Inyo County public water systems

Status classification

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

At-Risk15%

Not At-Risk64%

Not Assessed9%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

3

7

3

30

4

Population

181

1,755

2,023

12,750

178

Funding since 2017

$0

$550K

$0

Key figures

47

public water systems

16,887

reported population

81%

serve 500 people or fewer

$550K

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

Inyo County has 47 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 10 (21%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 1,936 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 38 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

4 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 178 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $550K across 1 system. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 64% of listed systems and 76% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Inyo County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 38%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 39 of 43 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 13 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 1 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 11 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 7 of 43 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 7 of 43 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 43 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 38% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 39 of 43 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 15 of 43 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 43 systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 23 of 43 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 5 of 41 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 41 to 43 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 25% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 23 of 43 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 20 of 43 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 42 to 43 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 47 systems in Inyo County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 9 of 38 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 43 of 47 listed systems. Within those two groups, 10 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic1
Fluoride1

Among 3 Failing systems, 2 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic and Fluoride.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $550K across 1 system. At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

21%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 10 systems reporting service to 1,936 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

38%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 39 of 43 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

81%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 38 of the county’s 47 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.