Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts 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 — 280 Massachusetts 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 720 borders reach Massachusetts's 280 drawn systems, of which 191 name a system this site publishes no page for and 42 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 42 cross-state borders

Primacy agency	Endpoints on a cross-state edge	Modelled
MA	42	0 (0%)
NH	19	1 (5%)
RI	13	0 (0%)
CT	8	1 (13%)
VT	2	1 (50%)

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 280 Massachusetts service areas drawn, 280 are published.

Neighbours found, by how EPA got the boundary

Boundary basis	Systems	With a neighbour	Mean neighbours
published	280	273 (98%)	4.46

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

720 bordering pairs, between the 273 of 280 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
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Elm Hill Water District	2,278 EPA	28.0%	90.7×	5 pp	208,796 †	both published
New Bedford	101,079 EPA	7.0%	Freetown Water Commission	1,600 EPA	1.0%	63.2×	6 pp	102,679 †	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Boylston Water District	3,343 EPA	12.0%	61.8×	11 pp	209,861 †	both published
Fall River	94,000 EPA	34.0%	Freetown Water Commission	1,600 EPA	1.0%	58.8×	33 pp	95,600 †	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Cherry Valley & Rochdale Water District	3,696 EPA	10.0%	55.9×	13 pp	210,214 †	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Paxton	4,300 EPA	25.0%	48×	2 pp	210,818 †	both published
Lowell Water Treatment Facility	120,418 EPA	7.0%	East Chelmsford Water District	2,800 EPA	18.0%	43×	11 pp	123,218 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Winthrop Water Division	19,316 EPA	17.0%	35×	8 pp	694,963	both published
Lynn Water & Sewer Commission	101,253 EPA	29.0%	Nahant	3,334 EPA	19.0%	30.4×	10 pp	104,587	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	West Boylston Water District	6,919 EPA	14.0%	29.8×	9 pp	213,437 †	both published
Lowell Water Treatment Facility	120,418 EPA	7.0%	Tyngsboro Water District	4,416 EPA	7.0%	27.3×	0 pp	124,834 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Milton	28,630 EPA	26.0%	23.6×	17 pp	704,277 †	both published
Brockton DPW	105,788 EPA	29.0%	Avon	4,777 EPA	4.0%	22.1×	25 pp	110,565 †	both published
Dedham Westwood Water District	41,630 EPA	17.0%	Dover Water Company Inc	1,929 EPA	18.0%	21.6×	1 pp	43,559 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Needham Department Of	31,664 EPA	15.0%	21.3×	6 pp	707,311	both published
Lynn Water & Sewer Commission	101,253 EPA	29.0%	Lynnfield Water Dist.	4,820 EPA	15.0%	21×	14 pp	106,073	both published
Springfield	169,170 EPA	17.0%	Wilbraham	8,533 EPA	7.0%	19.8×	10 pp	177,703 †	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Grafton Water District	10,925 EPA	42.0%	18.9×	19 pp	217,443 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Watertown	35,985 EPA	21.0%	18.8×	12 pp	711,632	both published
Northampton Department Of	29,571 EPA	7.0%	Williamsburg	1,575 EPA	4.0%	18.8×	3 pp	31,146 †	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Aquarion Water Company: Millbury	11,368 EPA	14.0%	18.2×	9 pp	217,886 †	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Auburn Water District	12,255 EPA	10.0%	16.9×	13 pp	218,773 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Chelsea	40,787 EPA	5.0%	16.6×	4 pp	716,434	both published
Needham Department Of	31,664 EPA	15.0%	Dover Water Company Inc	1,929 EPA	18.0%	16.4×	3 pp	33,593 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Dedham Westwood Water District	41,630 EPA	17.0%	16.2×	8 pp	717,277	both published
Taunton	62,165 EPA	10.0%	North Raynham Water District	3,902 EPA	8.0%	15.9×	2 pp	66,067 †	both published
Lowell Water Treatment Facility	120,418 EPA	7.0%	North Chelmsford Water District	7,660 EPA	7.0%	15.7×	0 pp	128,078 †	both published
Billerica	42,119 EPA	8.0%	East Chelmsford Water District	2,800 EPA	18.0%	15×	10 pp	44,919	both published
Brockton DPW	105,788 EPA	29.0%	Halifax	7,575 EPA	0.0%	14×	29 pp	113,363 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Everett	49,075 EPA	17.0%	13.8×	8 pp	724,722	both published
Brockton DPW	105,788 EPA	29.0%	West Brgewater	7,709 EPA	13.0%	13.7×	16 pp	113,497 †	both published
Greenfield	17,768 EPA	12.0%	Deerfield Fire District	1,300 EPA	11.0%	13.7×	1 pp	19,068 †	both published
Haverhill DPW	61,277 EPA	4.0%	West Newbury	4,704 EPA	9.0%	13×	5 pp	65,981	both published
Lowell Water Treatment Facility	120,418 EPA	7.0%	Kenwood Water District	9,620 EPA	6.0%	12.5×	1 pp	130,038 †	both published
Walpole	24,070 EPA	18.0%	Dover Water Company Inc	1,929 EPA	18.0%	12.5×	0 pp	25,999 †	both published
Amherst DPW	39,263 EPA	9.0%	Sunderland Water District	3,190 EPA	8.0%	12.3×	1 pp	42,453	both published
Greenfield	17,768 EPA	12.0%	Bernardston Fire & Water District	1,471 EPA	35.0%	12.1×	23 pp	19,239 †	both published
Beverly	47,461 EPA	28.0%	Wenham	3,942 EPA	15.0%	12×	13 pp	51,403	both published
New Bedford	101,079 EPA	7.0%	Acushnet	8,430 EPA	9.0%	12×	2 pp	109,509 †	both published
Taunton	62,165 EPA	10.0%	Dighton Water District	5,280 EPA	8.0%	11.8×	2 pp	67,445 †	both published
Waltham	65,218 EPA	24.0%	Lincoln	5,593 EPA	26.0%	11.7×	2 pp	70,811	both published
Shrewsbury	38,325 EPA	38.0%	Boylston Water District	3,343 EPA	12.0%	11.5×	26 pp	41,668	both published
Worcester DPW	206,518 EPA	23.0%	Holden	18,016 EPA	5.0%	11.5×	18 pp	224,534 †	both published
Springfield	169,170 EPA	17.0%	South Hadley Fd #1	14,800 EPA	13.0%	11.4×	4 pp	183,970 †	both published
Peabody	54,481 EPA	27.0%	Lynnfield Water Dist.	4,820 EPA	15.0%	11.3×	12 pp	59,301	both published
Tewksbury DPW	31,342 EPA	21.0%	East Chelmsford Water District	2,800 EPA	18.0%	11.2×	3 pp	34,142	both published
Brockton DPW	105,788 EPA	29.0%	Hanson	9,612 EPA	3.0%	11×	26 pp	115,400 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Medford	61,700 EPA	26.0%	11×	17 pp	737,347 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Revere	62,186 EPA	5.0%	10.9×	4 pp	737,833	both published
Fitchburg	41,946 EPA	24.0%	Westminister	3,889 EPA	7.0%	10.8×	17 pp	45,835 †	both published
Boston Water & Sewer Commission	675,647 EPA	9.0%	Brookline	63,191 EPA	15.0%	10.7×	6 pp	738,838	both published
Springfield	169,170 EPA	17.0%	Longmeadow	15,853 EPA	15.0%	10.7×	2 pp	185,023 †	both published
Springfield	169,170 EPA	17.0%	East Longmeadow DPW	16,358 EPA	9.0%	10.3×	8 pp	185,528 †	both published
Chelmsford Water District	28,750 EPA	9.0%	East Chelmsford Water District	2,800 EPA	18.0%	10.3×	9 pp	31,550	both published
Gloucester DPW - Water Supply	37,440 EPA	31.0%	Essex DPW	3,675 EPA	17.0%	10.2×	14 pp	41,115 †	both published
Centerville Osterville	50,000 EPA	1.0%	Cotuit Fire District	4,938 EPA	3.0%	10.1×	2 pp	54,938 †	both published
Plymouth DPW	47,100 EPA	10.0%	North Sagamore Water District	4,668 EPA	12.0%	10.1×	2 pp	51,768	both published
Haverhill DPW	61,277 EPA	4.0%	Groveland	6,508 EPA	7.0%	9.42×	3 pp	67,785	both published
Northampton Department Of	29,571 EPA	7.0%	Hatfield	3,164 EPA	23.0%	9.35×	16 pp	32,735 †	both published
Brockton DPW	105,788 EPA	29.0%	Holbrook	11,405 EPA	1.0%	9.28×	28 pp	117,193 †	both published

Two publishers on these rows. The loss percentage is MassDEP'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 MassDEP published no population of its own — it files none for any system in this table, in any year — because a screen whose whole argument is “a small system beside a large one” cannot be read without one. MassDEP 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.

† EPA records at least one side of this pair as selling water wholesale to other systems. Two service populations add only where neither system already serves the other, and nothing in this corpus knows who sells to whom — so the combined figure on a flagged row may count some of the same people twice, and is an upper bound rather than a sum.

The 60 pairs at the top of that ordering, of 720. 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

191 of these 720 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 191

System with a filing here	Its loss	The bordering system	Regulated by	Its boundary	Edge
Acton Water District	11.0%	PINE HILL CONDOMINIUM	MA	published	both published
Acton Water District	11.0%	APPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CORPORATION	MA	published	both published
Acton Water District	11.0%	LIBERTY HOUSE CONDOMINIUM	MA	published	both published
Acton Water District	11.0%	BENFIELD FARMS	MA	published	both published
Acushnet	9.0%	BROOKSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK	MA	published	both published
Acushnet	9.0%	ACUSHNET MANUFACTURED HOMES	MA	published	both published
Agawam	9.0%	CTWC - NORTHERN REG-WESTERN SYSTEM	CT — across a state line	published	both published
Agawam	9.0%	CTWC - CHIMNEY HILL	CT — across a state line	modelled	modelled
Aquarion Water Company: Millbury	14.0%	MILLBURY IND. PARK/ PARK HILL VILLAGE	MA	published	both published
Aquarion Water Company: Oxford	21.0%	TORIA HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM	MA	published	both published
Aquarion Water Company: Oxford	21.0%	MAPLEBROOK APARTMENTS	MA	published	both published
Ashland	20.0%	THE PRESERVE AT HOPKINTON CONDO	MA	published	both published
Ashland	20.0%	MAILLET WOODS CONDOMINIUMS	MA	published	both published
Attleboro	21.0%	PAWTUCKET WATER SUPPLY BOARD VEOLIA-NA	RI — across a state line	published	both published
Auburn Water District	10.0%	STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTRY ESTATES	MA	published	both published
Ayer DPW	2.0%	CRAFTSMAN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS	MA	published	both published
Bedford	16.0%	HANSCOM AFB	MA	published	both published
Belchertown Water District	6.0%	CEDARWOOD APARTMENTS	MA	published	both published
Bellingham DPW	9.0%	MENDON WATER DEPARTMENT	MA	published	both published
Bellingham DPW	9.0%	WOONSOCKET WATER DIVISION	RI — across a state line	published	both published
Bernardston Fire & Water District	35.0%	NORTHFIELD MT HERMON SCHOOL	MA	published	both published
Blackstone	2.0%	WOONSOCKET WATER DIVISION	RI — across a state line	published	both published
Blackstone	2.0%	SLATERSVILLE PUBLIC SUPPLY	RI — across a state line	unstated	one modelled
Bourne Water District	9.0%	SCHOONER PASS TRUSTEES CONDOMINIUMS	MA	published	both published
Bridgewater	7.0%	MCI BRIDGEWATER	MA	published	both published
Brookfield	3.0%	NANATOMQUA MOBILE HOME PARK	MA	published	both published
Buzzards Bay Water District	16.0%	SCHOONER PASS TRUSTEES CONDOMINIUMS	MA	published	both published
Centerville Osterville	1.0%	BEECHWOOD POINT CONDOS	MA	published	both published
Cherry Valley & Rochdale Water District	10.0%	HILLCREST WATER DISTRICT	MA	published	both published
Cherry Valley & Rochdale Water District	10.0%	STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTRY ESTATES	MA	published	both published
Cherry Valley & Rochdale Water District	10.0%	PINEWOOD ON THE GREEN CONDOS	MA	published	both published
Cheshire	58.0%	BERKSHIRE ESTATES	MA	published	both published
Concord	9.0%	PINE HILL CONDOMINIUM	MA	published	both published
Concord	9.0%	HANSCOM AFB	MA	published	both published
Concord	9.0%	BENFIELD FARMS	MA	published	both published
Cotuit Fire District	3.0%	SEA OAKS CONDOMINIUMS	MA	published	both published
Deerfield Fire District	11.0%	EAGLEBROOK SCHOOL	MA	published	both published
Devens Commerce Center	11.0%	FOXGLOVE APARTMENTS	MA	published	both published
Devens Commerce Center	11.0%	CRAFTSMAN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS	MA	published	both published
Devens Commerce Center	11.0%	MCI SHIRLEY	MA	published	both published

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.