Santa Cruz County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

21systems

4,965people served (2% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

30systems

89,517people served (35% of total)

Status classification

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

At-Risk29%

Potentially At-Risk12%

Not At-Risk52%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

4

17

7

30

0

Population

1,544

3,421

160,663

89,517

0

Funding since 2017

$0

$191M

$0

Key figures

58

public water systems

255,145

reported population

76%

serve 500 people or fewer

$191M

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 Cruz County has 58 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 21 (36%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 4,965 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 44 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $191M across 1 system. Technical assistance funding totals $3M.

System counts and reported population

Potentially At-Risk systems make up 12% of listed systems and 63% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Santa Cruz County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 42%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 41 of 58 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 3 pts

Most common flagEmerging contaminants

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 7 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▼ 5 pts

Most common flagExtreme water bill

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▲ 2 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 30% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 17 of 58 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 16 of 58 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 58 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 42% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 41 of 58 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 29 of 58 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 52 to 58 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Extreme water bill appears in 17 of 56 assessed systems. Household socioeconomic burden is next, appearing in 13 of 58 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 56 to 58 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 34 of 58 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 19 of 58 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 54 to 58 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 58 systems in Santa Cruz County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 19 of 44 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 7 of 58 listed systems. Within those two groups, 3 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.

Among 4 Failing systems, 2 report secondary MCL violation. No primary analytes are listed for these systems.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $191M across 1 system. Potentially At-Risk systems account for 100% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $3M.

Key takeaways

36%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 21 systems reporting service to 4,965 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

42%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 41 of 58 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

76%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 44 of the county’s 58 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.