Madera County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

47systems

23,368people served (16% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

30systems

48,156people served (33% 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.

Failing33%

At-Risk22%

Potentially At-Risk9%

Not At-Risk32%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

28

19

8

27

3

Population

15,701

7,667

74,285

47,942

214

Funding since 2017

$26M

$8M

$5M

$2M

$0

Key figures

85

public water systems

145,809

reported population

76%

serve 500 people or fewer

$40M

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

Madera County has 85 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 47 (55%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 23,368 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 65 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $40M across 22 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $4M.

System counts and reported population

Potentially At-Risk systems make up 9% of listed systems and 51% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Madera County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 39%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 75 of 82 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 6 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · – 0 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 5 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 39% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 39 of 82 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 35 of 82 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 82 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 35% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 75 of 82 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 31 of 82 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 78 to 82 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 30 of 82 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 19 of 76 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 76 to 82 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 36 of 81 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 29 of 81 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 71 to 82 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 85 systems in Madera County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 39 of 65 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 33 of 85 listed systems. Within those two groups, 20 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic10
Combined Uranium5
Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)3
1,2,3-Trichloropropane2
Gross Alpha Particle Activity2

Among 28 Failing systems, 18 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic, Combined Uranium, and Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5).

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $40M across 22 systems. Failing systems account for 65% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $4M.

Key takeaways

55%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 47 systems reporting service to 23,368 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

39%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 75 of 82 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

76%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 65 of the county’s 85 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.