What it is
A screen over a state’s own published filings for the systems a consolidation or capacity program exists to find: the small ones, the ones that have stopped filing or file erratically, the ones whose reported figures rest largely on the default values the form supplies instead of on a measurement, and the ones that sit in the same county as a materially larger system that shows none of those signals.
All of it is in the record already, and none of it arrives as a list anyone can work down.
Part of it is now on this site, free, for the five states whose service area boundaries we hold: which systems border which, and what the published figures say across each border. Indiana, Massachusetts, Texas, California and Georgia each have one. Those pages are the adjacency half and the published-figure half. What they do not have is your filing history, your defaulted components, or the reasons a system was refused.
What you hand us
Nothing. Every input is a file your agency has already published, and the screen names the file and the retrieval date for every row.
What you get back
One row per system: its size as most recently filed, its filing history against the annual requirement, the share of its most recent figure that was measured rather than defaulted, a stability flag, and whether a materially larger system in the same county shows none of those signals.
Every system that could not be screened is listed as refused, with the reason: the identifier was malformed, two systems shared one identifier, or the filing was absent.
What it is built from
Your published filings, archived as published, and nothing that is not public.
What it does not do
It does not say a consolidation should happen. It says which systems match the pattern a program is looking for. Whether combining two systems is feasible, lawful or wanted is a study, and the boards involved have to want it.
It does not draw a service area. Where EPA’s published boundary layer covers a state, adjacency is computed from it and each border says whether EPA got both shapes from a government or modelled them; where no boundary exists, adjacency is stated at county level, which is coarse and is labeled as coarse. Neither is a claim that two systems share a pipe.
It does not value a system and it does not price a transaction.
It does not mark a system as failing. We hold a published threshold for one of these states and none for the rest, so a system here is small, or lapsed, or reporting defaults. It is never “over” anything.
It does not rank. A ranked list invites somebody to work down it, and the order would be ours and not the program’s.