Placer County public water systems

Status classification

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

Potentially At-Risk11%

Not At-Risk80%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

0

3

6

45

2

Population

0

600

1,555

260,789

155,692

Funding since 2017

$0

$40M

$0

Key figures

56

public water systems

418,636

reported population

45%

serve 500 people or fewer

$40M

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

Placer County has 56 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 3 (5%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 600 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 25 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

2 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 155,692 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $40M across 4 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $57K.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 4% of listed systems and 37% 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.

Risk profile

Risk in Placer County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 51%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 36 of 54 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 18 pts

Most common flagEmerging contaminants

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 15 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 1 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 14% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 8 of 54 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 4 of 54 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 54 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 51% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 36 of 54 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 24 of 54 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 34 to 54 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 19% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 11 of 54 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 9 of 54 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 54 systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 19 of 54 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 7 of 54 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 49 to 54 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 56 systems in Placer County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 3 of 25 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 18 of 56 listed systems. Within those two groups, 2 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 $40M across 4 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $57K.

Key takeaways

5%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 3 systems reporting service to 600 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

51%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 36 of 54 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

45%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 25 of the county’s 56 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.