Merced County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 1 of 3

Merced County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing26%
At-Risk31%
Potentially At-Risk23%
Not At-Risk18%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
10
12
9
7
1
Population
41,099
47,266
56,934
99,012
58
Funding since 2017
$50M
$11M
$15M
$675K
$0

Key figures

39
public water systems
244,369
reported population
54%
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. Nearby or overlapping points can conceal multiple systems.

Summary

Merced County has 39 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 22 (56%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 88,365 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 21 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

1 system is listed as Not Assessed, serving 58 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

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 18% of listed systems and 41% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Merced County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Risk profile

Risk in Merced County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 43%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 36 of 38 assessed systems.

Water Quality
43%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▲ 11 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
37%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
13%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 4 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
7%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▼ 8 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 43% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 22 of 38 assessed systems. Sources exceeding an MCL is next, appearing in 15 of 38 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 38 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 37% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 36 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.

Merced County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 3 of 3

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, 11 of 21 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 71%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 39 of 39 listed systems. Within those two groups, 22 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

56%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 22 systems reporting service to 88,365 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

43%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 36 of 38 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 32% of weighted risk.

54%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 21 of the county’s 39 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.