Trinity County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

6systems

5,002people served (52% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

12systems

2,231people served (23% of total)

Status classification

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

Failing20%

At-Risk10%

Potentially At-Risk10%

Not At-Risk60%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

4

2

12

0

Population

4,300

702

2,365

2,231

0

Funding since 2017

$1M

$4M

$461K

$413K

$0

Key figures

20

public water systems

9,598

reported population

80%

serve 500 people or fewer

$6M

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

Trinity County has 20 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 6 (30%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 5,002 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 16 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $6M across 6 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $209K.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 60% of listed systems and 23% of reported population. This status is concentrated in smaller systems, so it reaches fewer people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Trinity County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 40%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 20 of 20 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▼ 15 pts

Most common flagPast presence on Failing list

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 4 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · ▲ 15 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 3 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Past presence on Failing list appears in 5 of 20 assessed systems. Treatment technique violations is next, appearing in 5 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 40% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 20 of 20 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 12 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 32% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 14 of 20 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 7 of 14 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 14 to 20 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 11% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 4 of 15 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 3 of 15 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 14 to 20 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 20 systems in Trinity County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 4 of 16 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 100%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 15 of 20 listed systems. Within those two groups, 5 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, 4 report treatment technique violation. No primary analytes are listed for these systems.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Error in `dplyr::mutate()`:
ℹ In argument: `funding_label = paste0(...)`.
Caused by error in `break_suffix[bad_break][improved_break & !power10_break] <- names(lower_break[
    improved_break & !power10_break])`:
! NAs are not allowed in subscripted assignments

Funding since 2017 totals $6M across 6 systems. At-Risk systems account for 62% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $209K.

Key takeaways

30%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 6 systems reporting service to 5,002 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

40%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 20 of 20 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

80%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 16 of the county’s 20 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.