Indiana · PWS IN5263001

Otwell Water Corporation

What Otwell Water Corporation filed with IFA about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2019–2019 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2019
29.2%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-09-08-4246fd01ef55.xlsxSheet3 G287

Where this figure comes from

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

  • system input volume 102.8 sheet Sheet3, cell G287 · million gallons per year, declared in the column header in all three vintages
  • billed authorized consumption 72.8 sheet Sheet3, cell H287 · billed metered plus billed unmetered

From data/archive/in-ifa-water-loss/2026-09-08-4246fd01ef55.xlsx (SHA-256 4246fd01ef55aa47), retrieved 2026-09-08 from the published source.

Recoverable annually
$31,500
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.

2026-09-08-4246fd01ef55.xlsxSheet3 Y287

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 31,469 sheet Sheet3, cell Y287

From data/archive/in-ifa-water-loss/2026-09-08-4246fd01ef55.xlsx (SHA-256 4246fd01ef55aa47), 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

29.2% non-revenue water in FY2019, higher than 70% of the 455 Indiana systems that filed that year.

29.2% non-revenue water in FY2019, against 455 Indiana filings for the same yearA strip of 455 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 21.5%. This system is 29.2%. 6 filings above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 29.2%Indiana median 21.5%

Compliance record

18 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2, of which 7 are health-based. 16 resolved, 2 archived, 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.

What is missing from this record, and why

IFA published a filing for Otwell Water Corporation that this page does not show: FY2023. Otwell Water Corporation did file, and the filing is in IFA's published results.

It is absent here because two or more identifiers in one cell — a combined filing covering several systems, filed as IN5263001 & IN5263007. Publishing it under that identifier would attribute this utility's water balance to a different named system, and deciding which system a contradicting filing belongs to is not a decision this pipeline is allowed to make. Read the gap as ours, not as a utility that stopped reporting.

Water balance, FY2019 · 102.8 MG system input
Billed 72.8 MG Unbilled authorized 1.39 MG Apparent loss 4.28 MG Real loss 24.3 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 102.8 MG sheet Sheet3, cell G287 · million gallons per year, declared in the column header in all three vintages
  • Billed authorized 72.8 MG sheet Sheet3, cell H287 · billed metered plus billed unmetered
  • Unbilled authorized 1.39 MG sheet Sheet3, cell J287 · unbilled metered plus unbilled unmetered
  • Apparent loss 4.28 MG sheet Sheet3, cell N287
  • Real loss 24.3 MG sheet Sheet3, cell O287

From data/archive/in-ifa-water-loss/2026-09-08-4246fd01ef55.xlsx (SHA-256 4246fd01ef55aa47), retrieved 2026-09-08 from the published source.

Filed history, 2019–2019
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable
2019 29.2% 102.8 $31,500

Comparable systems

The same size band — 1,000–3,300 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
Winamac Municipal1,000–3,300 connections 39.2% FY2023
Syracuse, Town Of1,000–3,300 connections 21.9% FY2023
Nashville, Town Of1,000–3,300 connections 46.3% FY2023
Cordry Sweetwater Coservancy District1,000–3,300 connections 60.6% FY2023
Indiana American Water - Georgetown1,000–3,300 connections 35.5% FY2023
Decatur County Rural Water Corporation1,000–3,300 connections 26.7% FY2023
Ligonier1,000–3,300 connections 14.9% FY2023
Ossian, Town Of1,000–3,300 connections 17.8% FY2023

Where is it going?

This page says how much — roughly $31,500 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 Otwell Water Corporation

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, “Otwell Water Corporation — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/in/otwell-water-corporation/ (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.