Share of listed systems, followed by the count, reported population, and funding in each status.
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.
San Francisco County has 5 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 0 (0%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.
Those systems report serving 0 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 1 system serve 500 people or fewer.
2 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 848,619 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.
Reported funding since 2017 totals $238M across 1 system. Technical assistance funding totals $0.
Not Assessed systems make up 40% of listed systems and 99% 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 in San Francisco County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 33%. Across all individual indicators, Limited water sources appears most often, affecting 2 of 3 assessed systems.
Water Quality accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 1 of 3 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 1 of 3 assessed systems.
Accessibility accounts for 33% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Limited water sources appears in 2 of 3 assessed systems. No intertie is next, appearing in 0 of 3 assessed systems.
Affordability accounts for 26% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 1 of 3 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 1 of 3 assessed systems.
TMF Capacity accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 2 of 3 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 2 of 3 assessed systems.
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 5 systems in San Francisco County.
SAFER status within each population group
Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 0 of 1 are Failing or At-Risk. This size group has the county’s highest concentration of high-concern classifications.
Orange shows Failing or At-Risk systems within each service-area group
DAC and SDAC service areas contain 1 of 5 listed systems. Within those two groups, 0 systems are Failing or At-Risk.
A system can appear under more than one condition
No primary analytes were listed for Failing systems.
No systems in this county are classified as Failing.
Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding
Funding since 2017 totals $238M across 1 system. Not Assessed systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $0.
That represents 0 systems reporting service to 0 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.
The most widespread individual flag is limited water sources, found in 2 of 3 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.
Small systems account for 1 of the county’s 5 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.