San Benito County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

9systems

808people served (1% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

19systems

35,589people served (55% of total)

includes Not Assessed systems, which are outside the SAFER assessment

Status classification

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

Failing11%

At-Risk14%

Potentially At-Risk22%

Not At-Risk47%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

4

5

8

17

2

Population

471

337

28,213

35,467

122

Funding since 2017

$0

Key figures

36

public water systems

64,610

reported population

83%

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.

Summary

San Benito County has 36 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 9 (25%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 808 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 30 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

2 systems are Not Assessed. These fall outside the SAFER risk assessment, so they carry no classification either way.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $0 across 0 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $614K.

System counts and reported population

Potentially At-Risk systems make up 22% of listed systems and 44% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in San Benito County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 38%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 28 of 34 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 5 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 7 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · – 0 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 38% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 14 of 34 assessed systems. Sources exceeding an MCL is next, appearing in 7 of 34 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 34 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 37% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 28 of 34 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 17 of 34 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 32 to 34 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 10% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 9 of 34 assessed systems. Extreme water bill is next, appearing in 8 of 32 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 32 to 34 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 14% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 13 of 34 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 11 of 34 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 31 to 34 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 36 systems in San Benito County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 9 of 30 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 2 of 36 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

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic1
Nitrate-Nitrite1
Tthm1

Among 4 Failing systems, 3 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic, Nitrate-Nitrite, and Tthm.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

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

Key takeaways

25%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 9 systems reporting service to 808 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

38%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 28 of 34 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

83%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 30 of the county’s 36 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.