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

Inyo County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk
9systems
661people served (4% of total)
Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
33systems
13,020people 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.

At-Risk13%
Potentially At-Risk11%
Not At-Risk62%
Not Assessed9%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
3
6
5
29
4
Population
181
480
2,112
13,017
3
Funding since 2017
$0
$550K
$0
$0
$0

Key figures

47
public water systems
15,793
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.

Summary

Inyo County has 47 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 9 (19%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 661 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 38 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

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 62% of listed systems and 82% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Inyo County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 37%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 39 of 43 assessed systems.

Water Quality
19%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▼ 14 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
37%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
19%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 2 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
26%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▲ 12 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 19% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 8 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 37% 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 19% 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 6 of 41 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 41 to 43 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 26% 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.

Inyo 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 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 24 of 47 listed systems. Within those two groups, 4 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

19%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 9 systems reporting service to 661 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

37%

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 63%.