Merced County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

23systems

90,999people served (37% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

6systems

97,135people served (39% 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.

Failing26%

At-Risk33%

Potentially At-Risk26%

Not At-Risk13%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

10

13

10

5

1

Population

41,078

49,921

58,070

97,076

59

Funding since 2017

$50M

$11M

$15M

$0

Key figures

39

public water systems

246,204

reported population

59%

serve 500 people or fewer

$77M

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

Merced County has 39 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 23 (59%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 90,999 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 23 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

1 system is Not Assessed. These fall outside the SAFER risk assessment, so they carry no classification either way.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $77M across 7 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 13% of listed systems and 39% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Merced County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 44%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 35 of 38 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 11 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 1 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 8 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 44% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 21 of 38 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 16 of 38 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 38 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 36% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 35 of 38 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 29 of 38 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 33 to 38 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 31 of 38 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 4 of 34 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 34 to 38 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 7% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 12 of 38 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 10 of 38 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 36 to 38 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 39 systems in Merced County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 12 of 23 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 86%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 14 of 39 listed systems. Within those two groups, 10 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

1,2,3-Trichloropropane7
Arsenic2
Nitrate1
Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)1
Tthm1

Among 10 Failing systems, 10 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, Arsenic, and Nitrate.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $77M across 7 systems. Failing systems account for 66% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

59%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 23 systems reporting service to 90,999 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

44%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 35 of 38 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

59%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 23 of the county’s 39 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.