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

Calaveras County public water systems

Status classification

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

At-Risk14%
Potentially At-Risk38%
Not At-Risk43%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
3
8
9
1
Population
0
4,611
22,911
23,542
85
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$483K
$0
$0

Key figures

21
public water systems
51,149
reported population
48%
serve 500 people or fewer
$483K
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

Calaveras County has 21 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 3 (14%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 4,611 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 10 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

1 system is listed as Not Assessed, serving 85 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $483K across 1 system. Technical assistance funding totals $101K.

System counts and reported population

Potentially At-Risk systems make up 38% of listed systems and 45% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Calaveras 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 18 of 20 assessed systems.

Water Quality
16%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 16 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
38%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 2 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
25%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 7 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 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 5 of 20 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 3 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 38% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 18 of 20 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 8 of 20 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 14 to 20 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 25% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 14 of 20 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 6 of 19 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 19 to 20 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 13 of 20 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 11 of 20 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 14 to 20 assessed systems.

Calaveras 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 21 systems in Calaveras County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 1 of 10 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 25%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 18 of 21 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.

No systems in this county are classified as Failing.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $483K across 1 system. Potentially At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $101K.

Key takeaways

14%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 3 systems reporting service to 4,611 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 18 of 20 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

48%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 10 of the county’s 21 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.