San Diego County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing27%

At-Risk14%

Potentially At-Risk9%

Not At-Risk36%

Not Assessed14%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

24

12

8

32

12

Population

35,130

16,983

6,533

688,177

2,752,828

Funding since 2017

$2M

$756K

$229K

$78M

$501M

Key figures

88

public water systems

3,499,651

reported population

51%

serve 500 people or fewer

$582M

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 Diego County has 88 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 36 (41%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 52,113 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 45 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

12 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 2,752,828 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $582M across 11 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $5M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 14% of listed systems and 79% 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 San Diego County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 48%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 50 of 76 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▲ 17 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 15 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 48% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 39 of 76 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 28 of 76 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 76 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 21% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 50 of 76 assessed systems. Drought and shortage risk is next, appearing in 18 of 58 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 58 to 76 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 31 of 76 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 10 of 69 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 69 to 76 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 29 of 75 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 22 of 75 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 70 to 76 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 88 systems in San Diego County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 25 of 45 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 62%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 44 of 88 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

Combined Uranium6
Nitrate5
Arsenic2
Fluoride2
Gross Alpha Particle Activity1

Among 24 Failing systems, 14 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Combined Uranium, Nitrate, and Arsenic.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Error in `dplyr::mutate()`:
ℹ In argument: `funding_label = paste0(...)`.
Caused by error in `break_suffix[bad_break][improved_break & !power10_break] <- names(lower_break[
    improved_break & !power10_break])`:
! NAs are not allowed in subscripted assignments

Funding since 2017 totals $582M across 11 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 86% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $5M.

Key takeaways

41%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 36 systems reporting service to 52,113 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

48%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 50 of 76 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 32% of weighted risk.

51%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 45 of the county’s 88 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.