Marin County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk
2systems
1,973people served (1% of total)
Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
16systems
256,456people served (99% 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-Risk11%
Not At-Risk78%
Not Assessed11%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
2
0
14
2
Population
0
1,973
0
68,140
188,316
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$847K
$1M

Key figures

18
public water systems
258,429
reported population
61%
serve 500 people or fewer
$2M
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

Marin County has 18 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 2 (11%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 1,973 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 11 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $2M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $33K.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 11% of listed systems and 73% 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 Marin County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 40%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 12 of 16 assessed systems.

Water Quality
20%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▼ 13 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
40%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 4 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
22%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 5 pts
Most common flagExtreme water bill
TMF Capacity
18%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▲ 4 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 20% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 5 of 16 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 2 of 16 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 16 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 40% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 12 of 16 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 4 of 16 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 14 to 16 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 22% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Extreme water bill appears in 4 of 15 assessed systems. Household socioeconomic burden is next, appearing in 4 of 16 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 15 to 16 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 7 of 16 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 5 of 16 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 16 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 18 systems in Marin County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 1 of 11 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 20%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 1 of 18 listed systems. Within those two groups, 0 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.

No systems in this county are classified as Failing.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $2M across 3 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 54% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $33K.

Key takeaways

11%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 2 systems reporting service to 1,973 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

40%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 12 of 16 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

61%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 11 of the county’s 18 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.