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

Modoc County public water systems

Status classification

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

At-Risk17%
Not At-Risk83%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
1
0
5
0
Population
0
629
0
4,346
0
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Key figures

6
public water systems
4,975
reported population
33%
serve 500 people or fewer
$0
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

Modoc County has 6 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 1 (17%) is classified as Failing or At-Risk.

That system reports serving 629 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 2 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $0 across 0 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $37K.

System counts and reported population

At-Risk systems make up 17% of listed systems and 13% of reported population. This status is concentrated in smaller systems, so it reaches fewer people than its system count suggests.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Modoc County is distributed across four dimensions. TMF Capacity contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 31%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 6 of 6 assessed systems.

Water Quality
22%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 10 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
29%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▼ 7 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
17%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · – 0 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
31%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 17 pts
Most common flagDays cash on hand

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 22% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 1 of 6 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 1 of 6 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 6 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 29% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 6 of 6 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 1 of 6 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 5 to 6 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 3 of 6 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 1 of 6 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 6 systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 31% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Days cash on hand appears in 3 of 5 assessed systems. Total net annual income is next, appearing in 3 of 6 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 5 to 6 assessed systems.

Modoc 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 6 systems in Modoc County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 0 of 2 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 25%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 6 of 6 listed systems. Within those two groups, 1 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

No funding since 2017 is reported for systems in this county.

Key takeaways

17%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 1 system reporting service to 629 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

31%

of weighted risk comes from TMF Capacity

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 6 of 6 assessed systems. Statewide, TMF Capacity accounts for 15% of weighted risk.

33%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 2 of the county’s 6 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.