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

Butte County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing14%
At-Risk16%
Potentially At-Risk20%
Not At-Risk47%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
7
8
10
24
2
Population
860
1,188
21,282
61,304
114,949
Funding since 2017
$3M
$0
$0
$28M
$0

Key figures

51
public water systems
199,583
reported population
76%
serve 500 people or fewer
$32M
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

Butte County has 51 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 15 (29%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 2,048 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 39 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

2 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 114,949 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $32M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $5M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 4% of listed systems and 58% 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.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Butte County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 38%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 46 of 49 assessed systems.

Water Quality
26%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 6 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
38%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
16%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 2 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
21%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 6 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 26% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 10 of 49 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 9 of 49 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 49 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 38% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 46 of 49 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 27 of 49 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 42 to 49 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 29 of 49 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 7 of 44 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 44 to 49 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 21 of 45 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 14 of 45 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 42 to 49 assessed systems.

Butte 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 51 systems in Butte County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 15 of 39 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 36 of 51 listed systems. Within those two groups, 13 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • Nitrate3
  • 1,2,3-Trichloropropane1
  • Fluoride1

Among 7 Failing systems, 5 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Nitrate, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, and Fluoride.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $32M across 3 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 89% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $5M.

Key takeaways

29%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 15 systems reporting service to 2,048 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

38%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 46 of 49 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

76%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 39 of the county’s 51 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.