VetWarehouses Risk Monitor
DATA RUN 2026-07-09
The public-record pulse of U.S. warehouse markets, state by state.
Severity-weighted EPA and OSHA record activity across the facilities VetWarehouses has reviewed — with the sample size, freshness, concentration, and methodology behind every number, and a public facility profile behind every record.
State public-record monitor
Two views over the same reviewed facility universe: EPA environmental records and OSHA enforcement records, each shown as severity-weighted points per reviewed facility. The layers use different record families and are not combinable. Older events count less on a 730-day half-life keyed to event date.
Severity-weighted EPA record points per reviewed facility · among 5,012 epa-reviewed facilities
Floor: at least 30 reviewed facilities before a state is rated; states below the floor are reported but not rated. Alaska, Hawaii & Puerto Rico are tracked in the table but sit outside the map frame. State results describe facilities currently reviewed by VetWarehouses, not all warehouses in a state. Coverage depth varies by state and source.
July 2026 release note
Past releases →This first monthly release of the VetWarehouses Risk Monitor covers 6,091 facilities in the July 9 reviewed snapshot across 53 states and territories. In the EPA view, 36 states had enough reviewed facilities to be rated this month; the highest readings — severity-weighted points per reviewed facility, where more serious and more recent records count for more — came from New Jersey (13.52), Washington (10.86) and Kentucky (10.46). The OSHA view rated 38 states, led by Maryland at 0.83. In 24 of those 38 states, at least half the points trace to a single facility, so those readings say more about one site than about a market.
Two cautions apply to every number here. These figures describe the facilities we have reviewed, not every warehouse in a state, and coverage runs deeper in some states than others. A state showing no matched records is reporting the result of our review, not a statement that nothing happened. States with fewer than 30 reviewed facilities are reported but not rated. Because this is the first release, month-over-month movement begins with the next edition. The full methodology, along with every underlying facility record and its official source, is published alongside the data.
| New Jersey | 13.52 | 186 | 63 | 4% |
| Washington | 10.86 | 129 | 48 | 6% |
| Kentucky | 10.46 | 64 | 22 | 12% |
| Texas | 9.12 | 93 | 18 | 11% |
| Georgia | 9.02 | 156 | 47 | 7% |
| New York | 8.53 | 174 | 57 | 6% |
| Virginia | 8.08 | 118 | 39 | 10% |
| South Carolina | 7.91 | 76 | 18 | 16% |
| Pennsylvania | 7.84 | 166 | 54 | 7% |
| Louisiana | 7.32 | 208 | 60 | 7% |
| Michigan | 6.61 | 153 | 37 | 9% |
| Indiana | 6.50 | 145 | 38 | 9% |
| Tennessee | 6.24 | 115 | 25 | 11% |
| Mississippi | 5.97 | 45 | 11 | 29% |
| Missouri | 5.57 | 57 | 10 | 31% |
| Alabama | 5.46 | 85 | 20 | 16% |
| Puerto Rico | 5.37 | 40 | 6 | 38% |
| Iowa | 5.17 | 55 | 11 | 21% |
| Colorado | 4.69 | 68 | 12 | 22% |
| California | 4.32 | 868 | 106 | 3% |
| North Carolina | 3.57 | 118 | 12 | 21% |
| North Dakota | 3.26 | 39 | 4 | 31% |
| Nebraska | 3.10 | 79 | 10 | 32% |
| Oregon | 3.10 | 57 | 6 | 40% |
| Illinois | 3.00 | 225 | 24 | 12% |
| Maryland | 2.78 | 140 | 12 | 22% |
| Wisconsin | 2.43 | 106 | 20 | 27% |
| Arizona | 2.33 | 60 | 11 | 17% |
| Ohio | 2.31 | 178 | 22 | 23% |
| Florida | 1.85 | 344 | 43 | 14% |
| Arkansas | 1.77 | 104 | 7 | 39% |
| Oklahoma | 1.32 | 32 | 3 | 57%Concentrated |
| Massachusetts | 1.23 | 138 | 9 | 23% |
| Minnesota | 1.09 | 84 | 5 | 30% |
| Nevada | 1.05 | 46 | 3 | 40% |
| Utah | 0.26 | 40 | 2 | 58%Concentrated |
| Alaska | Below reporting floor | 8 | 0 | 0% |
| Connecticut | Below reporting floor | 29 | 1 | 100% |
| District of Columbia | Below reporting floor | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Delaware | Below reporting floor | 19 | 4 | 45% |
| Hawaii | Below reporting floor | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| Idaho | Below reporting floor | 17 | 3 | 53% |
| Kansas | Below reporting floor | 29 | 3 | 45% |
| Maine | Below reporting floor | 8 | 1 | 100% |
| Northern Mariana Islands | Below reporting floor | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| Montana | Below reporting floor | 15 | 3 | 44% |
| New Hampshire | Below reporting floor | 5 | 1 | 100% |
| New Mexico | Below reporting floor | 28 | 5 | 74% |
| Rhode Island | Below reporting floor | 15 | 6 | 26% |
| South Dakota | Below reporting floor | 5 | 1 | 100% |
| Vermont | Below reporting floor | 3 | 2 | 61% |
| West Virginia | Below reporting floor | 24 | 7 | 33% |
| Wyoming | Below reporting floor | 8 | 0 | 0% |
How to read these numbers
Reviewed, not universal
State results describe facilities currently reviewed by VetWarehouses, not all warehouses in a state. Coverage depth varies by state and source.
Missing data stays unknown
A facility whose source family was never reviewed is excluded from that layer entirely. Zero matched records among reviewed facilities describes the reviewed records — it is never treated as a favorable finding.
Floors and concentration
States with fewer than 30 reviewed facilities are reported but not rated. When one facility contributes at least 50% of a state's points, the result is labeled concentrated and its comparative rank should be treated as unstable.
Every number has a source
Risk Monitor snapshot population — July 9, 2026: 6,091 reviewed facilities. Each state links to the underlying public facility profiles and their source records. How these numbers are built →
Sources: OSHA enforcement and EPA ECHO records matched to facility profiles by VetWarehouses under the published methodology (sw-risk-v1.0.0). Severity decays on a 730-day half-life keyed to event date. Rates are cross-sectional; the two layers use different record families and are not combinable. This page describes public records about business facilities; it is not leasing, investment, insurance, or credit advice, and it is not a government rating.
Put the monitor to work
Portfolio screening
Upload your facility list and get back matched public-record profiles with provenance, match confidence, and a review queue for the ambiguous cases. The first paid run is scoped before work starts.
Request a screening quoteScoped data evaluation
Request a reviewable sample of facility records, source records, coverage status, and known gaps. Production feeds and APIs are available by license.
Request an evaluationState monitor evaluation
Need current context for specific states?
Tell us which markets matter. We’ll reply with current monitor coverage and whether a scoped portfolio screen or data evaluation fits the question.