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

Orange County public water systems

Status classification

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

At-Risk8%
Not At-Risk57%
Not Assessed35%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
3
0
23
14
Population
0
372
0
888,509
2,306,240
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$12M
$41M

Key figures

40
public water systems
3,195,121
reported population
12%
serve 500 people or fewer
$53M
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

Orange County has 40 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 3 (8%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 372 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 5 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

14 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 2,306,240 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $53M across 7 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $6K.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 35% of listed systems and 72% of reported population. That population sits in a few large systems outside the SAFER assessment’s scope, which generally have more capacity, so this reflects scope rather than hidden risk.

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

Risk profile

Risk in Orange County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 41%. Across all individual indicators, Total net annual income appears most often, affecting 13 of 26 assessed systems.

Water Quality
41%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▲ 9 pts
Most common flagEmerging contaminants
Accessibility
10%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▼ 27 pts
Most common flagLimited water sources
Affordability
25%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 7 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
25%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 10 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 41% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 8 of 26 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 1 of 26 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 26 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 10% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Limited water sources appears in 2 of 26 assessed systems. No intertie is next, appearing in 1 of 26 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 9 to 26 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 25% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 11 of 26 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 2 of 23 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 23 to 26 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 25% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 13 of 26 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 6 of 26 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 24 to 26 assessed systems.

Orange 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 40 systems in Orange County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 3 of 5 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 8 of 40 listed systems. Within those two groups, 3 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 $53M across 7 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 77% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $6K.

Key takeaways

8%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 3 systems reporting service to 372 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

41%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is total net annual income, found in 13 of 26 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 32% of weighted risk.

12%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 5 of the county’s 40 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.