Contra Costa County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

10systems

2,428people served (0% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

28systems

576,002people served (99% 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.

Failing12%

At-Risk12%

Potentially At-Risk10%

Not At-Risk57%

Not Assessed10%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

5

4

24

4

Population

1,576

852

866

248,720

327,282

Funding since 2017

$0

$65K

$61M

Key figures

42

public water systems

579,296

reported population

74%

serve 500 people or fewer

$61M

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

Contra Costa County has 42 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 10 (24%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 2,428 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 31 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

4 systems are Not Assessed. These fall outside the SAFER risk assessment, so they carry no classification either way.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $61M across 2 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 10% of listed systems and 56% of reported population. A few large systems account for most of that population, so a small number of systems can shift the population picture entirely. Counts and population are worth reading together.

Risk profile

Risk in Contra Costa County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 45%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 31 of 38 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 3 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 9 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 5 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 1 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 30% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 13 of 38 assessed systems. Sources exceeding an MCL is next, appearing in 9 of 38 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 38 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 45% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 31 of 38 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 23 of 38 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 32 to 38 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 18 of 38 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 2 of 35 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 35 to 38 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 17 of 38 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 11 of 38 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 34 to 38 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 42 systems in Contra Costa County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 9 of 31 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 33%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 13 of 42 listed systems. Within those two groups, 4 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic4

Among 5 Failing systems, 4 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 $61M across 2 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

24%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 10 systems reporting service to 2,428 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

45%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 31 of 38 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

74%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 31 of the county’s 42 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.