San Joaquin County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

46systems

11,144people served (1% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

45systems

654,044people served (87% 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.

Failing8%

At-Risk32%

Potentially At-Risk21%

Not At-Risk35%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

9

37

24

40

5

Population

2,121

9,023

90,712

193,638

460,406

Funding since 2017

$500K

$0

$3M

$5M

Key figures

115

public water systems

755,900

reported population

78%

serve 500 people or fewer

$8M

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 Joaquin County has 115 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 46 (40%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 11,144 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 90 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $8M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 4% of listed systems and 61% 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 Joaquin County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 47%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 101 of 110 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 12 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 6 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 1 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 29% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 35 of 110 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 26 of 110 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 110 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 47% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 101 of 110 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 86 of 110 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 104 to 110 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 11% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 50 of 110 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 15 of 105 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 105 to 110 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 55 of 109 assessed systems. Days cash on hand is next, appearing in 39 of 101 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 101 to 110 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 115 systems in San Joaquin County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 40 of 90 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 46%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 29 of 115 listed systems. Within those two groups, 15 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic4
Nitrate4
1,2,3-Trichloropropane3

Among 9 Failing systems, 8 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic, Nitrate, and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $8M across 3 systems. Not Assessed systems account for 58% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

40%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 46 systems reporting service to 11,144 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

47%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 101 of 110 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

78%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 90 of the county’s 115 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.