What is the Munimetric score for Oklahoma?

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

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

Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma?

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

Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Oklahoma?

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 Oklahoma have recent recorded drinking-water violations?

Stored public records show 118 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 2,467 recorded violations across 148 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.

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

Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 142 covered systems; 88 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.

How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Oklahoma?

Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 147 covered systems; 118 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.

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

Stored identity records group covered Oklahoma systems by source-water type: Surface water: 115, Groundwater: 33.

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

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

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 / Oklahoma

Oklahoma

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

Oklahoma municipal water system monitoring across 148 scored service markets serving approximately 3.7 million people, with Munimetric scores, stress signals, market rankings, and infrastructure risk context. This state profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Oklahoma has an average MISI infrastructure stress score of 33.3/100 in the Watch 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 148 covered systems. Updated May 2026.

National context

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

148Markets scored

33.3Headline composite

~3.7MPop. served

886Active signals

Band distribution (MISI)

State headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress29.2 / 100

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

Socioeconomic Stress4.0 / 100

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

Observability Stress0.1 / 100

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

33.3 headline compositeOklahoma state composite148 markets~3.7M people served

Track

Oklahoma Infrastructure Track

Portfolio posture across schedule and budget risk. · 17 active projects.

State scope

Total capital$266M

On-time rate

100%

Budget risk

65%

Delayed0%

Sch. variance0d

Funding mix

17 projects•Tracked capital: $266,145,211

Funding mix unavailable

Big projects

Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust (XII) - ORF-24-0001-DW$75M Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust (XII) - ORF-24-0001-DW$75M Lawton Water Authority (VII) - ORF-24-0008-DW$29M Lawton Water Authority (VII) - ORF-24-0008-DW$29M

View project context

State interpretation guide

How to read Oklahoma headline composite

Plain-language summary

Oklahoma currently shows an average MISI headline composite of 33.3 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

148 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 Oklahoma 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

118 of 148Systems with recent public violation rows.

Source-water mix148 systems

Surface water115
Groundwater33
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 147 of 148 included scored systems.
PFAS monitoring summary records are stored for 142 of 148 included systems; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
Lead and copper summary records are stored for 147 of 148 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 Oklahoma have recent recorded drinking-water violations?: Stored public records show 118 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 2,467 recorded violations across 148 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.
How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Oklahoma?: Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 142 covered systems; 88 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.
How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Oklahoma?: Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 147 covered systems; 118 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.
What source-water types are represented across covered Oklahoma systems?: Stored identity records group covered Oklahoma systems by source-water type: Surface water: 115, Groundwater: 33.
Where can I find official drinking-water records for Oklahoma?: The Official records drawer lists Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Oklahoma.
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
KingfisherOK2003702	5,073	Groundwater	129	298	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Choctaw UaOK2005510	3,926	Groundwater	129	82	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Moore Public Works AuthorityOK2001412	55,083	Surface water	122	46	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
ClintonOK1010828	8,883	Surface water	107	77	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Bristow Municipal AuthorityOK2001910	3,700	Groundwater	104	50	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Coweta PwaOK1021509	9,450	Surface water	101	179	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Nichols HillsOK2005501	4,020	Groundwater	76	40	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Idabel PwaOK1010203	6,952	Surface water	74	80	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

148 of the community drinking-water systems in Oklahoma are currently scored. Analytics below are calculated from this covered subset only. Covered systems serve approximately 3.7M people.

What the Data Suggests

Oklahoma has 148 scored service markets in the Munimetric coverage set, covering roughly 3.7 million residents in total. At the latest reading, the state-level average lands at 33.3 out of 100, indicating early but meaningful signs of structural stress in aggregate. About 21% 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 (17.2 points average), with Capex Pressure a distant second at 11.9. That pattern suggests a particular kind of pressure — concentrated rather than broadly distributed.

886 active signals are recorded across state markets. The most prevalent is Current Drought Severity, affecting 147 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 33.3 as of Aug 18, 2026. Movement since Aug 17, 2026 is flat.

Compact summary from 96 stored state observations.

State Family Contribution Summary

Operational Stress17.2 / 20.0

Capex Pressure11.9 / 20.0

Revenue Fragility2.9 / 20.0

Governance Risk1.0 / 20.0

Rate Constraint0.3 / 20.0

Signals

Signal Frequency

Signal	Severity	Markets affected	% of scored
Current Drought Severity	high	147	99%
Climate Hazard Exposure	high	134	91%
Compliance Escalation	high	132	89%
Lead & Copper Rule Risk	high	118	80%
PFAS Contamination Risk	high	88	59%
Infrastructure Capital Gap	high	57	39%
Monitoring / Reporting Failures	medium	56	38%
High-AGI Out-Migration	high	53	36%
Population Served Decline	high	45	30%
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress	high	27	18%
Housing Market Weakness	medium	12	8%
Income Erosion	high	8	5%
Rapid Score Deterioration	high	6	4%
Utility Data Staleness	high	3	2%

Markets

Top Markets

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Watonga	53.8	Fragile	3K	9
2	Frederick	51.8	Fragile	4K	6
3	Elk City	51.0	Fragile	2K	10
4	Noble	50.2	Fragile	6K	9
5	Moore	49.9	Fragile	55K	8
6	Caddo Co Rwd #3	47.5	Fragile	4K	9
7	Norman	46.9	Fragile	105K	8
8	Enid	45.8	Fragile	49K	8
9	Wagoner Co Rwd # 9	45.8	Fragile	4K	6
10	Okla Ordnance Works Authority	45.6	Fragile	4K	8
11	Okmulgee	44.4	Fragile	13K	8
12	Oklahoma City	44.0	Fragile	644K	7
13	Harrah	44.0	Fragile	4K	7
14	Spencer	44.0	Fragile	4K	8
15	Midwest City	43.7	Fragile	56K	7
16	Chickasha Municipal Authority	43.7	Fragile	16K	7
17	Kingfisher	43.7	Fragile	5K	8
18	Piedmont	43.5	Fragile	8K	8
19	Porum Public Works Authority	43.2	Fragile	5K	8
20	El Reno	43.2	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	+4.2
2	Oklahoma	33.3	Watch	148	+0.0
3	New Mexico	32.6	Watch	75	-0.7
4	Alaska	31.6	Watch	25	-1.8

Analytical posture

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Distribution of scored market scores with the state average overlay.

148 markets plotted.

Stress vs Population

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

148 markets plotted.

Population View

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

~3.7M people served by 148 systems in Oklahoma

Stable

Watch

Fragile

High Stress

Critical

148 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

33.3

Trend

+30.3

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	Watonga	53.8	Fragile	3K	9
2	Frederick	51.8	Fragile	4K	6
3	Elk City	51.0	Fragile	2K	10
4	Noble	50.2	Fragile	6K	9
5	Moore	49.9	Fragile	55K	8
6	Caddo Co Rwd #3	47.5	Fragile	4K	9
7	Norman	46.9	Fragile	105K	8
8	Enid	45.8	Fragile	49K	8
9	Wagoner Co Rwd # 9	45.8	Fragile	4K	6
10	Okla Ordnance Works Authority	45.6	Fragile	4K	8
11	Okmulgee	44.4	Fragile	13K	8
12	Oklahoma City	44.0	Fragile	644K	7
13	Harrah	44.0	Fragile	4K	7
14	Spencer	44.0	Fragile	4K	8
15	Midwest City	43.7	Fragile	56K	7
16	Chickasha Municipal Authority	43.7	Fragile	16K	7
17	Kingfisher	43.7	Fragile	5K	8
18	Piedmont	43.5	Fragile	8K	8
19	Porum Public Works Authority	43.2	Fragile	5K	8
20	El Reno	43.2	Fragile	16K	8

Detailed records

Registers

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Watonga	53.8	Fragile	3K	9
2	Frederick	51.8	Fragile	4K	6
3	Elk City	51.0	Fragile	2K	10
4	Noble	50.2	Fragile	6K	9
5	Moore	49.9	Fragile	55K	8
6	Caddo Co Rwd #3	47.5	Fragile	4K	9
7	Norman	46.9	Fragile	105K	8
8	Enid	45.8	Fragile	49K	8
9	Wagoner Co Rwd # 9	45.8	Fragile	4K	6
10	Okla Ordnance Works Authority	45.6	Fragile	4K	8
11	Okmulgee	44.4	Fragile	13K	8
12	Oklahoma City	44.0	Fragile	644K	7
13	Harrah	44.0	Fragile	4K	7
14	Spencer	44.0	Fragile	4K	8
15	Midwest City	43.7	Fragile	56K	7
16	Chickasha Municipal Authority	43.7	Fragile	16K	7
17	Kingfisher	43.7	Fragile	5K	8
18	Piedmont	43.5	Fragile	8K	8
19	Porum Public Works Authority	43.2	Fragile	5K	8
20	El Reno	43.2	Fragile	16K	8

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 148 community drinking-water systems in Oklahoma, 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 Oklahoma compares nationally.

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

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 148 community drinking-water systems in Oklahoma. 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma?: Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Oklahoma. 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 Oklahoma face the most infrastructure stress?: The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Oklahoma water systems.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Oklahoma?: 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.