Alameda County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 1 of 3

Alameda County public water systems

Status classification

Share of listed systems, followed by the count, reported population, and funding in each status.

Not At-Risk53%
Not Assessed33%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
1
1
0
8
5
Population
76,689
50
0
200,796
1,949,795
Funding since 2017
$1M
$274K
$0
$3M
$26M

Key figures

15
public water systems
2,227,330
reported population
40%
serve 500 people or fewer
$30M
reported funding since 2017

System locations

Points show reported system locations. They do not represent service-area boundaries.

Each point represents one system record. Nearby or overlapping points can conceal multiple systems.

Summary

Alameda County has 15 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 2 (13%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 76,739 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 6 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

5 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 1,949,795 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $30M across 4 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $831.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 33% of listed systems and 88% of reported population. That population sits in a few large systems outside the SAFER assessment’s scope, which generally have more capacity, so this reflects scope rather than hidden risk.

Alameda County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Risk profile

Risk in Alameda County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 39%. Across all individual indicators, Limited water sources appears most often, affecting 4 of 10 assessed systems.

Water Quality
23%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 8 pts
Most common flagEmerging contaminants
Accessibility
39%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 3 pts
Most common flagLimited water sources
Affordability
17%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 1 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
21%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 7 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 23% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 2 of 10 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 1 of 10 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 10 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 39% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Limited water sources appears in 4 of 10 assessed systems. No intertie is next, appearing in 2 of 10 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 5 to 10 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 2 of 10 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 1 of 9 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 9 to 10 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 4 of 10 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 3 of 10 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 9 to 10 assessed systems.

Alameda County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 3 of 3

Patterns and context

The countywide totals hide important differences among systems. The panels below show how SAFER status varies by system size and service-area economic status, what conditions appear among Failing systems, and how reported funding is distributed across the 15 systems in Alameda County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 1 of 6 are Failing or At-Risk. This size group has the county’s highest concentration of high-concern classifications.

Economic context

Orange shows Failing or At-Risk systems within each service-area group

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 2 of 15 listed systems. Within those two groups, 0 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)1
  • Tthm1

Among 1 Failing systems, 1 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5) and Tthm.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $30M across 4 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 86% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $831.

Key takeaways

13%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 2 systems reporting service to 76,739 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

39%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is limited water sources, found in 4 of 10 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

40%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 6 of the county’s 15 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.