Kings County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 1 of 3

Kings County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing17%
At-Risk39%
Potentially At-Risk28%
Not At-Risk17%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
3
7
5
3
0
Population
42,123
40,602
6,309
63,423
0
Funding since 2017
$13M
$6M
$5M
$0
$0

Key figures

18
public water systems
152,457
reported population
39%
serve 500 people or fewer
$24M
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

Kings County has 18 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 10 (56%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 82,725 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 7 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $24M across 6 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $3M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 17% of listed systems and 42% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Kings County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Risk profile

Risk in Kings County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 48%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 15 of 18 assessed systems.

Water Quality
27%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 4 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
48%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 12 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
13%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 4 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
11%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▼ 4 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 27% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 9 of 18 assessed systems. Sources exceeding an MCL is next, appearing in 7 of 18 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 18 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 48% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 15 of 18 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 15 of 18 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 13 to 18 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 9 of 18 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 5 of 18 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 18 systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 11% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 7 of 18 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 6 of 18 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 15 to 18 assessed systems.

Kings County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 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 18 systems in Kings County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 3 of 7 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving More than 10,000, at 80%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 18 of 18 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

  • Tthm3
  • Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)1

Among 3 Failing systems, 3 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Tthm and Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5).

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $24M across 6 systems. Failing systems account for 56% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $3M.

Key takeaways

56%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 10 systems reporting service to 82,725 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

48%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 15 of 18 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

39%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 7 of the county’s 18 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.