Yuba County public water systems

Status classification

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

Failing10%

At-Risk21%

Potentially At-Risk14%

Not At-Risk55%

Failing

At-Risk

Potentially At-Risk

Not At-Risk

Not Assessed

Systems

3

6

4

16

0

Population

420

7,091

665

69,335

0

Funding since 2017

$0

$443K

$139K

$18M

$0

Key figures

29

public water systems

77,511

reported population

76%

serve 500 people or fewer

$19M

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

Yuba County has 29 public water systems in the SAFER dataset. Of these, 9 (31%) are classified as Failing or At-Risk.

Those systems report serving 7,511 people. The county profile is also shaped by small systems: 22 systems serve 500 people or fewer.

Reported funding since 2017 totals $19M across 3 systems. Technical assistance funding totals $642K.

System counts and reported population

Not At-Risk systems make up 55% of listed systems and 89% of reported population. A few large systems drive that population, so it reaches more people than its system count suggests.

Risk profile

Risk in Yuba County is distributed across four dimensions. Accessibility contributes the largest share of the combined weighted risk score at 44%. Across all individual indicators, No intertie appears most often, affecting 29 of 29 assessed systems.

Water Quality

of combined weighted risk

State 32% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagWater quality trends toward MCL

Accessibility

of combined weighted risk

State 36% · ▲ 8 pts

Most common flagNo intertie

Affordability

of combined weighted risk

State 17% · – 0 pts

Most common flagHousehold socioeconomic burden

TMF Capacity

of combined weighted risk

State 15% · ▼ 4 pts

Most common flagTotal net annual income

Water Quality

Water Quality accounts for 28% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Water quality trends toward MCL appears in 10 of 29 assessed systems. Emerging contaminants is next, appearing in 7 of 29 assessed systems.

Each indicator was assessed for 29 systems.

Accessibility

Accessibility accounts for 44% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. No intertie appears in 29 of 29 assessed systems. Limited water sources is next, appearing in 16 of 29 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 23 to 29 assessed systems.

Affordability

Affordability accounts for 18% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Household socioeconomic burden appears in 15 of 29 assessed systems. Share of household income is next, appearing in 4 of 28 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 28 to 29 assessed systems.

TMF Capacity

TMF Capacity accounts for 10% of the county’s combined weighted risk score. Total net annual income appears in 9 of 29 assessed systems. Operating ratio is next, appearing in 4 of 29 assessed systems.

Indicator denominators range from 23 to 29 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 29 systems in Yuba County.

Status by system size

SAFER status within each population group

Among systems serving 500 people or fewer, 7 of 22 are Failing or At-Risk. The highest concentration occurs among systems serving 501 to 3,300, at 100%.

Economic context

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

DAC and SDAC service areas contain 26 of 29 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

1,2,3-Trichloropropane1
Arsenic1

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

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 $19M across 3 systems. Not At-Risk systems account for 97% of that total. Reported technical assistance funding adds $642K.

Key takeaways

31%

of systems are Failing or At-Risk

That represents 9 systems reporting service to 7,511 people. That is below the statewide average of 33%.

44%

of weighted risk comes from Accessibility

The most widespread individual flag is no intertie, found in 29 of 29 assessed systems. Statewide, Accessibility accounts for 36% of weighted risk.

76%

of systems serve 500 people or fewer

Small systems account for 22 of the county’s 29 listed systems. That is above the statewide average of 61%.