El Dorado County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk
6systems
445people served (0% of total)
Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
15systems
184,262people served (98% 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.

At-Risk25%
Potentially At-Risk12%
Not At-Risk54%
Not Assessed8%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
6
3
13
2
Population
0
445
2,578
55,788
128,474
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$32M
$0

Key figures

24
public water systems
187,285
reported population
62%
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.

Summary

El Dorado County has 24 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 6 (25%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 445 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 15 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $32M across 4 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $35K.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 8% of listed systems and 69% 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 El Dorado County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 32%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 17 of 22 assessed systems.

Water Quality
32%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▼ 1 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
30%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▼ 6 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
25%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 8 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
13%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▼ 1 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 32% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 5 of 22 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 5 of 22 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 22 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 30% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 17 of 22 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 8 of 22 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 16 to 22 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 25% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 13 of 22 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 7 of 22 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 22 systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 10 of 22 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 6 of 22 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 19 to 22 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 24 systems in El Dorado County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 6 of 15 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 10 of 24 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

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 $32M across 4 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $35K.

Key takeaways

25%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 6 systems reporting service to 445 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

32%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 17 of 22 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

62%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 15 of the county’s 24 listed systems. That is close to the statewide average of 63%.