Water System Risk & Funding Priority Index

Method

Each component is normalised to 0 through 100 and combined at the weights below into a single review-priority score. These weights are fixed for this model version and held in version-controlled configuration, so any score on this page can be reproduced from the published inputs.

Six components, summing to 100, then a deduction for data quality.

• Compliance 30%
• Vulnerability 20%
• Enforcement 15%
• Funding gap 15%
• Small-system context 10%
• Drought 10%
• Data-quality penalty -5%

What this does not establish

This is a screening index, not a regulatory finding, a legal determination, an engineering siting tool, or a claim that any listed system is unsafe. A high rank means a system is worth looking at earlier than others, and nothing more.

An unmatched funding record does not prove that a system received no funding. It proves only that no record was matched to it. No Ohio SRF export was staged for this run, so the funding component is partial by design and is reported as such on every record.

of the systems resolve only to an approximate location. Those markers carry county-centroid or geocoded fallbacks and should be read as screening context, never as service-area extent. Each record states its own geometry provenance.

How the 16,339 records resolve to geography.