Imperial County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: September 23, 2026
Page 1 of 3

Imperial County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk
17systems
88,333people served (51% of total)
Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
7systems
7,155people served (4% of total)

Status classification

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

Failing18%
At-Risk32%
Potentially At-Risk29%
Not At-Risk21%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
6
11
10
7
0
Population
3,446
84,887
78,915
7,155
0
Funding since 2017
$12M
$6M
$0
$0
$0

Key figures

34
public water systems
174,403
reported population
53%
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.

Summary

Imperial County has 34 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 17 (50%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 88,333 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

Not At-Risk systems make up 21% of listed systems and 4% of reported population. This status is concentrated in smaller systems, so it reaches fewer people than its system count suggests.

Imperial County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: September 23, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Risk profile

Risk in Imperial County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 36%. Across all individual indicators, Household socioeconomic burden appears most often, affecting 27 of 34 assessed systems.

Water Quality
36%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▲ 3 pts
Most common flagSources exceeding an MCL
Accessibility
27%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▼ 8 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
21%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 4 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
16%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 36% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Sources exceeding an MCL appears in 16 of 34 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 12 of 34 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 34 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 27% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 21 of 34 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 21 of 34 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 30 to 34 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 27 of 34 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 7 of 31 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 31 to 34 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 34 assessed systems.

Imperial County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: September 23, 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 34 systems in Imperial County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 9 of 18 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 57%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 15 of 34 listed systems. Within those two groups, 8 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

50%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 17 systems reporting service to 88,333 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

36%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is household socioeconomic burden, found in 27 of 34 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

53%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 18 of the county’s 34 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.