Yolo County public water systems

Failing or At-Risk

7systems

57,819people served (27% of total)

Not At-Risk or Not Assessed

10systems

143,299people served (67% 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.

Failing14%

At-Risk19%

Potentially At-Risk19%

Not At-Risk43%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

3

4

9

1

Population

310

57,509

14,008

143,299

0

Funding since 2017

$36K

$0

$399K

$0

Key figures

21

public water systems

215,126

reported population

52%

serve 500 people or fewer

$435K

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

Yolo County has 21 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 7 (33%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 57,819 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 11 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

1 system is Not Assessed. These fall outside the SAFER risk assessment, so they carry no classification either way.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $435K across 2 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $638K.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 43% of listed systems and 67% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Yolo County is distributed across four dimensions. Water Quality contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 51%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 17 of 20 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 33% · ▲ 18 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% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 14% · ▼ 6 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 51% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Emerging contaminants appears in 13 of 20 assessed systems. Water quality trends toward MCL is next, appearing in 6 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 17 of 20 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 8 of 20 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 15 to 20 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 13% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 8 of 20 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 2 of 19 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 19 to 20 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 8% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 7 of 20 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 2 of 20 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 20 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 21 systems in Yolo County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 4 of 11 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 50%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 6 of 21 listed systems. Within those two groups, 3 systems are Failing or At-Risk.

Conditions among Failing systems

A system can appear under more than one condition

Frequently listed primary analytes

Nitrate2

Among 3 Failing systems, 2 report primary MCL violation. The most frequently listed primary analytes are Nitrate.

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 $435K across 2 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 92% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $638K.

Key takeaways

33%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 7 systems reporting service to 57,819 people. That is close to the statewide average of 33%.

51%

of weighted risk comes from Water Quality

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 17 of 20 assessed systems. Statewide, Water Quality accounts for 33% of weighted risk.

52%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 11 of the county’s 21 listed systems. That is below the statewide average of 63%.