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

San Benito County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing14%
At-Risk17%
Potentially At-Risk17%
Not At-Risk47%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
5
6
6
17
2
Population
1,433
27,497
1,332
34,872
147
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

Key figures

36
public water systems
65,281
reported population
78%
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. Nearby or overlapping points can conceal multiple systems.

Summary

San Benito County has 36 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 11 (31%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 28,930 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 28 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

2 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 147 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

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

System counts and reported population

At-Risk systems make up 17% of listed systems and 42% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

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

Risk profile

Risk in San Benito County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility 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
37%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▲ 6 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
38%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
10%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 8 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
15%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 37% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 16 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 38% 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 15% 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.

San Benito 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 36 systems in San Benito County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 8 of 28 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving More than 10,000, at 50%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 7 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 5 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

31%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 11 systems reporting service to 28,930 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

38%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 28 of 34 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

78%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 28 of the county’s 36 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.