Colusa County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing22%

At-Risk11%

Potentially At-Risk11%

Not At-Risk56%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

2

1

5

0

Population

6,959

250

246

10,058

0

Funding since 2017

$3M

$0

$5M

$0

Key figures

9

public water systems

17,513

reported population

44%

serve 500 people or fewer

$9M

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

Colusa County has 9 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 3 (33%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 7,209 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 4 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $9M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $32K.

System counts and reported population

Failing systems make up 22% of listed systems and 40% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Colusa County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 35%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 9 of 9 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 9 pts

Most common flagPast presence on Failing list

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 1 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 8 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 23% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Past presence on Failing list appears in 2 of 9 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 2 of 9 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 9 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 35% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 9 of 9 assessed systems. Drought and shortage risk is next, appearing in 1 of 9 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 9 systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 20% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 6 of 9 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 2 of 9 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 9 systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 22% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 4 of 9 assessed systems. Days cash on hand is next, appearing in 3 of 8 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 8 to 9 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 9 systems in Colusa County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 1 of 4 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 50%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 9 of 9 listed systems. Within those two groups, 3 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic1

Among 2 Failing systems, 1 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $9M across 3 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 62% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $32K.

Key takeaways

33%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 3 systems reporting service to 7,209 people. That is close to the statewide average of 33%.

35%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 9 of 9 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

44%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 4 of the county’s 9 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.