San Joaquin County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing8%

At-Risk31%

Potentially At-Risk22%

Not At-Risk35%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

9

36

26

41

4

Population

2,095

98,399

60,843

218,252

367,619

Funding since 2017

$500K

$5M

$0

$3M

$0

Key figures

116

public water systems

747,208

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. Nearby or overlapping points can conceal multiple systems.

Summary

San Joaquin County has 116 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 45 (39%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 100,494 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 90 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

4 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 367,619 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

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

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 3% of listed systems and 49% 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 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 102 of 112 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 3 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 11 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 15% · ▼ 1 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 38 of 112 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 23 of 112 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 112 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 47% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 102 of 112 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 87 of 112 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 105 to 112 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 11% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 51 of 112 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 15 of 106 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 106 to 112 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 57 of 111 assessed systems. Days cash on hand is next, appearing in 40 of 103 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 103 to 112 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 116 systems in San Joaquin County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 37 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 80 of 116 listed systems. Within those two groups, 39 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. At-Risk systems account for 58% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

39%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 45 systems reporting service to 100,494 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 102 of 112 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 116 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.