# Consolidation candidate screening — Indiana water systems

URL: https://municorn.us/consolidation/indiana-water-systems/

> **Cite as:** Municorn.us, "Consolidation candidate screening — Indiana water systems", Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/consolidation/indiana-water-systems/ (source filings retrieved 2026-09-12).
> **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.

Which Indiana water systems border which, from EPA's own service area boundary layer, and what the
published figures say across each border. **A screen, not a recommendation**: nothing here says two utilities
should merge and nothing here is a feasibility result.

## What "bordering" means

Two systems are listed as bordering when their service area outlines come within **1.11 km**
of each other. That is a proximity test and not a touch test, because the boundary layer is simplified by about
a kilometre at acquisition and simplification moves vertices — an exact touch test on these bytes would be a
question about our own simplification rather than about the world. It is not a statement that two systems share
a pipe or an interconnection: nothing in this corpus knows about pipes.

## How EPA got these shapes

| 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.

## The pairs

316 bordering pairs. 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.

**Computed over EPA's whole national layer, before any filter to this site.** 316 borders reach
this state's drawn systems: 137 of them name a system this site publishes no page for, and 36
cross a state line. Until #180 neither kind existed here, because the borders were computed on the map's own
per-state, corpus-filtered extract. A row with an unknown side carries EPA's name for it, its primacy agency
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.

**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 loss gap on such a row reads "not comparable", which is a statement about the
two regulators rather than about the two utilities.

| 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 rather than 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.


| The larger | People | Loss | The smaller | People | 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. **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.

## 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 separately because the ordering above 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.

| 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 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 there is a combined population column and no combined rate column.

The loss gap is in percentage points between two filed figures for the years each system last filed, which are
not necessarily the same year.

Source: US EPA community water system service area boundaries, retrieved 2026-09-09; adjacency
derived 2026-09-12 at a 1.11 km tolerance. Service populations marked (EPA) from the US EPA SDWIS inventory of active community water systems,
retrieved 2026-09-09 (`data/archive/sdwis-national/2026-09-09-national-cws-spine.jsonl`).