What is the Munimetric score for Chicago, IL?

The current Munimetric Infrastructure Stress Index (MISI) score for Chicago, IL is 48.1 out of 100, placing this system in the fragile stress band. MISI is a composite of five structural risk families. Higher values indicate more stress. The score is deterministic, source-backed, and updated as new data becomes available.

Does Chicago, IL show signs of drinking-water infrastructure stress?

Munimetric monitors structural stress indicators for Chicago, IL across operational conditions, capital needs, revenue stability, rate affordability, and governance quality. The current MISI score and active signals shown in this profile reflect the latest available evidence from EPA, ACS, FEMA NRI, and state financial disclosures.

Does Munimetric rate current tap-water conditions for Chicago, IL?

No. Munimetric is not a water testing service and does not make current-condition determinations. This profile tracks structural conditions: compliance posture, financial pressure, infrastructure stress, and governance quality. For current water quality testing results, consult the system's Consumer Confidence Report or contact the local water utility.

Has Chicago, IL had a boil water advisory?

Munimetric does not track real-time boil water advisories. For current advisory status, contact your local water utility or state drinking water program. This profile tracks structural risk indicators and compliance history that provide long-term context around system reliability.

Are lead pipes or corrosion risk a concern in Chicago, IL?

Where EPA SDWA compliance data includes lead and copper rule monitoring, violations, or enforcement actions, that information feeds into the Operational Stress component of the MISI score. Munimetric does not fabricate lead pipe data where public records are silent.

Does Munimetric include PFAS monitoring context for Chicago, IL?

Where stored public records include UCMR or contaminant-monitoring summaries, Munimetric displays PFAS monitoring context as public-record evidence. Missing PFAS summaries are treated as missing records, not as non-detections. This context does not change MISI by itself.

What source-water context is available for Chicago, IL?

Munimetric displays stored source-water and supply context where public drinking-water identity records are available. Source-water context helps explain treatment and supply exposure, but missing source records remain explicit rather than inferred.

Why might water rates be increasing in Chicago, IL?

Rate pressure can reflect capital investment needs, a declining customer base, revenue fragility, affordability constraints, or parent-government fiscal stress. The Rate Constraint and Revenue Fragility score families specifically measure these pressures where data is available from public financial disclosures.

What does the MISI score mean for Chicago, IL?

The MISI score (48.1/100) is a composite measure of structural risk across five families: Operational Stress, Capex Pressure, Revenue Fragility, Rate Constraint, and Governance Risk. The headline remains a blended structural stress composite rather than a pure physical-condition index. The current methodology also downweights factors that are nearly universal or very rare in the frozen national reference population, so one common contextual factor does not dominate the headline by itself. Higher scores indicate more structural stress. It is deterministic and source-backed, not a credit rating.

Munimetric Water System Profile

Chicago, IL

Name: Chicago, IL Water System Stress Profile
Creator: Munimetric
License: https://munimetric.com/terms

Drinking Water Infrastructure Profile

Munimetric drinking water infrastructure profile for Chicago, IL, Illinois, including MISI stress score, active signals, fiscal pressure, and peer comparison. This profile highlights what is happening and why it matters using water-system, fiscal, capital, and signal context.

Chicago, IL has a MISI infrastructure stress score of 48.1/100 in the Fragile band as of 2026-06-16. Public records show surface-water sourcing, PFAS monitoring context, lead and copper compliance context and approximately 2,746,388 residents served. Updated May 2026.

FragileScore date Jun 16, 2026Methodology v0.1.2

Headline score

48.1

97% confidence · cohort Community · 250k+ · Surface.

48.1Headline composite

FragileBand

97%Confidence

~2.7MPop. served

P93Peer percentile

11Active signals

Current headline composite

Component of current headline composite

Infrastructure Stress37.9 / 100

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

Socioeconomic Stress10.2 / 100

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

Observability Stress0.0 / 100

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

48.1/100 headline compositeFragile97% confidencedrinking_water::community_water_system::250k_plus::surface_water~2.7M people served

Monitoring context stored

Water Quality & Supply Context

Public-record context for this system. Stored monitoring and compliance records only. Does not change MISI.

Public records

Records presentILPWSID IL0316000.

Recent violations

111 records103 MRLead and Copper Rule Revisions, Public Notice Rule and Revised PN Rule +3

Enforcement records

158 recordsStored public enforcement rows.

PFAS monitoring records

No listed detectionsUCMRStored PFAS monitoring records list 240 samples and 0 detections.

Lead/copper monitoring records

Records stored20 samplesStored lead/copper records list 0 open LCR violations and 0 action-level records.

Source / supply context

Surface waterIdentity2,746,388 served; Dec 31, 2025.

Not a real-time tap-water condition determination. Use official utility or state program records for current advisories.

Official records

Public drinking-water profileEPA ECHO / SDWIS: Federal public system profile and compliance summary.
Enforcement historyEPA ECHO: Federal compliance and enforcement detail for this drinking-water system.

Source notes

Methodology/source notesDisplayed from stored public drinking-water records and official program references. This layer does not change MISI.
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.
Methodology/source notesOfficial annual consumer-confidence report links are not currently stored in this profile layer.

Tier 1 profile guide

How to interpret Chicago, IL

Plain-language summary

Chicago, IL is part of the selected Tier 1 profile set. This page is designed to quickly explain what the MISI headline composite means here. 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

Current MISI is 48.1 in the fragile band as of Jun 16, 2026.
97% confidence and 11 tracked structural signals support interpretation quality.
Related market links are prioritized for same-state and same-risk-context comparisons.

What to do next

Read the executive interpretation first to understand why the market is in its current band.
Compare this profile with related systems to validate whether stress patterns are local or systemic.
Open Illinois state context to see how this market fits the statewide posture.

Tier 1 navigation

Executive context

What the Data Suggests

Chicago, IL's public water system serves roughly 2.7 million residents, placing it among the larger community systems in this coverage set. The current reading places the system in a zone of moderate-to-elevated stress that goes beyond normal operating variation.

The score is being driven mainly by Capex Pressure, which is at the top of its range in the model, with Operational Stress adding another heavy layer of pressure. That combination suggests strain is showing up across core system functions, not just one isolated dimension.

8 active stress signals are attached to this system, including 4 at high severity. That signal mix points to a system where several warning indicators are firing at once, not just one extreme outlier.

Within Community · 250k+ · Surface, this system ranks around the 93rd percentile on measured stress, placing it among the more stressed systems in its peer group.

Recent observations suggest the system has been relatively steady rather than sharply improving or deteriorating — the current picture looks more like persistent underlying pressure 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.

Analytical posture

Market Stress Analytics

Family Contribution

MISI family contributions for this market.

Peer Position

Where Chicago sits within its peer cohort.

AvailableMissing

Score History

Latest

48.1

Trend

+31.1

Observations

Unified Explainability

Structural indicators

Stress diagnostics

Structural stress is currently driven by compliance-related escalation within recent monitoring activity.
Affordability pressure is present, with declining real income affecting rate capacity.
Liquidity conditions indicate moderate constraint.
Additional monitoring signals reflect ongoing administrative and reporting strain.
Some areas remain under active evaluation as coverage expands.

Signal timeline summary

No signal timeline history is stored for this profile.

Source observations

Completeness 0% · raw-file links remain policy-gated to authorized internal review workflows.

No source observations are stored on this profile.

Stress movement

Diagnostics

Diagnostics & Movement

Compact status for confidence, data coverage, disclosure freshness, and stored score movement. Detailed diagnostic history remains available below.

Confidence

97%

Confidence is mainly capped by document freshness.

Factor coverage

Complete

All tracked confidence factors are currently available.

Disclosure freshness

Not available

No attached disclosure document has a usable reference date.

Latest movement

flat 0.0

Compared with Jun 15, 2026.

Last material movement

+2.0

Recorded May 31, 2026.

History

59 observations stored

Latest stored observation Jun 16, 2026.

Show detailed diagnostic history

Expanded stress diagnostics

Open detailed contribution diagnostics

No detailed factor diagnostics are stored for this profile snapshot.

Confidence summary

Confidence is mainly capped by document freshness.

Gate high (option_b)

score_confidence: high
availability_score: high
mapping_confidence: high
freshness_score: high
provenance_completeness: unknown

Missing factor coverage

No factor gaps are recorded on the latest stored score.

Disclosure freshness diagnostics

0 attached local documents · 0 structured facts

No attached disclosure document has a usable reference date.

Latest reference Not available · stale after Not available

Score movement

flat 0.0

Previous run Jun 15, 2026

Jun 16, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 15, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 14, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 12, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 11, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 8, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 2, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0

Jun 1, 2026

Score 48.1 in band fragile. Confidence 97%.

Delta vs prior run 0.0