San Luis Obispo County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

22systems

29,764people served (11% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

48systems

221,035people served (82% 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.

Failing11%

At-Risk16%

Potentially At-Risk12%

Not At-Risk54%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

9

13

10

43

5

Population

4,042

25,722

18,444

220,931

104

Funding since 2017

$0

$1M

$709K

$0

Key figures

80

public water systems

269,243

reported population

57%

serve 500 people or fewer

$2M

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 Luis Obispo County has 80 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 22 (28%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 29,764 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 46 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 $2M across 2 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 54% of listed systems and 82% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in San Luis Obispo County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 46%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 50 of 75 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 13 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 7 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 2 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 46% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 38 of 75 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 23 of 75 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 75 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 50 of 75 assessed systems. Drought and shortage risk is next, appearing in 18 of 64 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 64 to 75 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 23 of 75 assessed systems. Extreme water bill is next, appearing in 18 of 69 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 69 to 75 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 10% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 31 of 75 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 17 of 75 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 70 to 75 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 80 systems in San Luis Obispo County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 15 of 46 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 18 of 80 listed systems. Within those two groups, 9 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Nitrate4
Selenium3
Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5)1

Among 9 Failing systems, 7 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Nitrate, Selenium, and Total Haloacetic Acids (Haa5).

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $2M across 2 systems. Potentially At-Risk systems account for 61% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

28%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 22 systems reporting service to 29,764 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

46%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 50 of 75 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

57%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 46 of the county’s 80 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.