# Consolidation candidate screening

URL: /consolidation/
Pages: 5

> **Cite as:** Municorn.us, "Which water systems border which, by state", Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/consolidation/ (source filings retrieved 2026-09-08).
> **Licence:** CC BY 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ — reuse and redistribution are permitted with attribution to Municorn.us and a link to this URL.
> **Caveat that must travel with these figures:** "Water loss" is at least three different quantities depending on the jurisdiction, and nothing here supports a comparison between states.

Pairs of systems whose EPA service area boundaries come within a stated tolerance of each other, with the size and filed water loss on each side of every border.

## By state

- [California](https://municorn.us/consolidation/california-water-systems/) — 2,145 bordering pairs
- [Georgia](https://municorn.us/consolidation/georgia-water-systems/) — 634 bordering pairs
- [Indiana](https://municorn.us/consolidation/indiana-water-systems/) — 316 bordering pairs
- [Massachusetts](https://municorn.us/consolidation/massachusetts-water-systems/) — 720 bordering pairs
- [Texas](https://municorn.us/consolidation/texas-water-systems/) — 7,201 bordering pairs

A proximity test at a stated tolerance and not a touch test, because the boundary layer is simplified by about a kilometre. These are screens for further work and not a recommendation that any two utilities merge.

_Municorn.us · https://municorn.us/consolidation/ · CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ · source filings retrieved 2026-09-08_