Alpine County public water systems

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
5systems
2,657people served (79% of total)
includes Not Assessed systems, which are outside the SAFER assessment

Status classification

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

Potentially At-Risk29%
Not At-Risk57%
Not Assessed14%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
0
2
4
1
Population
0
0
695
2,622
35
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$3M
$0

Key figures

7
public water systems
3,352
reported population
71%
serve 500 people or fewer
$3M
reported funding since 2017

System locations

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

Each point represents one system record.

Summary

Alpine County has 7 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 0 (0%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 0 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 5 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

1 system is Not Assessed. These fall outside the SAFER risk assessment, so they carry no classification either way.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $3M across 1 system. Technical assistance funding totals $143K.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 57% of listed systems and 78% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Alpine County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 63%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 6 of 6 assessed systems.

Water Quality
7%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▼ 26 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
63%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 27 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
10%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 8 pts
Most common flagShare of household income
TMF Capacity
21%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▲ 7 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 7% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 1 of 6 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 1 of 6 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 6 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 63% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 6 of 6 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 4 of 6 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 6 systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 10% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Share of household income appears in 1 of 5 assessed systems. Extreme water bill is next, appearing in 1 of 5 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 5 to 6 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 2 of 6 assessed systems. Days cash on hand is next, appearing in 1 of 4 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 4 to 6 assessed systems.

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 7 systems in Alpine County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 0 of 5 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 1 of 7 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

No primary analytes were listed for Failing systems.

No systems in this county are classified as Failing.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $3M across 1 system. Not At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $143K.

Key takeaways

0%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 0 systems reporting service to 0 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

63%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 6 of 6 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

71%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 5 of the county’s 7 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.