Tulare County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

63systems

118,557people served (27% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

34systems

245,901people served (57% 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.

Failing25%

At-Risk31%

Potentially At-Risk14%

Not At-Risk27%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

28

35

16

31

3

Population

44,884

73,673

69,928

92,279

153,622

Funding since 2017

$41M

$25M

$33M

$11M

$0

Key figures

113

public water systems

434,386

reported population

66%

serve 500 people or fewer

$109M

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

Tulare County has 113 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 63 (56%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 118,557 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 75 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 $109M across 25 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $8M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 3% of listed systems and 35% 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 Tulare 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 101 of 110 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · – 0 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% · ▼ 2 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 33% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 51 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 40% 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 15% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 80 of 110 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 18 of 103 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 103 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 106 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 45 of 106 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 93 to 110 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 113 systems in Tulare County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 37 of 75 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 54 of 113 listed systems. Within those two groups, 36 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Nitrate18
1,2,3-Trichloropropane10
Arsenic3
Combined Uranium2
Nitrate-Nitrite2

Among 28 Failing systems, 25 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 $109M across 25 systems. Failing systems account for 38% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $8M.

Key takeaways

56%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 63 systems reporting service to 118,557 people. That is above the statewide average of 33%.

40%

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.

66%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 75 of the county’s 113 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 63%.