Tulare County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 1 of 3

Tulare County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing25%
At-Risk29%
Potentially At-Risk15%
Not At-Risk28%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
28
33
17
32
4
Population
45,413
47,460
69,870
123,391
148,662
Funding since 2017
$46M
$22M
$33M
$12M
$0

Key figures

114
public water systems
434,796
reported population
64%
serve 500 people or fewer
$112M
reported funding since 2017

System locations

Points show reported system locations. They do not represent service-area boundaries.

Each point represents one system record. Nearby or overlapping points can conceal multiple systems.

Summary

Tulare County has 114 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 61 (54%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 92,873 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 73 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

4 systems are listed as Not Assessed, serving 148,662 people, so Not Assessed should not be read as a low-risk classification.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $112M across 26 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $8M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 4% of listed systems and 34% of reported population. That population sits in a few large systems outside the SAFER assessment’s scope, which generally have more capacity, so this reflects scope rather than hidden risk.

Tulare County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Risk profile

Risk in Tulare County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 41%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 101 of 110 assessed systems.

Water Quality
31%
of combined weighted risk
State 32% · – 0 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
41%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 5 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
16%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 2 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
12%
of combined weighted risk
State 15% · ▼ 2 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 31% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 50 of 110 assessed systems. Sources exceeding an MCL is next, appearing in 40 of 110 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 110 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 41% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 101 of 110 assessed systems. Critically overdrafted basin is next, appearing in 83 of 110 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 103 to 110 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 81 of 110 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 19 of 104 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 104 to 110 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 12% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 54 of 107 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 45 of 107 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 94 to 110 assessed systems.

Tulare County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: July 31, 2026
Page 3 of 3

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 114 systems in Tulare County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 34 of 73 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 3,301 to 10,000, at 80%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 110 of 114 listed systems. Within those two groups, 59 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • Nitrate17
  • 1,2,3-Trichloropropane10
  • Arsenic3
  • Combined Uranium2
  • Nitrate-Nitrite2

Among 28 Failing systems, 24 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Nitrate, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, and Arsenic.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $112M across 26 systems. Failing systems account for 41% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $8M.

Key takeaways

54%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 61 systems reporting service to 92,873 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

41%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 101 of 110 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

64%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 73 of the county’s 114 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.