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

Lake County public water systems

Status classification

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

At-Risk23%
Potentially At-Risk34%
Not At-Risk36%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
3
10
15
16
0
Population
2,449
4,435
16,655
42,877
0
Funding since 2017
$0
$3M
$4M
$33M
$0

Key figures

44
public water systems
66,416
reported population
55%
serve 500 people or fewer
$39M
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

Lake County has 44 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 13 (30%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 6,884 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 24 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $39M across 8 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $4M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 36% of listed systems and 65% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Lake County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 41%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 39 of 44 assessed systems.

Water Quality
18%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 13 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
41%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 5 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
24%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 6 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
17%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 2 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 22 of 44 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 7 of 44 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 44 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 41% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 39 of 44 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 27 of 44 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 44 systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 24% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 22 of 44 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 15 of 41 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 41 to 44 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 25 of 44 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 16 of 44 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 37 to 44 assessed systems.

Lake 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 44 systems in Lake County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 10 of 24 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 44 listed systems. Within those two groups, 13 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)1
  • Tthm1

Among 3 Failing systems, 1 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5) and Tthm.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $39M across 8 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 83% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $4M.

Key takeaways

30%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 13 systems reporting service to 6,884 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

41%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 39 of 44 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

55%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 24 of the county’s 44 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.