What is the Munimetric score for Washington?

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

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

Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington?

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

Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Washington?

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 Washington have recent recorded drinking-water violations?

Stored public records show 83 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 253 recorded violations across 237 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.

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

Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 212 covered systems; 90 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.

How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Washington?

Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 195 covered systems; 90 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.

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

Stored identity records group covered Washington systems by source-water type: Surface water: 94, Groundwater: 143.

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

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

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 / Washington

Washington

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

Statewide Munimetric profile for Washington, covering drinking-water market scores, signal activity, infrastructure stress context, and population insights across 237 scored service markets serving approximately 8.6 million people. This state profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Washington has an average MISI infrastructure stress score of 28.1/100 in the Watch band as of 2026-08-24. Public records summarize recent drinking-water violations, PFAS monitoring records, lead and copper context, and source-water mix across 237 covered systems. Updated May 2026.

National context

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

237Markets scored

28.1Headline composite

~8.6MPop. served

1224Active signals

Band distribution (MISI)

State headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress21.5 / 100

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

Socioeconomic Stress3.5 / 100

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

Observability Stress3.1 / 100

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

28.1 headline compositeWashington state composite237 markets~8.6M people served

State interpretation guide

How to read Washington headline composite

Plain-language summary

Washington currently shows an average MISI headline composite of 28.1 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

237 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 Washington 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

83 of 237Systems with recent public violation rows.

Source-water mix237 systems

Surface water94
Groundwater143
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 218 of 237 included scored systems.
PFAS monitoring summary records are stored for 212 of 237 included systems; missing records are not treated as non-detections.
Lead and copper summary records are stored for 195 of 237 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 Washington have recent recorded drinking-water violations?: Stored public records show 83 covered systems with recent drinking-water violations, with 253 recorded violations across 237 covered systems in the recent 3 years window.
How does Munimetric summarize PFAS public-record context in Washington?: Stored contaminant-monitoring summaries are present for 212 covered systems; 90 systems have PFAS detection context in this state summary.
How does Munimetric summarize lead & copper context in Washington?: Stored lead & copper summaries are present for 195 covered systems; 90 systems have violation or action-level context in this state summary.
What source-water types are represented across covered Washington systems?: Stored identity records group covered Washington systems by source-water type: Surface water: 94, Groundwater: 143.
Where can I find official drinking-water records for Washington?: The Official records drawer lists Public drinking-water profile, Contaminant monitoring records links where currently available for Washington.
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
Deer Park City OfWA5318500	5,435	Groundwater	41	4	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Fruitland Mutual Water CompanyWA5326800	15,313	Groundwater	8	6	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Westport Water DepartmentWA5395300	5,346	Groundwater	8	3	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Ephrata Water DepartmentWA5323650	8,718	Groundwater	6	8	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Trentwood Irrigation District 3WA5389250	4,228	Groundwater	6	6	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records, lead/copper context
Wapato WaterworksWA5392800	5,255	Groundwater	6	6	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records
Lake Chelan Reclamation DistrictWA5343783	6,798	Surface water	6	4	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, lead/copper context
Yak Co - Terrace HeightsWA5306029	8,410	Groundwater	5	6	recent violations recorded, recent enforcement history, recent monitoring/reporting failures, PFAS detections in stored records

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

Executive context

What This Page Shows

237 of the community drinking-water systems in Washington are currently scored. Analytics below are calculated from this covered subset only. Covered systems serve approximately 8.6M people.

What the Data Suggests

Washington has 237 scored service markets in the Munimetric coverage set, covering roughly 8.6 million residents in total. At the latest reading, the state-level average lands at 28.1 out of 100, indicating early but meaningful signs of structural stress in aggregate. A relatively small share — roughly 10% — currently sit in elevated-stress bands.

Across state markets, Operational Stress stands out as the dominant contributor to headline stress (14.7 points average), with Capex Pressure a distant second at 6.7. That pattern suggests a particular kind of pressure — concentrated rather than broadly distributed.

1224 active signals are recorded across state markets. The most prevalent is Climate Hazard Exposure, affecting 230 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 28.1 as of Aug 24, 2026. Movement since Aug 23, 2026 is flat.

Compact summary from 100 stored state observations.

State Family Contribution Summary

Operational Stress14.7 / 20.0

Capex Pressure6.7 / 20.0

Governance Risk3.6 / 20.0

Revenue Fragility3.2 / 20.0

Rate Constraint0.0 / 20.0

Signals

Signal Frequency

Signal	Severity	Markets affected	% of scored
Climate Hazard Exposure	high	230	97%
Current Drought Severity	high	206	87%
Compliance Escalation	high	196	83%
Utility Data Staleness	high	136	57%
Housing Market Weakness	medium	93	39%
Lead & Copper Rule Risk	high	90	38%
PFAS Contamination Risk	high	90	38%
High-AGI Out-Migration	high	57	24%
Infrastructure Capital Gap	high	55	23%
Monitoring / Reporting Failures	medium	36	15%
Parent-Government Fiscal Stress	medium	26	11%
Rapid Score Deterioration	high	6	3%
Population Served Decline	low	3	1%

Markets

Top Markets

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer	55.9	Fragile	79K	10
2	Lakehaven Utility District	52.2	Fragile	149K	9
3	Eatonville Water Dept	50.9	Fragile	4K	7
4	Southwood Water System	49.4	Fragile	64K	9
5	Renton, City of	49.2	Fragile	108K	9
6	Tacoma Water Division, City of	48.7	Fragile	446K	8
7	Seattle Public Utilities	48.2	Fragile	1.2M	8
8	Port Angeles, City of	48.0	Fragile	28K	8
9	Selah, City of	45.8	Fragile	9K	7
10	Everett Public Works Dept. City of	44.5	Fragile	216K	7
11	Redmond Water System, City of	44.2	Fragile	163K	8
12	Kelso, City of	44.2	Fragile	16K	6
13	Washington State University	43.8	Fragile	22K	8
14	Yak Co - Terrace Heights	43.2	Fragile	8K	7
15	Artondale Water System	42.7	Fragile	6K	7
16	Issaquah Water System	42.4	Fragile	44K	8
17	Auburn, City of	42.1	Fragile	108K	8
18	Washougal, City of	42.0	Fragile	21K	7
19	Bremerton, City of	41.0	Fragile	73K	7
20	Fircrest, City of	40.7	Fragile	8K	7

Comparison

State Comparison

National average: 24.4

Rank	State	Avg Score	Band	Markets	Delta vs State
9	Minnesota	28.8	Watch	176	+0.7
10	Missouri	28.5	Watch	210	+0.4
11	Washington	28.1	Watch	237	+0.0
12	Arizona	28.1	Watch	154	-0.0
13	West Virginia	28.1	Watch	91	-0.1

Analytical posture

State Stress Analytics

Score Distribution

Distribution of scored market scores with the state average overlay.

237 markets plotted.

Stress vs Population

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

237 markets plotted.

Population View

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

~8.6M people served by 237 systems in Washington

Stable

Watch

Fragile

High Stress

Critical

237 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

28.1

Trend

+21.1

Observations

100

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	Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer	55.9	Fragile	79K	10
2	Lakehaven Utility District	52.2	Fragile	149K	9
3	Eatonville Water Dept	50.9	Fragile	4K	7
4	Southwood Water System	49.4	Fragile	64K	9
5	Renton, City of	49.2	Fragile	108K	9
6	Tacoma Water Division, City of	48.7	Fragile	446K	8
7	Seattle Public Utilities	48.2	Fragile	1.2M	8
8	Port Angeles, City of	48.0	Fragile	28K	8
9	Selah, City of	45.8	Fragile	9K	7
10	Everett Public Works Dept. City of	44.5	Fragile	216K	7
11	Redmond Water System, City of	44.2	Fragile	163K	8
12	Kelso, City of	44.2	Fragile	16K	6
13	Washington State University	43.8	Fragile	22K	8
14	Yak Co - Terrace Heights	43.2	Fragile	8K	7
15	Artondale Water System	42.7	Fragile	6K	7
16	Issaquah Water System	42.4	Fragile	44K	8
17	Auburn, City of	42.1	Fragile	108K	8
18	Washougal, City of	42.0	Fragile	21K	7
19	Bremerton, City of	41.0	Fragile	73K	7
20	Fircrest, City of	40.7	Fragile	8K	7

Detailed records

Registers

#	Market	Score	Band	Population	Signals
1	Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer	55.9	Fragile	79K	10
2	Lakehaven Utility District	52.2	Fragile	149K	9
3	Eatonville Water Dept	50.9	Fragile	4K	7
4	Southwood Water System	49.4	Fragile	64K	9
5	Renton, City of	49.2	Fragile	108K	9
6	Tacoma Water Division, City of	48.7	Fragile	446K	8
7	Seattle Public Utilities	48.2	Fragile	1.2M	8
8	Port Angeles, City of	48.0	Fragile	28K	8
9	Selah, City of	45.8	Fragile	9K	7
10	Everett Public Works Dept. City of	44.5	Fragile	216K	7
11	Redmond Water System, City of	44.2	Fragile	163K	8
12	Kelso, City of	44.2	Fragile	16K	6
13	Washington State University	43.8	Fragile	22K	8
14	Yak Co - Terrace Heights	43.2	Fragile	8K	7
15	Artondale Water System	42.7	Fragile	6K	7
16	Issaquah Water System	42.4	Fragile	44K	8
17	Auburn, City of	42.1	Fragile	108K	8
18	Washougal, City of	42.0	Fragile	21K	7
19	Bremerton, City of	41.0	Fragile	73K	7
20	Fircrest, City of	40.7	Fragile	8K	7

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 237 community drinking-water systems in Washington, 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 Washington compares nationally.

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

Munimetric tracks infrastructure stress across 237 community drinking-water systems in Washington. 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 Washington 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 Washington?: Munimetric assigns a state-level average MISI score based on the individual scores of all covered community water systems in Washington. 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 Washington face the most infrastructure stress?: The state page ranks the highest-stress systems in Washington 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 Washington compare to other states for drinking water infrastructure risk?: Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington 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 Washington?: Munimetric tracks signals such as compliance escalation, monitoring and reporting failures, population decline, income erosion, data staleness, and parent-government fiscal stress across Washington water systems.
Does Munimetric track boil water advisories in Washington?: 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.