Indiana · PWS IN5256009

Newton County Regional Water And Sewer District (brook)

What Newton County Regional Water And Sewer District (brook) filed with IFA about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2019–2023 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2023
31.3%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-09-08-c8960b5d1f33.xlsxSheet1 H308

Where this figure comes from

(system input − billed authorized) ÷ system input × 100

  • system input volume 19 sheet Sheet1, cell H308 · million gallons per year, declared in the column header in all three vintages
  • billed authorized consumption 13.1 sheet Sheet1, cell I308 · billed metered plus billed unmetered

From data/archive/in-ifa-water-loss/2026-09-08-c8960b5d1f33.xlsx (SHA-256 c8960b5d1f332b53), retrieved 2026-09-08 from the published source.

Recoverable annually
$4,150
Apparent loss is valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water. Real loss is NOT included — IFA publishes a variable production cost whose unit it does not declare, so no dollar figure is put on the leaked water. The real recoverable total is higher than this by an amount this filing does not let anyone state.

2026-09-08-c8960b5d1f33.xlsxSheet1 AA308

Where this figure comes from

cost of apparent losses + cost of real losses, both as computed in the filed audit

  • cost of apparent losses, as filed 4,152 sheet Sheet1, cell AA308

From data/archive/in-ifa-water-loss/2026-09-08-c8960b5d1f33.xlsx (SHA-256 c8960b5d1f332b53), retrieved 2026-09-08 from the published source.

Balance check
inapplicable
IFA derives water losses from system input minus authorized consumption, so this decomposition holds by construction.

What the record shows

31.3% non-revenue water in FY2023, higher than 71% of the 430 Indiana systems that filed that year.

31.3% non-revenue water in FY2023, against 430 Indiana filings for the same yearA strip of 430 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 22.6%. This system is 31.3%. 7 filings above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 31.3%Indiana median 22.6%
The reported figure is not stable enough to act on. It has moved an average of 13.2 points a year, against a Indiana median of 2.8, including 42% to 10% between FY2019 and FY2021. A distribution system's real losses do not change that fast — pipe does not deteriorate or repair itself in a single year. A series that moves like this is describing how the water is being measured and recorded, not how much of it is being lost, and which year is closer to true cannot be settled from this filing.

Compliance record

5 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2. 5 resolved, and 0 still open.

Nothing on the record is open as of 2026Q2.

Counted as distinct violations, not as rows: EPA's export carries one row per enforcement action taken against a violation, so a row count would multiply this system's record several times over. A violation here is a breach of a reporting, monitoring or contaminant-level rule as reported to EPA — it is not a measurement of the water, and this site has none.

Source: US EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System, via the ECHO national download, 2026Q2. How we hold it.

Water balance, FY2023 · 19 MG system input
Billed 13.1 MG Unbilled authorized 3.6 MG Apparent loss 0.33 MG Real loss 2.04 MG

IFA derives water losses from system input minus authorized consumption, so these parts sum to the whole on every filing. What a filing can get wrong is which of these numbers were measured.

Where these volumes come from
  • System input 19 MG sheet Sheet1, cell H308 · million gallons per year, declared in the column header in all three vintages
  • Billed authorized 13.1 MG sheet Sheet1, cell I308 · billed metered plus billed unmetered
  • Unbilled authorized 3.6 MG sheet Sheet1, cell K308 · unbilled metered plus unbilled unmetered
  • Apparent loss 0.33 MG sheet Sheet1, cell O308
  • Real loss 2.04 MG sheet Sheet1, cell P308

From data/archive/in-ifa-water-loss/2026-09-08-c8960b5d1f33.xlsx (SHA-256 c8960b5d1f332b53), retrieved 2026-09-08 from the published source.

Filed history, 2019–2023
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable
2023 31.3% 19 $4,150
2021 10.3% 17.5 $971
2019 42.0% 28.2

Comparable systems

The same size band — under 1,000 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
York Town - Park Oneunder 1,000 connections 86.7% FY2023
Newton County Regional And Water District (fair Oaks)under 1,000 connections 68.5% FY2023
Indiana Gateway Industrial Parkunder 1,000 connections 6.3% FY2023
Vermillion Rise Mega Parkunder 1,000 connections 54.5% FY2023
Philadelphia Waterworks - Ninestar Connectunder 1,000 connections 55.8% FY2021
Hickory Lakeunder 1,000 connections 2.4% FY2023
Fawn River Crossingunder 1,000 connections 15.4% FY2023
Citizens Water - Westfield|southern Madisonunder 1,000 connections 9.1% FY2023

Where is it going?

This page says how much — roughly $4,150 a year. It cannot say which accounts, which zones, or which meters. That takes your billing history, your meter reads, and your production data reconciled against each other.

Our Water Loss Recovery Snapshot is three weeks, one flat fee, and the deliverable is a ranked list of specific accounts and zones with dollars and a confidence on each.

See what the Snapshot delivers Email us about Newton County Regional Water And Sewer District (brook)

Sources and corrections. Every figure above is either filed by the utility or computed from filed figures, and each one says which. If a number here is wrong, it is either wrong in the filing or wrong in our reading of it — tell us which and we will correct the page and say what changed.

Cite as

Municorn.us, “Newton County Regional Water And Sewer District (brook) — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/in/newton-county-regional-water-and-sewer-district-brook/ (source filings retrieved 2026-09-08).

CC BY 4.0 — reuse and redistribution are permitted with attribution to Municorn.us and a link to this page. Terms, and the one 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.