Lassen County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing15%

At-Risk25%

Potentially At-Risk15%

Not At-Risk45%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

3

5

3

9

0

Population

652

1,526

4,415

13,479

0

Funding since 2017

$0

$14M

$0

Key figures

20

public water systems

20,072

reported population

70%

serve 500 people or fewer

$14M

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

Lassen County has 20 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 8 (40%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 2,178 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 14 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $14M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $1M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 45% of listed systems and 67% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Lassen County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 45%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 20 of 20 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 14 pts

Most common flagSources exceeding an MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 9 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 4 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Sources exceeding an MCL appears in 4 of 20 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 3 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 45% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 20 of 20 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 8 of 20 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 19 to 20 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 19% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 14 of 20 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 2 of 19 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 19 to 20 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 8 of 19 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 7 of 19 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 14 to 20 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 20 systems in Lassen County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 7 of 14 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 16 of 20 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

No primary analytes were listed for Failing systems.

Among 3 Failing systems, 3 report secondary MCL violation. No primary analytes are listed for these systems.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $14M across 3 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $1M.

Key takeaways

40%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 8 systems reporting service to 2,178 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

45%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 20 of 20 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

70%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 14 of the county’s 20 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.