Ventura County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: September 23, 2026
Page 1 of 3

Ventura County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk
21systems
87,326people served (10% of total)
Not At-Risk or Not Assessed
49systems
729,163people served (84% 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.

Failing12%
At-Risk16%
Not At-Risk60%
Failing
At-Risk
Potentially At-Risk
Not At-Risk
Not Assessed
Systems
9
12
3
44
5
Population
3,366
83,960
53,032
416,646
312,517
Funding since 2017
$0
$2M
$0
$4M
$0

Key figures

73
public water systems
869,521
reported population
41%
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

Ventura County has 73 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 21 (29%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 87,326 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 30 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

5 systems are Not Assessed. These fall outside the SAFER risk assessment, so they carry no classification either way.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $6M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $2M.

System counts and reported population

Not Assessed systems make up 7% of listed systems and 36% 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.

Ventura County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: September 23, 2026
Page 2 of 3

Risk profile

Risk in Ventura County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 37%. Across all individual indicators, Household socioeconomic burden appears most often, affecting 36 of 68 assessed systems.

Water Quality
32%
of combined weighted risk
State 33% · ▼ 1 pts
Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL
Accessibility
37%
of combined weighted risk
State 36% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagNo intertie
Affordability
16%
of combined weighted risk
State 17% · ▼ 2 pts
Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden
TMF Capacity
15%
of combined weighted risk
State 14% · ▲ 1 pts
Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 32% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 22 of 68 assessed systems. Past presence on Failing list is next, appearing in 14 of 68 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 68 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 37% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 23 of 68 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 22 of 68 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 52 to 68 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 16% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 36 of 68 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 5 of 63 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 63 to 68 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 15% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 31 of 68 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 17 of 68 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 63 to 68 assessed systems.

Ventura County | Public water system SAFER profile
Data date: September 23, 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 73 systems in Ventura County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 15 of 30 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 17 of 73 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

Frequently listed primary analytes

  • Nitrate1
  • Selenium1

Among 9 Failing systems, 3 report secondary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Nitrate and Selenium.

Reported funding

Totals since 2017 and number of systems reporting funding

Funding since 2017 totals $6M across 3 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 72% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $2M.

Key takeaways

29%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 21 systems reporting service to 87,326 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

37%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is household socioeconomic burden, found in 36 of 68 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

41%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 30 of the county’s 73 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.