California Water Systems Ranked by Exposure Burden — 2026
California community water utilities ranked by a population-weighted 2021-2026 violation severity score combining EPA SDWIS enforcement data with EPA Community Water System Service Area Boundaries v3 population estimates.
ranked
with demographic data
vintage
boundaries (March 2026)
These 50 California water utilities have the highest population-weighted violation scores in this dataset's reporting window. Scoring combines EPA health-based and treatment-technique violations on a linear scale (10× / 6×), adds a log-scaled contribution for monitoring/reporting lapses, and applies a 20× weight for currently-unresolved health violations. The total is multiplied by each system's population served.
| Rank | Water System | State | Pop served | Exposure burden | Health viol. (since 2021) | T&T | MR | Unresolved |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Jose Water | California | 823,703 | 4,942 | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2 | City of Lindsay | California | 10,929 | 4,087 | 39 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 3 | Scwa - Laguna/Vineyard | California | 145,429 | 3,869 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | City of Stockton | California | 178,113 | 3,732 | 2 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 5 | Suisun-Solano Water Authority | California | 28,675 | 3,630 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | City of Lemoore | California | 25,315 | 3,576 | 14 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 7 | Yucaipa Valley Water District | California | 60,758 | 2,850 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | City of Fairfield | California | 101,593 | 2,703 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | East Niles Csd | California | 31,094 | 1,449 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 10 | Oildale Mwc | California | 27,600 | 1,397 | 5 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 11 | City of Hughson | California | 6,241 | 1,352 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | City of Porterville | California | 48,713 | 1,296 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | City of Los Banos | California | 43,989 | 1,170 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | City of Ceres | California | 36,788 | 979 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | City of Calexico | California | 36,151 | 962 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | Monterey Park-City, Water Department | California | 34,690 | 923 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 17 | City of Dos Palos | California | 7,477 | 902 | 12 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 18 | City of Hanford | California | 42,380 | 873 | 2 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 19 | Cal-Am Water Coronado | California | 73,253 | 733 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 20 | Casitas Municipal Water District | California | 61,592 | 675 | 1 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 21 | City of Sanger | California | 24,321 | 647 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | San Lorenzo Valley Water District | California | 22,610 | 601 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 23 | City of Dinuba | California | 22,497 | 598 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 24 | City of Oakdale | California | 21,894 | 582 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 25 | City of Gilroy | California | 56,130 | 561 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 26 | Lake Hemet Mwd | California | 52,018 | 551 | 1 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 27 | City of West Sacramento | California | 17,951 | 478 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 28 | Yosemite Spring Park Util Company | California | 3,941 | 426 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| 29 | Bakman Water Company | California | 15,252 | 406 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 | City of Imperial | California | 13,335 | 359 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 31 | City of Avenal | California | 4,483 | 343 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 32 | City of Livingston | California | 12,677 | 342 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 33 | City of Anaheim | California | 315,139 | 340 | 0 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 34 | City of Parlier | California | 12,388 | 330 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 35 | City of Tehachapi | California | 12,224 | 329 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 36 | City of Hollister | California | 25,279 | 277 | 1 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 37 | City of Anderson | California | 10,358 | 276 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 38 | City of Norco | California | 19,642 | 261 | 1 | 0 | 42 | — |
| 39 | Arvin Community Services District | California | 9,637 | 260 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 40 | City of Riverbank | California | 23,782 | 238 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 41 | Pismo Beach Water Department | California | 7,692 | 235 | 3 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 42 | Winton Water & Sanitary District | California | 8,672 | 231 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 43 | City of Orange Cove | California | 7,563 | 201 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 44 | City of Farmersville | California | 7,495 | 199 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 45 | Earlimart PUD | California | 7,202 | 192 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 46 | Yreka, City of | California | 6,610 | 176 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 47 | City of Fort Bragg | California | 6,417 | 171 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 48 | Signal Hill - City, Water Department | California | 5,254 | 162 | 5 | 5 | 1 | — |
| 49 | City of Calistoga | California | 5,264 | 161 | 3 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 50 | City of Gridley | California | 6,034 | 161 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
How to read this ranking
Each row links to a full utility profile with violation history, lead testing results, and service-area ZIPs. The demographic context columns are from independent data sources (ACS, not EJScreen) and are provided for readers who want to examine equity patterns alongside the operational data.
See the full methodology for calculation details, data vintages, and known limitations.
Frequently asked questions
What is "exposure burden"?
A single score combining how many people a water system serves with how severe its federal drinking-water violations have been over the last five years. The formula is population_served × severity_score, where severity_score linearly sums contamination-related events — 10× per health-based violation, 6× per treatment-technique violation, 20× per currently-unresolved health violation — and adds a logarithmic contribution from procedural violations (2× × log10(1 + monitoring_count), 1× × log10(1 + other_count)). The log scaling prevents large utilities with many sampling sites from dominating the list purely through paperwork accumulation. Units are arbitrary — only relative ranks are meaningful. Scaled by 1,000 for display readability.
Why weight violations by severity?
A raw violation count would put systems with many late monitoring reports above systems with actual contamination events — because a large utility with 100 sampling sites failing 5% of them accumulates more MR violations than a tiny utility with real tap-water contamination. The severity weights come from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act enforcement hierarchy: maximum contaminant level violations and treatment technique failures are Priority 1 (actual public-health risk), while monitoring/reporting violations are Priority 2 (procedural). We publish the weights so readers can recompute the ranking under different assumptions.
Why multiply by population?
Two systems with the same violation record affect very different numbers of people when one serves 500,000 residents and the other serves 3,000. A ranking by raw violation count does not account for the number of people served by each system. Population weighting gives more score weight to systems serving more people; it does not estimate individual exposure.
Is this the same as the Most Unresolved Violations list?
No. Unresolved violations count only currently-open health-based violations as of the latest EPA snapshot — a point-in-time view of records not marked resolved in that snapshot (EPA compliance records are not real-time). Exposure burden weights recorded violations in the stated source window by severity and population served. A system with one serious recorded violation and a large population served can outrank a system with many smaller unresolved monitoring violations; the two lists use different ranking methods.
Where does the data come from?
Violation categorization and counts come from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) via the ECHO enforcement database. Population served comes from EPA Community Water System Service Area Boundaries v3 cross-walked to Census 2020 population via Microsoft building-footprint weights. Demographics come from Census ACS 2019-2023.
ZipCheckup is an independent public-data tool. We are a referral service and do not provide water testing, remediation, or utility services. Rankings reflect publicly-available federal data and are provided for informational purposes. For issues with your specific water system, contact your local water utility or state drinking water program.