Plumas County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing11%

Not At-Risk85%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

3

0

1

23

0

Population

1,546

0

150

23,040

0

Funding since 2017

$2M

$0

$2M

$0

Key figures

27

public water systems

24,736

reported population

56%

serve 500 people or fewer

$4M

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

Plumas County has 27 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 3 (11%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 1,546 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 15 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $4M across 7 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $1M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 85% of listed systems and 93% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Plumas County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 45%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 24 of 27 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 14 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 9 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 2 pts

Most common flagShare of household income

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 6 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 4 of 27 assessed systems. History of E. coli is next, appearing in 3 of 27 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 27 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 45% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 24 of 27 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 11 of 27 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 27 systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Share of household income appears in 6 of 24 assessed systems. Household socioeconomic burden is next, appearing in 6 of 27 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 24 to 27 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 11 of 27 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 9 of 27 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 22 to 27 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 27 systems in Plumas County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 2 of 15 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 25 of 27 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

Frequently listed primary analytes

Combined Uranium1

Among 3 Failing systems, 1 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Combined Uranium.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $4M across 7 systems. Failing systems account for 60% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $1M.

Key takeaways

11%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 3 systems reporting service to 1,546 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

45%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 24 of 27 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

56%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 15 of the county’s 27 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.