San Bernardino County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

48systems

346,405people served (14% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

81systems

2,018,677people served (83% 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.

Failing16%

At-Risk15%

Potentially At-Risk15%

Not At-Risk44%

Not Assessed9%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

25

23

67

14

Population

28,722

317,683

75,895

618,149

1,400,528

Funding since 2017

$11M

$18M

$28M

$27M

$66M

Key figures

152

public water systems

2,440,977

reported population

45%

serve 500 people or fewer

$151M

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 Bernardino County has 152 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 48 (32%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 346,405 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 69 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $151M across 19 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $7M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 9% of listed systems and 57% of reported population. A few large systems account for most of that population, so a small number of systems can shift the population picture entirely. Counts and population are worth reading together.

Risk profile

Risk in San Bernardino County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 37%. Across all individual indicators, Household socioeconomic burden appears most often, affecting 103 of 138 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 4 pts

Most common flagEmerging contaminants

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 17 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% · ▲ 7 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 37% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 39 of 138 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 34 of 138 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 138 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 82 of 138 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 21 of 138 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 105 to 138 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 24% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 103 of 138 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 27 of 126 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 126 to 138 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 74 of 135 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 54 of 135 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 126 to 138 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 152 systems in San Bernardino County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 26 of 69 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 79 of 152 listed systems. Within those two groups, 25 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Combined Uranium5
Arsenic4
Nitrate4
Fluoride2
Gross Alpha Particle Activity2

Among 25 Failing systems, 15 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Combined Uranium, Arsenic, and Nitrate.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $151M across 19 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 44% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $7M.

Key takeaways

32%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 48 systems reporting service to 346,405 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

37%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is household socioeconomic burden, found in 103 of 138 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

45%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 69 of the county’s 152 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.