Riverside County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing11%

At-Risk20%

Potentially At-Risk11%

Not At-Risk45%

Not Assessed12%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

11

20

11

44

12

Population

37,653

113,552

51,816

526,683

1,855,009

Funding since 2017

$3M

$4M

$8M

$7M

$87M

Key figures

98

public water systems

2,584,713

reported population

49%

serve 500 people or fewer

$109M

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

Riverside County has 98 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 31 (32%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 151,205 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 48 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

12 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 1,855,009 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $109M across 12 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $4M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 12% 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.

Risk profile

Risk in Riverside County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 31%. Across all individual indicators, Household socioeconomic burden appears most often, affecting 55 of 86 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 1 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 8 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · – 0 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 9 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 31% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 32 of 86 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 19 of 86 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 86 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 52 of 86 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 27 of 86 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 65 to 86 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 55 of 86 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 15 of 81 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 81 to 86 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 23% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 51 of 85 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 35 of 85 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 80 to 86 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 98 systems in Riverside County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 18 of 48 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 70%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 73 of 98 listed systems. Within those two groups, 23 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

1,1-Dichloroethylene1
1,2,3-Trichloropropane1
Arsenic1
Combined Uranium1
Nitrate1

Among 11 Failing systems, 5 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, and Arsenic.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $109M across 12 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 79% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $4M.

Key takeaways

32%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 31 systems reporting service to 151,205 people. That is close to the statewide average of 33%.

31%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is household socioeconomic burden, found in 55 of 86 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 32% of weighted risk.

49%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 48 of the county’s 98 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.