Santa Barbara County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

13systems

2,669people served (1% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

48systems

460,481people served (99% 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-Risk12%

Potentially At-Risk8%

Not At-Risk68%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

5

8

5

45

3

Population

883

1,786

612

348,273

112,208

Funding since 2017

$0

$2M

$0

$35M

$0

Key figures

66

public water systems

463,762

reported population

68%

serve 500 people or fewer

$36M

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

Santa Barbara County has 66 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 13 (20%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 2,669 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 45 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

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

Reported funding since 2017 totals $36M across 2 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 5% of listed systems and 24% 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 Santa Barbara County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 39%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 47 of 63 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 6 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · – 0 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 2 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 39% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 28 of 63 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 17 of 63 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 63 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 32% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 47 of 63 assessed systems. Drought and shortage risk is next, appearing in 15 of 56 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 56 to 63 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 17% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 23 of 63 assessed systems. Extreme water bill is next, appearing in 15 of 61 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 61 to 63 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 18 of 63 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 9 of 63 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 59 to 63 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 66 systems in Santa Barbara County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 11 of 45 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 33%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 16 of 66 listed systems. Within those two groups, 4 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Arsenic1
Nitrate1
Perchlorate1
Selenium1

Among 5 Failing systems, 3 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Arsenic, Nitrate, and Perchlorate.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $36M across 2 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 96% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

20%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 13 systems reporting service to 2,669 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

39%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 47 of 63 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

68%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 45 of the county’s 66 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.