Tehama County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

17systems

2,581people served (7% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

35systems

33,645people 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.

At-Risk23%

Potentially At-Risk19%

Not At-Risk50%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

2

15

12

32

3

Population

282

2,299

2,354

33,297

348

Funding since 2017

$0

$1M

$0

$911K

$0

Key figures

64

public water systems

38,580

reported population

86%

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

Tehama County has 64 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 17 (27%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 2,581 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 55 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 $2M across 4 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $1M.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 50% of listed systems and 86% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Tehama County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 43%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 60 of 61 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 14 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% · ▲ 8 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 19% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 23 of 61 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 4 of 61 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 61 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 43% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 60 of 61 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 43 of 61 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 60 to 61 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 26% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 46 of 61 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 5 of 46 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 46 to 61 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 28 of 50 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 22 of 50 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 45 to 61 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 64 systems in Tehama County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 16 of 55 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 25 of 64 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

No primary analytes were listed for Failing systems.

Among 2 Failing systems, 1 report treatment technique violation. No primary analytes are listed for these systems.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $2M across 4 systems. At-Risk systems account for 57% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $1M.

Key takeaways

27%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 17 systems reporting service to 2,581 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

43%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 60 of 61 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

86%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 55 of the county’s 64 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.