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

Kern County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk
104systems
246,977people served (24% of total)
Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
44systems
713,899people served (71% 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.

Failing29%
At-Risk30%
Potentially At-Risk17%
Not At-Risk22%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
51
53
30
40
4
Population
61,229
185,748
51,098
237,028
476,871
Funding since 2017
$108M
$33M
$5M
$31M
$0

Key figures

178
public water systems
1,011,974
reported population
68%
serve 500 people or fewer
$177M
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

Kern County has 178 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 104 (58%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 246,977 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 121 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 $177M across 33 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $10M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 2% of listed systems and 47% of reported population. A few large systems account for most of that population, so a small number of systems can shift the population picture entirely. Counts and population are worth reading together.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Kern County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 38%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 144 of 174 assessed systems.

Water Quality
38%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▲ 5 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
31%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▼ 4 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
21%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 4 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
10%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▼ 5 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 38% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 90 of 174 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 74 of 174 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 174 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 31% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 144 of 174 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 85 of 174 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 149 to 174 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 125 of 174 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 74 of 169 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 169 to 174 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 10% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 75 of 173 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 65 of 173 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 158 to 174 assessed systems.

Kern 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 178 systems in Kern County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 73 of 121 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 71%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 104 of 178 listed systems. Within those two groups, 64 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • 1,2,3-Trichloropropane21
  • Arsenic13
  • Nitrate13
  • Combined Uranium6
  • Fluoride6

Among 51 Failing systems, 40 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, Arsenic, and Nitrate.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $177M across 33 systems. Failing systems account for 61% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $10M.

Key takeaways

58%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 104 systems reporting service to 246,977 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

38%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 144 of 174 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

68%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 121 of the county’s 178 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.