Imperial County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing17%

At-Risk31%

Potentially At-Risk31%

Not At-Risk20%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

6

11

7

0

Population

3,446

83,781

79,328

7,427

0

Funding since 2017

$12M

$6M

$0

Key figures

35

public water systems

173,982

reported population

51%

serve 500 people or fewer

$18M

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

Imperial County has 35 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 17 (49%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 87,227 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 18 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $18M across 4 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $605K.

System counts and reported population

At-Risk systems make up 31% of listed systems and 48% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Imperial County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 34%. Across all individual indicators, Household socioeconomic burden appears most often, affecting 28 of 35 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagSources exceeding an MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 8 pts

Most common flagLimited water sources

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 3 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 34% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Sources exceeding an MCL appears in 16 of 35 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 12 of 35 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 35 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Limited water sources appears in 22 of 35 assessed systems. No intertie is next, appearing in 21 of 35 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 31 to 35 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 28 of 35 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 7 of 32 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 32 to 35 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 13 of 34 assessed systems. Days cash on hand is next, appearing in 11 of 32 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 32 to 35 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 35 systems in Imperial County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 10 of 18 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 34 of 35 listed systems. Within those two groups, 16 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic1
Gross Alpha Particle Activity1
Tthm1

Among 6 Failing systems, 3 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic, Gross Alpha Particle Activity, and Tthm.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $18M across 4 systems. Failing systems account for 67% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $605K.

Key takeaways

49%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 17 systems reporting service to 87,227 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

34%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is household socioeconomic burden, found in 28 of 35 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 32% of weighted risk.

51%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 18 of the county’s 35 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.