Texas 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 Texas 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 — 2,645 Texas 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 7,201 borders reach Texas's 2,645 drawn systems, of which 3,043 name a system this site publishes no page for and 29 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 29 cross-state borders

Primacy agency	Endpoints on a cross-state edge	Modelled
TX	29	0 (0%)
OK	15	0 (0%)
NM	9	1 (11%)
AR	2	0 (0%)
6	1	1 (100%)
IL	1	0 (0%)
LA	1	1 (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 2,645 Texas service areas drawn, 2,639 are published, 4 are unstated, 2 are modelled.

Neighbours found, by how EPA got the boundary

Boundary basis	Systems	With a neighbour	Mean neighbours
published	2,639	2,321 (88%)	4.29
unstated	4	2 (50%)	2.25
modelled	2	1 (50%)	8

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

7,201 bordering pairs, between the 2,324 of 2,645 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
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Kingsland Estates Water Supply Corp	28	2.8%	79,665×	27.3 pp	2,230,645 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Enchanted Oaks Water Supply Corp	52	13.2%	40,815×	9 pp	2,122,420 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Sjwtx North Point Sub	87	11.3%	24,395×	10.8 pp	2,122,455 †	both published
Fort Worth	1,001,741	15.9%	Silver Saddle Acres	56	24.6%	17,888×	8.7 pp	1,001,797 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Swea Gardens Estates	126	16.5%	17,703×	13.6 pp	2,230,743 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Amberwood Sub	162	17.4%	13,769×	12.7 pp	2,230,779 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Rio Medina Estates	168	8.5%	12,633×	13.6 pp	2,122,536 †	both published
Fort Worth	1,001,741	15.9%	Seville Water Supply Corp	80	5.1%	12,522×	10.9 pp	1,001,821 †	both published
El Paso Water Utilities Public Service B	762,839	9.8%	Villa Alegre Estates	66	7.5%	11,558×	2.3 pp	762,905 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Bavarian Hills	202	51.4%	10,507×	29.2 pp	2,122,570 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Laurel Canyon Ranch	204	8.3%	10,404×	13.8 pp	2,122,572 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	River Club	234	60.7%	9,533×	30.6 pp	2,230,851 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Forest Manor Sub	288	17.3%	7,745×	12.9 pp	2,230,905 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Mading Lane	294	29.6%	7,587×	0.5 pp	2,230,911 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Generation Park Management District	305	18.7%	7,313×	11.4 pp	2,230,922 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Cascade Mobile Home Park	306	26.8%	6,936×	4.6 pp	2,122,674 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Pioneer Estates	320	10.3%	6,632×	11.8 pp	2,122,688 †	both published
Fort Worth	1,001,741	15.9%	Markum Ranch Estates	154	26.7%	6,505×	10.7 pp	1,001,895 †	both published
El Paso Water Utilities Public Service B	762,839	9.8%	Green Acres Mobile Home Park	122	28.8%	6,253×	19 pp	762,961 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Huffman Heights Sub	357	18.9%	6,248×	11.2 pp	2,230,974 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County MUD 494	420	3.4%	5,311×	26.7 pp	2,231,037 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Ramblewood Utility & Water Supply Corp	441	9.2%	5,058×	20.9 pp	2,231,058 †	both published
Austin	1,117,808	19.8%	High Valley Water Supply Corp	231	22.2%	4,839×	2.4 pp	1,118,039 †	both published
Austin	1,117,808	19.8%	Slaughter Creek Acres	250	21.2%	4,471×	1.4 pp	1,118,058 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Grey Forest	483	17.6%	4,394×	4.5 pp	2,122,851 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Stage Coach Hills	492	21.1%	4,314×	1.1 pp	2,122,860 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County MUD 421	570	31.3%	3,913×	1.2 pp	2,231,187 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Montgomery County MUD 24 Country Colony	639	5.9%	3,491×	24.2 pp	2,231,256 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County MUD 537	650	7.3%	3,432×	22.8 pp	2,231,267 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Richey Road MUD	651	14.2%	3,426×	15.9 pp	2,231,268 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Fountainview Sub	684	4.9%	3,261×	25.2 pp	2,231,301 †	both published
El Paso Water Utilities Public Service B	762,839	9.8%	Vinton Village Estates	240	3.5%	3,178×	6.3 pp	763,079 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Seven Hills Ranch	741	8.2%	2,864×	13.9 pp	2,123,109 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Country Springs Water Co	762	31.8%	2,785×	9.6 pp	2,123,130 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Northwood MUD 1	813	36.3%	2,744×	6.2 pp	2,231,430 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County MUD 321	861	5.4%	2,591×	24.7 pp	2,231,478 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	North Belt Forest Subdivision Water Syst	930	14.7%	2,399×	15.4 pp	2,231,547 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	East Central SUD Palm Park	897	8.4%	2,366×	13.8 pp	2,123,265 †	both published
Denton	171,017	11.9%	Oak Bend Homeowners Water Supply	73	11.0%	2,343×	0.8 pp	171,090 †	both published
Austin	1,117,808	19.8%	Marsha Water Supply Corp	480	12.4%	2,329×	7.4 pp	1,118,288 †	both published
Dallas Water	1,356,479	19.7%	Danieldale Community Water Service	590	53.0%	2,299×	33.3 pp	1,357,069 †	both published
Austin	1,117,808	19.8%	San Leanna	497	11.6%	2,249×	8.1 pp	1,118,305 †	both published
Denton	171,017	11.9%	Hilltop Estates Water Supply Corp	77	5.0%	2,221×	6.9 pp	171,094 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Coolcrest	975	29.4%	2,177×	7.2 pp	2,123,343 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Sequoia Improvement District	1,041	23.5%	2,143×	6.7 pp	2,231,658 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Baybrook MUD 1	1,065	4.0%	2,094×	26.1 pp	2,231,682 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	Oaks North Mobile Home Estates	1,044	27.7%	2,033×	5.5 pp	2,123,412 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County WCID 156	1,116	1.2%	1,999×	29 pp	2,231,733 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Castlewood Sub	1,122	28.1%	1,988×	2 pp	2,231,739 †	both published
Austin	1,117,808	19.8%	Travis County WCID 19	564	9.1%	1,982×	10.7 pp	1,118,372 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County MUD 255	1,167	8.1%	1,911×	22 pp	2,231,784 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Northwest Harris County MUD 24	1,204	11.7%	1,853×	18.4 pp	2,231,821 †	both published
San Antonio	2,122,368	22.2%	The Oaks Water Supply Corp	1,191	5.9%	1,782×	16.3 pp	2,123,559 †	both published
Austin	1,117,808	19.8%	Oak Shores	660	23.7%	1,694×	3.9 pp	1,118,468 †	both published
Denton	171,017	11.9%	Double Rock Estates	102	17.6%	1,677×	5.8 pp	171,119 †	both published
Temple	94,935	11.6%	Arrowhead Hill Water Supply Corp	60	6.6%	1,582×	5.1 pp	94,995 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Memorial Hills Utility District	1,476	28.2%	1,511×	1.9 pp	2,232,093 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	West Montgomery	1,515	11.4%	1,472×	18.7 pp	2,232,132 †	both published
Fort Worth	1,001,741	15.9%	Westover Hills	682	5.2%	1,469×	10.7 pp	1,002,423 †	both published
Houston	2,230,617	30.1%	Harris County MUD 205	1,527	2.4%	1,461×	27.7 pp	2,232,144 †	both published

† 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 7,201. 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

3,043 of these 7,201 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 3,043

System with a filing here	Its loss	The bordering system	Regulated by	Its boundary	Edge
4 R Ranch Water 2	7.5%	COMBINED CONSUMERS SUD	TX	published	both published
439 Water Supply Corp	20.2%	BELL COUNTY WCID 1	TX	published	both published
Abilene	27.6%	CITY OF TYE	TX	published	both published
Abilene	27.6%	DYESS AIR FORCE BASE	TX	published	both published
Ables Springs SUD	15.6%	COMBINED CONSUMERS SUD	TX	published	both published
Ables Springs SUD	15.6%	BARROW SUBDIVISION	TX	published	both published
Ables Springs SUD	15.6%	MACBEE SUD	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	ROCK HARBOR ESTATES	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	SANDY BEACH SUBDIVISION	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	MOUNTAIN VIEW SUBDIVISION	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	BOYNTON WATER	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	CANYON CREEK ADDITION	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	RIVER RUN SUBDIVISION	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	BLUE WATER SHORES	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	HUNTERWOOD SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM	TX	published	both published
Acton MUD	18.5%	RIDGE UTILITIES	TX	published	both published
Agua SUD	19.3%	CITY OF LA GRULLA	TX	published	both published
Alamo Heights	20.7%	JBSA - SAM HOUSTON	TX	published	both published
Albury Manor Utility Company	12.5%	HARRIS COUNTY MUD 367	TX	published	both published
Albury Manor Utility Company	12.5%	SUGARBERRY PLACE	TX	published	both published
Albury Manor Utility Company	12.5%	COUNTRY CLUB GREENS	TX	published	both published
Albury Manor Utility Company	12.5%	COTTAGE GARDENS	TX	published	both published
Aledo	18.5%	ALEDO MOBILE HOME PARK	TX	published	both published
Alice	27.1%	JIM WELLS COUNTY FWSD 1	TX	published	both published
Allen	14.7%	CITY OF PARKER	TX	published	both published
Allendale	71.2%	BENNETT WOODS	TX	published	both published
Allendale	71.2%	STONECREST RANCH	TX	published	both published
Allendale	71.2%	LONE STAR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM	TX	published	both published
Allendale	71.2%	MONTGOMERY COUNTY MUD 111	TX	published	both published
Allendale	71.2%	MONTGOMERY COUNTY MUD 157	TX	unstated	one modelled
Allenwood Sub	6.0%	ENCHANTED FOREST	TX	published	both published
Allenwood Sub	6.0%	WALNUT SPRINGS	TX	published	both published
Allenwood Sub	6.0%	SONOMA RIDGE-MCCALL SOUND	TX	published	both published
Alleyton	43.1%	COLUMBUS OAKS APARTMENTS	TX	published	both published
Alvin	12.6%	MOORELAND SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM	TX	published	both published
Alvin	12.6%	CALICO FARMS SUBDIVISION	TX	published	both published
Alvin	12.6%	MORELAND SUBDIVISION	TX	published	both published
Alvin	12.6%	SOUTH MEADOWS WEST	TX	published	both published
Alvin	12.6%	SOUTH MEADOWS EAST	TX	published	both published
Alvin	12.6%	MARIA ELENAS MOBILE HOMES	TX	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.