Los Angeles County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

55systems

266,296people served (3% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

115systems

9,116,234people served (91% 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-Risk20%

Potentially At-Risk16%

Not At-Risk45%

Not Assessed12%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

15

40

33

91

24

Population

34,364

231,932

649,498

2,123,813

6,992,421

Funding since 2017

$7M

$3M

$12M

$31M

$426M

Key figures

203

public water systems

10,032,028

reported population

29%

serve 500 people or fewer

$479M

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

Los Angeles County has 203 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 55 (27%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 266,296 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 58 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $479M across 23 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 12% of listed systems and 70% 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.

Risk profile

Risk in Los Angeles County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 45%. Across all individual indicators, Household socioeconomic burden appears most often, affecting 114 of 179 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 12 pts

Most common flagEmerging contaminants

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 13 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 1 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 1 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 45% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 70 of 179 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 56 of 179 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 179 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 23% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 63 of 179 assessed systems. Drought and shortage risk is next, appearing in 28 of 101 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 101 to 179 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 114 of 179 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 16 of 170 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 170 to 179 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 14% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 79 of 178 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 54 of 178 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 166 to 179 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 203 systems in Los Angeles County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 33 of 58 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 65 of 203 listed systems. Within those two groups, 19 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic7
Fluoride1
Nitrate1

Among 15 Failing systems, 7 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic, Fluoride, and Nitrate.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $479M across 23 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 89% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

27%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 55 systems reporting service to 266,296 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

45%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is household socioeconomic burden, found in 114 of 179 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

29%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 58 of the county’s 203 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.