Clickable Drinking Water

Drinking Water Master Table

Drinking Water Master Table

50-State Drinking Water Infrastructure Profile
ASCE National Drinking Water Grade: C− 2025 SOURCE
State ↕ Current Drinking Water
Spending ↕		 % National
Current Spending ↕		 Additional Spending
Needed for B− ↕		 Drinking Water
Grade ↕
Alabama$6.76B1.872%$8.20BC-
Alaska$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Arizona$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Arkansas$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
California$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
Colorado$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Connecticut$7.32B2.028%$3.28BC+
Delaware$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
Florida$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
Georgia$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Hawaii$6.76B1.872%$8.20BC-
Idaho$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Illinois$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
Indiana$6.76B1.872%$8.20BC-
Iowa$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Kansas$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Kentucky$6.76B1.872%$8.20BC-
Louisiana$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
Maine$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Maryland$8.05B2.231%$3.28BC+
Massachusetts$8.05B2.231%$3.28BC+
Michigan$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Minnesota$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Mississippi$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Missouri$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
Montana$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Nebraska$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Nevada$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
New Hampshire$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
New Jersey$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
New Mexico$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
New York$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
North Carolina$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
North Dakota$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Ohio$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Oklahoma$6.76B1.872%$8.20BC-
Oregon$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Pennsylvania$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
Rhode Island$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
South Carolina$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
South Dakota$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Tennessee$7.75B2.145%$5.74BC
Texas$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
Utah$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
Vermont$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Virginia$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
Washington$8.93B2.475%$3.28BC+
West Virginia$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
Wisconsin$7.04B1.950%$5.74BC
Wyoming$6.08B1.685%$8.20BC-
SOURCE / MODEL NOTICE: ASCE's 2025 national Drinking Water grade is C−. ASCE's 2025 national investment table reports $670B in Drinking Water needs and $361B funded for 2024–33, a $309B funding gap. The state grades and state allocation multipliers below are model inputs; they are not presented as an ASCE-published 50-state grade/allocation dataset.
National Infrastructure Amount: $5.41 Trillion  •  National Drinking Water Amount: $361 Billion  •  Share of $5.41T: 6.673%  •  B− Model Target: $670 Billion  •  Additional Requirement: $309 Billion
Variable Category-Specific Allocation Percentage: Each state's Drinking Water allocation is independently calculated from its Drinking Water grade weight multiplied by a Drinking-Water-specific allocation multiplier, then normalized to 100% of the national Drinking Water amount. No Transit, Rail, Ports, Aviation, or Inland Waterways allocation pattern is reused.
DRINKING WATER GRADE
CURRENT DRINKING WATER SPENDING
ADDITIONAL NEEDED FOR B−
NATIONAL SHARE

Comments

New comments are not allowed.

Popular posts from this blog

Storm Shield Strategy Simulation — Official Simulation Engine

Image
Copy Interactive Post -        Paste In Copilot          Copilot permits interactive answers and scoring.    Copy Text.  # 🌊 STORM SHIELD STRATEGY SIMULATION — UNIVERSAL INTERACTIVE ROUND TEMPLATE # (Reusable for ALL PHASES / ROUNDS — no examples, no previous data) # ROUND N — INTERACTIVE ENGINE --- ## STEP 1 — PROJECT ASSIGNMENT Copilot loads the round’s scenario and provides: - Base Score (0–100 master score framework) - Starting Budget (current approved budget level) - Current Cost Estimate - Overrun Percentage - National Impact Context (local vs national economic security) - Phase Context (e.g., Build / Financing / Contracts / Audit / Environment / Port / Real Estate / Climate / Storm Test / Final Construction / Maintenance) **User Action:** None — Copilot initializes the round. --- ## STEP 2 — RISK & COST BASELINE Copilot lists the round’s risk and cost conditions and sets: - Starting Score - Safety / Economic / Cost ...
Read more

Transit Infrastructure Grades (Quality Rankings)

Image
Blog Options – Finding Key Words Full 50‑state Transit Infrastructure Tier System , built in the exact same tier design structure you use for Roads, Bridges, Schools, and Wastewater. This follows your standardized ASCE-style model: C+ / C = Top Tier C‑ = Middle Tier D+ = Lower Tier D = Bottom Tier Transit grades are based on: System age Fleet modernization Rail/bus reliability Funding stability Coverage + accessibility State-level transit investment 🚇 50‑State Transit Infrastructure Tier System (Quality Rankings) (Same structure as your other 18-category tiers) ⭐ Top Tier — C / C+ (Above National Average) States with strong transit systems, modern fleets, and consistent funding. New York New Jersey Massachusetts Maryland Illinois California Washington Oregon Minnesota Colorado 🟡 Middle Tier — C‑ (Slightly Below Average) States with moderate transit systems, partial modernization, and mixed coverage. Virginia Georgia Florida Texas Arizona Hawaii Pennsylvania Connecticut ...
Read more

State Wastewater Infrastructure Grades (Quality Rankings)

Image
Blog Options – Finding Key Words   Most states currently hold D to C‑level wastewater grades , reflecting aging treatment plants, underfunded sewer systems, and rising regulatory demands. ASCE’s national wastewater grade is D+ , and state-level grades follow the same pattern. Below is a clean, state-by-state wastewater quality ranking synthesized from the latest ASCE State Infrastructure Report Cards (2021–2026). These are wastewater-only grades , not overall infrastructure grades. 🧭 State Wastewater Infrastructure Grades (Quality Rankings) (Grouped from strongest → weakest) (ASCE State Report Cards; latest available per state) ⭐ Top Tier (C / C+) — Above National Average Georgia — C Utah — C Minnesota — C Florida — C Texas — C North Dakota — C South Dakota — C Montana — C Kansas — C Arizona — C 🟡 Middle Tier (C‑) — Slightly Below Average California — C‑ Colorado — C‑ Connecticut — C‑ Idaho — C‑ Illinois — C‑ Indiana — C‑ Iowa — C‑ Kentucky — C‑ Main...
Read more