 / 20.0

Governance Risk0.8 / 20.0

Rate Constraint0.0 / 20.0

Signals

Signal Frequency

Signal	Severity	Markets affected	% of scored
Climate Hazard Exposure	high	281	92%
Compliance Escalation	high	202	66%
High-AGI Out-Migration	high	188	62%
Lead & Copper Rule Risk	high	154	51%
PFAS Contamination Risk	high	77	25%
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress	medium	77	25%
Infrastructure Capital Gap	high	49	16%
Housing Market Weakness	medium	19	6%
Monitoring / Reporting Failures	medium	19	6%
Population Served Decline	medium	15	5%
Utility Data Staleness	high	1	0%

Markets

Top Markets

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Mount Pleasant, City of	42.6	Fragile	22K	8
2	St. Clair Shores	38.7	Watch	60K	7
3	Saline	38.1	Watch	9K	6
4	Mason, City of	35.7	Watch	8K	7
5	Kalamazoo	35.3	Watch	193K	6
6	Ann Arbor	35.3	Watch	100	6
7	Saginaw, City of	35.3	Watch	44K	6
8	Clinton Township	35.0	Watch	101K	6
9	Mount Clemens, City of	34.9	Watch	16K	7
10	Center Line	34.9	Watch	8K	6
11	Warren, City of	34.9	Watch	134K	7
12	Macomb Township	34.9	Watch	90K	6
13	Grand Ledge, City of	34.9	Watch	9K	7
14	White Lake Township	34.7	Watch	6K	6
15	Wyandotte	34.3	Watch	26K	6
16	Grosse Pointe Woods	34.3	Watch	16K	7
17	Michigan State University	34.0	Watch	13K	6
18	Portland	33.7	Watch	4K	6
19	Grand Blanc, City of	33.1	Watch	8K	5
20	Holly, Village of	33.1	Watch	9K	5

Comparison

State Comparison

National average: 25.0

Rank	State	Avg Score	Band	Markets	Delta vs State
49	Maine	19.5	Watch	33	+0.7
50	Vermont	19.3	Stable	31	+0.5
51	Michigan	18.8	Stable	304	+0.0
52	Puerto Rico	5.9	Stable	41	-12.9

Analytical posture

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Distribution of scored market scores with the state average overlay.

304 markets plotted.

Stress vs Population

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

304 markets plotted.

Population View

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

~6.6M people served by 304 systems in Michigan

Stable

Watch

Fragile

High Stress

Critical

304 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

18.8

Trend

+14.7

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	Mount Pleasant, City of	42.6	Fragile	22K	8
2	St. Clair Shores	38.7	Watch	60K	7
3	Saline	38.1	Watch	9K	6
4	Mason, City of	35.7	Watch	8K	7
5	Kalamazoo	35.3	Watch	193K	6
6	Ann Arbor	35.3	Watch	100	6
7	Saginaw, City of	35.3	Watch	44K	6
8	Clinton Township	35.0	Watch	101K	6
9	Mount Clemens, City of	34.9	Watch	16K	7
10	Center Line	34.9	Watch	8K	6
11	Warren, City of	34.9	Watch	134K	7
12	Macomb Township	34.9	Watch	90K	6
13	Grand Ledge, City of	34.9	Watch	9K	7
14	White Lake Township	34.7	Watch	6K	6
15	Wyandotte	34.3	Watch	26K	6
16	Grosse Pointe Woods	34.3	Watch	16K	7
17	Michigan State University	34.0	Watch	13K	6
18	Portland	33.7	Watch	4K	6
19	Grand Blanc, City of	33.1	Watch	8K	5
20	Holly, Village of	33.1	Watch	9K	5

Detailed records

Registers

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Mount Pleasant, City of	42.6	Fragile	22K	8
2	St. Clair Shores	38.7	Watch	60K	7
3	Saline	38.1	Watch	9K	6
4	Mason, City of	35.7	Watch	8K	7
5	Kalamazoo	35.3	Watch	193K	6
6	Ann Arbor	35.3	Watch	100	6
7	Saginaw, City of	35.3	Watch	44K	6
8	Clinton Township	35.0	Watch	101K	6
9	Mount Clemens, City of	34.9	Watch	16K	7
10	Center Line	34.9	Watch	8K	6
11	Warren, City of	34.9	Watch	134K	7
12	Macomb Township	34.9	Watch	90K	6
13	Grand Ledge, City of	34.9	Watch	9K	7
14	White Lake Township	34.7	Watch	6K	6
15	Wyandotte	34.3	Watch	26K	6
16	Grosse Pointe Woods	34.3	Watch	16K	7
17	Michigan State University	34.0	Watch	13K	6
18	Portland	33.7	Watch	4K	6
19	Grand Blanc, City of	33.1	Watch	8K	5
20	Holly, Village of	33.1	Watch	9K	5

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 304 community drinking-water systems in Michigan, 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 Michigan compares nationally.

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

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 304 community drinking-water systems in Michigan. 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 Michigan 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 Michigan?: Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Michigan. 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 Michigan face the most infrastructure stress?: The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Michigan 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 Michigan compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan 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 Michigan?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Michigan water systems.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Michigan?: 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.

Michigan

Michigan Infrastructure Track

Funding mix

Big projects

How to read Michigan headline composite

Plain-language summary

Why this page stands out

What to do next

Priority Michigan paths

Statewide Water Quality Context

What This Page Shows

What the Data Suggests

Recent Movement

State Family Contribution Summary

Signal Frequency

Top Markets

State Comparison

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Stress vs Population

Population View

Peer Constellation

Score Trend

Advanced State Context

Priority Views

Registers

Keep monitoring this state

Water Infrastructure in Michigan

Michigan

Funding mix

Big projects

How to read Michigan headline composite

Plain-language summary

Why this page stands out

What to do next

Priority Michigan paths

Statewide Water Quality Context

What This Page Shows

What the Data Suggests

Recent Movement

State Family Contribution Summary

Signal Frequency

Top Markets

State Comparison

State Stress Analytics

Score Trend

Advanced State Context

Priority Views

Registers

Keep monitoring this state

Water Infrastructure in Michigan

Munimetric in your inbox