San Francisco County public water systems

Status classification

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

Potentially At-Risk20%
Not At-Risk40%
Not Assessed40%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
0
0
1
2
2
Population
0
0
3,864
3,910
848,619
Funding since 2017
$0
$0
$0
$0
$238M

Key figures

5
public water systems
856,393
reported population
20%
serve 500 people or fewer
$238M
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 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.

System counts and reported population

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 profile

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
12%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · ▼ 19 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
33%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▼ 3 pts
Most common flagLimited water sources
Affordability
26%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▲ 9 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
28%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▲ 13 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

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.

Each indicator was assessed for 3 systems.

Accessibility

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.

Each indicator was assessed for 3 systems.

Affordability

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.

Each indicator was assessed for 3 systems.

TMF Capacity

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.

Each indicator was assessed for 3 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 5 systems in San Francisco County.

Status by system size

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.

Economic context

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.

Conditions among Failing systems

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.

Reported funding

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.

Key takeaways

0%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 0 systems reporting service to 0 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

33%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is limited water sources, found in 2 of 3 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

20%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 1 of the county’s 5 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 61%.