What is the Munimetric score for Ohio?

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

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

Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio?

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

Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Ohio?

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 Ohio have recent recorded drinking-water violations?

Stored public records show 183 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 719 recorded violations across 332 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.

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

Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 300 covered systems; 179 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.

How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Ohio?

Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 325 covered systems; 281 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.

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

Stored identity records group covered Ohio systems by source-water type: Surface water: 164, Groundwater: 168.

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

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

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 / Ohio

Ohio

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

Explore Ohio drinking-water system scores, stress signals, infrastructure risk, and statewide market context across 332 scored service markets serving approximately 13.4 million people. This state profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Ohio has an average MISI infrastructure stress score of 27.3/100 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 332 covered systems. Updated May 2026.

National context

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

332Markets scored

27.3Headline composite

~13.4MPop. served

1580Active signals

Band distribution (MISI)

State headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress20.7 / 100

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

Socioeconomic Stress4.4 / 100

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

Observability Stress2.2 / 100

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

27.3 headline compositeOhio state composite332 markets~13.4M people served

State interpretation guide

How to read Ohio headline composite

Plain-language summary

Ohio currently shows an average MISI headline composite of 27.3 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

332 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 Ohio 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

183 of 332Systems with recent public violation rows.

Source-water mix332 systems

Surface water164
Groundwater168
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 329 of 332 included scored systems.
PFAS monitoring summary records are stored for 300 of 332 included systems; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
Lead and copper summary records are stored for 325 of 332 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 Ohio have recent recorded drinking-water violations?: Stored public records show 183 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 719 recorded violations across 332 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.
How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Ohio?: Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 300 covered systems; 179 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.
How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Ohio?: Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 325 covered systems; 281 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.
What source-water types are represented across covered Ohio systems?: Stored identity records group covered Ohio systems by source-water type: Surface water: 164, Groundwater: 168.
Where can I find official drinking-water records for Ohio?: The Official records drawer lists State drinking-water program, Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Ohio.
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

State drinking-water programOhio Environmental Protection Agency: State drinking and groundwater program home page.
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.

Top recent compliance-burden systemsRecent 3 years

System	Population	Source water	Recent violations	Recent enforcement	Public-record flags
Milford City PwsOH1301012	6,700	Groundwater	49	14	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Nelsonville PwsOH0501214	6,656	Groundwater	23	66	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Maysville Regional WaterOH6001411	6,540	Groundwater	20	65	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Cadiz Village PwsOH3400214	3,353	Surface water	18	49	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
Odrc-Pickaway Correction PwsOH6501712	3,376	Groundwater	18	41	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
New LexingtonOH6400411	5,161	Surface water	16	58	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, lead/copper context
Buckeye Water District - Ohio RiverOH1502911	10,300	Surface water	15	40	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
East Liverpool CityOH1500811	12,586	Surface water	14	33	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

332 of the community drinking-water systems in Ohio are currently scored. Analytics below are calculated from this covered subset only. Covered systems serve approximately 13.4M people.

What the Data Suggests

Ohio has 332 scored service markets in the Munimetric coverage set, covering roughly 13.4 million residents in total. At the latest reading, the state-level average lands at 27.3 out of 100, indicating early but meaningful signs of structural stress in aggregate. A relatively small share — roughly 4% — currently sit in elevated-stress bands.

Across state markets, Capex Pressure (10.8 points average) and Operational Stress (9.9) are the leading contributors to headline stress. The relatively close spacing suggests pressure is spread across more than one dimension.

1580 active signals are recorded across state markets. The most prevalent is Lead & Copper Rule Risk, 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 27.3 as of Aug 17, 2026. Movement since Aug 16, 2026 is flat.

Compact summary from 98 stored state observations.

State Family Contribution Summary

Capex Pressure10.8 / 20.0

Operational Stress9.9 / 20.0

Governance Risk3.4 / 20.0

Revenue Fragility3.0 / 20.0

Rate Constraint0.2 / 20.0

Signals

Signal Frequency

Signal	Severity	Markets affected	% of scored
Lead & Copper Rule Risk	high	281	85%
Climate Hazard Exposure	high	277	83%
Compliance Escalation	high	216	65%
High-AGI Out-Migration	high	206	62%
PFAS Contamination Risk	high	179	54%
Utility Data Staleness	high	133	40%
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress	high	110	33%
Infrastructure Capital Gap	high	62	19%
Population Served Decline	medium	53	16%
Monitoring / Reporting Failures	medium	30	9%
Housing Market Weakness	medium	20	6%
Income Erosion	medium	10	3%
Rapid Score Deterioration	high	2	1%
SRF Dependence Spike	medium	1	0%

Markets

Top Markets

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Ironton PWS	50.6	Fragile	11K	9
2	Nelsonville PWS	45.3	Fragile	7K	8
3	Martins Ferry Public Water System	44.4	Fragile	7K	8
4	Barnesville	44.2	Fragile	7K	8
5	Loveland City PWS	43.2	Fragile	13K	7
6	Springboro PWS	43.1	Fragile	19K	7
7	Chagrin Falls Village PWS	43.0	Fragile	5K	6
8	Yellow Springs Village PWS	42.9	Fragile	4K	7
9	Hudson City PWS	42.7	Fragile	8K	6
10	Shadyside Public Water System	41.6	Fragile	4K	7
11	Toledo	41.1	Fragile	360K	6
12	Western Water Company	40.6	Fragile	40K	8
13	Newark	40.4	Fragile	50K	8
14	Marietta	39.7	Watch	19K	7
15	Warren Co. Socialville PWS	39.2	Watch	13K	8
16	Jefferson Water and Sewer District PWS	39.1	Watch	11K	6
17	Hamilton Public Water System	39.1	Watch	62K	5
18	Cuyahoga Falls City PWS	39.0	Watch	51K	5
19	Rural Lorain Co. Water a	38.9	Watch	73K	6
20	Wyoming City PWS	38.9	Watch	10K	6

Comparison

State Comparison

National average: 24.4

Rank	State	Avg Score	Band	Markets	Delta vs State
15	Illinois	27.9	Watch	452	+0.6
16	Florida	27.9	Watch	391	+0.6
17	Ohio	27.3	Watch	332	+0.0
18	South Carolina	27.0	Watch	155	-0.4
19	Utah	26.6	Watch	106	-0.7

Analytical posture

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Distribution of scored market scores with the state average overlay.

332 markets plotted.

Stress vs Population

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

332 markets plotted.

Population View

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

~13.4M people served by 332 systems in Ohio

Stable

Watch

Fragile

High Stress

Critical

332 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

27.3

Trend

+25.3

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	Ironton PWS	50.6	Fragile	11K	9
2	Nelsonville PWS	45.3	Fragile	7K	8
3	Martins Ferry Public Water System	44.4	Fragile	7K	8
4	Barnesville	44.2	Fragile	7K	8
5	Loveland City PWS	43.2	Fragile	13K	7
6	Springboro PWS	43.1	Fragile	19K	7
7	Chagrin Falls Village PWS	43.0	Fragile	5K	6
8	Yellow Springs Village PWS	42.9	Fragile	4K	7
9	Hudson City PWS	42.7	Fragile	8K	6
10	Shadyside Public Water System	41.6	Fragile	4K	7
11	Toledo	41.1	Fragile	360K	6
12	Western Water Company	40.6	Fragile	40K	8
13	Newark	40.4	Fragile	50K	8
14	Marietta	39.7	Watch	19K	7
15	Warren Co. Socialville PWS	39.2	Watch	13K	8
16	Jefferson Water and Sewer District PWS	39.1	Watch	11K	6
17	Hamilton Public Water System	39.1	Watch	62K	5
18	Cuyahoga Falls City PWS	39.0	Watch	51K	5
19	Rural Lorain Co. Water a	38.9	Watch	73K	6
20	Wyoming City PWS	38.9	Watch	10K	6

Detailed records

Registers

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Ironton PWS	50.6	Fragile	11K	9
2	Nelsonville PWS	45.3	Fragile	7K	8
3	Martins Ferry Public Water System	44.4	Fragile	7K	8
4	Barnesville	44.2	Fragile	7K	8
5	Loveland City PWS	43.2	Fragile	13K	7
6	Springboro PWS	43.1	Fragile	19K	7
7	Chagrin Falls Village PWS	43.0	Fragile	5K	6
8	Yellow Springs Village PWS	42.9	Fragile	4K	7
9	Hudson City PWS	42.7	Fragile	8K	6
10	Shadyside Public Water System	41.6	Fragile	4K	7
11	Toledo	41.1	Fragile	360K	6
12	Western Water Company	40.6	Fragile	40K	8
13	Newark	40.4	Fragile	50K	8
14	Marietta	39.7	Watch	19K	7
15	Warren Co. Socialville PWS	39.2	Watch	13K	8
16	Jefferson Water and Sewer District PWS	39.1	Watch	11K	6
17	Hamilton Public Water System	39.1	Watch	62K	5
18	Cuyahoga Falls City PWS	39.0	Watch	51K	5
19	Rural Lorain Co. Water a	38.9	Watch	73K	6
20	Wyoming City PWS	38.9	Watch	10K	6

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 332 community drinking-water systems in Ohio, 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 Ohio compares nationally.

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

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 332 community drinking-water systems in Ohio. 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 Ohio 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 Ohio?: Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Ohio. 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 Ohio face the most infrastructure stress?: The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Ohio 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 Ohio compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio 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 Ohio?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Ohio water systems.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Ohio?: 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.