Indiana consolidation candidate screening

What this is

Three questions decide whether two utilities are worth looking at together: who borders whom, what the published figures say across that border, and what the two would be if they were one. This page answers all three from public filings, for every pair of Indiana systems whose service areas meet.

It is a screen and not a finding. Nothing here says two utilities should merge, and nothing here is a feasibility result. A consolidation study prices interconnection, tests hydraulics, reconciles debt covenants and asks a governing body what it wants. This page tells a person which pairs are worth starting one about.

What “bordering” means here, exactly

Two systems are listed as bordering when their service area outlines come within 1.11 km of each other. That is a proximity test rather than a touch test, and the reason is a transform this site performed: the boundary layer is simplified by about a kilometre at acquisition, which is a pixel at the scale the state map draws it and which moves every vertex. Two systems that share a boundary in EPA's file come out of that simplification up to two tolerances apart. So an exact touch test on these bytes would be a question about our own simplification, not about the world. The tolerance is one simplification tolerance, the edge count is a function of it, and the artifact records how much the count moves at half and at double.

It is not a statement that two systems share a pipe, an interconnection or a legal service boundary. Nothing in this corpus knows about pipes.

Where the borders were computed, and what a row can say about each side

Over EPA's whole national layer, before anything was filtered to this site. Until #180 the borders were computed on the map's own extract — 492 Indiana shapes out of the 44,643 community water systems EPA draws nationally — which meant a border to a system with no page here did not exist, and a border across a state line did not exist either. The order is now the other way round: every polygon in the layer, once, and then the edges that touch what this site draws.

So 316 borders reach Indiana's 492 drawn systems, of which 137 name a system this site publishes no page for and 36 cross a state line. Those rows are here because the border is real. A row with an unnamed side carries EPA's name for it, the primacy agency that regulates it and how EPA got its boundary, and nothing else — no loss, no size, no rates — and it sorts below every row this site can describe rather than being ranked as though it were known.

A cross-state pair may not have its loss figures compared, and this page does not compare them. Crossing a state line means crossing a primacy agency, and “water loss” is at least three different quantities across the regulators in this corpus — the licence caveat on every page here says so. The loss gap on such a row reads not comparable, which is a statement about the two regulators rather than about the two utilities.

How EPA got the boundary on each side of the 36 cross-state borders

Primacy agency	Endpoints on a cross-state edge	Modelled
IN	36	26 (72%)
KY	15	2 (13%)
OH	9	6 (67%)
IL	7	3 (43%)
MI	5	5 (100%)

The modelled share is a fact about each state and not a national average, so an edge basis is doing more work on a cross-state row than on any other: its two endpoints are drawn from two different modelled populations.

How EPA got these shapes, and why it changes the answer

EPA disclaims the spatial accuracy of this layer and names local government as the accurate source. Some of these boundaries were published by a state agency, a utility or a county; the rest are a machine learning output. The share is a fact about this state and not a national average: of 492 Indiana service areas drawn, 434 are modelled, 46 are published, 12 are unstated.

Neighbours found, by how EPA got the boundary

Boundary basis	Systems	With a neighbour	Mean neighbours
modelled	434	174 (40%)	0.72
published	46	31 (67%)	2.98
unstated	12	12 (100%)	3.83

A modelled boundary does not merely carry more uncertainty here — it produces fewer neighbours. This state's 434 modelled service areas average 0.72 neighbours each and 40% of them have any at all, against 2.98 and 67% for the 46 boundaries a state agency, a utility or a county published. EPA's model draws a compact area around where it infers the customers are, and compact areas do not abut. So in this state a missing edge is weak evidence that there is no border, and this screen is incomplete in a direction that can be measured rather than only admitted.

Every pair below says which kind of edge it is. Bordering on a modelled boundary is not bordering, and a pair joined by one is a pair a person should check against a local map before spending anything on it.

The pairs

316 bordering pairs, between the 217 of 492 drawn systems that have at least one neighbour. Ordered by how many times larger one side is than the other, and by nothing else — a composite score over size, loss and compliance would be a judgement about how much one is worth against another, and this corpus has none to offer. Every other figure is printed for a person to weigh.

Bordering pairs, largest size difference first

The larger	People served	Loss	The smaller	People served	Loss	Size ratio	Loss gap	Together	Edge
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	70	9.1%	12,576×	9.5 pp	880,415	one modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Sugar Creek Utilities - Ninestar Connect	137	1.3%	6,426×	17.3 pp	880,482	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Lizton Water	488	66.8%	1,804×	48.2 pp	880,833	modelled
Indiana American Water - Noblesville	41,495	4.0%	Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	70	9.1%	592.8×	5.2 pp	41,565	one modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Whitestown Municipal	1,647	4.1%	534.5×	14.5 pp	881,992	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Ninestar Connect	2,000	7.5%	440.2×	11.1 pp	882,345	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Tri-county Conservancy District	3,130	2.9%	281.3×	15.7 pp	883,475	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Pittsboro Water Company	4,113	11.1%	214×	7.5 pp	884,458	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Cicero	5,643	18.8%	156×	0.2 pp	885,988	modelled
South Bend	115,000	24.5%	Aqua Indiana Wedgewood Park	739	14.1%	155.6×	10.5 pp	115,739	one modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Fortville	7,639	9.9%	115.2×	8.7 pp	887,984	modelled
Fortville	7,639	9.9%	Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	70	9.1%	109.1×	0.8 pp	7,709	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Morgan County Rural	9,200	32.2%	95.7×	13.6 pp	889,545	one modelled
Bloomington	83,000	22.5%	Rhorer, Harrell & Schacht Roads (rhs) Water Corp	870	22.9%	95.4×	0.4 pp	83,870	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Indiana American Water - Mooresville	9,715	9.3%	90.6×	9.3 pp	890,060	both published
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Danville	10,500	23.5%	83.8×	4.9 pp	890,845	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Speedway	12,473	20.4%	70.6×	1.8 pp	892,818	modelled
Pendleton Water Company	4,840	46.4%	Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	70	9.1%	69.1×	37.3 pp	4,910	modelled
Indiana American Water - Terre Haute	61,495	3.4%	Sisters Of Providence/st. Mary Of Woods	900	38.9%	68.3×	35.4 pp	62,395	modelled
Evansville Water & Sewer	182,444	7.9%	Gibson	4,750	8.7%	38.4×	0.8 pp	187,194	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Brownsburg	23,750	26.6%	37.1×	7.9 pp	904,095	modelled
Indiana American Water - Northwest	189,540	30.4%	New Chicago	5,500	45.3%	34.5×	14.9 pp	195,040	modelled
Lapel	2,325	41.8%	Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	70	9.1%	33.2×	32.7 pp	2,395	modelled
Centerpoint	625	6.7%	Hickory Lake	19	2.4%	32.9×	4.2 pp	644	modelled
Anderson	58,542	41.9%	Edgewood	1,913	35.3%	30.6×	6.6 pp	60,455	modelled
Michigan City	33,996 EPA	16.0%	Long Beach, Town Of	1,160	7.4%	29.3×	8.6 pp	35,156	modelled
Indiana American Water - Terre Haute	61,495	3.4%	West Terre Haute	2,157	6.9%	28.5×	3.5 pp	63,652	modelled
Indiana American Water - Terre Haute	61,495	3.4%	Fayette Township	2,200	34.9%	28×	31.5 pp	63,695	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Plainfield	34,954	5.7%	25.2×	13 pp	915,299	modelled
Indiana American Water - Northwest	189,540	30.4%	Community Utilities Of Indiana Inc. (twin Lakes)	8,000 EPA	27.2%	23.7×	3.3 pp	197,540	modelled
Fort Wayne City	316,972	28.4%	Huntertown, Town Of	14,106	24.1%	22.5×	4.3 pp	331,078	modelled
Bloomington	83,000	22.5%	Washington Township	3,800	14.5%	21.8×	8 pp	86,800	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Indiana American Water - Noblesville	41,495	4.0%	21.2×	14.7 pp	921,840	both published
Bedford City	23,189	39.3%	Oolitic	1,100	36.9%	21.1×	2.4 pp	24,289	modelled
Indiana American Water - Terre Haute	61,495	3.4%	Sullivan-vigo Rural Water Corp.	2,929	3.4%	21×	0 pp	64,424	modelled
Anderson	58,542	41.9%	Chesterfield	2,800	37.8%	20.9×	4.1 pp	61,342	modelled
Fort Wayne City	316,972	28.4%	New Haven	15,700	26.0%	20.2×	2.4 pp	332,672	modelled
Valparaiso City Utilities	36,000	5.2%	Valparasio Lakes Areas Conservancy	1,800	2.8%	20×	2.4 pp	37,800	modelled
Brook, Town Of	939	14.8%	Newton County Regional Water And Sewer District (brook)	50	31.3%	18.8×	16.5 pp	989	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Citizens Water Of Westfield, Llc	48,978	13.3%	18×	5.3 pp	929,323	one modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Lawrence	49,370	22.8%	17.8×	4.2 pp	929,715	modelled
Indiana American Water - Johnson County	82,905	9.2%	Whiteland	4,700	13.5%	17.6×	4.3 pp	87,605	modelled
Indiana American Water - Sullivan	5,578	19.4%	Indiana American Water - Merom	325	34.8%	17.2×	15.3 pp	5,903	both published
Indiana American Water - West Lafayette	33,000	8.4%	Battle Ground Conservancy District	1,940	18.7%	17×	10.3 pp	34,940	modelled
Indiana American Water - Southern	80,393	17.5%	Greenville Water	4,850	15.4%	16.6×	2.1 pp	85,243	modelled
Bloomington	83,000	22.5%	B & B Water Project Inc	5,075	47.2%	16.4×	24.7 pp	88,075	modelled
Hammond Water Works	77,854	24.1%	Whiting	4,900	9.0%	15.9×	15.1 pp	82,754	modelled
Bloomington	83,000	22.5%	East Monroe Water Corporation	5,600	22.7%	14.8×	0.2 pp	88,600	modelled
Ninestar Connect	2,000	7.5%	Sugar Creek Utilities - Ninestar Connect	137	1.3%	14.6×	6.2 pp	2,137	modelled
Indiana American Water - Richmond	38,175	21.3%	Centerville, Town Of	2,707	30.8%	14.1×	9.4 pp	40,882	modelled
Pike Gibson Water Inc.	10,000	21.1%	Winslow, Town Of	764	17.1%	13.1×	4 pp	10,764	modelled
Indiana American Water - Northwest	189,540	30.4%	St. John	15,000	21.5%	12.6×	9 pp	204,540	modelled
Bloomington	83,000	22.5%	Van Buren Water Inc.	6,670	25.3%	12.4×	2.9 pp	89,670	modelled
Anderson	58,542	41.9%	Pendleton Water Company	4,840	46.4%	12.1×	4.6 pp	63,382	modelled
North Lawrence	13,300	37.3%	Oolitic	1,100	36.9%	12.1×	0.4 pp	14,400	modelled
Indiana American Water - Southern	80,393	17.5%	Watson Water Company, Inc.	7,000	26.3%	11.5×	8.8 pp	87,393	one modelled
Indiana American Water - Northwest	189,540	30.4%	Griffith	16,893	15.1%	11.2×	15.4 pp	206,433	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	880,345 EPA	18.6%	Indiana American Water - Johnson County	82,905	9.2%	10.6×	9.4 pp	963,250	both published
Indiana American Water - Muncie	65,490	17.4%	Yorktown, Town Of	6,200	22.1%	10.6×	4.7 pp	71,690	modelled
Edwardsville	10,442	26.8%	Lanesville, Town Of	1,013	31.7%	10.3×	4.9 pp	11,455	modelled

Two publishers on these rows. The loss percentage is IFA's own filing. A population marked EPA is not: it is POPULATION_SERVED_COUNT from EPA's national inventory of community water systems, carried on the rows where IFA published no population of its own — it files one for other systems in this table and not for these — because a screen whose whole argument is “a small system beside a large one” cannot be read without one. IFA did not publish the figures marked EPA. What EPA publishes is the count a system reports to its primacy agency — not a census, not audited, and the retail population for some systems and the total population served for others — collected in a different year and for a different purpose than the loss figure beside it. Such a row is two agencies' figures side by side and not one agency's statement about a system.

The 60 pairs at the top of that ordering, of 316. Nothing is hidden by a rule: the rest are the pairs the ordering puts lower, which is the whole of what it means.

Borders to systems this site has no page for

137 of these 316 borders reach a system this site publishes nothing about. They are listed here rather than mixed into the ordering above, because the ordering ranks candidates and a row with one unknown side cannot be ranked — not because the border is less real. EPA drew both shapes; this corpus holds a filing for one of them.

Every cell about the other side is absent on purpose. This site does not know that system's water loss, its size, its rates or its compliance record, and a row that implied otherwise would be the worst thing this page could do. What it knows is the name EPA files it under, which primacy agency regulates it, and how EPA got its boundary.

Borders to systems with no page here, by name — 40 of 137

System with a filing here	Its loss	The bordering system	Regulated by	Its boundary	Edge
Anderson	41.9%	AUTUMN ACRES SUBDIVISION	IN	modelled	modelled
Angola	16.2%	OR-AN TRAILER COURT	IN	modelled	modelled
Angola	16.2%	LEISURE LAKES MOBILE HOME COURT	IN	modelled	modelled
Aqua Indiana Wedgewood Park	14.1%	NILES	MI — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Aqua Indiana Wedgewood Park	14.1%	ONTARIO PLACE	MI — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Arcadia	29.7%	INDIANA ACADEMY	IN	modelled	modelled
Batesville Water & Gas	16.0%	OLDENBURG WATER WORKS	IN	modelled	modelled
Bristol, Town Of	3.3%	BRISTOL MOBILE VILLAGE	IN	modelled	modelled
Cannelton	26.4%	HAWESVILLE WATER WORKS	KY — across a state line	published	modelled
Cedar Lake Municipal Water	12.5%	CEDAR LAKE MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Cedar Lake Municipal Water	12.5%	FAIRWAY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT	IN	modelled	modelled
Cedar Lake Municipal Water	12.5%	SUNSET HARBOR CONDOMINIUMS	IN	modelled	modelled
Cedar Lake Municipal Water	12.5%	CEDAR GARDENS MHP	IN	modelled	modelled
Cedar Lake Municipal Water	12.5%	LAKESHORE SUBDIVISION ASSOCIATION, INC.	IN	modelled	modelled
Cedar Lake Municipal Water	12.5%	CEDAR LAKE - ROBINS NEST	IN	modelled	modelled
Chesterfield	37.8%	AUTUMN ACRES SUBDIVISION	IN	modelled	modelled
Cicero	18.8%	INDIANA ACADEMY	IN	modelled	modelled
Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	9.1%	HARRIS HILLS MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madison	9.1%	TALL TIMBERS MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	18.6%	ARROWHEAD MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	18.6%	CADE APARTMENTS	IN	modelled	modelled
Citizens Water Indianapolis	18.6%	MOORESVILLE ACRES	IN	modelled	modelled
Columbus City Utilties	26.1%	GARDEN CITY MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Cromwell	10.0%	PINE MEADOWS ESTATE	IN	modelled	modelled
Culver, Town Of	58.5%	CULVER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION	IN	modelled	modelled
Decatur, City Of	16.1%	OAKWOOD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.	IN	modelled	modelled
Dyer, Town Of	4.5%	SAUK	IL — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Edinburgh Water	20.2%	CAMP ATTERBURY	IN	modelled	modelled
Elkhart, City Of	16.1%	ELKHART MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Elkhart, City Of	16.1%	TIMBERBROOK MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Evansville Water & Sewer	7.9%	GERMAN TOWNSHIP WATER DISTRICT INC.	IN	modelled	modelled
Fawn River Crossing	15.4%	STURGIS	MI — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Fort Wayne City	28.4%	SUNNYMEDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION WATER	IN	modelled	modelled
Garrett Water	23.8%	BEN MAR CHATEAU	IN	modelled	modelled
Goshen	18.9%	SKYVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK	IN	modelled	modelled
Greendale, City Of	21.4%	CLEVES VILLAGE PWS	OH — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Hammond Water Works	24.1%	CALUMET CITY	IL — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Hammond Water Works	24.1%	LANSING	IL — across a state line	unstated	one modelled
Hammond Water Works	24.1%	CHICAGO	IL — across a state line	published	both published
Hanover	12.1%	HANOVER COLLEGE	IN	modelled	modelled

What “together” can and cannot mean

People and connections add. Prices do not. A combined service population is the sum of two filed service populations and is honest arithmetic. A combined rate is not the average of two rates, and a combined cost of service cannot be computed from two sets of filed figures without the cost allocation neither utility publishes. That is why this table has a combined population column and no combined rate column, and why it never will.

The loss gap is in percentage points between two filed figures for the years each system last filed. Those are not necessarily the same year, and a gap between two years is not a gap between two systems in one year. Both years are on the two pages the row links to.