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

Fresno County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing23%
At-Risk31%
Potentially At-Risk18%
Not At-Risk26%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
30
41
23
34
3
Population
75,133
114,170
28,085
104,629
676,150
Funding since 2017
$72M
$17M
$40M
$13M
$83M

Key figures

131
public water systems
998,167
reported population
65%
serve 500 people or fewer
$225M
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

Fresno County has 131 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 71 (54%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 189,303 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 85 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

3 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 676,150 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $225M across 25 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $5M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 2% of listed systems and 68% 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.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Fresno 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 117 of 128 assessed systems.

Water Quality
29%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 3 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
45%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 9 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
13%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 5 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
13%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▼ 1 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 29% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 39 of 128 assessed systems. Sources exceeding an MCL is next, appearing in 38 of 128 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 128 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 45% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 117 of 128 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 84 of 128 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 118 to 128 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 83 of 128 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 10 of 120 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 120 to 128 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 64 of 127 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 55 of 127 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 117 to 128 assessed systems.

Fresno 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 131 systems in Fresno County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 48 of 85 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 83%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 117 of 131 listed systems. Within those two groups, 65 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • 1,2,3-Trichloropropane11
  • Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)8
  • Tthm7
  • Nitrate3
  • Arsenic2

Among 30 Failing systems, 28 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5), and Tthm.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $225M across 25 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 37% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $5M.

Key takeaways

54%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 71 systems reporting service to 189,303 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

45%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 117 of 128 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

65%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 85 of the county’s 131 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.