This report does not constitute a rating action.
Overview
S&P Global Ratings took 46 rating actions, made 13 outlook revisions, and placed 23 ratings on CreditWatch within the U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities sector in first quarter of 2025. We also affirmed 90 ratings with no outlook revisions.
| U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities rating actions, 2025 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 2025 | |||||||||
| Second quarter | Third quarter | Fourth quarter | First quarter | |||||||
| Upgrades | 9 | 11 | 6 | 6 | ||||||
| Downgrades | 34 | 22 | 35 | 31 | ||||||
| Favourable outlook revisions | 11 | 8 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
| Unfavourable outlook revisions | 13 | 13 | 23 | 9 | ||||||
| Removed from CreditWatch | 45 | 5 | 5 | 4 | ||||||
| CreditWatch with negative implications | 2 | 2 | 5 | 23 | ||||||
| Maintained ratings with no outlook revision | 112 | 103 | 82 | 90 | ||||||
| CreditWatch developing | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Data as of April 14, 2025. | ||||||||||
Negative rating actions exceeded positive actions by more than five to one. Unfavorable outlook revisions (nine) exceeded favorable revisions (four). Rating movement increased, with double the rating actions in first quarter 2025 than in first quarter of 2024, propelled by significantly more negative rating pressure.
First-Quarter Rating Actions
In first-quarter 2025, we lowered 31 ratings and raised six. Positive rating actions were underpinned by stronger financial performance coupled with prudent management practices, including proactive rate-setting, that supports sustainable trends. Negative rating actions were primarily due to deterioration in debt service coverage and liquidity, spurred by ongoing inflationary cost increases, affordability pressures, unbudgeted capital spending, and reactive rate-setting.
First-Quarter Outlook Revisions And CreditWatch Actions
In the first quarter, we made nine unfavorable outlook revisions and four favorable. Negative outlook revisions were mostly due to persisting inflationary cost increases and uncertainty regarding cost-recovery measures, which could ultimately lead to financial deterioration. Positive outlook revisions primarily reflected proactive long-term planning supportive of ongoing financial continuity, despite operational risks in the sector, and reduced operating risk. We placed 23 ratings on CreditWatch with negative implications, which were due to a lack of adequate and timely financial information.
First-Quarter Lookback
During the first quarter, we published our U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities annual outlook report. In 2025, we expect sector-specific capital and operating costs will continue to outpace broad inflationary measures, which we expect have not been fully passed through to ratepayers. In addition, we expect aging infrastructure will remain one of the most pressing matters in the water utility sector, with many assets nearing or exceeding their useful lives. Asset failures have led to rapid liquidity deterioration, and we anticipate regulatory and climate hazards will exacerbate capital needs and require proactive operational management. Affordability will also remain a key credit factor. The sector has historically been underpinned by strong rate-setting flexibility, but we have observed a greater reluctance to fully pass through costs to ratepayers, which has resulted in narrowing margins and weaker liquidity. For more information, see "U.S. Not-For-Profit Utilities 2025 Outlook: Rough Water Likely Will Underscore Credit Trends," published Jan. 15, 2025, on RatingsDirect.
In addition, there is considerable uncertainty related to the renegotiation of the Colorado River's operating guidelines. Seven western states and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have one year to renegotiate the operating framework for river before operating guidelines expire. If the states fail to reach a consensus by the summer, federal intervention and litigation are more likely, and we believe it would increase operating uncertainty for all rated water issuers in the Upper and Lower basins. For more information, see “Summer Deadline Looms Over Colorado River's Management Renegotiations,” published March 10, 2025.
Ongoing uncertainty over water supply from Mexico could also cause credit pressure for U.S. utilities. On April 28, Mexico agreed to increase the U.S. share of the water supply in six of its Rio Grande tributaries through the end of the current five-year water cycle that ends in October 2025, and to collaborate with the U.S. to develop a long-term plan to ensure supply predictability under the 1944 Water Treaty, which we view favorably. While short-term supply predictability from Mexico might be resolved, the country’s previous failures to meet delivery targets have led to weakened underlying economic fundamentals and financial performance for U.S. utilities that rely on these deliveries. Given the water-supply stress stemming from drought, aridification, increasing demand, and aging and deficient infrastructure, any delays could negatively affect utilities in the Rio Grande Basin. For more information, see “Ongoing Water Delivery Uncertainty Intensifies Credit Pressure On Utilities In The Rio Grande Basin,” published April 29, 2025.
| U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities rating actions, summary first-quarter 2025 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity | State | Rating to | Rating from | Outlook to | Outlook from | CreditWatch | Reason | |||||||||
| Woonsocket | RI | BBB+ | BBB+ | Not meaningful | Negative | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Cannon Water Supply District 1 | MO | A | A | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Ruidoso | Not meaningful | A- | A+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's weakened financial metrics driven by a decrease in revenues as a result of increased operating expenses and management's previous lowering of sewer rates. | ||||||||||
| Mountlake Terrace | WA | AA- | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Phenix City | AL | BBB+ | BBB+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Highland Water Authority | AL | A- | A- | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the utility's weakened financial margins and projected decline in DSC. | ||||||||||
| North Texas Municipal Water District | TX | A+ | A | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects the combined financial performance of the wholesale system's participants, Royse City and the City of Fate. | ||||||||||
| Hillside-Berkeley Water Commission | IL | BBB- | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the financial deterioration of one of the commission's members, which depleted its liquidity due to recent fiscal deficits and multiyear revenue collection issue. | ||||||||||
| El Toro Water District Financing Authority | CA | AA- | AA | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's weak all-in debt service coverage in fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024, which were below management's previously provided projections. | ||||||||||
| City of Star Harbor | TX | BB | BB | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Woodland Fin Auth | CA | AA | AA | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Hayward | CA | AA+ | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| Covington County Water Authority | AL | BBB | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's reactionary rate-setting practices leading to a trend of financial deterioration. | ||||||||||
| Paoli | IN | BBB | A- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects fluctuating nominal liquidity levels as well as its lack of formalized policies commensurate with peers. | ||||||||||
| Northeast Public Sewer District | MO | A | A+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's deteriorated DSC due to heightened operating expenses and the accelerated execution of repair-and-replacement programs. | ||||||||||
| Sangamon Valley Public Water District | IL | AA- | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Upper Trinity Regional Water District | TX | AA | AA- | Stable | Positive | The upgrade reflects the improving credit quality of the district's customers, coupled with our expectation that the participants will continue to support the district's increasing costs and capital projects. | ||||||||||
| Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority | PA | AA- | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Vanport Township Municipal Auth | PA | BBB | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| Fate | TX | A+ | A | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects the city's consistent financial performance, which has improved over time due to consistent customer growth and rate adjustments. | ||||||||||
| Midway Sewerage Authority | PA | BBB+ | A | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's low liquidity and weakening coverage levels, largely due to reactive and infrequent rate-setting practices. | ||||||||||
| Winter Garden | FL | AA- | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority | Not meaningful | AA+ | AA+ | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects our view that DSC metrics are not comparable with those of peers at the 'AA+' rating level as well as uncertainty about future rate increases. | ||||||||||
| Northeastern Schuylkill Joint Municipal Authority | PA | B+ | BB+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's projected structural imbalance and uncertaintry regarding future rate setting. | ||||||||||
| Deltona | FL | AA- | A+ | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects the utility's financial and operational policies and procedures that have led to the maintenance of extremely strong DSC and very strong available reserves. | ||||||||||
| Johnstown City Redevelopment Authority | PA | BB+ | BB | Positive | Stable | The upgrade and positive outlook reflect the authority's rate implementation and robust financial policies have supported improved DSC and liquidity metrics. | ||||||||||
| Lompoc | CA | A- | A+ | Negative | Stable | Negative | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's deteriorated cash position and worsening DSC driven by untimely and inadequate rate-setting practices. | |||||||||
| Kingsland Municipal Utility District | TX | A+ | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| Gas City | IN | BB+ | BBB+ | Negative | Negative | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's below 1.0x DSC and highly vulnerable cash reserves due to delayed action to increase rates. | ||||||||||
| Pasco | WA | AA- | AA- | Stable | Negative | The return to stable outlook reflects the utility's proactive long-term planning, including implementing rate adjustments to maintain a Stable financial profile. | ||||||||||
| Tustin | CA | AA- | AA | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's increase in operational costs that have weakened financial margins in the past two fiscal years, leading to more marginal DSC. | ||||||||||
| Michigan City | IN | A | A+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's increase in operational costs that have weakened financial margins as compared with the utility's historical performance. | ||||||||||
| California Department of Water Resources | CA | AAA | AAA | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the utility's growing water supply costs increase local affordability risks, particularly as local agencies adapt to more extreme weather patterns, bolster supply resiliency, and invest in storage, which could adversely influence local financial capacity and debt levels over time. | ||||||||||
| Woodland | CA | A+ | A+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Redmond | WA | AAA | AAA | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Lynwood | CA | A- | A+ | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects the utility's weak financial performance, including our view that coverage levels are unlikely to return to historically high levels over the outlook period due to existing capital needs. | ||||||||||
| Park City | UTAH | AA- | AA | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's emerging financial pressures following increases in operating expenses, debt service and contractual costs, while revenue growth has been limited by water conservation-induced impacts to demand. | ||||||||||
| Lake Egypt Water District | IL | BBB | A | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's volatile financial performance in fiscal years 2021 and 2022, driven by belated rate increases. | ||||||||||
| Gig Harbor | WA | AA+ | AA+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Missoula (sewer) | MT | A | A+ | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects our view of the utility’s heightened financial and operating risks as it relates to aging infrastructure and increasing maintenance costs following a period of weak operating margins and zero cash, combined with exposure to elevated physical risks in an enviroNot meaningfulent where overall sector risks are rising. | ||||||||||
| South Middleton Township Municipal Authority | PA | AA- | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| St. Clair County | AL | AA- | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Dinuba | CA | BBB- | BBB+ | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's delayed cost recovery resulting in a decrease in liquidity to zero dollars, all-in coverage below 1.0x, and the need for interfund borrowings in fiscal 2023. | ||||||||||
| Charter Township of Kinross | MI | BBB- | BBB- | Positive | Stable | The positive outlook reflects recent improvements within operational risk, primarily resulting from the decommission of the utility's methane plant that has lessened operating expenses. | ||||||||||
| Erwin Utilities Authority | TN | A | A | Negative | Not meaningful | The negative outlook reflects our uncertainty regarding the impact of necessary wastewater system capital repairs on the system's financial profile over the outlook period, following Hurricane Helene. | ||||||||||
| Porterville | CA | A+ | AA- | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's volatile DCS, which we view to be pressured by increasing debt service, paired with insufficient rate increases. | ||||||||||
| Bargersville | IN | AA- | AA- | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the utility's declining DSC, which might lead to continued weaker finances if corrective cost-recovery measures are not implemented. | ||||||||||
| Albion | MI | BBB- | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| El Centro | CA | A+ | A+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Hobart Vill | WI | A- | A | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's declining liquidity over recent years, due in part to inflationary pressures and the historical lack of rate increases until 2024. | ||||||||||
| Myrtlewood Town | AL | BBB+ | BBB+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Greeneville | TN | A+ | A+ | Negative | Not meaningful | The negative outlook reflects the potential for extended declines in reserves and DSC due to expense increases and capital requirements following Hurricane Helene. | ||||||||||
| Lancaster Cnty Solid Waste Mgmt Auth | PA | AAA | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| La Canada Irrigation District | CA | A | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| Anchorage | AK | AA | AA | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Missoula (water) | MT | A | A+ | Stable | Negative | The downgrade reflects our view of the utility’s heightened financial and operating risks as it relates to aging infrastructure and increasing maintenance costs, following a period of weak operating margins and zero cash, combined with exposure to elevated physical risks in an enviroNot meaningfulent where overall sector risks are rising. | ||||||||||
| Hot Springs | AR | BBB+ | A | Negative | Stable | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's weakened DSC driven by rising operating expenses, combined with higher annual debt service requirements. | ||||||||||
| Los Angeles Department of Water & Power | CA | AA- | AA+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | The downgrade and CreditWatch action reflect the heightened potential for litigation, liabilities, and future costs surrounding the adequacy of existing water system assets and emergency preparedness following wildfire events. | |||||||||
| Memphis | TN | A+ | AA+ | Negative | Negative | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's decline in reserves and our view of the utilty's operational and financial policies, which are weaker than those of similarly rated peers in an enviroNot meaningfulent where sector risks are growing. | ||||||||||
| Cape Coral | FL | A+ | A+ | Stable | Negative | The return to stable outlook reflects the utility's lack of material asset damages as a result of Hurricane Ian, continued economic growth in the service area, and management's ongoing financial planning and approved rate increases. | ||||||||||
| Helena Utility Board | AL | BBB | A | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's untimely and insufficient rate-setting practices leading to DSC levels below 1x. | ||||||||||
| Brisbane | CA | A | A | Not meaningful | Negative | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Woonsocket | RI | A+ | A+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| El Centro | CA | A | A | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| University Area Joint Authority | PA | A- | A- | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the utility's additional leverage coupled with an ongoing rate dispute, and concerns that recent rate increase will not be sufficient to maintain adequate financial metrics. | ||||||||||
| Oakland | CA | AA | AA+ | Negative | Not meaningful | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's operational and financial policies that we view as weaker than those of similarly rated peers in an enviroNot meaningfulent where sector risks are rising, in addition to weakened general fund metrics that expose the enterprise to a greater risk of liquidity impairment. | ||||||||||
| Upper Mohawk Valley Regional Water Finance Authority | NY | A+ | A+ | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the downsizing of MVWA's top customer, as well as weaker financial metrics compared with those of similarly rated peers. | ||||||||||
| Park City | KS | A+ | A | Stable | Stable | The upgrade reflects the utility's improved coverage and the maintenance of robust liquidity, in addition to the two participants that support the debt of equal credit quality. | ||||||||||
| Hannibal | MO | A | A | Negative | Stable | The negative outlook reflects the utility's weak rate-setting practices, given challenges in implementing rates sufficient to produce net revenues above debt service, including due to affordability concerns. | ||||||||||
| Bad Axe | MI | BBB | BBB+ | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's volatile financial performance and lack of comprehensive financial and capital planning. | ||||||||||
| Dutton Waterworks and Gas Board | AL | BBB | BBB | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Austin | IN | BBB+ | A- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's volatile and nominally thin liquidity position in recent years, and the utility's sizable capital needs due to a consent order the utility is currently undertaking. | ||||||||||
| Cleveland Twn | AL | BBB+ | A- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects declines in DSC brought on by several years of rising operating expenditures, coupled with an already modest cash position which could face pressures over the near term. | ||||||||||
| San Buenaventura | CA | AA | AA | Stable | Negative | The return to stable outlook reflects the utility's strong coverage and reserves projected over medium term, in addition to well-codified financial and operational practices. | ||||||||||
| Winters | CA | A- | A- | Not meaningful | Positive | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Pleasant View Utility District | TN | AA- | AA- | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Gadsden Water Works & Sewer Board | AL | A+ | A+ | Not meaningful | Stable | Negative | Inability to obtain adequate and timely financial information. | |||||||||
| Wickson Creek Spl Util Dist | TX | A+ | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| West Mifflin Sanitary Sewer Municipal Authority | PA | BBB | A- | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's recent trend of rate covenant breaches and declining liquidity. | ||||||||||
| Hot Springs | AR | A- | A | Stable | Stable | The downgrade reflects the utility's decline in DSC due to higher debt service obligations and operating costs associated with the Ouachita Water Supply Project. | ||||||||||
| Salinas | CA | BBB- | BBB+ | Negative | Not meaningful | The downgrade and negative outlook reflect the utility's net operating deficit in fiscal 2025 due to months-long payment delays from Monterey One Water (M1W), which has weakened its liquidity position. | ||||||||||
| Town of Huntertown (Allen County) | IN | A+ | Stable | New rating | ||||||||||||
| Data as of April 14, 2025. | ||||||||||||||||
| U.S. municipal water and sewer utilities maintained ratings, summary first-quarter 2025 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entity | State | Rating | Outlook | |||||||
| Kentucky Bnd Corp | KY | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| East Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities Operating Board | FL | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Utilities Board of the City of Roanoke | AL | A- | Stable | |||||||
| North Baldwin Utilities | AL | A | Stable | |||||||
| Brooktrails Township Community Services District | CA | A | Stable | |||||||
| Berkeley County Public Service Sewer District | WV | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Caney Creek Municipal Utility District | TX | BBB+ | Stable | |||||||
| Lebanon | PA | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Public Utilities Commission of the City and County of San Francisco | CA | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Brighton Township Municipal Authority | PA | A | Stable | |||||||
| Moulton-Niguel Wtr Dist | CA | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Grand Prairie | TX | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Metro Water Recovery | CO | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Dallas | TX | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Washington Suburban Sanitary Dist | MD | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Dayton-Montgomery Cnty Port Auth | OH | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Trinity River Auth | TX | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Brownsburg Town (Hendricks County) | IN | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Dickson Cnty Wtr Auth | TN | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Wisconsin (State of) | WI | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Anchorage | AL | AA | NM | |||||||
| Rural Water Financing Agency | KY | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Culver City | CA | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Kaukauna | WI | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Gettysburg Municipal Authority | PA | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Illinois Finance Authority | IL | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Baca Grande Wtr & San Dist | CO | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Union County | NC | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Kansas City | MO | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Beaufort-Jasper County Water and Sewer Authority | SC | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Boulder | CO | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Friendswood | TX | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| New Mexico Fin Auth | NM | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Easley | SC | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| DeKalb County Utility District | TN | A | Stable | |||||||
| Crestview | FL | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Battle Creek | MI | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Genoa-Oceola Swr & Wtr Auth | MI | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Westmoreland Cnty Mun Auth | PA | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Little Thompson Wtr Dist | CO | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Tell City | IN | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Huron Regional Water Authority | MI | BBB | Stable | |||||||
| Carpinteria Vy Wtr Dist | CA | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Vermont Bond Bank | VT | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Columbia | SC | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Bryan | TX | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Iowa Finance Authority | IA | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Oklahoma Water Resources Board | OK | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Oklahoma Water Resources Board | OK | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Monterey One Water | CA | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Harvest-Monrovia Water, Sewer and Fire Protection Authority | AL | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation | NY | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. | NH | A | Stable | |||||||
| El Paso | TX | AA | Stable | |||||||
| New Mexico Fin Auth | NM | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Tulsa Metro Util Auth | OK | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation | NY | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation | NY | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Cleveland-Cuyahoga Cnty Port Auth | OH | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Lexington Twn | SC | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Baltimore Mayor & City Council | MD | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Holland Brd Of Pub Wrks | MI | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Asheville | NC | AA+ | NM | |||||||
| Sacramento County Water Agency | CA | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Woodmoor Wtr & San Dist #1 | CO | AA | Stable | |||||||
| El Paso | TX | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Huntsville | TX | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Lunenburg Water District | MA | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Marina Coast Wtr Dist | CA | AA- | Positive | |||||||
| Union Sanitary District | CA | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Massachusetts Clean Water Trust | MA | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Seguin | TX | A | Stable | |||||||
| New Mexico Fin Auth | NM | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority | NY | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| New Mexico Fin Auth | NM | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Rural Water Financing Agency | KY | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Development Finance Authority of Summit County | OH | A | Stable | |||||||
| Summerfield Lebanon Mascoutah Water Commission | IL | BBB+ | Stable | |||||||
| Lafourche Parish Wtr Dist #1 | LA | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Springdale | AR | AA- | Stable | |||||||
| Livermore-Amador Vy Wtr Mgmt Agy | CA | AA | Stable | |||||||
| Harvest-Monrovia Water, Sewer and Fire Protection Authority | AL | A+ | Stable | |||||||
| Alameda Cnty Wtr Dist | CA | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Hillsborough Cnty | FL | AA+ | Stable | |||||||
| Texas Water Development Board | TX | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Greenville | SC | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| Arkansas Development Finance Authority | AR | AAA | Stable | |||||||
| California Statewide Communities Development Authority | CA | BBB- | Stable | |||||||
| Enterprise Wtr Wks Brd | AL | A | Stable | |||||||
| Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority | OH | A- | Stable | |||||||
| Data as of April 14, 2025. | ||||||||||
| Primary Contact: | Chelsy Shipman, San Francisco 2148711417; chelsy.shipman@spglobal.com |
| Secondary Contact: | Jenny Poree, San Francisco 1-415-371-5044; jenny.poree@spglobal.com |
| Research Contributor: | Uttara G Kulkarni, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P Global Ratings affiliate, Pune ; |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.