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

Glenn County public water systems

Status classification

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

At-Risk17%
Potentially At-Risk33%
Not At-Risk50%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
3
6
9
0
Population
0
500
7,953
11,328
0
Funding since 2017
$0
$4M
$0
$0
$0

Key figures

18
public water systems
19,781
reported population
83%
serve 500 people or fewer
$4M
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

Glenn County has 18 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 3 (17%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $4M across 1 system. Technical assistance funding totals $122K.

System counts and reported population

At-Risk systems make up 17% of listed systems and 3% of reported population. This status is concentrated in smaller systems, so it reaches fewer people than its system count suggests.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Glenn 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 18 of 18 assessed systems.

Water Quality
20%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 11 pts
Most common flagEmerging contaminants
Accessibility
45%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 9 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
24%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 6 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
11%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▼ 4 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 20% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 4 of 18 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 2 of 18 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 18 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 45% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 18 of 18 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 11 of 18 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 17 to 18 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 24% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 16 of 18 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 1 of 16 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 16 to 18 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 11% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 5 of 17 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 5 of 17 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 15 to 18 assessed systems.

Glenn 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 18 systems in Glenn County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 3 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 16 of 18 listed systems. Within those two groups, 1 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 $4M across 1 system. At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $122K.

Key takeaways

17%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 3 systems reporting service to 500 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 18 of 18 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

83%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 15 of the county’s 18 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.