Amador County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

5systems

1,782people served (5% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

12systems

26,406people served (78% of total)

Status classification

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

Failing15%

At-Risk10%

Potentially At-Risk15%

Not At-Risk60%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

3

2

3

12

0

Population

180

1,602

5,558

26,406

0

Funding since 2017

$0

$4M

$8M

$496K

$0

Key figures

20

public water systems

33,746

reported population

55%

serve 500 people or fewer

$12M

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

Amador County has 20 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 5 (25%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 1,782 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 11 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $12M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $775K.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 60% 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 Amador County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 52%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 15 of 20 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 13 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 16 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 6 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 20% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 7 of 20 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 7 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 52% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 15 of 20 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 14 of 20 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 15 to 20 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 6 of 20 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 4 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 9 of 20 assessed systems. Days cash on hand is next, appearing in 7 of 17 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 17 to 20 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 20 systems in Amador County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 4 of 11 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 8 of 20 listed systems. Within those two groups, 2 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.

Among 3 Failing systems, 2 report source capacity violation. No primary analytes are listed for these systems.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $12M across 3 systems. Potentially At-Risk systems account for 63% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $775K.

Key takeaways

25%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 5 systems reporting service to 1,782 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

52%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 15 of 20 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

55%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 11 of the county’s 20 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.