Fresno County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

71systems

144,780people served (15% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

36systems

781,722people served (82% 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.

Failing24%

At-Risk31%

Potentially At-Risk18%

Not At-Risk25%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

31

40

24

33

3

Population

67,984

76,796

25,584

102,330

679,392

Funding since 2017

$72M

$18M

$39M

$13M

$83M

Key figures

131

public water systems

952,086

reported population

66%

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.

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 144,780 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 86 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

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 71% 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 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

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagPast presence on Failing list

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 10 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 29% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Past presence on Failing list appears in 40 of 128 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 39 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 12% 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 14% 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.

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, 46 of 86 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 80%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 43 of 131 listed systems. Within those two groups, 24 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 31 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 144,780 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.

66%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 86 of the county’s 131 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.