ter and Sewerage Systems 
up INDIANA 
By 
JOHN E. STONER 
and : 
PRESSLY S. SIKES 
BUREAU OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH 
DEPARTMENT OF GOVEi 
INDIANA UNIVERSITY 
and 
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS 
IN INDIANA 
THE PLANNING OF FUTURE 
CONSTRUCTION NOW 
By 
John E. 
Indiana University 
Department of Government 
Pressly S. Sikes 
Indiana University 
Department of Government 
AND 
BUREAU OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH 
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT 
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION 
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH 
Indianapolis 7, Indiana 
1944 
AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The original stimulus for this monograph came from H. W. 
Streeter, Director, Cincinnati Branch, United States Public Health 
Service, when he asked one of the authors if cities and towns, as a 
general matter, could finance the construction of needed water and 
sanitary improvements. At the same time Joseph L. Quinn Jr., 
Acting Director, Division of Environmental Sanitation, Indiana 
State Board of Health, was urging the preparation of a digest of 
statutes under which Indiana municipalities usually act when making 
such improvements. At his suggestion and under his encourage- 
ment the purpose of the memorandum was changed to make it 
more widely useful. 
The authors owe a particular debt of gratitude to Mr. Quinn 
and to Lewis S. Finch, Chief Engineer, Indianapolis Water Company, 
formerly Chief Sanitary Engineer, Indiana State Board of Health, 
and later head of a firm of consulting engineers, for their untiring 
assistance with technical matters. Their painstaking, minute exam- 
ination and friendly criticism of the manuscript during its prepara- 
tion in the light of their extensive first-hand experience with the 
practical problems of water and sewerage systems have contributed 
to the useability by municipal officials and students of municipal 
government of the materials presented here. 
Others whose comments have been useful are: R. B. Wiley, 
Head of the School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, and 
H. S. Morse, Vice President, Indianapolis Water Company, both 
former directors of the American Society of Civil Engineers; W. A. 
Hanley, Director of Engineering, Eli Lilly Company, former Pres- 
ident of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Financial 
aid for travel and other research costs was supplied by the Graduate 
School of Indiana University. Also the authors wish to acknowledge 
the careful work of Miss Maxine Stapp (now, private first class., 
United States Army) in the collection and preparation of materials, 
particularly, for chapter VIII. 
September 12, 1944 
J.E.S. 
P.S.S. TABLE OF CONTENTS 
A PREVIEW 7 
Signposts to Aid the Busy Official 7 
Page 
I. FROM WAR TO PEACE 13 
II. THE POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR WATER AND SEWER- 
AGE FACILITIES 15 
Water Works 15 
Safety of public water supplies 15 
Unsafe supplies 15 
Questionable supplies 15 
Water hardness 15 
Availability of water to residents 16 
Inside corporate limits 16 
Outside corporate limits 17 
Populated places with no public supplies 18 
Sewers 19 
Need for extension of existing sewers 19 
In incorporated places 19 
Unincorporated places 21 
Sewage Treatment Plants 22 
Existing plants 22 
Recent construction 22 
Inadequacy of present treatment 23 
The total construction needed 25 
The Necessity for Technical Advice 26 
III. FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS 27 
Data needed 27 
Debts and tax rates 27 
Trends in debts 28 
Indebtedness of Indiana Cities 28 
Ability in general 29 
IV. FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND 
SEWERAGE WORKS 30 
Separation of Preliminary and Final Construction Costs.. 30 
FINANCING THE PRELIMINARY COSTS 31 
Taxation 31 
Boards of works and similar agencies 31 
Planning commissions 32 
When bonds are to be issued 32 
Borrowing 33 
Revenue from Municipal Plants 34 
SPECIFIC STATUTES TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION 34 
Water Works 34 
Accumulating a surplus 34 
New water works 35 
Preliminary costs 36 
Financing final construction 37 
Management of the works 38 
The Improvement and Extension of Existing Systems 38 
Department of water works Act of 1933 39 
Management 39 
Preliminary financing 39 
Administrative restrictions 40 
Other acts 40 
Act of 1905 and amendments 41 
Sewerage Systems 42 
General types of financing , 42 
Revenue bonds 42 
The Revenue Bond Act of 1932 42 
The necessity for sewage treatment 42 
Preliminary expenses 43 
Financing the final construction 43 Page 
Charges 44 
Management of works 45 
Special taxing district bonds 45 
The 1917 Sanitary District Law 45 
Preliminary expenses 46 
Management and extent of the sanitary district 47 
General obligation bonds 47 
V. LEGAL AUTHORITY OF CITIES TO CONSTRUCT WATER, 
SEWER, AND SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES 51 
The Legal Relation of Municipalities to the State 51 
Municipalities created by the state 51 
Construing municipal powers 51 
Application of general rules to Indiana municipalities 52 
Status 52 
Construction of powers granted 52 
Powers granted to Indiana municipalities 53 
The basic law, the Act of 1905 53 
Powers Granted in the Act of 1905 54 
Water supply 54 
Towns 54 
Methods of supply 55 
Sewers 56 
Sewage treatment plants 56 
Effect of Later Legislation 57 
Effect on Act of 1905 57 
State agencies with power over municipalities 57 
State Board of Health 58 
Stream Pollution Board 59 
VI. GENERAL AUTHORITY TO FINANCE SEWER AND WATER 
SERVICES 60 
General Legal Authority 60 
Later acts 61 
Constitutional Restrictions on the Borrowing Power 
of Municipal Corporations 61 
Ways of avoiding the limitation 62 
Revenue bonds 62 
Barrett assessment 63 
Special taxing districts 63 
Lease purchase contract 63 
Effect of restrictions 64 
Statutory and Administrative Restrictions on the Powers 
of Municipalities with Regard to Finance 64 
Tax rate ceilings 65 
Corporate rates 65 
Effect of corporate tax ceilings 65 
Over-all tax rates 66 
Method of raising these ceilings 67 
Tax levies for building 67 
Administrative supervision of municipal borrowing 68 
By the State Tax Board 68 
By the Public Service Commission 68 
Miscellaneous limitations 69 
Statutes to be observed faithfully 69 
Debt limit for special districts 69 
Petitions for bond issues 70 
Review by State Board of Accounts 70 
Effect of limitation on general powers 71 
VIII. THE CITIES AND TOWNS OF THE STATE WITH DATA AS 
TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL SANITARY AND FISCAL CON- 
DITIONS 78 
Key to the Symbols and Letters Used in Tables 80 
VII. SUGGESTIONS FOR GETTING STARTED 72 
MAPS 
Public Water Supply Development Program 49 
Sources of Stream and Lake Pollution 50 A PREVIEW 
Signposts to Aid the Busy Official 
This study has been prepared for readers with varying interests, 
such as students of municipal law, administrators of public health 
programs, municipal officials, state legislators. Particularly, the 
authors have had in mind busy municipal officials. We have striven 
to provide assistance to such policy formers so that they might be 
more able to decide whether there is need for investigating to see 
if a water or sewerage improvement is needed in their municipality 
and to know if they are likely to have legal authority to finance its 
construction. For their benefit we have referred to procedures to 
be followed in various cases, because such practical men do not want 
to make major decisions in a vacuum. They like to decide whether 
to act or not after they know the need, whether they have the neces- 
sary financial ability and authority, what the consequences of fail- 
ing to act maybe, and what is to be gained through positive action. 
Once the decision to act is made, the initiative passes to the 
technicians who must then work out the details and execute the 
plan, subject to the general supervision of the policy formers as 
exercised through administrative procedures. We have sought to 
give assistance to the technicians, the city attorney and engineer, 
in their function of giving advice to the policy formers at the stage 
when the question is: should a given project be considered. When 
that stage has been passed and the burden of further progress is 
transferred to the technicians, they will need to get assistance from 
their own professional associates, technical literature, such as stat- 
utes, court casts, and engineering journals and books. The func- 
tion of these technicians as advisors at the policy forming stage 
will be discussed more in detail in Chapter VII. 
Because of the varying interests which we have sought to serve, 
the organization of the material presented here has of necessity 
been different than if a single interest were to have been considered. 
This organization will be indicated in the following paragraphs. 
Why Carry On Water Works and Sewerage Improvements 
An attempt will be made to approach the problems of water 
and sewerage construction first in a general way and then to deal 
with more detailed aspects of the various sectors of the problem. 
In Chapter I will be discussed the over-all view of the municipality, 
its need for a backlog of public works as an aid to employment, 
the value of water and sewerage facilities as the basis of growth, 8 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
and the financial advantages of planning construction of these 
facilities. 
Water Supply Problems 
It will be found that there are three problems in water supply. 
The first involves the improvement of the quality of water being 
used. The water supplied may be quite free from dangerous microbes 
but contain excessive amounts of iron; it may be extremely hard; 
or it may be definitely unsafe and positively dangerous to persons 
using it. In the second place, many municipalities have water plants, 
but water is not available to large numbers of the population living 
within the corporate limits or just outside. Here the improvement 
needed is extension of existing distribution facilities. In the third 
place, there is a surprisingly large number of populated places, most 
of which are incorporated, which have no public water supply 
whatever. This situation calls for new construction. The detailed 
examination of the need for water improvements, both present and 
potential, will be pursued in Chapter II pp. 15-19. 
The Need for Sewers and Sewage Treatment Plants 
The need for sewers, discussed in the same chapter, pp. 19-21, is 
found to be three-fold: first, extension of present systems because 
more than seventeen per cent of the population living in municipali- 
ties with sewers are not served by them; second, the construction of 
new systems where none are now in existence, since there are 
more than 200 incorporated places which have no sewers; and third, 
the repair of present systems and the construction of relief sewers to 
increase the capacity of overloaded existing sewer systems. 
There is also a problem of providing for water and sanitary 
services for built-up but unincorporated communities. This will be 
referred to at pp. 2If. 
The need for sewage treatment plant construction is great, 
whether considered from the standpoint of the number of places 
with no treatment plants, which includes some of the larger cities 
of the state, the amount of pollution in the streams, or the degree 
of overloading in the existing plants. This subject will be elaborated 
in Chapter II pp. 22-26. 
Financial Capacity of Municipalities 
While no final answer can be given in this pamphlet to the 
question of whether Indiana municipalities are financially able to 
build the improvements which they need, the general financial 
status of cities and towns as shown by their indebtedness as com- Signposts 
9 
pared to their net assessed valuation will be examined in Chapter 
III pp. 27-28. It will be seen from this investigation that cities are 
fully as able financially to enter upon construction programs as they 
were twenty years ago, and perhaps even more able. 
Legal Methods of Raising the Money 
Practical-minded officials, once they learn the need for con- 
struction and that it is economically possible to pay for it, will want 
to know what the legal ways are to raise the money. These ways will 
be discussed in Chapter IV. It will be shown that tl\ere are ways 
to separate the preliminary expenses from the final construction 
costs. In cases where this is desirable, a municipality may have 
three choices to raise money for preliminary expenses, (1) taxation, 
(2) borrowing, and (3) revenue from plants in operation, Chapter 
IV, part 1. If there is no desire to separate the two, preliminary 
and final construction costs, then the methods of raising money 
may be found in the general act authorising cities and towns to 
build and operate water and sewerage projects or in the special 
statutes enacted to enable municipalities to provide such services. 
Since most municipalities have exhausted their power under the 
general act, they must find authority in the special acts. The second 
part of Chapter IV is devoted to a digest of a few of the numerous 
special acts, the ones under which attorneys, officials, and engineers 
have proceeded most frequently in building water and sewerage 
works. 
How to Start 
Of particular interest to those officials responsible for initiating 
action looking toward the construction of water works and sewerage 
facilities, is Chapter VII, “Suggestions for Getting Started.” 
Legal Background 
For students of municipal law, and others interested in securing 
a broader perspective of the background material, the general prob- 
lem of the legal authority of municipalities to construct the improve- 
ments under consideration will be taken up in Chapters V and VI. 
In Chapter V, it will be shown that cities and towns in Indiana 
exist and exercise authority solely under powers granted to them by 
the state legislature. Therefore, the powers of municipalities are to 
be found in the statutes enacted by the General Assembly from time 
to time. The basic law is that of 1905 in which cities and towns 
had their status set forth and their powers comprehensively defined. 
With reference to the improvements being considered in this study, 10 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
cities and towns were given power to secure a supply of water by 
several different methods, such as (1) municipal ownership and 
operation, whether by acquisition of existing plants or by construc- 
tion of new plants; (2) the municipal purchase of stock in a private 
corporation; (3) the granting of a franchise to a private individual 
or corporation to supply water; (4) or the lease of a privately 
owned plant by the municipal corporation. The power to provide 
for sewers and sewage treatment plants was also given by this act. 
This latter power has been exercised largely by the municipalities 
engaging in *the construction and operation of the systems them- 
selves. 
All of these powers, however, must be understood in the light 
of subsequent legislation some of which will be seen to be amendatory, 
or supplemental to the basic act. Other legislation limits to some 
degree the manner of the exercise of the powers once a municipality 
has determined to provide itself with water or sewers. These limita- 
tions are established by conferring powers on the State Board of 
Health and the Stream Pollution Control Board, to establish mini- 
mum standards for water supply and the maximum amount of 
pollution permitted in streams and lakes, pp. 57-59. 
The general legal authority for raising money is provided by 
the Act of 1905. This will be taken up in Chapter VI. As the chief 
methods provided in that act were borrowing on the general credit 
of the municipalities and securing funds through taxation, it will be 
necessary to examine the constitutional restrictions relating to bor- 
rowing and the statutory and administrative restrictions with regard 
to the amount of taxes municipalities may levy. 
Constitutional Limitation on Debts 
It will be seen, pp. 61-64 that while the constitutional limitation 
on the power to borrow is binding, several ways of borrowing money 
to make the improvements under consideration here have been 
found—ways that are not subject to the restriction as it appears in 
the constitution—which permit borrowing additional amounts. The 
five ways of increasing the borrowing power of a community which 
will be pointed out in pp. 62-64 are: the issuance of revenue bonds, 
secured by the income to be obtained from the operation of the 
works built with borrowed funds, the sale of bonds which are to be 
retired by payments by benefiting property owners, the creation of 
special taxing districts, and the use of lease-purchase contracts. 
These methods of borrowing money permit municipalities to con- 
sider improvements on their merits. If they decide in favor of con- Signposts 
11 
struction, it then becomes the problem of legal advisors to find the 
proper means to finance the project. 
Restrictions on the Power to Tax 
While the power is given to levy taxes, which necessarily in- 
cludes the power to provide funds for building, the legislature has 
set tax rate ceilings of two kinds, those levied for corporate purposes 
and the over-all rates which may be levied for all purposes. It will 
be seen pp. 67f, that cities and towns have the authority to include 
in the tax rate a levy to build up a fund to finance later building. 
The way is also open for the State Board of Tax Commissioners to 
approve such levies. However, if this is to be done, municipal 
budget makers must take the initiative by including in the levy a 
sum to establish a building fund since no reviewing body is given 
authority to increase the levy originally made by the municipal 
officials. The burden for action rests with municipal officials in 
the first instance. 
Similar to the administrative controls over the levy of taxes 
is administrative control over the amounts which may be borrowed 
and the wisdom of each particular bond issue. The circumstances 
of this type of supervision will be shown on pp. 68f. There are 
other limitations which cities must observe. These may be sum- 
marized by saying that since cities and towns are the creations of 
the state legislature and have only the power granted to them by 
law, they must observe carefully the powers granted. This is true 
particularly with regard to choosing the statutes under which they 
wish to operate or in the spending of money, because the State Board 
of Accounts makes periodic checks of all expenditures to determine 
their legality, p. 70. 
Statistical Data Regarding Indiana Municipalities 
An alphabetical list of all cities and towns in the state is ap- 
pended, along with which is such factual information as location, 
population, and elementary data with regard to water, sewers, treat- 
ment plants, bonded indebtedness, and assessed valuation of each city 
or town. I 
FROM WAR TO PEACE 
The transformation of our industrial machine from peace-time 
production to the making of guns has been on a scale to amaze our- 
selves and confound our enemies. The time for large scale recon- 
version is not yet in sight, but persons in positions of responsibility 
have shown evidence that they already see the need for planning 
now for the day when goods for human consumption, rather than 
human destruction, will again come off the assembly lines. Each 
level of government played its part in the process of conversion; 
each must plan for reconversion. Opinions differ on the question 
of what the economic situation will be after the war. On the one 
hand there are those who contend that private industry will flour- 
ish and that there will be no need for public works projects to 
furnish employment. There are on the other hand those who con- 
tend that, at least during the period of transition, it will be neces- 
sary for government to promote and finance useful works in order 
to assure continual full employment. 
It is not the purpose here to enter the lists on either side in that 
debate. Whether there is depression or prosperity there is public 
work which is essential to the health and general welfare of the 
community. It is the purpose of this monograph to set forth the 
need for the construction of water systems, sewers, and sewage 
treatment plants and to indicate the general legal powers and fi- 
nancial abilities of Indiana cities and towns to construct such pro- 
jects. Armed with this information local officials will be more 
able to plan wisely for their share of the reconversion. If it hap- 
pens, as some prophesy, that there will be need for public works 
to support employment, plans can be ready; but on the other hand, 
if private industry proves itself able to carry the burden, these 
needed improvements can nevertheless be made in a systematic 
order. 
It may be observed at the outset that there is a surprising 
volume of this kind of construction needed, as shown by figures 
collected by the Indiana State Board of Health and published by 
it and the Cincinnati Station of the United States Public Health 
Service. It may also be pointed out that there are a great many 
advantages to municipalities in embarking on a building program 
to construct and/or extend water systems, sewers, and sewage treat- 
ment plants. 14 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
In the first place, these improvements, especially the securing 
of an adequate water supply, are absolutely essential for growth and 
a contented citizenry. Vast amounts of water are used in many 
manufacturing processes; consequently, industrialists looking for new 
sites will need to be assured of an abundance of satisfactory water. 
The amount of water consumed domestically per capita is often 
cited as a rough test of the health and living standards of a com- 
munity. People may not be attracted to a city or town which has 
insufficient or unsafe water, or whose distribution system does not 
make water available in all parts of the corporation or whose water 
is hard or corrosive. Unhappy are the city officials and restive are 
the citizens of a city or town in which there is a lack of water to 
maintain lawns, flowers, and gardens through the hot, arid days 
of summer, or in which apologies must be made for the stinking 
streams filthy with untreated domestic or industrial sewage. 
A second advantage accruing to a community is that the im- 
provements under discussion here are exceptional from the stand- 
point of their financing. They may be built and paid for without 
any direct increase in the tax levy; they may be built without a 
visible increase of the direct indebtedness of the civil town or city; 
and their operation may be profitable in some cases. Furthermore, 
they may be planned now, and constructed at a time when the 
municipality might but for that construction have a long list of 
persons on the relief rolls. 
A third advantage of a program of this kind is that efficierit 
water, sewer, or sewage treatment systems promote savings in other 
areas of the municipal governments or among their citizens. Money 
paid for water softening may be saved, and with interest, in reduced 
soap and plumbing bills. An ample water supply is an important 
factor in fire protection. In fact, in a widely used grading scale 
water supply is the most heavily weighted factor, being 1700 out 
of a total of 5000 points. The factor for the fire department itself 
is only 1500 points. Since insurance rates depend largely on classi- 
fication based on this scale it is easy to see that a good water supply 
may save much in insurance premium payments, as well as in actual 
losses from fire. II 
THE POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR WATER AND 
SEWERAGE FACILITIES 
Water Works 
Safety of 
public 
water 
supplies 
The condition of water supplies is subject to many 
gradations depending upon the purpose for which the 
classification is established. In the first place, water 
must be safe for human consumption, as determined 
by the standards of the State Board of Health. These standards are 
based upon the elimination of possible bacteriological contamination 
and harmful minerals. There are four towns in Indiana 
whose water supplies are listed as “unsafe” by the State 
Board of Health.1 They are English, with a 1940 popula- 
tion of 757; Hazelton, 516; Marengo, 812; and Milan, 1000; a total 
in the four places of 3185. There is nothing in the report to in- 
dicate that they contemplate making changes, despite an order in 
three cases and a recommendation in the fourth by the Board of 
Health that the water be treated. The doubtful character of the 
water in these towns has been a matter of record for a considerable 
time. For example, these towns, along with other municipalities 
were listed in 1927 as having questionable supplies.2 Each of these 
towns owns it water supply system, with the exception of Marengo; 
there, the water plant is privately owned. The powers, legal and 
financial, of the municipalities to deal with the situation will be 
referred to in later paragraphs. 
There are 19 other incorporated places which are 
placed in the questionable classification by the Board of 
Health for the year ending June 30, 1942.3 These 19 
places have a total population of 17,560. 
A second criterion for grading or classifying water is the de- 
gree to which iron and other mineral substances which cause hard- 
ness and which foul pipes and plumbing are present. The 
extent of improvement which might be made in this re- 
a. un- 
safe sup- 
plies 
b. question- 
able 
supplies 
Water 
hardness 
1 Yearbook of the State of Indiana, 1942, p. 494; hereafter cited as 
Yearbook; this report is also published separately and may be obtained from 
the Indiana State Board of Health, Division of- Environmental Sanitation. 
2 Annual Report of State Board of Health of the State of Indiana for 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1927, p. 28; also see Yearbook, 1934, p. 844; 
1936, p. 656; 1937, pp. 551f; 1938, pp. 733f; 1939, p. 669; 1940, p. 909; 
1941, p. 548; 1942, p. 494. 
3 Yearbook, 1942, p. 493. See Tables in Chapter VIII for the names of 
these places. 16 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
spect is no doubt considerable. For example, there are 915,000 
people who use ground water from public supplies, but more than 
one half of them (521,009) are reported to be using water which has 
been neither softened nor had iron removed from it. These 521,009 
people live in 118 places. There are in addition to them nearly 
200,000 people living in 37 places who are using water that receives 
no treatment of any kind. There are, of the total population using 
ground water, only 46,000 (45,662) living in 12 places who are 
privileged to use water which has been subjected to iron removal, 
softening, and chlorination.4 It may be that not all the public sup- 
plies of ground water require softening. Much information as to 
the degree of hardness is to be found in an analysis of the ground wat- 
er supplies which has been made by the Division of Environmental 
Sanitation of the State Board of Health. Under the date of March, 
1943, this analysis was published (processed) in Bulletin S.E.10. This 
bulletin contains the name of each place with a ground water sup- 
ply system, its population, ownership of the water system, and with 
few exceptions, the following additional information: source of sup- 
ply, including type, depth, and size; soil formation, treatment, maxi- 
mum pumpage, number of gallons per minute, storage capacity, and 
the chemical characteristics of the water, which include total iron, 
chlorides, total alkalinity, total hardness, hydrogen-ion concentra- 
tion, flourides, total solids, and sulphates. 
Obviously, there is a considerable shelf of employment in the 
cities and towns of the state in improving water supplies which while 
of safe quality are highly mineralized. Making this potential work 
a reality will depend in part on the desire of the citizens of the sev- 
eral local communities to secure a better grade of water in terms 
of mineral content. 
The availability of water to the whole population living 
within the municipality is a third factor in determining 
how satisfactory existing water supplies are. In one 
place where a public system has been installed some- 
what recently, the lines did not reach all the residences within the 
corporate limits. This is said to be typical except in communities 
long static. Tabulations compiled by the United States 
Public Health Service show the population served in the 
places having water treatment plants.5 From this tabula- 
tion it appears that water systems are fairly adequate in many such 
Availa- 
bility of 
water to 
residents 
a. inside 
corporate 
limits 
4 Yearbook, 1942, p. 482. 
5 Vernon G. MacKenzie, Water Treatment Plants, State of Indiana, 
(processed by the U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1941.) The Need For Construction 
17 
cases to reach substantially all the population; however, there is 
a total population in these places of 139,817 which is not publicly sup- 
plied. This figure is found by subtracting the number served by each 
system from the population of the corporation as shown by the 1940 
census. However, the statistics on this point are not complete. The 
incompleteness of the statistics is seen when it is recalled that the 
above mentioned tabulations are only for the places having water 
treatment plants, and, according to the Indiana State Board of 
Health report, there are about 151 places having public water sup- 
plies that do not have any treatment plants.6 It might be worth- 
while for the State Economic Council or the State Board of Health 
to compile figures to see what the situation is, and if the figures 
cannot be compiled from sources already available, to circularize 
these towns and cities to find if there is need for extension. One 
man who has had wide experience in Indiana with water works both 
as a public sanitary engineer and as a private consultant is of the 
opinion that probably 20 to 25% of the people living within the 
cities and towns having public water supplies make no use of the 
water. Some do not use it from choice, in his opinion, and others be- 
cause it is not available. 
It may be pointed out also that there may be a potential 
demand for water from a public supply by people liv- 
ing near but not inside of the municipal limits, which 
would justify extension of existing water systems. For example, 
Bloomington is listed by the census as having 20,870 population, but 
its water supply, according to the Health Service, is used by 25,000 
people.7 
Many extensions to adjacent territory were made during the 
period when the federal funds were available. The financial ar- 
rangements in one case made between the city and the water users 
in the area outside the corporate limits served by the extension pro- 
vided that the users were to bear one half of the cost of materials 
used in laying the main, but that these persons were to be reimbursed 
from the water revenues collected in the area. Federal funds were 
used to pay the labor costs. 
However, since federal funds are no longer available, a much 
less liberal policy has been adopted by that city. Arrangements for 
the extension of water lines beyond the city limits are to be made 
subject to the following conditions: The potential user must bear 
b. outside 
corporate 
limits 
6 Yearbook, 1942, pp. 487-492. 
7 The situation in Bloomington may not be typical due to the presence 
of the state university and its student body. . 18 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
the expense of installing and keeping in repair the line from the 
city limits to his premises and pay a fee for tapping the line. He 
then is entitled to water at the regular city rate. 
It may be noted, in passing, that cities and towns are authorized, 
particularly in an Act of 1933, to extend such services beyond their 
corporate limits. This provision is:8 
Any municipality shall have the power ... to construct and operate a 
utility, or any part thereof, in said municipality or within six miles 
beyond the limits thereof. 
And action taken under the provisions of this act frees the munici- 
pality from the supervision of the Public Service Commission.8a 
One of the apparent blind spots in the water supply 
picture is the number of places having no public water 
supply system at all. There are approximately 195 such 
incorporated places with a total population of 78,556.9 
The individual places range in size from Aladdin, which 
has a population of 17 to Hymera, with a population of 1298. Four 
of these places have a population of more than a thousand. 
It may be suggested that many smaller places do not need public 
water systems. It would seem that, omitting all considerations of 
convenience which should be left to the judgment of each local 
community, the actual need from the standpoint of health would 
be somewhat dependent on the environmental situation, among other 
things. For example, a story often told by older residents of Bloom- 
ington, Indiana, and corroborated in the present state health officers’ 
biography of his predecessor illustrates the danger to which ground 
water is subjected. It also illustrates Doctor Hurty’s methods for dra- 
matic proof.10 
Populated 
places 
with no 
public 
supplies 
8 Acts of Indiana 1933, ch. 190, sec. 13, p. 928; all Indiana Acts will 
hereafter be cited as Acts. Burns Annotated Statutes of Indiana, 1933, sec. 
54-607; hereafter to be cited as Burns. 
8a Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 16, p. 928; Burns 54-610. A provision of 
another statute, (Acts 1915, ch. 123, sec. 1, p. 528; Burns 48-7207) requires 
permission of the Commission to extend the service beyond the corporate 
limits. Presumably this provision is still in force except when municipalities 
act under the authority of the Act of 1933, although the Public Service Com- 
mission has been inclined to view the Act of 1933 relieving it from super- 
vision in such cases. 
9 See a corroborative statement by H. W. Streeter, and Ray Rancri, 
“National Inventory of Needs for Sanitation Facilities,” in Public Health 
Reports, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 9-10, January 7, 1944. 
10 Thurman B. Rice, “The Hoosier Health Officer, A Biography of Dr. 
John N. Hurty,” The Monthly Bulletin, Indiana State Board of Health, 
Vol. XLV, No. 3, March 1942, at p. 62; hereafter cited as Monthly Bulletin. The Need For Construction 
19 
One of Hurty’s ace plays was to come up to the town pump and get 
a crowd about him while he explained the dangers of such supplies. On 
one occasion he stopped before the town pump at Bloomington which 
stood at the southwest corner of the public square. He gingerly sniffed 
at the sample of water which he had pumped up and roundly de- 
nounced the well as being unsafe. A loafer took up the argument and 
said that it was “clear, cool and sparkling” and had a pleasant taste to 
those who had learned to like it. These qualities are danger signs, how- 
ever. Hurty went to the City Hall and got a plot of the sewers in the 
town. He found that one of the sewers ran very near the well. Then 
he went to a drugstore and got some fluorescein which he put into proper 
solution after which he poured this green dye into the urinal of the 
men’s toilet in the Courthouse. An hour or so later the “excellent well” 
(sic) was putting out water as green as ink. 
This section dealing with the construction, extension, and im- 
provement of water supplies may be closed with a reference to the 
map of the Indiana Public Water Supply Development Program 
reproduced in this monograph at p. 49 through the courtesy of the 
Indiana State Board of Health. It will be seen from an examination 
of this map, not only that much may be done, but that much is 
proposed to be done. 
Sewers 
Need for 
extension 
of existing 
sewers 
The possibilities for the extension of sewer systems are 
greater than for water systems. According to the U. S. 
Public Health Service compilations, the sewer systems 
in existence fail to serve a large segment of the popula- 
tion in the places having them.11 The report shows the number of 
people in each city or town served by sewers in 1941. Based upon 
this compilation, which used 1930 census figures, 
there were more than 276,000 persons living in places 
having sewers but not having sewer service. When 
the 1940 census is used the population living in the places listed but 
not served by sewers is found to be 366,748. Still using the 1940 
census, there are no sewer connections for 17.59 per cent of the 
population in places having sewers. It might be impracticable to ex- 
tend sewers to make them available to all the population living with- 
in the corporate limits of each city or town, but no doubt there are 
some extensions which could well be undertaken. 
In 
incorporated 
places 
A great many incorporated places have no sewers at all. The 
Public Health Report lists about 280 incorporated places as having 
11 Vernon G. MacKenzie, Sewer Systems and Sewage Treatment Plants, 
State of Indiana, (processed by U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, 
Ohio, 1941.) 20 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
sewers out of a total of more than 530 incorporated cities and towns 
in the state. This does not mean that there are quite 250 places 
which have no sewer service, however, since there are a few places, 
e.g. Woodruff Place, an incorporated town entirely surrounded by 
the city of Indianapolis, which uses the Indianapolis sewers. And 
it may also be observed that it is probably not practicable for every 
place to have a sewer system because of the small number of people, 
or because the population is spread out over a large territory. 
Furthermore, factors such as the character of the subsoil and the 
source of the drinking water would probably be important. 
The contamination of drinking water as a result of insanitary 
disposal of human excreta was once illustrated by the ubiquitous 
Doctor Hurty. He had noted that a large number of cases of typhoid 
fever were occurring in a certain area. After investigation he con- 
cluded he could publicly demonstrate the source of the disease by 
pouring “coal oil” into the “outhouses.” When it “showed up” in 
the water the people were drinking, his point was made. It has 
been said that this incident may have been a factor in his appoint- 
ment to the office of Secretary of the State Board of Health.12 
It may be suggested in some quarters that there is a minimum 
population which a place must have before it becomes economically 
practicable to build sewers. It appears that the test of whether a 
sewer system is needed is to be decided by the degree of population 
concentration, the amount and character of industrial wastes, the 
nature of the subsoil, and the amount and type of sanitary construc- 
tion available for the disposal of human excreta, rather than to sub- 
stitute what appears to be an artificial test such as the number of 
people living within some legal but otherwise imaginary boundary. 
However, should the latter test be used because of its convenience, 
perhaps a population of 1000 could be agreed upon tentatively as 
the maximum number of people in a locality that may safely do 
without sewer service. It is certain that many places with a smaller 
population will desire sewers, since many already have so provided 
themselves. There are in fact six such places which already have 
sewage treatment plants as well.13 If this figure is used, then there 
is a considerable amount of new sewer construction to be done. Ac- 
cording to the Public Health Report referred to above, there are 17 
12 See a story by L. V. Rule in the Louisville Courier-Journal, Septem- 
ber 5, 1920, as quoted by Dr. Thurman B. Rice, “The Hoosier Health 
Officer,” ch. XVII, The Monthly Bulletin, XLIII, May 1940, p. 105. 
13 See Chapter VIII for the names and populations. A seventh place, 
Charlestown, is listed officially in the 1940 census as having a population of 
less than a thousand, but its population has increased far beyond that number 
as established by later official counts. The Need For Construction 
21 
incorporated places in the state with a combined population of 26,622 
which have no sewers.14 
In addition to the need for extending present systems and con- 
structing new ones, city officials and engineers frequently call at- 
tention to a third type of sewer construction, namely the repair of 
present systems and the construction of relief sewers. The age of 
much construction is such that it is time to be making plans for re- 
pairs. Likewise many extensions having already been made to main 
sewers, and there is often a serious condition of overloading. This sit- 
uation calls for the planning of construction to relieve the overload 
wherever it exists. 
Reference has been made exclusively to incorporat- 
ed places. However, unincorporated places need 
also to be taken into account. Whether or not a place has been in- 
corporated in Indiana is entirely dependent upon the desire of the 
population living within the area, there being no minimum popula- 
tion necessary, outside of Marion County, for incorporation. There 
are consequently very small incorporated places, Aladdin with a 
population of 17 being an example; consequently there are much 
larger built-up communities such as Bowling Green in Clay County, 
Waynedale in Allen County, and Arlington in Monroe County, with 
populations numbering in the hundreds which are not incorporated. 
The test as to whether such places need the kind of improve- 
ments under discussion here is not a legal one, that is whether they 
are incorporated, but rather a test of a physical character, the de- 
gree of the concentration of the population and the nature of the 
subsoil. It might also be pointed out that many of these built-up 
unincorporated places are within the environs of incorporated places. 
The first step in the solution of their sewer problems might well be 
annexation. 
The fact that some of these unincorporated places might well 
consider the matter of becoming incorporated is attested by a bill 
which was introduced in the session of the legislature in 1943, but 
which failed to be enacted. This bill provided that townships should 
have the powers of a municipal corporation in establishing sewers. 
The purpose of the authors of the bill was to devise a method for 
Waynedale to construct and operate a sewerage system. By in- 
corporating, such built up communities as Waynedale and Mulberry 
which wish to supply themselves with sanitary facilities or water 
could do so under the well developed powers and definitely pre- 
Unincorporated 
places 
14 See Chapter VIII for the names and populations. 22 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
scribed procedures of towns and cities. While no effort can be made 
in this study to set forth the need for unincorporated places to es- 
tablish such facilities, officials responsible for post-war planning 
could well consider the matter. It is our opinion that in some of 
these cases the solution is to be found in metropolitan planning which 
may include annexations rather than in the increase of municipal 
corporations on the periphery of large cities. 
Sewage Treatment Plants 
Existing 
plants 
The situation with regard to sewage treatment plants 
presents a great opportunity for useful construction. 
There are only 81 public sewage disposal plants in the state,15 and 
while there may be “clear water ahead” in Indiana streams,16 it is 
pretty far ahead and around at least one scum-covered bend in the 
river, for as of this date, some of our streams are cesspools, par- 
ticularly in dry seasons when the flow is low,17 and most of them 
are “sewer extensions.”18 
There is some disposition to look more hopefully at the sewage 
treatment situation.19 One factor which gives support to this optim- 
ism is the rapid rate of increase in the construction of sewage treat- 
ment plants in the decade immediately preceding United 
States participation in World War II. At least 38 of the 
total 81 plants in the state were placed in operation dur- 
ing the years 1934-1941 inclusive. No doubt this sudden spurt of 
building activity was stimulated in part by the easy availability of 
federal funds. If the rate of new construction is resumed when ma- 
terials again become available, then there will be reason for optimism. 
Recent 
construc- 
tion 
15 Martin Milling, “Progress of Sewage Treatment and Stream Pollution 
Abatement,” Monthly Bulletin, XLVII, No. 9, September, 1943, p. 205; 
hereafter cited as Bonthly Bulletin. Also see Yearbook, 1942, pp. 505-507. 
16 Joseph L. Quinn, “Clear Water Ahead,” Monthly Bulletin, op. cit., 
p. 204. 
17 See Yearbook, 1940, p. 381. Reference is here made to the Ohio 
River. In order to improve navigation on the Ohio, the Federal Govern- 
ment has erected some 60 dams in it between Pittsburg and Cairo. “The 
result has been the creation of a series of 60 cesspools . . . back of these 
dams.” See also Monthly Bulletin, op. cit., p. 194, under Title “Our Cover.” 
18 Thurman B. Rice, “History of Stream Pollution in Indiana,” Monthly 
Bulletin, op. cit., p. 201 and 217. Dr. Rice makes this statement: “after this 
date [ 1909] however, little or nothing was done to correct the increasingly 
bad conditions. Our streams were reduced for the most part to the state of 
sewer extensions, ugly, malodorous and utterly useless for fishing and other 
recreational purposes.” Later in the article he alludes to some of the in- 
vestigations and improvements made during more recent times and gives the 
impression, which other articles in that number of the Monthly Bulletin are 
also calculated to support that the streams have been purified materially. 
19 See Martin Milling, op. cit., p. 205. The Need For Construction 
23 
The whole history of sewage treatment plant construction may be 
summarized briefly to indicate the extent of the recent increase in 
construction. The first plants were put in operation in 1903; in 1920 
there were 8, now there are 81. There are in addition 45 treatment 
plants for semi-public institutions and industrial wastes.20 It has 
also been pointed out that there has been a corresponding rapid 
increase in the percentage of the urban population served by sewers. 
For example, Mr. Milling illustrated with pie charts how in 1920 
only 1.8% of the urban population of the state was served by sew- 
age treatment facilities whereas by 1930 there had been an increase 
to 23.5% and in 1940 to 59.7%.21 
However, this optimistic outlook may be tempered by 
several qualifications. In the first place, these figures 
by themselves can be misleading. The United States 
census lists only those places having 2,500 population 
or more as urban. But from the standpoint of health, a smaller place 
dumping untreated sewage into a water course may also constitute 
a serious menace to health. When the total population of the state 
living within incorporated places is taken into account, the propor- 
tion being served by sewage treatment plants is 51.2% instead of 
the 59.7% as represented by the pie charts referred to above. 
A second factor, which may qualify the more favorable aspects 
of the sewage treatment problem, is the status of the water level in 
the state. For some twenty years a program of investigation of the 
surface water flow has been under way. In some streams there has 
been a precipitious decrease. The White River at Muncie has 
shown a most marked change as is indicated by the following tabula- 
tion:22 
Inadequacy 
of 
present 
treatment 
Years 
Cubic feet discharge per second 
1923-27 
376.6 
1928-32 
328 
1933-37 
217 
1938-42 
169 
20 Martin Milling, op. cit., p. 205; it appears that there has been a de- 
crease in the number of plants in use for semi-public institutions, since the 
number given in the Yearbook for 1942, p. 509 is 48, while the number in use 
as reported for September, 1943 is 45. The figures cited in these references 
of the population of the state served by treatment plants also support the 
view that a great deal of progress is being made. 
21 Martin Milling, op. cit., p. 205. 
22 Surface Water Supply of Indiana, Department of Conservation, June, 
1928 Publication No. 72, pp. 77-82 inc.; Surface Water Supply, Publication 
No. 112, 1935, pp. 61-63 inc.; unpublished documentary material, Depart- 
ment of Interior, United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Branch, 
1931-1942 inc. 24 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
While this example does seem to be an extreme case, it gives 
support for the observation of persons who have commented on 
the amount of pollution. One official of the State Division of 
Geology said that there just does not appear to be enough water 
to carry the wastes away. In 1935 a program of observation of 
ground water supplies was undertaken jointly by the State Division 
of Geology and the Ground Water Division of the United States 
Geological Survey. At first little money was available, but sub- 
sequently, when the program was more adequately financed, much 
of the energy of the personnel in the water survey program had to 
be diverted to help certain municipalities find new supplies when 
their accustomed water supplies were exhausted. Consequently, no 
conclusion can be given with regard to the status of the ground 
water level. However, the evidence available from surface water 
surveys and from the preliminary surveys of ground water give rise 
to a serious question.23 
Coupled with a probable decreasing water level is a third fac- 
tor, the increase in both the urban population and the consequent 
enlarged volume of domestic and industrial wastes which are flow- 
ing into the water courses. It would seem therefore, that while there 
was an important step taken by the extensive construction of treat- 
ment plants during the 30’s, it was only a step toward a goal which 
has in the meantime been moved farther away. 
A fourth factor in the amount of stream pollution is the in- 
adequacy of the treatment plants in operation; while it may be true 
that a large share of the domestic sewage is actually discharged into 
treatment plants, there is a question in many cases whether the 
effluent has beeen treated to a reasonably safe degree. For example, 
two plants built in 1903, one at Bedford and the other at Crown 
Point, do not provide an adequate degree of treatment. What is 
true of those plants is true of others as well, even, it is said, of some 
of the ones more recently constructed. In addition, many plants are 
seriously overloaded as a result of increased population, or because 
of the industrial wastes discharged into them. Other plants are 
overloaded for only parts of the year because of seasonal industries 
such as tomato canning. In summary, according to Mr. Milling of 
the State Board of Health: “Many of the plants should be replaced 
23 References to the preliminary findings may be found in United States 
Geological Survey Water-Supply Papers, Nos. 777, p. 60; 817, p. 43; 840, 
p. 69; 886, p. 95; 936, p. 20; also reports in the Yearbooks for example, 
1938, p. 974; 1939, p. 887; 1942, p. 210; also see F. H. Klaer, Jr. “The Co- 
operative Ground Water Investigation in Indiana,” The Water Spout, Vol. 
IV No. 1, March 1944, beginning on p. 14, (processed) Indiana State Board 
of Health. The Need For Construction 
25 
with new plants; others need considerable repairs, and still others 
are overloaded and need to be enlarged.”24 
Lastly, the figures giving a general over-all view of sewage 
treatment fail to show the concentration of pollution in some regions. 
For example, the fourth largest city in the state, South Bend, has 
no treatment plant. It has a sewer system which serves 99,000 of its 
101,268 population, consequently its domestic and industrial wastes 
are discharged untreated into the St. Joseph River. Likewise ad- 
jacent Mishawaka with a sewer system serving 24,500 of its 28,298 
people and Elkhart 14 miles up the river with a sewer system serv- 
ing 24,500 out of a population of 33,434, not to mention smaller 
places like Glenwood, all dump their sewage, untreated, into the St. 
Joseph River. 
The sewage treatment problem as viewed from the 
standpoint of the abatement of pollution is one of no 
mean proportions. It is likewise of considerable magni- 
tude when approached from the standpoint of the number of places 
which could well construct plants. There are 280 places which have 
sewers; only 81 have treatment plants; the Secretary of the State 
Board of Health has said that “every city or town that has sewage 
must” put in a sewage treatment plant “sooner or later.”25 That 
means that there are approximately 200 places which need sewage 
treatment plants. In addition, as these places, not now having sew- 
ers, undertake sewer construction they also will be required to build 
sewage treatment plants. The potential total number of plants to be 
constructed is a large one. The extent of this problem and its rela- 
tion to stream pollution and surface water supplies is depicted in the 
map, p. 50, reproduced through the courtesy of the Indiana State 
Board of Health. 
It may be said by way of summarizing the need for sanitary con- 
struction that there is available in Indiana a sizeable amount of work 
to be done in the improving, extending, and construction of water, 
sewer and sewage treatment facilities. The work to be done here is 
vital to health, to convenience, and to aesthetics. It is of the kind 
that can be self-liquidating as will be pointed out below. There are 
small jobs and larger jobs, and still larger jobs which if used to take 
up employment lags can be undertaken in proportion to the amount 
of work needed. These jobs are wherever the people are, and most 
of this work can be divided into segments so that more of it can be 
The total 
construction 
needed 
24 Martin Milling, op. cit., p. 205. 
25 Thurman B. Rice, “The Duties of the New Stream Pollution Control 
Board,” Monthly Bulletin, op. cit., p. 202. 26 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
added or it can be tapered off and stopped quickly as the need for 
work increases or decreases. 
Plans for such improvements, the specifications, the 
calculation of the amount of work involved, and esti- 
mates as to the cost of construction and operation pro- 
vide particular tasks which the engineers of the corpora- 
tions could well complete during the war period. The Economic 
Council (Indiana’s planning agency) has been active in drawing 
the attention of municipal corporations to preparations for needed 
local improvements, and water works, sewers, and sewage treatment 
plants are a part of this picture. The Division of Environmental 
Sanitation of the State Board of Health is in more or less constant 
touch with all the municipal water plants, the information collected 
by it is available to the cities,26 and its co-operation to the limit of 
its manpower could be confidently expected, and through the State 
Board of Health the technical knowledge of water and sanitary ex- 
perts in the United States Public Health Service is available.27 How- 
ever, this assistance as will be explained below is not sufficient. 
Municipalities in most cases must make it possible for their engineers 
and their legal departments to have the aid of consulting engineers 
and specialized legal assistance as they proceed with their plans as 
will be indicated in Chapter VII. 
The neces- 
sity for 
technical 
advise 
2® por ground water supply data, see Indiana State Board of Health, 
Bulletin S. E. 10, March, 1943, “Data of Indiana Ground Water Supplies,” 
(processed) ; also see the reports of the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering pub- 
lished in the Indiana Yearbooks beginning particularly with 1935, p. 641. 
The Indiana State Board of Health issues the following monthly publications 
in which discussions may be found of the general problems of water treat- 
ment, sewers, and sewage treatment; Monthly Bulletin, e.g. Monthly Bulletin, 
Vol. XXLVII, No. 9, September, 1943, p. 206; and Sewage Gas, a publication 
for sewage treatment plant operators which contains articles of special inter- 
est to them. 
27 Vernon G. MacKenzie, Water Treatment Plants, State of Indiana, 
(Processed by U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1941). For 
sewers and sewage treatment plant data see Vernon G. MacKenzie, Sewer 
Systems and Sewage Treatment Plants, State of Indiana, (processed by U. S. 
Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1941). Ill 
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS 
Any discussion in this place of the financial capacity of the 
Indiana municipalities to make improvements must be somewhat 
superficial and unsatisfactory. In the first place whether or not a 
place can afford to pay for a given project is largely a matter of 
judgment, not of objective measurement. Secondly, although con- 
siderable objective data may be supplied upon which to base a 
judgment, a thorough collection and analysis of such data 
is beyond the limits of this study. Such data include, to 
mention only a few factors, the total industrial resources of each 
community, e.g., number and character of industries and industrial 
output, amount of employment; population characteristics, em- 
bracing sex, age distribution, degree of education; local governmental 
costs per capita; amounts of financial aid from the state and federal 
governments. Another study being conducted by one of the authors 
in which that and much additional data related to local govern- 
mental units, has been under way for three years and may not be 
completed for another year or two.1 
A superficial judgment as to the ability of a municipality to 
finance the construction or extension of water and sanitary facilities 
may be arrived at through a study of its net assessed 
valuation, overall tax rate, and direct and indirect 
bonded indebtedness. Chapter VIII contains an alphabetical list of 
cities and towns showing this for each city and town. A fuller knowl- 
edge for each municipality could be had from an analysis of the 
operating statement and balance sheet of any utility or utilities which 
it owns and would seem to be necessary when such place began a 
consideration of its capacities, but that is beyond the scope of this 
discussion. 
Some general observations may be made as to the general debt 
situation of cities. The total gross debts of cities,2 including bonded 
indebtedness of both the civil and school units and the temporary 
loans is 4.69% of the total net assessed valuation. However, when 
Data 
needed 
Debts and 
tax rates 
1 Professor P. S. Sikes, the Bureau of Government Research, Department 
of Government, Indiana University, director of the study, has selected more 
than thirty major factors to find what the relative competence of each county 
and city or town is. These thirty factors embrace more than one hundred 
minor factors. 
2 1942 Statistical Report of Indiana; these figures for cities correspond 
to the calendar year; for schools the fiscal year begins on August 1 and ends 
July 31. 28 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
only that part of the gross debt of the civil cities is considered, which 
for the purpose of this monograph is subject to the constitutional 
debt limitation, the bonded debt is 1.1% of the combined net assessed 
valuation. Although the revenue and special assessment bonds are 
not subject to the constitutional limitation, for purposes of compari- 
son their relation to the assessed valuation is of interest. These debts 
amount to 2.2% of the net assessed valuation. 
The following table compiled from the Statistical Report for the 
years indicated gives an indication as to the kinds and trends in 
Trends indebtedness for cities since 1922. In the earlier Reports 
in debts debts were not classified in the same manner; consequently 
no attempt can be made to examine the debt burden previous to 
1922. 
INDEBTEDNESS OF INDIANA CITIES 
Civil City In- 
School City 
Special Assessmenl 
t Aggregate In- 
debtedness 
Indebtedness 
Indebtedness 
debtedness 
1922 
26,416,727.00 
29,598,185.00 
15,557,326.00 
71,572,238.00 
1923 
30,549,955.00 
34,830,046.50 
2 
2 
1924 
33,020,413.00 
37,388,290.00 
0 
O 
1925 
34,832,128.51 
40,144,904.40 
>> 
1926 
36,708,589.89 
42,049,401.90 
< 
< 
1927 
37,347,670.44 
43,308,672.28 
> 
i—i 
> 
HH 
1928 
38,454,113.26 
45,209,769.05 
> 
> 
1929 
43,601,136.88 
44,020,492.15 
to 
1r1 
td 
r1 
1930 
43,369,280.71 
44,176,825.01 
w 
w 
1931 
45,248,762.82 
41,539,244.25 
21,484,760.97 
108,272,768.04 
1932 
46,305,917.41 
39,447,312.83 
30,580,636.78 
116,333,867.02 
1933 
44,388,203.32 
37,434,860.39 
27,281,316.43 
109,104,380.14 
1934 
43,799,178.63 
35,328,462.73 
23,847,932.36 
102,975,573.69 
1935 
53,707,759.67 
35,436,278.92 
24,077,676.61 
113,221,715.20 
1936 
54,828,527.75 
33,814,764.23 
20,798,686.44 
109,441,978.42 
1937 
56,504,526.07 
33,868,468.20 
18,279,310.72 
108,652,304.99 
1938 
58,368,180.57 
34,025,734.32 
17,186,153.15 
109,580,068.04 
1939 
65,827,034.84 
30,796,761.64 
16,440,241.73 
113,064,038.21 
1940 
68,178,047.41 
28,663,479.12 
14,778,787.71 
111,620,341.24 
1941 
69,100,008.45 
26,465,997.12 
12,503,125.33 
108,069,130.90 
It will be noted that the total debt has not changed materially 
in the last decade. Indebtedness of civil corporations (column 1) 
has increased constantly except in three years, 1930, 1933, and 1934. 
School indebtedness showed a tendency to rise substantially during 
the period 1922 to 1930; but since the latter date it has tended to Financial Ability 
29 
decrease until now it is below 1922. Indebtedness to be amortized 
from special assessments has decreased substantially in the last 
decade. If the current figures were available they would probably 
show a further decline. 
When the debt situation of the towns is considered, informa- 
tion available, particularly for the last decade, is spotty. However, 
the debt picture as portrayed in the Statistical Report shows that 
the total indebtedness of towns, including school town debts and 
temporary loans amounts to 2.7% of the assessed valuation. The 
general obligation indebtedness amounts to .19% of the assessed 
valuation; while revenue bond indebtedness amounts to 1.63% of 
the assessed valuation. 
It is said that city officials themselves feel that cities are unable 
to undertake the financing of a public works program to ease 
employment resulting from either reconversion after the 
war or from current cancellation of war contracts.3 Evi- 
dence of their inability, it is urged, is that most cities are 
indebted to the constitutional limit. On the other hand, it may be 
pointed out that Indiana municipalities during the last decade have 
not had an overall debt increase, while they have had increases in 
their overall resources as shown by increases in population, industrial 
expansion, etc. Debt limitations have a place in the argument as 
an evidence of what may be considered a safe amount of indebted- 
ness, but none when the issue to be decided is the wisdom of con- 
structing the kinds of improvements under consideration here, since 
they can generally be paid for through revenue financing or some 
other kinds which are not subject to constitutional limitations. 
The immediate task, however, is for each municipality to assess its 
needs; prepare its plans, including the making of specifications, the 
taking of options on or the purchase of land where that will be re- 
quired. 
Ability 
in gen- 
eral 
3 See Maurice Early—Indianap&lis Star, January 14, 1944, Col. 1. IV 
FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER 
AND SEWERAGE WORKS 
Separation of Preliminary and Final Construction Costs 
If a municipality needs an extension or new construction of 
water and/or sewerage works, there would seem to be every good 
reason for it to be doing the preliminary work now when there is 
time to mature the plans without haste. Because of the present 
shortage of materials and the prevailing conditions of high private 
income and low municipal expense, it would seem that this is the 
most favorable time to complete skilled work such as designing and 
drawing specifications. When the materials become available, and 
in case there is need for employment, construction can be moved 
forward without delay or confusion. This would seem to be the 
surest way for a municipality to get a fair return on its investment. 
If it is deemed desirable to do the preparatory work now, the 
first question is likely to be, “How is the money to be raised?” The 
answer to this question can best be made in light of what at first 
seems to be the peculiar legal situation in which Indiana municipal- 
ities find themselves. 
The methods of financing water and sewerage projects were 
prescribed by the Act of 1905.1 Some of the methods prescribed 
in that act for paying the costs of construction are obsolescent now, 
for example, the practice of assessing the cost of construction against 
benefiting property. Other methods have been developed, such as 
revenue bond financing. Also many municipalities have partly ex- 
hausted the powers granted by the Act of 1905, so that under it 
they could not completely finance extensions or new construction. 
As this situation has developed, the legislature has enacted specific 
enabling statutes. 
If a city or town wishes to separate the preliminary costs from 
the final costs of construction, it has two sources of authority from 
which it may choose the methods to finance such work. It may 
choose the methods available under the Act of 1905, and, in a few 
cases, methods added by subsequent acts, or it may choose a method 
for meeting the preliminary cost from one of the specific enabling acts. 
However, if it chooses a method provided in one of the later specific 
acts, it must, as a rule, follow the requirements of that act in every 
respect, with regard to meeting the costs of final construction as 
i Acts 1905, ch. 129, p. 219. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
31 
well as in other matters such as management. There may be cir- 
cumstances under which municipalities may not be able to select 
far in advance the statute under which they will proceed in the 
future, but usually this can be done if they have determined definitely 
that they wish to undertake a given project. 
It is as if a private person wanted to build a home at, as 
yet, some undetermined future time. He would like to plan some 
of the preliminaries now, including the acquisition of a lot and the 
employment of an architect to draw the plans. How will he pay for 
these preliminary costs? Will he want to arrange for them in the 
same way and as a part of the full program of paying for the 
entire construction, or will be want to defer making final financial 
arrangements until near the time when larger sums of money are 
needed ? 
It is as if a private person wanted to build a home at, as 
the money may be raised. The first part will be concerned with 
the means of paying for the preliminary expenses without reference 
to any plan for meeting the final construction costs. The second part 
of the chapter will be devoted to a digest of the statutes which the 
attorneys, engineers, and officials find used most often. Should a 
municipality feel that it is ready now to commit itself to a future 
construction program, then there is no reason why it should postpone 
choosing the specific act under which it may proceed and use the 
methods there specified with regard to raising all the money 
needed. But if it wishes to engage in exploratory activity or to 
determine later what means seem best at that time for financing 
the complete project, then it will likely want to use some of the 
means suggested in part 1, to pay for the preliminary work. 
PART 1. FINANCING THE PRELIMINARY COSTS 
Taxation 
a. Boards 
of works 
and 
similar 
agencies 
The authority for towns2 and cities3 to levy taxes “as 
may be deemed necessary ... to supply the needs” of 
the corporation is clear cut and specific. It is simply a 
matter for the board of trustees of towns or the common 
councils of cities to make the levy, subject to the statu- 
tory restrictions on maximum tax rates,4 and to appropriate the 
2 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 31, els. 3 and 18, p. 219; Burns 48-301; Acts 
1905, ch. 129, sec. 37, p. 219; Burns 48-6801; also see Acts 1941, ch. 176, 
sec. 1, p. 532; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-6806. 
3 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 200, p. 219; Burns 48-6708. For first class 
cities see Acts 1941, ch. 213, sec. 2, p. 645; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-6729. 
4 These restrictions are examined in Chapter VI. 32 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
funds to the proper agencies, for example the board of works in 
cities. This board or its equivalent is charged with the duty to 
“design . . . the improvements or repair of any property” belonging 
to the municipality, “lay out, design . . . the construction [and] altera- 
tion ... of all public drains or sewers,”5 and to “prepare all neces- 
sary profiles, drawings and specifications for such work,”6 that is, 
to make the plans for sewer and drain construction before the con- 
tracts are let.7 
Some of the preliminary work can be done by planning com- 
missions. Cities8 and towns9 have been authorized to establish 
planning commissions which were to be supported by 
an appropriation from the general fund until a tax 
levy could be made. The levy is required to be “not less than three 
mills or more than five cents on each one hundred dollars of taxable 
property.”10 
In the original acts and as amended in 193511 considerable 
authority has been vested in the commission to employ “attorneys, 
engineers, architects, . . . consultants,”12 “to make . . . surveys, studies, 
maps, plans,” so that the commission could offer recommendations 
“respecting the location . . . [of] improvements, and the removal, re- 
location, widening or extension of such public works then existing 
. . . .”12 Also a “public works program” was to be prepared which 
was to include “a comprehensive construction and financial program 
covering a ten-year period,” to the end of assisting in “stabilizing in- 
dustry and employment by promoting the planning and timing of 
public works in the city and its environs, and by the elimination of 
unplanned, untimely, unnecessary and extravagant projects.”13 
In case the municipality has been frugal and un- 
appropriated moneys have been accumulated they 
may be used for defraying preliminary costs when 
a bond issue is planned. The relevant part of the statute which 
confers this authority on cities and towns is: “. . . in the event a 
b. Planning 
commission 
c. When bonds 
are to 
be issued 
5 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 93, els. 3, 7, p. 219; Burns 48-1902. 
6 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 117, p. 219; Burns 48-3901; also see sec. 95; 
Burns 48-1904. 
7 For specific references to the planning duties of cities of the fifth 
class and towns see Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 265, p. 219; Burns 48-2745. 
8 Acts 1921, ch. 209, p. 561; Burns 48-2201 et seq. 
9 Acts 1927, ch. 3, p. 9; Burns 48-302. 
10 Acts 1921, ch. 209, sec. 10, p. 561; amended Acts 1923, ch. 92, sec. 1, 
p. 263; Burns 48-2210. 
11 Acts 1935, ch. 268, sec. 1, p. 1312; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-2212. 
12 Acts 1921, ch. 209, secs. 4,5, p. 561; Burns 48-2204, 48-2205. 
13 Acts 1935, ch. 268, sec. 5, p. 1312; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-2216. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
33 
city or town desires to make an addition to a utility which it 
owns or desires to acquire an existing utility by purchase or 
otherwise, the common council or the board of trustees, as the 
case may be, is hereby authorized and empowered to appropriate 
a sum of money from any fund not theretofore appropriated not 
exceeding 5% of the estimated cost of the addition to the existing 
utility or of the utility sought to be acquired, which said sum may 
be used by such city or town for the purpose of defraying such ex- 
penses incurred in making preliminary surveys, plans, specifications 
and appraisals, including engineering and legal expense as in the 
judgment of such common council or board of trustees, as the case 
may be, are necessary in order to make such addition or to acquire 
such utility, and the action of such common council or board of 
trustees, as the case may be, in making such oppropriation shall be 
final and not subject to review by the Indiana tax board.”14 It 
appears to have been the intention of the General Assembly to 
limit this authorization to spend from available funds to those 
cases in which a bond issue is anticipated, and further to limit 
authorization to cities and towns desiring to issue bonds in order 
to make an addition to utilities which they own or in order to 
acquire existing utilities. If the statute should be interpreted as 
authorizing cities and towns to make such an appropriation when 
bond issues are not anticipated, or for other purposes than adding 
to or acquiring existing utilities, there would be a question as to 
the constitutionality of this provision, stemming from a defective 
title of the act. Appropriation for preliminary expenditures other 
than in these two cases would have to be made under other statutes. 
Borrowing 
Cities15 and towns16 were given power to borrow money by the 
Act of 1905 to carry on municipal functions. Notwithstanding the 
fact that Indiana municipalities are generally considered to have 
practically exhausted their borrowing powers under this grant of 
authority, many of them still have sufficient leeway under the con- 
stitutional debt limit17 to borrow the comparatively small amounts 
necessary to meet preliminary expenses. 
Also the making of temporary loans may be used in connection 
with taxation. If a city includes in its budget a tax levy for the 
14 Acts 1943, ch. 178, sec. 4, p. 538; Burns 1943 Replacement 61-416. 
15 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 55, p. 219; Burns 48-1410. 
16 Acts 1905, ch. 129, secs. 35, 36, p. 219; Burns 48-6804, 48-6805. 
17 For a discussion of this point see pp. 62-64. 34 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
purpose of paying preliminary costs of water or sewerage projects 
and wishes to start immediately on the work before the levy begins 
to yield an income, it may secure the money by a temporary loan. 
The Act of 1905 provides that temporary loans may be made with 
certain restrictions in anticipation of tax revenues if taxes are in 
the course of collection.18 
Revenue from Municipal Plants 
The revenue method of paying for water and sewerage works 
did not come into full use until long after 1905,19 but there was a 
forerunner of it in the charter act. The provision in which this 
forerunner occurred is; “should there be any surplus money after 
paying the expenses of operating the water-works, the same may be 
applied to the repair, enlargement or extension of the works, or of 
the water supply . . . .”20 While this applied only to those cities 
coming under the conditions set forth in that section, it does call 
attention to the fact that a great number of municipalities do own 
works of one kind or another from the operation of which they 
collect revenues. Frequently, these works have been built and are 
operated under a specific act which specifies how the income is to 
be handled. In many cases part of the income is to be put in a 
depreciation fund which may be used for extensions and new con- 
struction. Consequently, some municipalities will be able to raise 
money to meet preliminary expenses from the operation of their 
existing plants. 
PART 2. SPECIFIC STATUTES TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION 
Water Works 
Before taking up the specific statutes which are being used, 
two introductory observations will be made. First, there is one 
general power which is practically never employed so far as the 
authors are aware, namely, the use of taxing power 
to accumulate funds for future construction.21 It is 
Accumulating 
a surplus 
18 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 55, p. 219; Burns 48-1410. 
19 The first use of income from a plant as the chief source of funds to 
pay for construction was in the Acts 1921, ch. 96, p. 205; Burns 48-5345 
et seq. 
20 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 139, p. 219; Burns 48-5401. 
21 This point is discussed in Ch. VI, pp. 65f. One case in which a 
city did set up such a fund is referred to in Municipal Review, May 1944, 
vol. ix, no. 2, published Fort Wayne Utilities; see questions nos. 14 and 26. 
The Fort Wayne Common Council voted in September 1898 to impose a 
tax levy to accumulate a fund for the construction of a light and power plant. 
This fund contained $320,000 derived from tax cources and $16,000 interest 
when it was used to construct the plant in 1907. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
35 
the opinion of the authors that municipalities have that power, sub- 
ject to administrative restrictions.22 The state, as is well known, 
has accumulated a cash surplus through the simple device of col- 
lecting revenues in excess of appropriations. However, municipalities 
are in different circumstances. The state has no direct debt while 
the municipalities have heavy direct debts. The creation of a surplus 
fund for future contingencies has not generally been looked on with 
favor especially for cities and towns partly because of their heavy 
debt burden and partly because of the temptation it places in the 
way of future administrations to tap the fund for current expendi- 
tures. Consequently, the State Board of Tax Commissioners has given 
expression to this attitude by trimming budgets and tax levies to a 
minimum. However, it may be suggested that if municipal policy 
forming bodies were to show a serious intention to provide a shelf 
of work by doing the preliminary work on post war projects, the 
state tax board would have more reason to approve items in budgets 
to pay for such expenditures. A way to show what the intentions are 
is to prepare complete designs, plans, and specifications. 
The second introductory observation is concerned with the 
statutes selected for comment. It should be borne in mind that we 
have chosen only those statutes which attorneys, officials., and engi- 
neers have found to be actually used. The circumstances of a 
particular municipality or the exceptions made in any one of these 
acts may render it inapplicable to a given city or town. While the 
statutes referred to here are chosen because of their use, their 
presentation is for purposes of illustration. This is not an exhaus- 
tive treatment of enabling statutes. Each city and town has its own 
peculiar needs. These needs must be analysed and the statutes 
must be studied in order to find the one most applicable to the 
needs of each municipality. That is a job for the experts.23 
Formerly the construction of improvements such as 
water works was usually financed from the proceeds 
of the sale of general obligation bonds. A municipality sold its 
bonds and pledged its general credit to repay them. It then levied 
a tax on all property within its jurisdiction to service these obliga- 
tions. However, in 1921 Indiana pioneered in the revenue bond field 
by providing that any city or town might finance the purchase of 
water works by the sale of bonds payable from the revenues of such 
works.24 Since that time the revenue bond method of financing 
New water 
works 
22 This point is discussed in Ch. VI, pp. 67f. 
23 See Chapter VII. 
24 Acts 1921, ch. 96, p. 205; Burns 48-5345 et seq. 36 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
has been extended to cover the construction of new systems and 
the extension and improvement of existing works. It has been used 
extensively, alone or in conjunction with general obligation bonds, 
for water financing. 
The amendments to the Public Service Commission Act of 1913 
enacted in 1933 are an example of this kind of revenue bond financ- 
ing of new construction with the choice of using general obligation 
bonds also.25 This act, besides providing authority to construct new 
water works, confers other powers on municipalities with regard to 
the ownership and operation of utilities26 within the municipal 
corporation “or within six miles beyond the limits thereof, or at 
any place within the county in which such municipality is situated.”27 
The importance of having preliminary work well done 
is underscored in the act by the provision that prior 
to making the final decision to proceed the municipal council (in- 
cluding the boards of trustees of towns) is authorized to appropriate 
out of its general fund, such amount, not exceeding five per cent 
of the total estimated cost of constructing the works “to pay the 
expenses of a preliminary investigation and a proper survey, in- 
cluding the making of engineering plans and an estimate of the 
cost of constructing . . . such utility.” And the section continues 
“in the event it is finally determined to and said municipality does 
proceed under this act to construct . . . there shall be included in 
the total amount of money to be raised by the issuance of bonds . . . 
the amount of such expenditures, and said amount shall be repaid 
to the general fund . . . from the . . . sale of such bonds.”28 It may 
be suggested that the legislature did not set a ceiling on the amount 
which could be spent for engineering costs, at five per cent of the 
total cost of construction, but rather on how much could be ap- 
propriated in advance from the general fund for preliminary ex- 
penses. If the project is subsequently developed, additional funds 
from the sale of bonds can be used to pay additional engineering 
costs.29 
Preliminary 
costs 
25 Acts 1933, ch. 190, p. 928; This act is reproduced in Burns in 
various places beginning at 54-105 and ending at 54-719. 
26 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 1, p. 928; Burns 54-105. 
27 Acts 1933, ch. 190 as amended Acts 1935, ch. 293, sec. 1, p. 1447; 
Burns 1943 Supplement 54-607. 
28 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 13, p. 928; Burns 1943 Supplement 54-607. 
29 See Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. v. Boonville 213 Ind. 307 
(1938) for a discussion of the power to appropriate money to pay attorneys’ 
fees. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
37 
If the preliminary studies reveal the project to be one worthy 
of carrying to completion, there are two procedural matters to 
which attention should be called. First, when proceeding under this 
act it is not necessary that the municipality secure the approval or 
consent of the Public Service Commission.30 Second, before proceed- 
ing further with the projects it will be necessary that the proposal 
be submitted to and be approved by the voters.31 Should the vote 
be favorable, the project may be carried out; should a majority of 
the voters vote against the proposal, the project cannot be under- 
taken under this act for a period of two years since the statute 
provides that no further election on the question may be held within 
that period.32 
There is a choice of means of financing the final con- 
struction under this act. Revenue bonds may be used 
alone33 or they may be supplemented by the issue of 
general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed one-third of the 
total cost of the utility.34 If the general obligation bonds are to be 
issued, the fact must be determined before the election, because that 
fact and the amount is to be “clearly shown” on the ballot. 
One note of caution may be sounded with regard to the time 
of maturity of the revenue bonds authorized by this act. It provides 
that they are payable over a period of forty years from the revenue 
derived through the operation of the utility.35 However, the bond 
market is such that it usually is impossible to sell revenue bonds 
issued for the construction of a new water works system unless they 
are made payable over a period of not to exceed twenty-five years. 
The statute provides that the general obligation bonds may be for 
a longer term than twenty years. The revenue bonds are not sub- 
ject to the constitutional debt limit,36 since the statute provides 
that such bonds “and the interest thereon shall be a valid claim 
only against the . . . special fund, and . . . shall not constitute an 
indebtedness of such municipality within the meaning of the con- 
stitutional provisions and limitations.”37 
Financing 
final con- 
struction 
30 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 16, p. 928; Burns 54-610. 
31 Acts 1933, ch. 190, secs. 10, 18, p. 928; Burns 54-602, 54-612. 
32 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 18, p. 928; Burns 54-612. 
33 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 17, p. 928; Burns 54-611. 
34 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 16, par. c., p. 928; Burns 54-610. 
35 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 17, p. 928; Burns 54-611. 
36 See Chapter VI for a discussion of this point. 
37 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 17, p. 928; Burns 54-611. See Chapter VI 
for a further discussion of this point. 38 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
Management 
of the 
works 
The municipal council is to have jurisdiction over 
the project during the period when the preliminary 
work and the construction are being done; but the 
operation of the completed works may be placed under the control 
of the board of works, or a special utility service board. Provision 
is made that not more than a majority of the members may be of 
one party and the mayor is to appoint “the majority members” 
while the council is to appoint the minority members.38 
The Improvement and Extension of Existing Systems 
In general, extensions and improvements of existing water 
works systems can be financed under the provisions of the enabling 
act under which the works originally were acquired or constructed. 
For example if the system was acquired or constructed under the 
provisions of the act referred to above,39 improvements and ex- 
tensions should be carried out in the manner authorized in that 
statute, that is, to be paid for from the “special utility fund” into 
which certain revenues from the operation of the plant have been 
deposited.40 If the system was paid for under the first revenue bond 
act of 1921,41 as many were, then extensions may be built, either as 
provided by that statute or as provided for by one of its many 
amendatory acts. However, should building extensions envolve the 
issue of revenue bonds when former bonds are still outstanding, the 
procedure must be carefully executed to avoid pitfalls as will be 
indicated later. 
When revenue bonds are issued under the provision of these 
acts, and so long as these bonds are outstanding, the provisions of 
the acts must be adhered to in carrying on improvements. Should 
there be no outstanding bonds payable from the revenue of the 
works, or if the outstanding bonds are refinanced, other means of 
paying for improvements may be followed although there are few 
statutes of general application which are available. There are several 
special acts such as an act of 1933 authorizing fifth class cities to 
issue revenue bonds418- whose provisions can be used only in special 
cases, which could be followed in constructing improvements of 
existing works, but they will not be here discussed since their ap- 
plicability is so limited. 
38 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 19, p. 928; Burns 54-613. 
39 Acts 1933, ch. 190, p. 928. 
40 Acts 1933, ch. 190, sec. 16, par. d, p. 928; Burns 54-610. 
41 Acts 1921, ch. 96, p. 205; Burns 48-5345 et seq. 
41R Acts 1933, ch. 259, p. 1147; Burns 48-5441 et seq Legal Ways To Raise Money 
39 
Department of 
Water Works 
Act of 1933 
One act of somewhat general application, how- 
ever, may be referred to. In cases where there are 
no outstanding bonds, or in case these bonds are to 
be refinanced through the issuance of new bonds, the Department 
of Water Works Act of 1933 is available for financing extensions 
and improvements to existing works.42 
Before using the methods of financing provided in 
this act there must be established a department of water works 
through action of the governing body of the city or town owning 
or operating the water works system. The department is then to 
be under the exclusive management and control of a special board 
of trustees. The membership of this board is to be composed of 
resident freeholders and voters of the city or town and they are 
to be “divided equally or as nearly as possible in their political 
affiliations and beliefs.”43 This board is specifically authorized “to 
design, order, contract for and construct a water-works system, 
or any part thereof, now or hereafter necessary, and to make, con- 
struct, alter and build additions, extensions and betterments there- 
to. . . .”44 
Under this act the costs incident to planning and 
operation are to be paid from revenues of the plant, 
but provision is made so that expenses incurred “prior to the receipt 
of sufficient revenues derived from the operation of” the system may 
be drawn temporarily from the general fund to meet such costs. 
When the revenues of the plant become adequate this money is to 
be replaced. The employment of engineers and attorneys and the 
making of surveys is specifically mentioned.45 It would seem how- 
ever, that the temporary payment of preliminary expenses from the 
general fund is anticipated only at the time the department is 
created. After the plant is in operation under the management pro- 
vided in the act, then if it is observed, money for preliminary ex- 
penses will be available in the “maintenance fund”46 or the “de- 
preciation account.”47 
Management 
Preliminary 
financing 
42 Acts 1933, ch. 235, sec. 1, p. 1063; Burns 48-5301 et seq. 
43 Acts 1933, ch. 235, as amended Acts 1937, ch. 167, sec. 1, p. 871; 
Burns 1943 Supplement 48-5303. 
44 Acts 1933, ch. 235, sec. 5, p. 1063; Burns 48-5305. 
45 Acts 1933, ch. 235, secs. 7 and 8, p. 1063; Burns 48-5307, 48-5308. 
46 Acts 1933, ch. 235, sec. 9, p. 1063; Burns 48-5309. 
47 Acts 1933, ch. 235, secs. 13, 14, 15, 17, p. 1063; Burns 48-5313, 
48-5314, 48-5315, 48-5317. 40 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
Under this act48 revenue bonds may be issued for refunding 
outstanding bonds in order to defray the cost of improvements and 
extensions of the existing water works system. The statute specifically 
provides that these bonds are payable from revenue only, but that 
they do not constitute a municipal debt within the meaning of the 
constitutional provisions and limitations. While the statute provides 
for their amortization over a period of fifty years, it is only in the 
cases of utilities with most favorable records of past earnings that 
the bonds will sell if their maturities extend over twenty-five or 
thirty years. 
It will be of interest to those having outstanding revenue bonds 
which they propose to refinance to know that such refinancing 
procedures usually are found to be complicated since revenue bonds 
seldom are callable. In fact in the usual case the municipal officials 
will not even know who the holders of the bonds are. In such cases 
it is doubly important that the advice of an expert bond counsel 
should be obtained before the passage of the ordinance creating the 
department of water works. 
No election is required before a department of water 
works is established or before bonds may be issued, 
but this statute requires49 that the approval of the 
Public Service Commission must be obtained before the bonds are 
issued.50 However, should the Public Service Commission refuse to 
approve the issue, it is provided that the matter can be referred to 
the voters for a decision. 
Other acts—An alternative method for financing extensions and 
betterments in case of unincumbered51 water works systems is pro- 
Administra- 
tive restric- 
tions 
48 Acts 1933, ch. 235, sec. 19, p. 1063; Burns 48-5319. 
49 Acts 1933, ch. 235, sec. 24, p. 1063; Burns 48-5324. 
50 The approval of the Commission for the issue of revenue bonds as 
required in this act should not be confused with the question of whether the 
Commission has jurisdiction over the acquisition, construction or extension 
of utilities. The jurisdiction over the latter was abolished (Acts 1933, ch. 
190, sec. 16, par. b., p. 928; Burns 54-610) in so far as any procedure under 
the Public Service Commission Act of 1933 was concerned. Some attorneys 
are of the opinion that the approval of the Commission is still necessary as 
provided for in other statutes, but the practice of the Commission has been 
on the assumption that its power over acquisition, construction, and exten- 
sion was completely abolished. 
51 The restriction making this act applicable only to “unincumbered 
waterworks” is of little significance for those systems which have obligations 
outstanding that are payable solely from revenue derived from the operation 
of the plant. For a case in which the supreme court discussed this point, 
see Letz Mfg. Co. v. Public Service Commission 210 Ind. 467 (1936); also 
Underwood v. Fairbanks Morse Co. 205 Ind. 316 (1933). Legal Ways To Raise Money 
41 
vided for by an act of 192 952 as amended in 1933.53 This act as 
amended is applicable to all cities and towns. This, the Unincumbered 
Water Works Act, has been used in a number of cases, and in some 
respects it may be found to be more desirable than the Water 
Works Department Act of 1933 previously discussed. Under the 
latter act the control of the water works is taken away from the 
mayor and board of works, whereas the Unincumbered Act leaves 
the works under the control of the mayor. He may exert supervision 
through the board of works which he appoints or of which he is a 
member, or through a special board of trustees appointed by the 
mayor and of which he is ex officio the chairman.54 
The Unincumbered Water Works Acts provides for the financ- 
ing of extensions from the surplus which may accumulate in the 
depreciation fund,55 or from the proceeds of the sale of revenue 
bonds.56 The issue of bonds is subject to the approval of the Public 
Service Commission.57 A decision of the Commission against the 
issuance of the bonds is subject to reversal by submitting the ques- 
tion to the voters.58 
Some cities have proceeded under the authority of 
the charter act and may desire not to use any of the 
special enabling acts of later date. They are, of 
course, free to follow such procedure if they have not exhausted 
their powers under that statute. However, there have been some 
amendments which have enlarged the powers of these municipalities 
so that they may still be able to use the charter powers as amended. 
For example, cities of the first, second, third, and fourth classes 
have been empowered to levy a tax of a sufficient amount “on all 
taxable property of the city” to pay the principle and interest on 
the “money borrowed” for the construction and completion of any 
water works, or for the purpose of “repairing or rebuilding the 
same.”59 
The tax levied for this purpose may not exceed fifty cents on 
each one hundred dollars of taxable property. 
Act of 1905 
and 
amendments 
52 Acts 1929, ch. 155, p. 478; Burns 48-5328 et seq. 
53 Acts 1933, ch. 254, p. 1134; Burns 48-5328, 48-5337, 48-5338. 
54 Acts 1929, ch. 155, sec. 14, p. 478; Burns 48-5342. 
55 Acts 1929, ch. 155, sec. 6, p. 478; Burns 48-5333. 
56 Acts 1929, ch. 155, sec. 10, p. 478; Burns 48-5337. 
57 Acts 1929, ch. 155, sec. 11, p. 478; Burns 48-5339. 
58 Acts 1929, ch. 155, sec. 12, p. 478; Burns 48-5340. 
59 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 139, p. 219 as amended Acts 1931, ch. 86, 
sec. 1, p. 248; Burns 48-5401. 42 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
This rapid survey may be closed by referring to The Revenue 
Bond Refinancing Act of 1937,60 which, as its title indicates, pro- 
vides authority for the refinancing of bonds. Although action under 
this statute has not been extensive, attention may be called to the 
fact that municipalities with large debts might well explore the 
possibility of refunding their debts to take advantage of current low 
interest rates. It may be suggested that such an undertaking is 
complicated and requires careful and expert preparation. 
Sewerage Systems 
Current financing of the construction, improvement, and 
extension of sewerage works includes three types of bor- 
rowing, (1) revenue bonds, (2) special taxing district 
bonds, and (3) general obligation bonds. No attempt will be made 
to discuss in detail the relative merits of these methods for raising 
money, because the legal status of each municipality as well as its 
financial and physical situation have to be taken into account before 
determining what would be advisable in any given case. It will be 
sufficient to caution each municipality to approach its problems of 
financing construction or extension in the light of as much informa- 
tion and specialized advice as it can secure. 
The statute of most general application for the building 
of sewerage systems is the so-called Revenue Bond Act 
of 193261 as amended in 193 3 62 and 193 5.63 Under this act a com- 
plete method is set up for all cities and towns to finance a sewerage 
system or any section of it, which is being con- 
structed as a part of a system or plan to collect and 
treat domestic and industrial wastes in the necessary 
sewage treatment plant or plants. 
The necessity that adequate treatment of sewage be provided 
in any plan for construction before the provisions of the statute 
become available for raising money to construct 
sewers, should be underlined. It is the opinion of 
the authors that the legislative intent as exhibited 
in this statute permits the raising of money for the building of 
sewers of any type necesary for the collection of wastes, but only 
for the purpose of collecting and transporting them into a plant for 
treatment, and that a failure to provide complete treatment would 
result in an attempt to raise money illegally. It may be suggested 
General 
types of 
financing 
Revenue 
bonds 
The Revenue 
Bond Act 
of 1932 
The necessity 
for sewage 
treatment 
60 Acts 1937, ch. 206, p. 1017; Burns 1943 Replacement 61-508 et seq. 
61 Acts 1932, ch. 61, p. 209; Burns 48-4301 et seq. 
62 Acts 1933, ch. 187, secs. 1, 2, p. 921; Burns 48-4305, 48-4309. 
63 Acts 1935, ch. 198, sec. 1, p. 967; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-4301. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
43 
that the connection of sewage treatment with the construction of 
sewers is in line with the observable tendency of the State Board 
of Health to approve sewer construction only in connection with 
adequate sewage treatment. Also it appears to be the policy of the 
Stream Pollution Control Board to move in the same direction in 
enforcing the statute against stream pollution. This general trend 
appears to be a part of the movement taking place on a nation- 
wide scale. 
The method of providing for financing the preliminary 
costs can best be set forth by quoting the relevant 
part of the statute, with the explanation that references to city 
officials contained in the quotation are by specific statement made 
to apply to corresponding officials in towns. The section is as 
follows:64 
All necessary preliminary expenses actually incurred by the board of 
any city or town in the making of surveys, estimates of cost and revenues, 
employment of engineers or other employees, the giving of notices, 
taking of options and all other expenses of whatsoever nature, neces- 
sary to be paid prior to the issue and delivery of the revenue bonds 
pursuant to the provisions of this act, may be met and paid in the 
following manner. Said board may from time to time certify such 
items of expense to the controller of said city, directing him to pay 
the several amounts thereof, and thereupon said controller shall at 
once draw a warrant or warrants upon the city treasurer, which war- 
rant or warrants shall be paid out of the general funds of said city or 
town not theretofore appropriated ... or, in case there are no general 
funds of such city not otherwise appropriated, the city controller shall 
recommend to the common council the temporary transfer from other 
funds, of such city of a sufficient amount to meet such items of 
expense, or the making of a temporary loan for such purpose, and 
such common council shall thereupon at once make such transfer of 
funds, or authorize such temporary loan in the same manner that 
other temporary loans are made by such city; Provided, however, That 
the fund or funds of such city or town from which such payments 
are made shall be fully reimbursed and repaid by said board out of 
the first proceeds of the sale of revenue bonds hereinafter provided for, 
and before any other disbursements are made therefrom, and the 
amount so advanced to pay such preliminary expenses shall be a first 
charge against the proceeds resulting from the sale of such revenue 
bonds until the same has been repaid as herein provided .... 
The act as is indicated by the title is intended to provide 
a way to issue bonds “payable solely from the revenues” 
of the works as a means of raising money for the con- 
struction65 or extension66 of sewerage systems. The bonds 
are not “in any respect” to be a part of the corporate indebtedness 
Preliminary 
expenses 
Financing 
the final 
construc- 
tion 
64 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 4, p. 209; Burns 48-4304. 
65 Acts 1932 as amended Acts 1933, ch. 187, sec. 2, p. 921; Burns 48-4309. 44 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
of the city or town07 and are not therefore subject to the two per cent 
constitutional debt limit, though there is a restriction in the statute 
which requires that the question of the issuance of the bonds is to 
be submitted to the voters if the total amount of the bonds to be 
issued will exceed two per cent of the assessed valuation of the 
property in the municipality.68 Failure to meet either interest or 
principal payments on bonds when due may result in the appoint- 
ment of a receiver by any court having jurisdiction to operate the 
works in conformity with the act.69 
Charges The method of collecting revenue from the operation of 
a complete sewerage system may be of interest. It is provided in 
the act that a service charge is to be made to the users of the 
system for amortizing the bonds and paying the cost of operating 
the works.70 It is the practice to collect these charges (from those 
connected to the sewerage system) in a manner similar to the col- 
lection of water rates with which most municipal officials are 
familiar. Schedules of sewer service charge rates usually are based 
upon the amount of sewage discharged to the sewers as evidenced 
by the amount of water obtained from the water works system or 
other sources. This may be done even when the water is provided 
by a privately owned source, if arrangements can be made for the 
management of the water company to supply the necessary informa- 
tion regarding consumption for the city to base its charges. Adjust- 
ments are sometimes made in case any great amount of the metered 
water supply is utilized in such a manner as not to find its way 
into the sewerage system. Flat rates also are established occasionally 
as a basis for determining sewer service charges, although this 
method usually has been found to be less desirable than that in 
which the rates are charged in proportion to the water usage. In 
case of industrial wastes, charges are based upon the volume and 
“strength” of the wastes as compared with domestic sewage. 
Service rates or charges not paid by sewerage users within 
thirty days after they become due may be collected by the board 
managing the works by means of a civil suit brought in the name of 
the municipality. Such charges do not become a lien upon the 
property unless judgment shall thus have been obtained.71 
66 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 10, p. 209; Burns 48-4310. 
67 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 8, p. 209; Burns 48-4308. 
68 Acts 1932 as amended Acts 1933, ch. 187, sec. 1, p. 921; Burns 48-4305. 
69 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 20, p. 209; Burns 48-4320. 
70 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 14, p. 209; Burns 48-4314. 
71 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 14, p. 209; Burns 48-4314. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
45 
Management 
of works 
The construction of a sewerage works under this act 
is to be done under the supervision of the Board of 
Works or the board or committee empowered by law to carry on 
the functions of the Board of Works.72 The operation and main- 
tenance of the works when completed may either be handled by 
this board or by a special board as provided for in the act if 
established by ordinance.73 
In cases where funds are needed for the improvement or exten- 
sion of existing sewerage works, the act of 1932 provides two sources: 
(a) payment directly from the revenues of the plant,74 (b) the is- 
suance of additional bonds.75 Unless the original sewerage system was 
built under the Revenue Bond Act of 1932, it is probably imprac- 
ticable to attempt to finance additional lateral sewers through the 
sale of revenue bonds. In case it seems unwieldly to issue additional 
bonds, attention may again be directed to the possible availability of 
the Revenue Bond Refinancing Act of 1937 as a way out.76 
When additional bonds are to be issued, or outstanding bonds 
are to be refunded in connection with a new issue, a municipality 
should proceed with due diligence and in the light of the best advice 
obtainable. The issuance of the additional bonds might in some way 
result in the violation of the obligation of the contract made in the 
original issue which is prohibited in the United States Constitution.77 
The creation of special taxing districts is a device to use 
the machinery of taxation to collect fees from property 
holders for services or benefits rendered to them, for ex- 
ample in collecting and treating sewage. When a sanitary 
district is created then bonds issued to build sewage treatment 
plants are serviced by fees (taxes) levied on the property within 
the district. 
In 1917 an act applying only to first class cities (Indian- 
apolis) authorized the issuance of special sanitary dis- 
trict bonds for meeting the cost of sewage treatment 
construction projects.78 This act was amended in 1921 
Special 
taxing 
district 
bonds 
The 1917 
Sanitary 
District 
Law 
72 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 2, p. 209; Burns 48-4302. 
73 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 16, p. 209; Burns 48-4316. 
74 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 11, p. 209; Burns 48-4311; also see sec. 13; 
Burns 48-4313. 
73 Acts 1932, ch. 61, secs. 10, 19, p. 209; Burns 48-4310; 48-4319. 
76 See above p. 42. 
77 Art. 1, sec. 10. However, see (Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 10, p. 209; 
Burns 48-4310) a clause which strives to provide a way to avoid such a 
conflict by permitting the holders of the original bonds to consent to the 
subsequent issue. 
78 Acts 1917, ch. 157, p. 573; Burns 48-4201 et seq. 46 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
to apply to second class cities,79 and in 1941 it was made applicable 
to fourth class cities having an assessed valuation of not less than 
twenty million dollars.80 
All preliminary expenses incurred prior to the issuance 
of bonds or the collection of taxes levied on the 
property in the district are to be paid from the general fund of the 
city, or by a temporary transfer from such other municipal funds in 
which the money is available, or by temporary loans.81 The usual 
rule with regard to replacing moneys obtained from city sources is 
generally applicable in this case. 
“For the purpose of raising money to pay . . . [for] construc- 
tion, and in anticipation of [the collection of a] . . . special tax to 
be levied,” bonds may be issued “not to exceed in amount the total 
cost of all lands, rights of way and other property so to be acquired 
and the contract price of all work of construction.”82 The section 
quoted then proceeds to set forth in detail the costs which are to 
be included to determine what the total amount of the bond issue 
is to be. Also the top limit is. set in this language: “It shall be 
unlawful ... [to issue] any bonds of said sanitary district payable 
by special taxation when the total issue for that purpose, including 
the bonds already issued and to be issued, is in excess of two per 
cent of the total assessed valuation [after deducting all mortgage 
exemptions] of the property within said sanitary district . . . .” 
Furthermore, these bonds are “not in any respect ... a corporate 
obligation or indebtedness” of the city83 and are consequently not 
subject to the debt limitation of the constitution. Authority is then 
given to levy a tax to pay costs of acquiring property, etc., and 
operating expenses84 and to raise money to service the bonds.85 
Preliminary 
expenses 
79 Acts 1921, ch. 258, p. 768; Burns 48-4227. 
80 Acts 1941, ch. 163, sec. 1, p. 496; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-4249. 
There was also an act in 1913 (ch. 307, Burns 48-4101 et seq.) providing 
for the establishment of sanitary districts to include territory containing two 
or more incorporated municipalities. This act is not discussed because of 
the lack of use of it. 
81 Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 6, p. 573; Burns 48-4206. 
82 Acts 1917 as amended 1943, ch. 107, sec. 3, p. 332; Burns 1943 Sup- 
plement 48-4217. 
83 Acts 1917 as amended 1943, ch. 107, sec. 3, p. 332; Burns 1943 Sup- 
plement 48-4217. 
84 Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 9, p. 573; Burns 48-4209. 
85 Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 19, p. 573; Burns 48-4219. Also see Acts 
1943, ch. 107, sec. 4, p. 332; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-4221. Legal Ways To Raise Money 
47 
Management and 
extent of 
the sanitary 
district 
This statute and its amendments provide for 
the establishment by municipal ordinance, of a 
Department of Public Sanitation,86 which except 
in the case of first class cities,87 is administered 
by a special “Board of Sanitary Commissioners.” These commis- 
sioners, variously appointed, serve for a definite term of four years.88 
They are removable by the mayor for neglect of duty or incompe- 
tency, but only after a hearing upon written charges. The finding 
of the mayor may be appealed to the circuit or superior court. 
The area of the district includes all the territory within the 
corporate limits including incorporated towns within those limits, 
and the district may be extended beyond the limits of the parent 
municipality to include all cities or towns, or even unincorporated 
areas within the county.89 
The borrowing of money on the credit of the municipality 
has been discussed in the first section of this chapter as 
a source of funds for preliminary expenses. The raising 
of additional funds for financing the costs of final construction is 
done similarly. It may be said that in addition to the power given 
in the charter act,90 there have been additional authorizations for 
specific purposes, for example an act of 1927.91 Also in addition 
to discussion of this method of raising money elsewhere, it is now of 
relatively small importance because many municipalities do not have 
sufficient borrowing power left to provide for complete financing 
by the use of general obligation bonds. 
The foregoing brief survey of representative statutes is not 
exhaustive, merely illustrative of the methods most frequently used. 
Consequently, where a municipality begins to finance works, it may 
find that its unique situation makes imperative the selection of a 
statute not mentioned here. It may also appear singular to those 
acquainted with common practice a decade or two ago that no 
General 
obligation 
bonds 
86 Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 1, p. 573; Burns 48-4201. 
87 Acts 1935, ch. 159, sec. 1, p. 580; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-4239. 
This act transferred the administration of the affairs of the sanitary district 
to the board of public works and sanitation. 
88 The board is composed of three members. The city civil engineer is 
ex officio a member. The mayor appoints the other two, one on his own 
nomination and the other on nomination by the State Board of Health. The 
Board of Health has always nominated some local engineer having the qual- 
ification required in the statute (Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 1, p. 573; Burns 
48-4201). 
89 Acts 1917 as amended Acts 1943, ch. 107, sec. 2, p. 332; Burns 1943 
Supplement 48-4205. 
90 Acts 1905, ch. 129, p. 219. 
91 Acts 1927, ch. 233, p. 675; Burns 48-3905 et seq. 48 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
detailed discussion of the special benefit assessment method of 
financing (Barrett law) is included at this point. This method is 
in general disfavor because so many holders of Barrett law bonds 
or certificates unfortunately have been forced to take over the 
benefitted property or accept principal and interest discounts be- 
cause of defaults by the owners in meeting deferred payments. 
Therefore this type of financing is omitted here because of its present 
obsolescent character. LEGEND 
Proposed Public Water Supplies 
Proposed Iron Removal Plants 
Proposed Softening Plants 
Proposed Iron Removal and Softening 
Plants 
Proposed Source of Supply or Additions 
to Present Source 
Proposed Elevated Storage Tanks 
Distribution System Extensions or 
Reinforcement 
Proposed Treatment Plants or 
Improvement to Present Plants 
NOTE:—All Proposed Public Water Supplies in- 
clude treatment oy chlorination. All iron re- 
moval and softening plants include chlorination. 
Chlorination for all other supplies not now 
treated included under proposed treatment 
plants. 
Compiled by Leo Louis, Ind. St. Bd. Health, 1944 
Reproduced here through courtesy of 
the Indiana State Board of Health. 
INDIANA PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM legend 
Municipal Sewage, 
Complete Treatment 
Municipal Sewage, 
Primary Treatment 
Municipal Sewage, 
No Treatment 
Semi-Public Sewage, 
Complete Treatment 
Semi-Public Sewage, 
Primary Treatment 
Semi-Public Sewage, 
No Treatment 
Cannery Waste 
Other Industrial Wastes i 
UJ Milk Plant 
UJ Metal Industry 
ill Steel Mill 
l±f Coal Mine Drainage 
lij Oil Field 
* Oil Refinery 
LU Meat Industry 
Tannery 
I 91 Pulp and Paper Mill 
IL2J 
Distillery 
ILU Brewery 
U2J 
By-Product Coke plant 
LU Beet Sugar Plant 
ILU Textile 
LU Laundry 
[I6J 
Chemical Plant 
llzj Creosote Plant 
LU Acetylene Gas Plant 
IMJ 
Miscellaneous 
SURFACE WATER SUPPLY 
INDIANA 
STREAMS A LAKES 
SOURCES OF POLLUTION and SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES 
STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 
Thurman B. Rice, m.d. chairman - State Board of Health 
Hon. Charles M. Dawson - Lieutenant Governor 
Hugh A. Barnhart - Dir, State Dept, of Conservation 
Leo Besozzi - Hammond 
C. K. Calvert - Indianapolis 
H. Scott Pickens - New Albany 
Jos. L. Quinn Jr.,Tech. Secretary - Indianapolis 
BASE MAP COPYRIGHTED BY L.l. COUCH, DEPT. OF CONSERVATION, 1933- 
POLLUTION MAP PREPARED BY RiW.HEIDER, STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, I944* 
REPRODUCED HERE THROUGH COURTESY OF THE INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH. V 
LEGAL AUTHORITY OF CITIES TO CONSTRUCT WATER, 
SEWER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES 
The Legal Relation of Municipalities to the State 
Municipali- 
ties created 
by the 
state 
The general legal power of cities and towns to con- 
struct the kind of utilities under consideration here 
may be referred to in an abridged statement. Mu- 
nicipal corporations are creations of the state. Accord- 
ing to current theory they may have their status established by the 
state constitution, or if the constitution is silent with regard to them, 
their existence is dependent upon the will of the legislature. “There- 
fore,” McQuillin observes, “independent of legislative action the in- 
habitants of a given territory or place possess no inherent power to 
incorporate themselves, or to create a local corporation, investing 
it with powers of internal government.”1 He continues: “Unless 
restricted by the constitution, therefore, the power of the legislature 
either by general or special law, to create or provide for the creation 
of . . . municipal corporations ... is absolute and unlimited. The 
creation and organization of these bodies, the determination of the 
form, the powers of government and the method of exercise thereof, 
and indeed, of everything appertaining to the fundamentals of mu- 
nicipal charters are, in the absence of limitation in the organic law, 
essentially legislative functions.” 
The best known rule for the construction of the powers 
which are granted to municipalities is that enunciated 
by Judge Dillon as follows:2 
It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal 
corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no 
others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily 
or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, 
those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and pur- 
poses of the corporation,—not simply convenient, but indispensable. 
Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of power 
is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied. 
Construing 
municipal 
powers 
1 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (2nd ed.) Vol. I, sec. 145, p. 416; 
hereafter cited as McQuillin. 
2 Dillon, Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations, (5th ed.) 
Vol. I, sec. 237, p. 448; also see McQuillin, op. cit., sec. 368, p. 918ff; italics 
in the original. 52 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
Application 
of general 
rules to 
Indiana 
municipali- 
ties 
When these two rules with regard to the status of 
municipal corporations and the construction of powers 
granted to them are applied directly to Indiana, two 
observations may be made. The first is that Indiana 
municipal corporations have no status established by 
the Constitution. It is true that there are references 
to cities and towns and municipal corporations in the Constitution, 
but none of these references can be said to give municipalities any 
a. Status status as against the will of the legislature. For example, 
in a section relating to the power of the General Assembly to regulate 
elections, the first reference to cities and towns in the Constitution 
is found in the following clause:3 “In providing for the registration 
of persons entitled to vote, the General Assembly shall have power 
to classify the several counties, townships, cities, and towns . . . and 
to enact laws prescribing a uniform method of registration. . . .” 
It may be concluded then that McQuillin’s general statement is 
applicable specifically to Indiana, namely, that municipal corpora- 
tions in their existence, structure, form, and powers are subject to 
the legislative will.4 
The second observation, relative to the construction of powers 
granted by statute to the cities, must include a reference to two lines 
of decisions, an early one which seemed to permit 
interpretation of powers more liberal than permitted 
under Dillon’s rule,5 and another line of decisions 
which is a clear application of that rule. However, 
it must be said that the courts have recently, and predominately 
b. Construc- 
tion of 
powers 
granted 
3 Art. 2, sec. 14. Other references to cities, towns, and municipal corpora- 
tions are Art. 6, secs. 6, 8, 9, and Art. 13. 
4 Persons who recall the case Keane v. Remy, 201 Ind. 286 (1929), may 
feel that the conclusion offered is too sweeping. However, choice of the kind 
of government as provided by statute was not at issue in that case. That point 
had been determined by the Supreme Court in line with the conclusion as 
here stated in Sarlls, City Clerk, v. State, ex rel Trimble et al 201 Ind. 88 
(1929). In Keane v. Remy the issue was the reasonableness of procedures 
prescribed by the legislature; and since the court found that the procedures 
prescribed by the statute were unreasonable, the statute being dependent 
upon the procedures was thereby rendered inoperative. 
5 Two such decisions are: The City of Evansville, et al v. The State 
ex rel Blend, et al, 118 Ind. 449 (1888) ; The State ex rel Holt et al v. Denny, 
Mayor, et al 118 Ind. 449 (1888). In the Evansville case, this language was 
used: “It, therefore, becomes a question whether or not the legislature may take 
from the people of these two cities [Evansville and Indianapolis] the right 
of local self-government, the right to manage and control their own purely 
local affairs in their own way, and place the management of all such local 
affairs under State control. We do not believe that the Legislature has any 
such power. Before written Constitutions, the people possessed the power of 
local self-government.” Legal Authority For Construction 
53 
followed the second line and that Dillon’s rule provides the only safe 
criterion to judge an Indiana municipality’s power at this time.6 
It is true that in at least two relatively recent cases, the Supreme 
Court has used language which may appear on casual reading to be 
a repudiation of Dillon’s rule.7 Such language includes the following 
“. . . this court consistently held that municipalities had inherent 
authority to make such improvements as those contemplated. . . .” It 
may be suggested, however, in both cases, the court was referring 
to powers granted by implication or powers which were essential 
to the accomplishment of the legislative objects and purposes in 
creating the municipal corporations. The powers referred to by the 
Court inhered in general powers granted; the court was not saying 
that these powers of the municipalities were such as to be beyond 
the legislative control of the General Assembly. 
Coming now to the powers which have been grant- 
ed to Indiana municipalities, it may be pointed 
out that the basic act is the so-called Cities and 
Towns Act of 1905.8 In it the statutes relating to municipalities prior 
to that year were in a manner codified, thus for most practical pur- 
poses automatically superseding and displacing the earlier statutes. 
As a general matter all previous statutes were then repealed by the 
last section. It provided:9 
All former laws within the purview of this act except laws not incon- 
sistent herewith and enacted at the present session of the general 
assembly, are hereby repealed. . . . 
It was held, however, that early statutes continued to 
be of significance in some cases, as for example, when 
a type of organization provided for in an earlier statute 
was also provided for in the Act of 1905.10 
It may be said that the present powers of cities and towns stem 
from the act of 1905, subsequent statutes may limit powers granted 
by it, set up specified procedures to be used in exercising powers 
granted by it, or in some cases add to the powers conferred on 
Powers granted 
to Indiana 
municipalities 
a. The basic 
law, the act 
of 1905 
6 Representative cases selected during the period 1884 to 1937 are: 
Anderson v. O’Connor 98 Ind. 168 (1884); Scott v. City of Laporte et al 
162 Ind. 34 (1904); City of Indianapolis v. College Park Land Co. 187 
Ind. 541 (1918); Denny v. City of Muncie 197 Ind. 28 (1925); City of 
Huntington et al v. Northern Ind. Power Co. 211 Ind. 502 (1937). 
7 Underwood v. Fairbanks Morse & Co. 205 Ind. 316, pp. 324, 325 
(1933) ; Letz Mfg. Co. v. Pub. Service Com. 210 Ind. 467, p. 477 (1936). 
s Acts 1905, ch. 129, p. 219. 
9 Acts 1905, ch. 129, p. 219, sec. 272 at p. 410. 
10 See Arnett v. State, 163 Ind. 180 (1907). 54 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
municipalities in that act. For example, the general power is given 
in the act of 1905 to provide a city water supply. A city may, if 
it so decides, proceed under this general authority in the manner pre- 
scribed in the act for the exercise of other powers involving the 
formulation of policy, the expenditure of money, and the manage- 
ment of economic affairs. A subsequent act, however, may provide 
for a specific means of constructing or financing a waterworks. If 
the municipality wishes to use this newer method of procedure, then 
it must follow in detail all of the provisions of the subsequent act 
which may be a limitation of a procedural nature in powers prev- 
iously granted. It will be the purpose in the paragraphs immediately 
following, first, to refer to representative powers given to the mu- 
nicipalities by the Act of 1905 relating to the improvements under 
discussion here; and second, to illustrate the effect of subsequent 
statutes on the basic act as they change, limit, or extend power with 
regard to water and sewerage facilities. 
Powers Granted in the Act of 1905 
The purpose of this section is to deal with the fact of the dele- 
gation of powers to municipalities to provide water and sewerage. 
While the Act of 1905 does contain provisions relating to finance, 
this and other authority to finance will not be discussed here. 
Ample general powers were granted to the municipalities by the 
Act of 1905 to supply water. However, in most of the references to 
water supply, it appears that the legislature was primarily 
concerned with such matters as the methods of supplying 
water, financing procedures, municipal regulation of privately owned 
water works or the management of municipally owned systems and 
was only secondarily concerned with the delegation of power as 
such to municipalities. Consequently, the authority for supplying 
water appears, in many instances, to be incidental to some of these 
other purposes. In one instance authority was given to towns to 
a. Towns provide for water as subordinate to the power to pro- 
vide protection against fire. The relevant language of the section 
is: “The board of town trustees shall have the following powers . . . 
to construct, purchase and preserve engine-houses, fire stations, fire 
apparatus, reservoirs, wells, pumps, and other water-works for 
supplying such town with water for fire protection and other pur- 
poses and to regulate the use thereof. . . .’m Elsewhere in that act, 
the powers delegated to certain classes of cities with regard to the 
supply of water are conferred also on towns. The general power to 
Water 
supply 
11 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 31, p. 219, cl. 3; Burns 48-301, cl. 3. Legal Authority For Construction 
55 
supply water, along with the provision for other services is conferred 
on the board of works of cities of certain classes,12 then subsequently 
in the act this power is extended to towns.13 
The power of cities to provide water is found in several places 
in the Act of 1905. Perhaps one of the clearest delegations is: “The 
board of public works shall have power: . . . To purchase within or 
without the limits of such city and to construct, by contract or other- 
wise, and to operate, water works . . . for the purpose of supplying 
such city and the inhabitants thereof with the use and convenience 
of such works. . . .”14 Other references to powers, for the most part, 
are concerned more with the manner of the exercise of the power 
than with the fact of its delegation to the cities.15 The Act of 1905 
provided that any city or town, before “entering upon the policy of 
erecting and constructing any . . . new [water] works ... or the 
purchase of the same” was required to hold an election on the 
matter.1511 In a comparatively recent case, the supreme court con- 
sidered this provision and held that once a municipality had entered 
the business, it was not required to hold an election for the purpose 
of deciding engineering choices as to the installation of equipment 
or for replacements necessary because of inefficiency or obsolete- 
ness.1511 
Under this act, cities and towns have a pleasing array 
a la carte as to the methods by which water can be 
made available for the use of the municipal governments themselves 
or for the private use of their citizens. They may construct the 
water system,16 purchase one already in existence,17 extend this 
system which they construct or buy,18 purchase stock in a system 
b. Methods 
of supply 
12 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 93, p. 219; Burns 48-1902. * 
13 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 249, p. 219; also see secs. 253, 254; Burns 
48-7201; also see 48-7301, 48-7302. 
14 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 93, cl. 8, p. 219; Burns 48-1902. The power 
conferred on cities of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th class by this section was 
extended to cities of the 5th class by sec. 249; Acts 1905; Burns 48-7201. 
15 Among such references in the act, the following may be cited: Acts 
1905, ch. 129, p. 219; (the sections of the act and corresponding references 
in Burns will be given) sec. 53, cl. 36, Burns 48-1407; sec. 85, Burns 48-1507; 
sec. 93, els. 9, 11, Burns 48-1902; sec. 139, Burns 48-5401; sec. 249, Burns 
48-7201; sec. 253, Burns 48-7301. 
158 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 249, p. 219; Burns 48-7201. This section 
was subsequently amended, but without changing the substance of this pro- 
vision of the section. 
15b Indiana Service Corporation v. Town of Warren 206 Ind. 384 
(1934). 
is Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 93, cl. 8, p. 219 Burns 48-1902. 
17 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 249, p. 219; Burns 48-7201. 
18 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 249; Burns 48-7201. 56 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
and exert control by reason of part ownership,19 or permit a private 
corporation to supply water20 or lease its plant to the municipality.21 
Thus on the single issue of the legal authority of cities and towns 
to provide themselves with public water supplies, the Act of 1905 
is sufficient in itself. 
Towns are authorized by the Act of 1905 “To lay out, 
open, change . . . and otherwise improve . . . sewers . . . and keep 
them in repair. . . ,”22 All cities and towns are empowered to con- 
trol sewers and drains, and to “provide for the construction of all 
sewers and drains.”23 
Cities which were permitted under the Act of 1905 
to have boards of works were specifically authorized 
by the following clause to provide sewage treatment plants in addi- 
tion to sewers: “The board of public works shall have power. . . . 
To prepare a general uniform plan for the drainage and sewerage 
of such city, and extend the same from time to time, and to provide 
for the disposal of sewage.”24 The Act created boards of works in 
cities of the first, second, third, and fourth classes,25 however, this 
power was apparently given to fifth class cities and towns by a sub- 
sequent section which provided that the provisions of the act re- 
lating to “. . . sewer and other public improvements” should “apply 
to cities of the fifth class and to incorporated towns, and the duties 
of the board of public works in relation to such matters . . . [were to] 
be performed in cities of the fifth class, by the common council, 
and in towns, by the board of town trustees. . . .”26 
Elsewhere in the act there are numerous references which con- 
fer authority either directly or by implication on cities and towns 
to provide for sewerage.27 
Sewers 
Sewage treat- 
ment plants 
19 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 93, cl. 8, p. 219; Burns 48-1902; Acts 1905, 
ch. 129, sec. 254, p. 219; Burns 48-7302. 
20 Acts 1905, ch. 129, p. 219, sec. 53, cl. 36; Burns 48-1407; Acts 1905, 
ch. 129, p. 219, sec. 93, els. 9, 11; Burns 48-1902; Acts 1905, ch. 129, p. 219, 
sec. 253; Burns 48-7301. 
21 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 249, p. 219; Burns 48-7201. 
22 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 31, cl. 9, p. 219; Burns 48-301. 
23 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 267, p. 219; Burns 48-503. 
24 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 93, els. 1, 17, p. 219; Burns 48-1902. 
25 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 91, p. 219; Burns 48-1901. 
26 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 265, p. 219; Burns 48-2745. 
27 In addition to those cited above, some of them are: Acts 1905, ch. 
129, p. 219; (the sections of the act and corresponding references in Burns 
will be given) sec. 53, els. 9, 27, 31, Burns 48-1407; sec. 93, els. 3, 17, 18, 
Burns 48-1902; secs. 117-120, Burns 48-3901 to 48-3904; sec. 253, Burns 
48-7301; sec. 257, Burns 48-7209; sec. 254, Burns 48-7302; sec. 256, 
Burns 48-7309. Legal Authority For Construction 
57 
Effect of Later Legislation 
It will be seen from the above discussion that Indiana cities 
and towns were given authority to deal with water supply and 
sewerage by the Cities and Towns Act of 1905. 
Statutes of the General Assembly enacted at later 
dates are to be regarded as amendatory or supplemental to the basic 
act, or as providing alternative methods for providing the facilities 
being considered here. For example, the first revenue statute, the 
water works act of 1921 set up a procedure for a municipality to 
purchase a water works.28 If a municipality chooses to proceed 
under this act, it is required to provide by ordinance that the “prin- 
cipal and interest of bonds issued for the payment of the purchase- 
price” will be “paid solely and exclusively from the income ... of 
such plant.”29 Explicit directions are contained in the statute for 
the handling of the revenues to insure that the works will be oper- 
ated, maintained, and the debt retired from them.30 The supreme 
court has referred to this act as providing an alternative method for 
the public supply of water.31 
This act as amended also provides as an alternate to manage- 
ment by the board of works, the creation of a special board for that 
purpose.32 Many other statutes relating to water, sewers, and sewage 
treatment plants are concerned with matters of management, special 
districts for water or drainage, and particularly with methods of 
financing construction and improvement of these facilities. This 
was dealt with in the section in which the legal authority for 
financing was discussed. 
It may be seen from the above discussion that mu- 
nicipalities have the power to provide for the facili- 
ties here under consideration. It may be stated as 
a legal proposition that the choice of providing 
public water and sanitary facilities rests entirely with them. How- 
ever, if a municipality, in the exercise of its discretion, decides to 
provide for a public water supply or sewer system, it must then act 
in conformity with the permanent supervisory authority of the State 
Board of Health and the Stream Pollution Control Board. 
Effect on 
Act of 1905 
State agencies 
with power 
over munici 
palities 
28 Acts 1921, ch. 96, sec. 1, p. 205; Burns 48-345 et seq. 
29 Acts 1921, ch. 96, sec. 3, p. 205; Burns 48-5347. 
30 Acts 1921, ch. 96, sec. 4, p. 205; Burns 48-5348. 
31 Hamilton v. Public Service Commission 215 Ind. 138 (1939). 
32 Acts 1927, ch. 190, sec. 3, p. 557; Burns 48-5365. 58 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
State Board 
of Health 
The power of the State Board of Health is set forth 
in several statutes; representative ones with respect 
to water are: the “state board of health shall . . . have power . . . 
to regulate and prescribe the character and location of . . . water 
supply. . . ,”;33 and on complaint of the proper officers or of a num- 
ber of citizens that the water supply of a city or town is dangerous 
to health, it is made the duty of the state board to investigate, and 
if the water is found to be impure and dangerous to health, then 
after complying with the prescribed procedure, the board is to 
recommend changes necessary to remedy the impurity, “which 
changes shall be made within a reasonable time. . . .”34 A rule of 
the state board provides that whenever its investigation shows that 
a public water supply of a municipality is insanitary or in a condition 
to be causative of disease it may order constructed “a public water 
supply system, including a source of supply, distribution lines and 
other necessary appurtenances, sufficient to abate insanitary condi- 
tions causative of disease and to protect the public health.”35 
The power of the State Board of Health to compel the installa- 
tion of sewers and sewage treatment plants is extensive. For example, 
if after a hearing on the charges that a city is discharging sewage 
into any water-course and is thereby injuring it for domestic use, 
the board finds such to be true, it is. to suggest changes in plant or 
property “as will render the noxious matter so being passed into the 
water innocuous and harmless, and shall require, by its order, the of- 
fender to adopt and apply the board’s recommendation . . . before 
the offender shall again resume such use of the water”;36 however, 
a reasonable time is to be permitted for compliance. Rules which 
the board has issued pursuant to this statute require, upon proper 
findings and specific orders, the construction of “sewers, interceptors, 
sewage treatment works, and such other parts and appurtenances 
of a sewerage system, as may be necessary to abate the insanitary 
conditions causative of disease and to protect the public health.”37 
The rules with regard to State Board of Health approval of the de- 
sign of sewer systems and treatment are specific and far reaching. 
“No city or town . . . shall install . . . any sewers, sewage treatment 
works . . . until plans and specifications, together with an engineer- 
33 Acts 1891, ch. 15, sec. 6, p. 15, as amended acts 1909, ch. 144, sec. 
3, p. 342; Burns 35-106. 
34 Acts 1913, ch. 35, sec. 1, p. 63; Burns 35-211. 
35 Frank E. Horack, Indiana Administrative Code, Vol. 1, rule 35-111-1, 
hereafter cited as Horack. 
36 Acts 1909, ch. 24, sec. 1, p. 60; Burns, 35-201. 
37 Horack, 35-201-1. Legal Authority For Construction 
59 
ing report supporting in detail the design set forth in such plans, 
shall have been submitted to and have been approved by the state 
board of health. . . .”38 
The recently constituted Stream Pollution Control Board 
has been given substantial powers to prevent the pollution 
of streams, “with any substance which is deleterious to 
the public health or to the prosecution of any industry or lawful oc- 
cupation, or whereby any fish life or any beneficial animal or vege- 
table life may be destroyed, or the growth or propagation thereof 
prevented or injuriously affected.”39 
Comment upon the extent of work which municipalities may 
be compelled to undertake by either the State Board of Health or 
the Stream Pollution Control Board should be based upon the rela- 
tive differences in the state of development of water supplies, as 
compared with sewage treatment. It would seem reasonable to ex- 
pect that water extensions would be left largely to the discretion of 
municipalities. While there is room for a great deal of very strong 
influence, at least, to speed up the building of sewage treatment 
plants, the composition of the Stream Pollution Control Board would 
give ground for the expectation that its. action would be dominated 
by the attitude of the layman and that it could not be expected to 
move more rapidly than is dictated by general public opinion. The 
board is composed of the lieutenant-governor, the secretary of the 
State Board of Health, the director of the Department of Con- 
servation, and three members appointed by the governor. The statute 
provides that the board is to be served by a technical secretary who 
is to be a graduate sanitary engineer and who is to be appointed to 
that position by the secretary of the State Board of Health. He 
is required by the statute during interims between meetings of the 
Stream Pollution Control Board to handle “such correspondence, 
make or arrange for such investigations and surveys and obtain, 
assemble or prepare such reports and data as the board may direct 
and authorize.”40 
For a municipality to have the bare legal power to construct 
water and sewer systems is not in itself sufficient. These systems cost 
money. Municipalities must also have the legal authorization to fi- 
nance such systems if they are to be municipally owned and operated. 
Consequently, matters relating to the problems of finance will be the 
subject matter of the next section. 
Stream 
Pollution 
Board 
38 Horack, 35-201-5. 
39 Burns, 1943 Replacement, 68-520; the Board was created in 1943, 
See Burns Replacement, 68-517. 
40 Acts 1943, ch. 214, sec. 3, p. 624; Burns 1943 Replacement 68-519. VI 
GENERAL AUTHORITY TO FINANCE SEWER 
AND WATER SERVICES 
General Legal Authority 
In general, municipalities have the legal authority to raise and 
appropriate money to pay for improvements which they are em- 
powered by law to construct. The Act of 1905 set forth three 
methods of raising money to provide water supply and sewerage. 
They are: (1) taxation1; (2) borrowing on the general credit of 
the municipality2; (3) assessing the cost of the improvement, par- 
ticularly when sewers are to be financed, against the property bene- 
fited.3 In addition it provided for the use of surplus water-works 
revenues for plant extension.4 Collections of water rents from users 
of water were authorized to pay the expense of managing and 
operating the water works. Surpluses, after the payment of man- 
agerial costs, could then be employed to repair, enlarge or extend 
the works, to pay the interest or principal of any loan incurred for 
the construction of water works, or to create a sinking fund for the 
liquidation of any such debt. This latter method of financing was a 
forerunner of the full revenue method which was set up later. 
Furthermore, the Act of 1905 provided for cities to supply them- 
selves with water and sewerage facilities by the use of private 
capital, that is by contracting with private individuals or corpora- 
tions to provide water and sewerage5 or to use some of the above 
enumerated methods of procuring money in order to cooperate with 
private capital, that is municipalities were authorized to acquire 
stock in private corporations to supply water and “other public 
conveniences.”6 
1 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 31, cl. 3, p. 219; Burns 48-301; sec. 35 
Burns 48-6804; sec. 36, Burns 48-6805; sec. 58, Burns 48-1701; sec. 199, 
Burns 48-6707; sec. 200, Burns 48-6708; sec. 201, Burns 48-6710; sec. 235, 
Burns 48-8008; sec. 257, Burns 48-7209; sec. 267, Burns 48-503. 
2 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 31, cl. 3, p. 219, Burns 48-301; sec. 35, 
Burns 48-6804; sec. 36, Burns 48-6805; sec. 55, Burns 48-1410; sec. 235, 
Burns 48-8008; sec. 249, Burns 48-7201; sec. 257, Burns 48-7209. 
3 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 118, Burns 48-3902; sec. 119, Burns 48-3903, 
sec. 120, Burns 48-3904; sec. 265, Burns 48-2745; sec. 267, Burns 48-503. 
4 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 139, p. 219, Burns 48-5401. 
5 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 85, p. 219, Burns 48-1507; sec. 93, els. 9, 11, 
Burns 48-1902; sec. 253, Burns 48-7301; sec. 254, Burns 48-7302. 
6 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 254, p. 219; Burns 48-7302; also see sec. 93, 
cl. 8, Burns 48-1902. Legal Restrictions On Financing 
61 
Later 
acts 
After 1905 the General Assembly, from time to time author- 
ized municipalities to use other devices described elsewhere 
for financing construction such as complete revenue financing, the 
creation of special taxing districts, or the establishment of separate 
corporate entities for the supply of certain services. 
Constitutional Restrictions on the Borrowing Power 
of Municipal Corporations 
Although the powers to establish and finance public works in 
municipalities are conferred by statute and the legislature is free to 
grant or withhold powers, one cannot understand with full ap- 
preciation the devious existing methods of financing such works 
without some knowledge of the background of constitutional lim- 
itations on municipal borrowing and the judicial interpretations of 
the limitations. The principal limiting provision in the constitution 
is as follows:7 
No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become 
indebted in any manner or for any purpose to an amount in the ag- 
gregate exceeding two per centum on the value of the taxable property 
within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for 
State and county taxes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; 
and all bonds or obligations, in excess of such amount, given by such 
corporation shall be void: Provided, That in time of war, foreign in- 
vasion, or other great public calamity, on petition of a majority of 
property owners, in number and value, within the limits of such corpo- 
ration, the public authorities in their discretion may incur obligations 
necessary for the public protection and defense, to such an amount as 
may be requested in such petition. 
This constitutional limitation appears at first to be so sweeping, 
and exceptions of an ordinary character are so specifically forbidden 
that there could be only one conclusion—namely, cities and towns 
may become indebted not to exceed two per cent of their assessed 
valuation. Therefore, it may be a shock to those unacquainted 
with the niceties of constitutional interpretation to find that in the 
aggregate Indiana cities are already indebted practically, if not 
technically, in an amount equal to more than four and one half 
per cent of their assessed valuation. There could be then, a feeling 
that further discussion of the legal powers for local financing is 
quite useless for most Indiana cities.8 However, a casual examination 
7 Constitution of the State of Indiana, Art. 13, sec. 1. 
8 The total gross indebtedness of cities as shown by the Statistical Report 
for 1942 is $95,566,005.57 and the net assessed valuation is $220,072,217.00; 
the indebtedness amounts to 2.75 per cent of the assessed valuation. 62 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
Ways of 
avoiding 
the lim- 
itation 
of practice and case law will quickly reveal that the 
above quoted constitutional provision is not a bar to any 
community which may need and wish to acquire, extend, 
or construct water works, sewers, and sewage treatment 
plants. Four methods which cities and towns have been authorized 
to use in order to lift community indebtedness beyond the two per 
cent limit set by the constitution on civil cities and towns will be 
mentioned. By community indebtedness, as distinguished from 
civil city or town indebtedness, we mean any debt the making of 
which requires some positive action on the part of the policy-form- 
ing branch of the city or town government and the burden of which 
rests, in its final analysis, upon all or a substantial portion of the 
property or persons within the corporation. 
a. Revenue 
bonds 
One means which municipalities in Indiana in company 
with those of many other states have been using to 
finance the kind of construction under consideration here is the 
so-called revenue bond. A revenue bond is usually specifically stated 
not to be an obligation of the municipal corporation but is payable 
exclusively from the revenues generally of a specified income-pro- 
ducing property. It is not a direct debt of the municipality and 
there is no recourse to any taxing power for payment. The obliga- 
tion may be incurred for the acquisition, construction, or improve- 
ment of the income-producing property.9 The Indiana Supreme 
Court exhibited a willingness to give a liberal construction to the 
two per cent debt limitation provision shortly after it was added to 
the Constitution when debt secured by revenue bonds was being 
considered. For example in 1896 the court said: “Obligations pay- 
able out of a particular fund, and for which the fund only and not 
the municipality is liable, are not within the inhibition.”10 Whether 
bonds payable solely out of the revenues from the operation of a 
a concern owned and operated by a municipal corporation consti- 
tute a debt of that corporation has been an issue passed upon several 
9 For a short general statement of the origin, scope, and growth of this 
financing device in the United States see Revenue Bond Financing by Political 
Subdivisions, United States Printing Office, Washington; 1936 (98968-36-1). 
The term revenue bond “refers exclusively to special obligations of political 
subdivisions, municipal and public corporations which are payable solely from 
the revenues of an income-producing public project or system and issued for 
the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, extension, or improve- 
ment of each project or system.” (Adolph H. Zwerner, “Indiana Municipal 
Bond Financing,” 12 Indiana Law Journal 266). 
10 City of LaPorte v. the Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Company, 146 
Indiana 466 (1896) at p. 471; and earlier case is Quill v. Indianapolis et al, 
124 Ind. 292, (1890). Legal Restrictions On Financing 
63 
times by the court, and each time the court has declared that such 
bonds do not constitute such a debt.11 
Another means of borrowing in excess of two per cent of the 
assessed valuation is by way of special benefit assessment, known in 
Indiana as the Barrett law assessment. By this pro- 
cedure the cost of the improvement is assessed against 
benefited property, the share of the total cost which is 
charged to each piece of property being determined, presumably, by 
the proportionate benfit accruing to it. The Indiana Supreme Court 
has quite consistently approved this method of financing, and as 
consistently, has refused to admit that the obligations assessed against 
the property are a debt of the municipal corporation in which the 
property is situated; therefore the constitutional debt limitation does 
not apply.12 
b. Barret 
assess- 
ment 
A third method of increasing community legal borrowing 
capacity within constitutional bounds is through the use of the 
special taxing district which district may be coterminous 
with the municipality. The sanitary district is an ex- 
ample. The indebtedness of the district is not an obliga- 
tion of the city or town and since the district is in the nature of a 
“special benefit” area and is itself not a municipal corporation the 
two per cent limit does not apply to it. In other words there is no 
specific constitutional limit on the borrowing powers of a special 
taxing district.13 
c. Special 
taxing 
districts 
A fourth means of increasing the total community debt without 
in any way raising the issue of constitutionality is through the 
establishment of a company which makes the improve- 
ment desired and leases it to the municipal corporation, 
which cannot itself incur the debt.14 The state Supreme 
Court has approved such a procedure for a municipal corporation.15 
d. Lease 
purchase 
contract 
11 Fox v. City of Bicknell 193 Ind. 537 (1923); Underwood v. Fair- 
banks Morse & Co., 205 Ind. 316 (1933); Letz Mfg. Co. v. Pub. Ser. Com. 
of Ind., 210 Ind. 467 (1936); Bennet v. Spencer County Bridge Com., 213 
Ind. 520 (1938). 
12 Quill v. Indianapolis, 124 Ind. 292 (1890); Board of Com., Monroe 
County, v. Harrell, 147 Ind. 500 (1897). 
13 An early case in which the validity of the debt of a special tax 
district was upheld was Board of Commissioners v. Harrell 147 Ind. 500 
(1896). 
14 Jefferson School Township v. Jefferson Township School Building Co., 
212 Ind. 542 (1937). 
15 See also Hively v. School City of Nappanee, 202 Ind. 28 (1930). In 
this case the issue is discussed as to whether an obligation, if it does not 
currently exceed the debt limit, may be undertaken to make annual pay- 
ments over a period of years, the total of which if due when the first pay- 
ment was made would obviously exceed the debt limit. 64 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
In closing this rapid review of the constitutional methods of 
incurring debts certain observations may be made.16 The two per 
cent debt limitation clause is a part of the constitution and may not 
be disregarded. Debts which are incurred in violation of it are void.17 
However, under the imperious need for the contemporary solution 
of problems as they arise, the courts have construed the limitation 
narrowly, and ways for local communities to borrow money in 
excess of two per cent of their assessed valuation have been marked 
out clearly. 
Effect of 
restrictions 
It may be concluded, therefore, that any community 
needing water works or sewerage construction should 
first consider that construction solely on its merits, such as: is 
there need for it; can it be paid for without undue burden; will the 
labor costs of the improvement have to be paid out as direct relief 
if the improvement is not made, etc. If in answer to these ques- 
tions, it is determined that the improvement is needed, then it be- 
comes a problem for an attorney to find ways of raising money 
within the four corners of the constitution and in accordance with 
statutory law. 
Statutory and Administrative Restrictions on the Powers of 
Municipalities with regard to Finance 
In the foregoing chapter attention was directed to the general 
legal authority of cities and towns to finance sewerage and water 
systems. Such authority is seldom absolute. Its exercise is generally 
subject to administrative supervision either at the state or local level. 
Furthermore, arbitrary limits on specific or over-all tax rates are 
sometimes prescribed by law. These factors cannot be ignored if 
16 Other means for raising the borrowing power of communities for other 
purposes have been used. Perhaps the first was that of adding an additional 
corporation; Campbell v. Indianapolis, 155 Ind. 186 (1900). Apparently 
the first case in which this principle was stated was: Wilcoxon v. City of 
Bluffton, 153 Ind. 267 (1899). The question arose as to whether the indebt- 
edness of the school city was included in the debt of the civil city, if so, a 
contemplated issue of water works would raise the debt beyond the two 
per cent limit. The court held that the two cities were separate. Other cases 
are Heinl v. Terre Haute, 161 Ind. 44 (1903); Caldwell v. Bauer, 179 Ind. 
146 (1913); Hutchins v. Tremont, 194 Ind. 74 (1924); Follett v. Sheldon, 
195 Ind. 510 (1924). A more recent method in the establishment of a 
special authority is Edwards v. Housing Authority of the City of Muncie, 
215 Ind. 330 (1939). 
17 There are many illustrations in which corporations have attempted to 
borrow contrary to the debt limitation of the constitution. A few cases in 
which the matter was finally determined are: City of Logansport v. Jordan 
171 Ind. 121 (1908); Angola Brick and Tile Co. v. Millgrove School Town- 
ship 73 Ind. App. 557 (1920); Caldwell v. Bauer 179 Ind. 146 (1913). Legal Restrictions On Financing 
65 
one is to secure a complete picture of the process of financing 
municipal public works programs. 
Tax rate 
ceilings 
Two such tax limitations have been imposed by statute 
upon Indiana municipalities. The first is a limitation on 
the maximum tax rate which municipalities may levy to raise money 
for such corporate purposes as street, light, water, and general 
municipal functions. The second is an over-all tax rate which is the 
total tax, exclusive of special assessments, that may be levied within 
the corporation on property. This includes the tax collected for 
state purposes which is prohibited by statue from exceeding fifteen 
cents on each one hundred dollars of the assessed valuation,18 and 
levies for county, school corporation, township, and any special tax- 
ing districts, as well as the city or town corporate levies. 
The maximum town corporate rate was set by the Act of 1905 
at fifty cents on each one hundred dollars valuation plus some dog 
and poll levies.19 Later it was raised to one dollar and 
twenty-five cents where it now is.20 The maximum 
corporate rate for cities, except for a city of the first class, was set 
at one dollar and twenty-five cents in 1905 and has not been 
changed.21 Exceptions, however, were permitted for rates in excess 
of the maximum, for example, the council was empowered if neces- 
sary to add to the maximum rate to raise money to satisfy judg- 
ments against the city. Later, others have been added as will be 
noted in the next paragraph. 
a. Corp- 
orate rates 
Effect of 
corporate 
tax 
ceilings 
There are several reasons for saying that the maximum 
rates which municipalities may set for corporate pur- 
poses do not constitute much of a bar to raising funds 
for the kinds of improvements being discussed here. In 
the first place, the great majority of municipalities now make 
corporate levies well under the maximum. For example, the corporate 
rate of Bloomington is one dollar and seven cents leaving a leeway 
of eighteen cents which, if needed, could be added to the corporate 
rate for financing water and sanitary improvements. In the second 
place, when the corporate limit was established in the Act of 1905, 
18 Acts 1937, ch. 119, sec. 1, p. 646; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-307. 
The state levy for 1944 was eleven cents and has been further reduced for 
future levies as fixed by the State Board of Finance. 
19 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 31, cl. 18, p. 219; Burns 48-301. 
20 Acts 1941, ch. 176, sec. 1, p. 532; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-6806. 
21 Acts 1905, ch. 129, sec. 200, p. 219; Burns 48-6708. The maximum 
rate for Indianapolis was set at ninety cents in 1905; in 1911 it was reduced 
to seventy-five cents, in 1943 the limitation was removed entirely. Acts 1941, 
ch. 213; Burns 1943 Supplement, 48-6728 et seq. 66 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
exceptions were made; since that time, others have been added. 
For example, once direct obligation bonds have been issued, tax 
levies to service them are excepted from these statutory limitations.22 
The result is the corporate levy in any city or town may include 
specific items which would need to be excluded if one were at- 
tempting to find how much could be added to the corporate levy 
for water and sanitary construction. To find what all the excep- 
tions are and how they apply to each municipality would be such 
a complicated matter, that if necessary to get relief from the 
corporate tax ceiling, it might be easier to go to the legislature and 
either ask for clarifying legislation, or another exception to be made 
for levies for water and sanitary construction—a practice the authors 
feel sure has been followed before by Indiana municipalities. 
A third reason why the corporate tax limits do not constitute 
a bar to levying taxes for the purposes of water and sewerage con- 
struction is that the corporate limits for towns can be raised by 
administrative action. The most recent act relating to the maximum 
corporate rate for towns contains the following clause: “Provided, 
however, That in case of an emergency the county board of tax ad- 
justment, subject to approval of the state board of tax commissioners, 
may fix such levy at a rate in excess of said one dollar and twenty- 
five cents.”23 So far as the statute is concerned, what constitutes an 
emergency is left to the discretion of the tax adjustment and state 
tax boards. Consequently, a town wishing to make a levy to build 
up a fund to improve or construct water or sanitary facilities is not 
prevented from doing so even should its corporate levy be at the 
maximum, if its officials will make a convincing appeal to the 
county tax adjustment and state tax boards. 
The maximum over-all tax rate limits present a problem which 
appears at first examination to be more serious. The two-dollar 
rate ceiling is approached or surpassed by practically 
all of the municipalities in the state. According to the 
Statistical Report for 1942 (the most recent one available at this 
writing) there are only three cities and thirty towns out of the 
total of more than 530 municipalities listed as having over-all tax 
rates within the statutory limit, that is of two dollars or less. There 
would actually be more if account were taken of the statutory ex- 
ceptions figured in the published rates. The fact that many cities 
and towns do exceed the maximum indicates that there is a way of 
raising the ceiling. The way of doing this is provided by law. 
b. Over-all 
tax rates 
22 Acts 1937, ch. 119, sec. 11, p. 646; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-317. 
23 Acts 1941, ch. 176, sec. 1, p. 532; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-6806. Legal Restrictions On Financing 
67 
Method of 
raising 
these 
ceilings 
The county tax adjustment board is required “to ex- 
amine, revise, change or reduce, but not increase”24 
the budget of each municipal corporation within the 
county. It is particularly charged with the duty “to 
limit the aggregate of the tax rates in accordance with the provisions 
of this act [two dollars]: Provided, however, That if said board 
shall, as a result of its analysis ... of the budget ... of any municipal 
corporation . . . come to the conclusion that the rate of taxation as 
limited by the provisions of this act is inadequate or that there be 
reasonable necessity for an increase of the aggregate rate, then, in 
that event, the tax adjustment board shall submit in writing such 
recommendations . . . to the state board of tax commissioners . . . ,”25 
However, if the tax adjustment board decreases the levy set 
by the municipal corporation, its officials are authorized to take an 
appeal to the State Board of Tax Commissioners. But whether 
the budget is certified to the state board by the county adjustment 
board or is sent there on appeal by the officials of the municipality, 
the state board after following prescribed procedure, is empowered 
“to revise, change or increase any levy and rate as petitioned for, . . . 
within the limit of the levy and rate originally fixed by” the 
corporation.26 
Attention may be drawn to the standard set in the statute to 
guide the county tax adjustment board in its review of budgets. 
If it finds that the tax rate as limited provides an “inadequate” 
income for the corporation “or that there be reasonable necessity 
for an increase of the aggregate rate,” then it is to recommend a 
lifting of the ceiling by transmitting the budget to the state tax 
board. No standard is set by law to guide the latter board. It is 
therefore to use its own discretion. 
There has been some disposition among spokesmen for Indiana 
cities and towns to seek definite and clear-cut statutory authoriza- 
tion to build up a surplus from tax revenues for the 
construction of improvements.27 However, despite the 
call for such action, the special session of the General 
Assembly which met in 1944 did not legislate in regard to this 
matter. However, it would seem that if town and city budget 
makers are of the opinion that a fund should be accumulated for 
construction or extension purposes, they are free to include a sum for 
Tax levies 
for build- 
ing 
24 Acts 1937, ch. 119, sec. 5, p. 646; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-311. 
25 Acts 1937, ch. 119, sec. 5, p. 646; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-311. 
20 Acts 1937, ch. 119, sec. 8, p. 646; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-314. 
27 See Maurice Early, Indianapolis Star, January 2, March 2, 5, 9, 1944, 
col. 1. 68 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
that purpose when their budget is prepared. When the rates are 
calculated, if the over-all rate exceeds the two dollar limit as 
practically all of the municipal rates now do, the county tax ad- 
justment board must either reduce the rate to the two-dollar limit 
or certify the budget to the State Board of Tax Commissioners, a 
board which is appointed and may be removed by the governor.28 
With the broad powers cities and towns now have to levy taxes 
and appropriate money for municipal purposes, we believe such 
corporations can provide money for immediate preliminary plan- 
ning if not for postponed construction of water works and sewerage 
systems. To do this the local governing body must show a willing- 
ness to place the item in the budget, and the State Board of Tax 
Commissioners must recognize the need for the tax levy when local 
budgets are reviewed by it. 
Administra- 
tive super- 
vision of 
municipal 
borrowing 
Not only may the budgets and tax rates of cities and 
towns be reviewed and revised by a state agency, but 
also proposed bond issues of such corporations may 
be subject to review, revision, or even vote. Under 
the so-called “Indiana Plan” of review of local bor- 
rowing, if “any municipal corporation . . . issue any bonds or other 
evidences of indebtedness . . . [which] it may deem necessary . . . 
a. By the 
State 
Tax 
Board 
exceeding five thousand dollars, ten taxpayers may file 
a petition in order to have the purpose or the amount 
of the issue reviewed by the State Board of Tax Com- 
missioners.29 After a hearing the board is to determine 
whether the bonds may be issued, and if so, the amount. The 
decision of the board is “final.” Furthermore, all issues of bonds 
bearing interest in excess of five per cent must be approved by the 
board, regardless of any petition of interested citizens,30 but no issue 
may bear more than six per cent interest. 
b. By the 
Public 
Service 
Commis- 
sion 
A much less significant provision for state review is that 
providing that cities of the fifth class under certain 
circumstances may not issue revenue bonds for the addi- 
tion or extension of water works until the approval of 
the Public Service Commission has been secured. The 
approval in the cases when it is required is a certification that the 
income from the water works will be sufficient to pay costs of 
28 Acts 1943, ch. 125, sec. 2, p. 379; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-1341. 
29 Acts 1921, ch. 222, sec. 4, p. 638; also Acts 1923, ch. 93, sec. 1, 
p. 264; Burns Replacement 64-1332. 
30 Acts 1923, ch. 93, sec. 1, p. 264; Burns Replacement 64-1332; Citi- 
zens Bank v. Burnettsville, 98 Ind. App. 92, (1932). Legal Restrictions On Financing 
69 
operation, maintenance, and depreciation and to pay principal and 
interest of bonds that may be sold.31 
Miscellaneous 
limitations 
There are specific statutory limitations and require- 
ments or both which must be observed by a munici- 
pality wishing to finance extensions or new construction. Practically 
every statute concerned with the manner of financing the kind of 
improvements being considered here has some kind of limitation. 
Some examples chosen more or less at random will be given. If a 
city or town wishes to construct a sewerage system 
under the Revenue Act of 1932, it must take sufficient 
funds from the first proceeds of the sale of bonds to 
replace moneys used to pay preliminary costs;32 it must 
use such funds as are provided in the act to meet obligations in- 
curred in the building of such sewerage systems.33 Illustrations such 
as this show that once a statute has been chosen, then all procedure 
prescribed by that act is to be followed. Referring again to the 
Revenue Act of 1932: this statute as indicated by its title and con- 
tent was meant to provide a particular method of financing the con- 
struction or extension of sewage treatment plants. Incidentally, the 
act, particularly as amended,34 provided for the construction of 
sewers in order to collect and treat sewage. Consequently, it is sub- 
mitted that a municipality attempting to build a system of sewers 
without a treatment plant but at the same time using the methods 
of financing as provided for in that act, would likely find that its 
bonds were void. Likewise in other statutes, a method of manage- 
ment may be provided, such as the Water Works Department Act 
of 193 3.35 Should a municipality elect to exercise the powers granted 
by it to set up a department, then a board is to be appointed which 
is to have the exclusive management of water works, and the mat- 
ters relating to finance in the act are to be followed explicitly by 
the board. 
a. Statutes 
to be ob- 
served 
faithfully 
b. Debt 
limit for 
special 
districts 
Another type of limitation is a debt limitation for the 
special taxing districts. Since these districts do not con- 
stitute a municipal or political corporation within the 
meaning of the constitution, the only legal limit to the 
31 Acts 1933, ch. 259, sec. 11, p. 1147; Burns 48-5451; Letz Mgn. Co. v. 
The Public Service Com., 210 Ind. 467, (1936); also see 1936, Op. Atty-Gen., 
p. 38. 
32 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 4, p. 209; Burns 48-4304. 
33 Acts 1932, ch. 61, sec. 8, p. 209; Burns 48-4308. 
34 Acts 1935, ch. 198, sec. 1, p. 967; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-4301. 
35 Acts 1933, ch. 235, p. 1063; Burns 48-5301 et seq. 70 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
amount of debt which may be incurred by them is that established 
by statute. An example is found in the Sanitary District Law of 
1917,36 which at the time of its enactment provided that bonds 
might not be issued in excess of eight-tenths of one per cent of the 
total assessed valuation of the property within the district.37 Re- 
cently it has been amended to permit indebtedness up to two per 
cent of the assessed valuation of the property within the district.38 
c. Petitions 
for bond 
issues 
The popular approval of the issuance of bonds or other 
policy matters has never been widely used in Indiana. 
However, a law enacted in 1937 makes it possible for 
a majority of the voter-taxpayers in a municipality to veto any bond 
issue which is to be financed through a tax levy.39 
It has already been mentioned that the failure to follow the 
law specifically in the issuance of bonds may result in their being 
void. The embarrassment both to the holder of worthless bonds, to 
the municipality issuing them, and the damage to its good name and 
credit are not the only considerations envolved. Such 
action may damage the credit of other municipalities 
in the same region or in the whole state. It is just as 
important to follow the law specifically with regard to 
the management of finances other than that concerned with indebt- 
edness and bond issues. An official who does not follow the law 
specifically with regard to the handling of public money may be 
made personally responsible for money honestly but illegally ex- 
pended. For certain types of misuse of public funds, the official 
might even become criminally liable. Under American practice 
citizens might complain or grand juries might investigate if an 
official was suspected of mishandling public funds. However, in 
Indiana an administrative agency has been set up to perform this 
function, among others., in behalf of the public. The agency is 
the Department of Inspection and Supervision of Public Offices, 
commonly called the State Board of Accounts. It is required that 
“all accounts and all financial affairs of every public office” be 
examined “at least once each year” to find “whether the laws of 
the state and the requirements” of the board of accounts have been 
d. Review 
by State 
Board of 
Accounts 
30 Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 1, p. 573; Burns 48-4201 et seq. 
37 Acts 1917, ch. 157, sec. 17, p. 573; Burns 48-4217. 
38 Acts 1943, ch. 107, sec. 3, p. 332; Burns 1943 Supplement 48-4217. 
39 Acts 1937, ch. 119, sec. 7, p. 646 as amended 1939, ch. 97, sec. 1, p. 
507; Burns 1943 Replacement 64-313. Legal Restrictions On Financing 
71 
“complied with” and to inquire “into the methods and accuracy of 
the accounts and reports of the office examined.”40 
Effect of 
limitation 
on general 
powers 
Constitutional and statutory restrictions and adminis- 
trative prescriptions on the power of cities are causative 
factors in the growth of the maze of statutes relating 
to water and sewerage systems enacted since 1905. In 
many cases cities, and in fewer cases, towns, have exhausted their 
powers, for example, to borrow; or they find that general limitations 
leave them in a weak position. Consequently, they have gone to 
the General Assembly with their special problems to seek ways of 
avoiding general limitations, or for grants of power to meet a 
special set of circumstances. The legislature has responded frequently 
by enacting a statute calculated to ease the way around a particular 
difficulty but also in many cases, it added a detailed procedure 
which the city, perhaps along with other cities, was required to 
follow. Some of these detailed procedures will be illustrated in other 
sections of this study. 
40 Acts 1909, ch. 55, sec. 9, p. 136; Burns Replacement 60-211. Al- 
though the law requires annual inspection, it is not always possible because 
of shortage in field examiners to do this. However, the examination is com- 
plete even though more than a year has elapsed between visits of the field 
examiners. VII 
SUGGESTIONS FOR GETTING STARTED 
Should one merely glance hurriedly through the pages of this 
pamphlet, he could hardly escape the conclusion that the legal 
work connected with the construction, or even the operation of a 
water works or a sewerage system is technical and complicated. But 
it is no more technical nor complicated than is the engineering work 
involved, particularly, in the design and construction of such plants. 
While the legislature changes the law almost every session with re- 
gard to powers or procedures of municipalities, inventors, engineers, 
chemists, operators and others are continually finding improvements 
in procedures and equipment for the supply and purification of 
water and the collection and treatment of sewage and trade wastes. 
These improvements are the signs of progress. And while the 
statutes relating to municipal powers are needlessly complicated in 
Indiana, the experience of the centuries has shown that the exercises 
of governmental powers and the protection of private rights can 
never be simple because human relations are complicated. 
The necessity for having competent engineering service in con- 
nection with water supply and sewerage projects finds legal recogni- 
tion in law in the two following clauses quoted from an act of 193511 
. . . no . . . city, [or] town . . . shall engage in the construction or 
maintenance of any public work involving professional engineering . . . 
for which plans, specifications and estimates have not been made by and 
the construction and maintenance supervised by a licensed professional 
engineer .... 
No official of . . . any city, [or] town, . . . charged with the 
enforcement of any law, ordinance, or regulation relating to the con- 
struction or alteration of buildings or structure, shall use or accept or 
approve any plans or specifications that have not been prepared by or 
under the supervision of a registered professional engineer or registered 
architect and stamped with the seal of such registered professional 
engineer or registered architect. 
Thus the law places a floor under the minimum competence 
necessary for engineering work; but the highly specialized functions 
of designing, preparing plans and specifications, and making cost 
estimates for many water works and sewerage problems make it im- 
perative that a municipality secure the services of a consulting engi- 
neer and thus do more than meet the minimum legal requirements. 
1 Acts 1935, ch. 148, sec. 19, a and c pars., p. 510; Burns 1943 Replace- 
ment 63-1535. Getting Started 
73 
Technological advances in this field are of such importance 
that no city or town can afford to construct a plant which because 
of such advancements is out of date even before it is completed. 
Very few city or town engineers can be expected to keep completely 
up-to-date on these improvements. In many cases it would take a 
considerable part of the salary which is paid to these officials for 
them to try to keep abreast of changes in water and sewerage 
services alone, not to mention the other fields of endeavor in which 
the engineer in general practice needs to be informed. 
The requirement that municipalities have competent legal ad- 
vice comes indirectly from the law, but is enforced by a more exact- 
ing and imperious mandate, economic law. A recent statute requires 
that “all bonds hereafter issued by or in the name of . . . cities, or 
towns . . . and special taxing districts, or agencies or instrumentalities 
thereof, whether the same be general obligations or issued in anticipa- 
tion of the collection of special taxes or be payable out of revenues, 
shall be sold at public sale . . . .”2 This statutory requirement, coupled 
with the general legal proposition that bonds issued contrary to law 
may be worthless, provides the basis for the law of the market 
which compels municipalities to get the so-called “bond opinion.” 
This bond opinion is the approval of the bond issue by a recognized 
bond attorney, which is necessary before the bonds will sell at “public 
sale.” Bond handling establishments, as a general practice, do not 
buy bonds unless the legality of the issue has been approved by an 
attorney in whom they have confidence. 
An example of the pitfalls awaiting the municipality which tries 
to get along without the opinion of a bond attorney may be seen by 
referring to an act of 1929.3 Bond buyers, it is said, object to the 
amortization plan set out in section 2 of this act. No one but a 
person who has had opportunity to observe the sale of bonds would 
be likely to have this information, consequently, bonds issued under 
this act probably would not sell at all. 
It may be observed that both the city engineer and the city 
attorney, like many members of other professions, such as medicine, 
are general practitioners. The body of knowledge with which they 
must be reasonably familiar is too vast for them to be able to deal 
in detail with all problems, and as is the case with general practi- 
tioners in the medical profession, they must have the assistance of 
specialists in a particular branch when problems of an exceptional 
2 Acts 1943, ch. 178, sec. 1, p. 538; Burns 1943 Replacement 61-413. 
3 Acts 1929, ch. 135, p. 441; Burns 1943 Replacement 61-401. Another 
act bond attorneys frown upon is Acts 1937, ch. 72, p. 395; Burns 1943 
Supplement 48-5455. 74 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
nature arise. The specialists in this instance are consulting sanitary 
engineers and bond attorneys. 
In making the decision as to whether construction or extension 
is to be undertaken, frequently there are two stages. The first is the 
informal or “caucus” stage. It is at this point that the city or town 
attorney or some other official of the municipality is directed to 
inform himself as to the possible procedures which might be followed. 
In informing himself, he should, if possible, advise with a recognized 
bond attorney, a competent consulting sanitary engineer, and the 
State Board of Health. The bond attorney, when he is told of the 
kind of improvement which is being considered will advise as to 
types of financing available, condition of the bond market and 
probable interest rates, and particularly what the initial formal steps 
should be. The engineer or the State Board of Health will discuss 
the kinds of information which will need to be gathered, and the 
usual methods of obtaining it. Usually without an engineering in- 
vestigation no definite answer can be given from an engineering 
standpoint as to the practicability of the proposed project. In such 
cases the consulting engineer may need to conduct surveys and 
gather other data in order to make what is called an engineering 
report. It is on the basis of this report that the municipality is able 
to reach a final decision as to whether the project should be prepared 
for construction. 
A word of caution may be added with regard to the engineer’s 
report, namely, that some officials feel that this is as far as they 
need to go in preparing now for subsequent construction. But as has 
been indicated, this report is just the beginning. 
Should the council, or board of trustees become satisfied that 
the improvement being contemplated is necessary, possible, and suf- 
ficiently practicable to merit proceeding further, then comes the 
second or formal stage. The necessary preliminary ordinances and 
resolutions are then passed and the services of a competent consult- 
ing engineer are secured to design the required improvements and 
to prepare plans and specifications. The engineer who prepared the 
preliminary report should be retained for this work. In fact, many 
competent engineers decline to make the engineer’s report except on 
the condition that if the project is carried to completion, they will 
be employed for the preparation of plans and specifications and the 
supervision of construction. In this way they are able to make the 
preliminary engineering report for a smaller consideration than would 
be possible if their assignment should include only the preparation of 
the report. Getting Started 
75 
The engineer should be employed either to handle the project 
independently, or with the assistance of the local engineer. In most 
instances, when adequate information as to necessity, etc., is avail- 
able, it will be advisable for the municipality to proceed directly to 
the second or formal stage without the preparation of a formal pre- 
liminary report. It is desirable that this be done only in those cases 
when the circumstances are such that there is little or no question 
regarding the necessity or scope of the contemplated project. 
An experienced bond attorney, except in certain cases later dis- 
cussed, should be retained in the early stages of the proceedings if 
the city or town expects to finance the project through borrowing. 
Every legal step in the process, if the construction is eventually 
undertaken, will of necessity be under scrutiny by a bond attorney 
before he can give an opinion, or by a court if the matter is. litigated. 
There are numerous cases in which municipalities have failed to 
proceed exactly as specified by statute, for example, failing to do 
the required advertising before bonds were offered for sale, with the 
result that they have had to readvertise two or three times before 
attaining the precise steps as set forth in the statute—steps which 
a competent bond attorney would have pointed out in the first place. 
If a competent bond attorney has been retained at the proper time, 
he will then be available to the local attorney in the preparation 
of ordinances, contracts, etc., and to advise as to the proper statute 
or statutes under which to proceed. 
There are two conditions under which the service of a recognized 
bond counsel may not be so nearly indispensable at every step in 
the procedure. First, should the initial investigation show that the 
most advantageous method of financing the construction is through 
the sale of general obligation bonds, it may be that the city at- 
torney is experienced in handling such bonds. But even then reputa- 
ble bond buyers will require an “opinion” of recognized bond coun- 
sel before acquiring such securities.. Second, if a municipality has 
been sufficiently foresighted to build up a fund to finance such 
construction from tax sources or the receipts from the operation of 
a utility, then the services of specialized legal counsel may be neces- 
sary only in special cases. 
A word properly may be said with regard to the qualifications 
of the consulting engineer or engineering firm, and the expert bond 
counsel and the conditions under which their services may be ob- 
tained. In the first place, consideration should be given to the ex- 
perience and professional background of the persons or firms chosen. 
It is important to select an engineering consultant who not only is 76 
Water and Sewerage Systems 
competent in the technical field but also is experienced in organizing 
and establishing projects of the type under consideration. The selec- 
tion should not be on a competitive basis. One incompetent in the 
field may cost the city in construction costs much more than can be 
saved through a lower fee. Furthermore, it is not proper to ask 
engineers to present competitive bids since it is a violation of their 
own code of ethics to do this. As to the qualifications of the bond 
counsel, he must be well versed in Indiana municipal law to the 
end that his opinion will be accepted as authoritative by bond 
brokers and investment bankers or others interested in the pur- 
chase of bonds. 
After having determined which consulting engineer or engineer- 
ing firm is to be retained, the municipality should enter into an 
engineering contract for the preparation of complete plans and 
specifications. Before the plans and specifications can be approved 
by the Indiana State Board of Health and before revenue bonds can 
be sold, it will be necessary that the engineer prepare a report de- 
scribing the project in detail, setting forth design factors and pre- 
senting technical data justifying the design which is to be followed. 
If such data were included in a preliminary report, usually no 
further report is necessary. The engineer should, as soon as he has 
determined the estimated cost of the proposed improvement, pro- 
vide the information to the local attorney and bond counsel so that 
they may advise, with respect to type of bonds, interest rates and 
amortization provisions. 
The following example of part of the detailed procedure re- 
quired of the consulting engineer in developing a sewage treatment 
plant project is set forth since it illustrates principles involved in 
other projects. This work will supplement that of preparing designs, 
and plans and specifications. 
(a) The engineer first must decide the scope of the territory that will 
contribute the sewage to be collected and treated, and must estimate 
the amount of surface water and runoff, if the sewers are to carry 
both sewage and storm water. This will involve a decision as to whether 
a combined system will be built, or whether a separate system will be 
constructed with sanitary sewers collecting the surface water and dis- 
charging it to the nearest water-course without treatment. At the same 
time flow measurements must be taken in existing sewers to determine 
definitely the amount of sewage to be treated. Estimates also must be 
made of the probable amount of sewage to be treated during a period 
of from 10 to 15 years in the future. 
(b) After the amounts of sewage have been estimated, the character- 
istics of the sewage must be studied. Laboratory analyses should be 
made of all sewage and industrial waste to determine their character- Getting Started 
77 
istics. From these determinations the type of sewage treatment to be 
provided can be selected. 
(c) After ascertaining the number of immediate and potential users, 
rate schedules must be fixed in order to realize sufficient funds to 
amortize the investment if the bond issue is the revenue type. 
(d) While this investigation of the type of treatment, the size of the 
plant, and the amount of money required is in progress, the engineer 
should be in constant touch with the city attorney and with the bond 
counsel, who will help to decide definitely which statute and method 
of financing is most applicable to that particular project. Resolutions 
and ordinances must be prepared by the attorney in collaboration with 
the bond counsel so that each step as provided under the statute chosen 
may be followed meticulously. 
The closeness of the relationship between the work of the con- 
sulting engineer and the bond attorney may not be apparent to the 
layman or even to the lay-official. Their relationship can be illustrat- 
ed in the case of revenue bonds by the fact that the bond contract 
must contain a schedule of rates for the utility. These rates are 
based, of course, upon data prepared by the engineer. Also it is 
obvious even to the uninitiated, that a bond buyer would require data 
showing the potential earning capacity of a project before he would 
buy revenue bonds. 
These data also are provided by the engineer. Every legal step 
could be perfectly executed and still a community would find that 
its bonds would not sell if the financial and engineering work were 
unsound, and, conversely, the engineering work could be carefully 
executed and a sound financial structure established, yet the bonds 
would still be of doubtful value if the legal proceedings were ques- 
tionable. 
It is not the intention of the authors to make the engineering 
or legal preparations appear to be impossible or even unusually diffi- 
cult, because, as has been pointed out in other sections of this mono- 
graph, some 430 municipalities in Indiana have satisfactorily con- 
structed some type of water or sewerage plant or both. It is our 
purpose to indicate that the work of municipalities, like the work of 
other important social and political organizations, requires in some 
instances specialized knowledge possessed only by those who spend 
their time and energies in those particular fields. 
Our municipalities are our homes and they are worthy of the 
best. VIII 
THE CITIES AND TOWNS OF THE STATE WITH DATA 
AS TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL SANITARY AND 
FISCAL CONDITIONS 
The purpose of the list of cities and towns in the following 
pages is to supply elementary data with regard to water, sewers, 
and sewage treatment plants along with similar elementary data 
with regard to the financial situation of each municipality. 
These data were collected from a number of sources. To make 
the compilation complete and current, several different published 
reports and office files were examined. The 1940 United States 
Census tabulation was nearly complete; to it were added a few 
names from the latest issue of the Statistical Report of the State of 
Indiana, and also a few places from the reports on file in the offices 
of the Auditor of the State and the State Board of Health. The 
general location of each municipality is indicated by listing the 
county in which it is situated. The population, when available, is 
given for both 1930 and 1940 in order to indicate any observable 
trend in population in the ten-year period. 
The data with regard to the water supplies of cities and towns 
in Indiana were taken principally from the “Annual Report of the 
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,” now the Division of Environ- 
mental Sanitation, as published in the Indiana Yearbook for 1942. 
This source was supplemented by the Indiana State Board of Health 
Bulletin S.E. 10, which contains information on all Indiana ground 
water supplies, and from the files of the State Board of Health. 
The mark “X” in the column headed treatment under water 
supply indicates that a city or town has water treatment; it does 
not refer to the quality of treatment. The treatment may be inade- 
quate, or it may be sufficient for certain purposes but not others. 
For the type of treatment, if any, in use for each public water 
supply see the annual reports of the State Board of Health in the 
Indiana Yearbook. 
Most of the public water supplies in Indiana are municipally 
owned; they are designated by the letter, “M”; however, more than 
forty, the plants in Indianapolis and Gary included, are privately 
owned. There are marked “P.” There are two owned by the Fed- 
eral Government and they are marked “F.” 
Sewer Systems and Sewage Treatment Plants, 1941 publication 
of the Cincinnati Station of the United States Public Health Service, The Cities And Towns Of Indiana 
79 
contains information on the estimated number of people in Indiana 
who were served by sewers in 1940 and on the places which had 
sewage treatment plants. The breakdown of data in the pamphlet 
on sewage treatment plants is very complete. Included are such 
items as: the date each plant was built, the estimated population the 
plant was designed to serve, the type of treatment employed. In our 
tabulation the degree of treatment which is used in the various 
municipalities is not indicated in the list. The mark “X” is used 
to designate those places which have treatment plants, regardless of 
whether it is complete or totally inadequate and makeshift. 
The last nine columns in the table give a bird’s-eye view of the 
financial condition of each incorporated place in the state. The 
tax rates for municipalities, such as Indianapolis, which are situated 
in more than one township, were compiled in the following manner: 
The total over-all tax levy and the net assessed valuation of taxables 
were determined for each of the several parts of a given corporation 
according to the township in which it is situated. The respective 
levies and valuations were then combined. The total given for each 
multi-township city or town is the quotient resulting from dividing 
such composite levies by the corresponding composite valuations. 
Fortunately, in only a compartively few places was it necessary to 
calculate these synthetic rates. The figures on the net assessed valua- 
tion and the tax rates in each city and town were taken from the as 
yet unpublished reports in the office of the State Auditor. The 
amount of the debt liability of each city or town was copied from 
data compiled in the office of the State Statistician. It should be 
pointed out that the debts listed may not be the only local debt 
obligations resting on the taxpayers or property within these munici- 
pal corporations. County, civil township, and, especially in towns, 
school township debts may rest pro rata upon cities and towns; and 
in addition, Barret law bonds are still outstanding against property 
in many municipal corporations. City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
Source 
Treatment 
Ownership 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal Utility Bonds 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
General 
Obligation 
365 
990 
17 
155 
1623 
1234 
4801 
106 
78 
340 
358 
932 
28 
163 
1413 
1108 
4408 
90 
109 
342 
260,590 
885.890 
251,390 
32,385 
1,116,405 
870,010 
2,516,495 
32,740 
20,310 
175.890 
1.92 
2.02 
2.09 
2.44 
3.22 
2.20 
3.82 
2.64 
3.15 
1.88 
G 
M 
450 
.. . 
G 
G 
G 
X 
M 
M 
M 
650 
800 
3400 
37.000 
40.000 
3,000 
5,000 
X 
37,119.67 
42,500 
KEY TO THE SYMBOLS AND LETTERS USED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLES 
1. Cities and towns are listed together in their alphabetical order. Cities are designated by placing after each the number of the class 
to which it belongs. All places having no numbers are towns. 
2. There are some towns about which no information is available except that they are reported in the State Auditor’s office as having 
an assessed valuation and a tax rate. There are also unincorporated places which, according to information from the State Board 
of Health, have public water supplies. These places are ommitted from their positions in the alphabetical order and placed at the 
bottom of the page. A dagger (f) indicates the position in the list where one would have appeared if the normal amount of informa- 
tion were available, or if they were incorporated. 
3. In the column under water supply labeled source “G” indicates ground water supply and “S” surface water supply. 
4. In the column labeled treatment under water supply and also in the column sewage treatment the mark “X” is used to 
indicate that the municipality has some form of treatment. This does not indicate the quality of treatment for either water 
or sewage. 
5. In the column labeled ownership under water supply the mark “M” refers to municipal ownership; “P” refers to private ownership; 
and “F” refers to federal ownership of water-works plants. 
6. Valuations and tax rates are those fixed in 1941, upon which taxes were collected in 1942. These were the latest published figures 
when the material was prepared. 
7. All debts of the cities and towns except the school debts are as of December 31, 1942; the school debts are as of July 31, 1943. Ambia 
Benton 
603 
433 
G 
M 
375 
250,990 
2.64 
Amboy 
Miami 
450 
431 
246,520 
2.85 
Amo 
Hendricks 
288 
278 
228,990 
2.24 
Anderson 2 
Madison 
41572 
39804 
G 
X 
M 
39500 
X 
38,895,510 
2.80 
1,170,000 
362,100.50 
387,000 
Andrews 
Huntington 
954 
883 
G :S 
X 
M 
300 
476,500 
2.88 
16,500 
2,000 
Angola 5 
Steuben 
3141 
2665 
G 
X 
M 
2400 
X 
3,344,180 
2.92 
54,000 
30,500 
28,000 
Arcadia 
Hamilton 
968 
912 
G 
M 
410 
508,490 
2.66 
5,500 
1,500 
Argos 
Marshall 
1190 
1211 
G 
X 
M 
600 
781,255 
2.26 
134 000 
Ashley 
DeKalb-Steuben 
675 
623 
G 
M 
336,610 
2.989 
23,000 
920 
Atlanta 
Hamilton 
479 
551 
205,580 
2.66 
Attica 5 
Fountain 
3760 
3700 
G 
M 
2500 
2,511,270 
3.24 
27,500 
Auburn 5 
DeKalb 
5415 
5088 
G 
X 
M 
5000 
X 
5,090,580 
2.24 
77,500 
19,571 
Aurora 5f 
Dearborn 
4828 
4386 
S 
X 
P 
2200 
2,781,740 
2.56 
17,500 
33,000 
Avllla 
Noble 
534 
559 
G 
M 
400 
337,990 
1.94 
Bainbridge 
Putnam 
414 
406 
198,754 
2.20 
Bargersville 
Johnson 
297 
282 
G 
X 
M 
197,400 
1.32 
7,000 
Batesville 5 
Ripley 
3065 
283s 
S 
X 
M 
2000 
X 
2,561,172 
2.80 
98,250 
30,500 
24,645 
Battleground 
Tippecanoe 
506 
448 
G 
X 
M 
337,245 
2.21 
2,450 
9,286 
Bedford 4 
Lawrence 
12514 
13208 
S 
X 
M 
11300 
X 
9,250,175 
3.26 
24,000 
5,500 
23,450 
Beech Grove 5 
Marion 
3907 
3552 
G :S 
3200 
X 
3,761,110 
2.932 
11,000 
45,941.92 
24,000 
Berne 
Adams 
2075 
1883 
G 
M 
1 400 
2,077,752 
2.64 
18,200 
26,400 
Bicknell 5 
Knox 
5110 
5212 
G 
X 
M 
1200 
1,737,050 
4.3185 
119,500 
24,500 
27,000 
Birdseye 
Dubois 
370 
366 
122,510 
2.66 
Bloomfield 
Greene 
2270 
2298 
G 
P 
1500 
X 
1,610,505 
4.18 
5,200 
Bloomingdale 
Parke 
432 
412 
177,930 
3.14 
Bloomington 3 
Monroe 
20870 
18227 
s 
X 
M 
14000 
X 
17,422,085 
3.156 
577,000 
425,000 
42,000 
Blountsville 
Henry 
169 
151 
86,200 
2.44 
Bluffton 5 
Wells 
5417 
5074 
G 
X 
M 
4200 
X 
4,259,010 
2.94 
67,000 
58,500 
41,000 
Boonville 5 
Warrick 
4526 
4208 
G 
X 
M 
2500 
2,452,315 
3.92 
558,900 
22,000 
30,500 
Boston 
Wayne 
182 
184 
139,983 
1.62 
Boswell 
Benton 
877 
817 
G 
X 
M 
600 
782,195 
2.66 
3,500 
8 700 
Bourbon 
Marshall 
1145 
1193 
G 
X 
P 
1050 
873,615 
2.28 
6,000 
Bowling Green 
Clay 
219 
257 
(Not 
n U.S. ( 
Brazil 5 
Clay 
8126 
8744 
G 
X 
M 
6000 
X 
4,583,225 
3.843 
47,650 
37,950 
84,800 
Bremen 
Marshall 
2179 
2105 
G 
M 
1470 
1,669,875 
2.33 
t Austin 
i Scott 
650 
S 
X 
P City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
<D 
O 
U 
P 
O 
m 
■P 
a 
V 
e 
-p 
£ 
Eh 
ft 
2 
CO 
£ 
c 
* 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal X. 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
Itility Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Bristol 
Elkhart 
694 
699 
639,196 
2.44 
Bronson 
Randolph 
253 
252 
150,060 
2.33 
Brook 
Newton 
888 
815 
G 
X 
M 
700 
596,850 
3.18 
Brooklyn 
Morgan 
485 
545 
196,538 
2.48 
1,500 
Brooksburg 
Jefferson 
100 
112 
29,490 
2.54 
Brookston 
White 
826 
844 
G 
M 
400 
610,510 
1.82 
28,000 
11,000 
Brookville 
Franklin 
2194 
2148 
G 
X 
M 
1430 
2,099,425 
2.50 
21,000 
Brownsburg 
Hendricks 
1136 
1042 
G 
M 
800 
X 
821,000 
2.48 
10,500 
Brownstown 
Jackson 
1860 
1758 
G 
X 
P 
300 
1,062,460 
2.58 
9,500 
9,000 
Bryant 
Jay 
332 
319 
166,390 
2.39 
Bunker Hill 
561 
528 
G 
M 
200 
358,700 
3.46 
4,500 
Burket 
Kosciusko 
216 
124,247 
1.93 
Burnetts ville 
White 
436 
402 
262,180 
2.34 
Butler 
DeKalb 
1794 
1643 
G 
M 
1000 
X 
1,298,200 
2.88 
1,500 
7,000 
8,000 
Cadiz 
Henry 
182 
165 
60,730 
2.09 
2207 
2113 
G 
X 
M 
1500 
x 
1,909,536 
2.66 
2 000 
6,800 
590 
538 
G 
M 
400 
315,700 
2.69 
3,750 
4,000 
608 
558 
279,746 
3.74 
4,250 
3,825 
145 
132 
47,815 
3.20 
2240 
2265 
G 
X 
M 
1500 
1,026,350 
4.14 
140,000 
6,500 
510 
476 
174,290 
3.72 
874 
852 
502,210 
3.86 
5,500 
771 
682 
G 
M 
350 
579,780 
2.66 
12,400 
5,000 
937 
931 
G 
M 
100 
750,040 
2.12 
29,000 
4,000 
232 
222 
114,200 
1.93 
1126 
968 
G 
X 
M 
400 
477,520 
5.06 
11,000 
16,000 
204 
221 
89,200 
2.70 
332 
372 
179,100 
3.24 
1162 
993 
G 
M 
900 
726,166 
2.20 
10,000 
4,000 
White 
475 
510 
G 
X 
M 
300 
345,670 
2.00 
30,000 Charlestown 
Clark 
939 
859 
G 
X 
M 
X 
653,785 
2.58 
S2 son 
5,500 
Chesterfield 
Madison 
581 
460 
G 
M 
341,090 
3.13 
37,000 
Chesterton 
Porter 
2470 
2231 
G 
X 
P 
1500 
2,094,310 
2.62 
Chrisney 
Spencer 
437 
414 
208,982 
3.22 
1,500 
Churubusco 
Whitley 
1122 
1095 
G 
P 
1000 
798,350 
1.90 
Cicero 
Hamilton 
943 
933 
G 
M 
800 
392,460 
2.86 
1 4 000 
4,500 
Clarks Hill 
Tippecanoe 
381 
428 
G 
X 
M 
261,465 
2.48 
30,000 
Clarksville 
Clark 
2386 
2243 
G 
X 
1500 
4,368,270 
2.90 
34,000 
8,000 
Clay City 
Clay 
1117 
1079 
400 
556,130 
2.86 
Claypool 
Kosciusko 
423 
382 
G 
M 
266,935 
3.04 
7,000 
Claysburg 
Clark 
597 
615 
G 
X 
177,495 
3.25 
Clayton 
Hendricks 
558 
561 
426,720 
2.42 
Clear Lake 
Steuben 
65 
491,525 
1.92 
Clermont 
Marion 
465 
448 
G 
X 
M 
150 
319,990 
2.62 
37,500 
Clifford 
Bartholmew 
188 
179 
54,135 
1.47 
Clinton 5 
Vermillion 
7092 
7936 
G 
X 
M 
6000 
3,061,355 
4.40 
57,000 
32,000 
31,000 
Cloverdale 
Putnam 
657 
627 
G 
X 
M 
378,548 
2.98 
35,500 
Coatesville 
Hendricks 
377 
434 
403,690 
2.22 
Colfax 
Clinton 
717 
690 
G 
M 
200 
457,305 
3.08 
7,500 
Columbia City 5 
Whitley 
4219 
3805 
G 
M 
3600 
4,175,970 
2.32 
16,000 
Columbus 4 
Bartholomew 
11738 
9935 
S 
X 
M 
9000 
13,712,040 
2.27 
127,000 
126,000 
Connersville 4 
Fayette 
12898 
12795 
G 
M 
9800 
10,626,300 
2.74 
45,000 
6,000 
3,000 
Converse 
Miami 
943 
931 
G 
M 
650 
622,430 
3.20 
7,400 
Corunna 
DeKalb 
278 
268 
188,540 
2.06 
Corydon 
Harrison 
1865 
2009 
S 
X 
M 
2250 
X 
1,252,690 
4.04 
39,500 
2,000 
Covington 5 
Fountain 
2096 
2008 
G 
X 
M 
1000 
815,070 
3.26 
5,500 
3,000 
Crandall t 
Harrison 
146 
132 
64,325 
2.71 
Crawfordsville 4 
Montgomery 
11089 
10355 
G 
X 
P 
8000 
X 
10,054,695 
2.92 
84,000 
115,000 
Cromwell 
Noble 
399 
371 
G 
M 
190 
346,585 
2.28 
Crothersville 
Jackson 
1169 
979 
G 
X 
M 
800 
368,460 
3.03 
Crown Point 5 
Lake 
4643 
4046 
G 
X 
M 
6000 
X 
4,225,220 
3.60 
72,000 
46,000 
70,000 
Crows Nest 
Marion 
112 
79 
693,630 
1.08 
Culver 
Marshall 
1605 
1502 
G 
M 
200 
1,125,230 
2.38 
Cynthiana 
Posey 
535 
556 
G 
M 
262,018 
3.64 
6 500 
4,500 
Dale 
Spencer 
763 
770 
391,077 
3.20 
40,000 
t Crane 
1 Martin 
2500 
F City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
<D 
O 
t-4 
ft 
o 
m 
4-S 
ft 
V 
s 
"ft 
2 
H 
ft 
'£ 
co 
t-4 
<D 
c 
* 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal Utility Bonds 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
General 
Obligation 
845 
859 
G 
X 
M 
300 
577,180 
3.90 
10,000 
2093 
1930 
G 
M 
1600 
X 
1,807,490 
2.24 
4,000 
683 
690 
G 
p 
470 
X 
386,335 
1.94 
5861 
5156 
G 
X 
M 
4500 
5,651,048 
2.364 
330,000 
40,500 
71,000 
466 
468 
132,760 
3.74 
2213 
1929 
G 
X 
M 
1200 
1,790,930 
2.07 
2,000 
48,700. 
483 
472 
238,045 
2.28 
558 
502 
466,400 
2.50 
751 
727 
G 
M 
356,265 
2.52 
18,000 
3,500 
1406 
1383 
G 
X 
M 
413,995 
4.26 
60,000 
46 
12 
G 
M 
227,520 
2.94 
2,000 
2942 
2583 
G 
X 
M 
1500 
1,716,070 
3.547 
7,500 
1,500 
187 
160 
140,030 
1.98 
976 
672 
G 
X 
M 
1,273,410 
3.16 
12,500 
507 
501 
G 
M 
380 
423,595 
2.52 
5,754 
54637 
54784 
S 
X 
M 
51000 
90,031,670 
2.96 
2,848,400 
829,235.20 
1,220,000 
3401 
2409 
G 
X 
M 
2000 
2,262,430 
3.502 
74,000 
9,000 
305 
291 
157,671 
2.02 
1453 
1273 
G 
M 
640 
654,155 
2.95 
6,000 
16,500 
251 
212 
132,505 
2.66 
229 
G 
X 
M 
443,115 
2.72 
2466 
2209 
G 
M 
2000 
X 
1,696,315 
2.908 
84,000 
25,485.76 
19,000 
520 
546 
319,610 
2.82 
209 
178 
42,850 
3.80 
319 
294 
132,675 
1.45 
t Edwardsport 
| Knox 
1350 
j 
G 
X 
■’ 1 1 1 Elkhart. 3 1 
Elkhart 
33434 
32949 
G 
X 
M 
2450 
42,728,303 
.852 
1,030,000 
26,000 
300,900 
Ellettsville 
Monroe 
863 
767 
G 
X 
M 
100 
314,820 
3.37 
8 200 
5,700 
Elnora 
Daviess 
799 
856 
G 
X 
M 
250 
349,320 
3.20 
34,000 
3,500 
Elwood 4 
Madison 
10913 
10685 
G 
X 
M 
10000 
6,848,540 
3.77 
865,000 
105,000 
50,000 
English 
Crawford 
757 
704 
G 
M 
342,955 
3.69 
Etna Green 
Kosciusko 
423 
371 
G 
M 
250 
362,840 
1.86 
5,000 
Evansville. 2 
Vanderburgh 
97062 
102249 
S 
X 
M 
97000 
X 
121,478,160 
3.153 
1,384,000 
1,331,000 
1,079,500 
Fairmount 
Grant 
2382 
2056 
G 
X 
M 
1030 
1,006,600 
3.44 
11,000 
23,000 
Fairview Park 
V ermillion 
1074 
1106 
244,410 
3.18 
Farmersburg 
Sullivan 
1005 
993 
G 
X 
M 
300 
412,780 
4.56 
47,000 
5,000 
Farmland 
Randolph 
914 
853 
G 
M 
727,120 
1.74 
Ferdinand 
Dubois 
990 
846 
s 
X 
M 
250 
374,990 
2.34 
9,000 
300 
Fishers Station 
Hamilton 
164 
138 
114,305 
2.75 
Flora 
Carroll 
1468 
1449 
G 
X 
M 
1000 
1,298,450 
2.58 
14,000 
Fort Branch 
Gibson 
1552 
1341 
G 
X 
M 
100 
681,655 
2.78 
6,500 
1463 
1289 
G 
M 
1000 
1,204,310 
2.78 
Fort Wayne 2 
Allen / 
118410 
114946 
S 
X 
M 
102600 
X 
168,549,870 
2.19 
4,285,000 
504,100 
1,334,000 
491 
480 
249,981 
2.46 
1903 
1564 
G 
X 
P 
1200 
1,783,525 
2.38 
11,500 
255 
204 
141,230 
2.10 
804 
712 
G 
M 
150 
519,915 
3.55 
25,500 
611 
728 
186,440 
3.22 
13706 
12196 
G 
X 
P 
11000 
X 
10,747,330 
3.12 
378,000 
74,500 
172,000 
6264 
5682 
G 
X 
P 
4000 
X 
5,754,670 
2.85 
32,000 
81,000 
824 
829 
G 
X 
M 
484,410 
2.579 
205 
216 
114,941 
2.77 
855 
802 
G 
M 
591,300 
3.39 
33,500 
2042 
2462 
S 
P 
1500 
1,274,470 
3.78 
500 
8,500 
373 
397 
225,490 
2.66 
735 
666 
G 
X 
M 
400 
452,230 
2.60 
10,500 
8,600 
4285 
4428 
G 
M 
4100 
2,570,420 
2.76 
10,000 
32,000 
111719 
100426 
S 
X 
P 
88000 
X 
136,830.815 
3.66 
2,473,000 
2,510,296.55 
3,109,000 
3488 
3087 
G 
X 
M 
3000 
632,560 
3.40 
7,000 
677 
654 
G 
X 
M 
70 
327,975 
2.58 
19,000 
966 
895 
G 
M 
700 
505,975 
2.72 
10,500 
3,000 
t Freelandville 
Knox 
1 
1 G 
1 
P 
| | 
j City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rats 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
<D 
O 
Ui 
P 
o 
CO 
a 
<V 
S 
-p 
c<3 
O) 
H 
.5 
2 
£ 
c 
* 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing- 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal L 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
ftility Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Gentryville 
Spencer 
258 
271 
71,142 
3.80 
Georgetown 
Floyd 
377 
374 
154,395 
3.26 
Gimco City 
Madison 
22 
15 
127,960 
1.96 
Glenwood 
Fayette-Rush 
338 
374 
G 
X 
M 
130 
246,865 
2.528 
21 500 
Goodland 
Newton 
1097 
978 
G 
X 
M 
792,560 
3.19 
1,500 
1,000 
Goshen 4 
Elkhart 
11375 
10397 
G 
M 
11000 
X 
12,120,017 
2.76 
501,000 
110,000 
Gosport 
Owen 
729 
722 
G 
M 
303,861 
3.82 
4,500 
9,500 
Grabill 
Allen 
288 
276 
298,620 
1.95 
Grandview 
Spencer 
607 
588 
212,745 
3.66 
Greencastle 5 
Putnam 
4872 
4613 
G 
X 
M 
6300 
X 
3,838,398 
2.72 
483,500 
4,500 
12,544.15 
Greendale 
Dearborn 
1548 
1050 
G 
X 
M 
500 
17,855,650 
1.106 
28,000 
50,500 
70,512 
Greenfield 5 
Hancock 
4821 
4188 
G 
M 
3500 
X 
3,753,370 
2.34 
31,000 
15,000 
28,500 
Greensboro 
Henry 
222 
239 
49,660 
2.62 
Greensburg 5 
Decatur 
6065 
5702 
G 
X 
M 
4500 
X 
5,178,945 
2.90 
317,000 
70,500 
Greensfork 
Wayne 
413 
333 
231,437 
2.10 
Greentown 
Howard 
1060 
1021 
G 
X 
P 
500 
635,220 
2.48 
Greenville 
Floyd 
285 
257 
86,690 
2.32 
Greenwood 
Johnson 
2499 
2377 
G 
X 
P 
15000 
2,068,790 
2.80 
Griffin 
Posey 
386 
208 
156,337 
2.66 
Griffith 
Lake 
2116 
1176 
G 
M 
1000 
3,171,885 
3.34 
53 0^0 
Hagerstown 
Wayne 
1638 
1262 
G 
M 
1200 
X 
1,506,629 
2.48 
13,000 
15,300 
19,866 
Hamilton 
Steuben 
392 
357 
294,710 
1.82 
Hamlet 
Starke 
519 
418 
G 
M 
474,625 
3.40 
9,000 
Hammond 2 
Lake 
70184 
64560 
S 
X 
M 
55000 
X 
95,881,745 
3.46 
2,762,500 
1,230,170 
1,243,500 
Hanover 
Jefferson 
406 
390 
G 
M 
211,655 
3.34 
27,000 Hardinsburgf 
Washington 
275 
254 
139,050 
2.86 
Hartford City 5 
Blackford 
6946 
6613 
G 
X 
M 
6200 
X 
4,938,477 
2.68 
56,000 
15,000 
34,200 
Hartsville 
Bartholomew 
318 
342 
74,685 
2.92 
Haubstadt 
Gibson 
762 
674 
G 
X 
M 
455,605 
2.40 
31,500 
Hazelton 
Gibson 
516 
507 
S 
M 
213,895 
3.16 
Hebron 
Porter 
949 
693 
G 
M 
600 
580,710 
2.68 
Highland 
Lake 
2723 
1553 
G :S 
X 
M 
1160 
X 
3,260,300 
3.00 
86,500 
49,000 
32,500 
Highwoods 
Marion 
21 
28 
101,120 
1.08 
Hillsboro 
Fountain 
516 
448 
G 
M 
277,010 
2.64 
25,000 
Hobart 5 
Lake 
7166 
5787 
S 
X 
P 
3000 
5,074,615 
3.58 
56,500 
52,000 
Holland 
Dubois 
380 
323 
S 
X 
M 
158,700 
2.86 
50,000 
Hope 
Bartholomew 
1046 
1085 
G 
M 
500 
455,010 
2.54 
45,000 
5,000 
Hudson 
Steuben 
437 
431 
228,450 
2.551 
Huntingburg 5 
Dubois 
3816 
3440 
s 
X 
M 
3000 
X 
1,859,410 
2.14 
3,002 
8,181.50 
Huntington 4 
Huntington 
13903 
13420 
G 
X 
M 
13000 
X 
15,322,340 
2.65 
52,000 
89,000 
83,000 
1298 
1152 
246,040 
4.78 
400 
37,750 
2.44 
386972 
364161 
G :S 
X 
P 
370000 
X 
538,882,770 
2.809 
18,359,050 
8,084,090.58 
6,979,000 
442 
430 
188,230 
2.11 
583 
552 
G 
M 
100 
354,140 
2.24 
25,500 
3418 
3536 
G 
X 
M 
1200 
X 
1,081,960 
4.82 
52,000 
14,500 
24,000 
5041 
3905 
s 
X 
M 
3700 
2,665,610 
2.70 
114,000 
27,800 
27,420 
11493 
11946 
G 
X 
P 
9000 
7,580,395 
3.96 
95,000 
100,000 
83,000 
1791 
1496 
G 
M 
900 
1,049,090 
3.44 
70,000 
1,200 
2,100 
181 
162 
96,345 
1.83 
124 
111 
27,205 
2.56 
403 
469 
232,090 
1.36 
5431 
5439 
G 
X 
M 
5000 
X 
6,061,345 
1.84 
12,000 
71,000 
522 
440 
220,820 
2.32 
1,900 
1608 
1355 
G 
M 
1200 
1,446,790 
2.27 
1,000 
8,500 
701 
682 
G 
M 
500 
583,430 
2.27 
549 
502 
223,570 
3.40 
169,012 
2.82 
10000 
G 
X 
' F 
712 
644 
G 
M 
1 200 
402,050 
3.88 
12,500 
8,500 
t Harrison 
Fayette 
1 
! 
I I I I 2,731,090 
2.76 City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
O 
t-1 
P 
O 
m 
■P 
c 
D 
S 
-P 
H 
.9 
2 
o0 
u 
0) 
c 
* 
0 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal Utility Bonds 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
General 
Obligation 
P 3 P 3 
22 09 
G 
x 
M 
1700 
1,492,330 
2.715 
2,000 
704 
273,145 
3.42 
1,500 
21 fi K 
1815 
G 
M 
900 
1,417,730 
3.22 
21,400 
17,500 
3 3 7 q 5 
32343 
G 
x 
p 
31500 
X 
31,285,885 
3.48 
279,000 
407,500 
351,500 
7 32 
533 
G 
X 
M 
275 
596,790 
2.85 
26,500 
8,500 
S3 
1 03 
23,245 
2.36 
574 
563 
528,156 
2.34 
Q30 
329 
G 
M 
700 
X 
391,705 
2.64 
30,000 
26240 
G 
X 
M 
26000 
34,507,455 
2.19 
165,000 
139,500 
554 
604 
G 
M 
250 
460,375 
1.63 
1314 
1 640 
G 
M 
800 
1,565,050 
2.90 
14,500 
54 2 
467 
253,770 
2.70 
11 fiO 
1,524,544 
1.86 
19,500 
567 
522 
G 
x 
M 
339,100 
2.62 
22,000 
1,000 
367 
273 
G 
X 
M 
96,230 
3.14 
429 
375 
237,050 
2.32 
1146 
1140 
G 
x 
M 
680 
478,145 
2.45 
29,500 
8,000 
1 61 30 
1 575 5 
G 
X 
M 
14000 
X 
21,002,992 
2.74 
328,000 
33,750 
85,000 
319 
262 
234,120 
1.88 
533 
51 6 
G 
M 
143,230 
3.72 
2,000 
18,681 
1 037 
340 
G 
M 
500 
726,170 
2.26 
30,500 
4413 
4072 
G 
X 
M 
2000 
X 
3,582,020 
2.42 
235,000 
20,000 
29,052 
394 
41 3 
G 
x 
M 
400 
x 
104,290 
4.19 
23,850 
6529 
6445 
G 
x 
M 
6000 
X 
5,350,570 
2.48 
307,500 
10,000 
33 9 
371 
292,435 
2.56 
2,375 
531 
442 
G 
M 
349,600 
1.89 
UnPif 
1 496 
1 241 
G 
x 
M 
1100 
1,496,640 
2.68 
21 73 
2064 
G 
x 
M 
1400 
2,084,845 
2.66 
49,820 
5,710 
14,500 
530 
541 
G 
x 
M 
242,045 
3.60 
44,500 
Linden 
Linton 5 
Greene 
6263 
5085 
G 
X 
M 
4500 
X 
2,270,560 
4.14 
178,000 
6,000 
53,356.63 Little York 
Washington 
132 
140 
53,170 
2.24 
Livonia 
Washington 
192 
168 
61,292 
2.33 
• 
Lizton 
Hendricks 
200 
217 
153,140 
1.18 
Logansport 3 
Cass 
20177 
18508 
S 
X 
M 
16000 
18,713,000 
1.74 
242,500 
Long Beach 
LaPorte 
455 
436 
S 
X 
p 
2,579,353 
2.12 
13,000 
Loogootee 5 
Martin 
2325 
2203 
G 
X 
M 
500 
691,048 
4.66 
44,000 
7,100 
4,000 
Lowell 
Lake 
1448 
1274 
G 
M 
1,070,895 
2.92 
3,000 
Lynhurst 
Marion 
128 
51 
58,790 
2.22 
Lynn 
Randolph 
1014 
936 
G 
M 
563,440 
2.28 
Lynnville 
Warrick 
371 
264 
164,920 
2.48 
Lyons 
Greene 
794 
806 
G 
X 
M 
294,115 
3.68 
29,000 
Macy 
Miami 
275 
279 
164,225 
2.01 
Madison 5 
Jefferson 
6923 
6530 
G 
X 
M 
5250 
4,127,630 
3.66 
26,500 
47,500 
Marengo 
Crawford 
812 
806 
G 
P 
305,250 
3.79 
Marion 3 
Grant 
26767 
24496 
G 
X 
M 
23300 
X 
20,013,600 
3.824 
494,000 
110,000 
217,000 
Markle 
Huntington - Wells 
671 
621 
G 
X 
M 
450 
495,310 
2.748 
Markleville 
Madison 
266 
251 
227,600 
2.26 
Marshall 
Parke 
321 
293 
G 
X 
M 
184,265 
3.24 
37,500 
Martinville 5 
Morgan 
5009 
4962 
G 
X 
M 
3200 
3,472,021 
3.50 
6,250 
10,663 
29,100 
Matthews 
Grant 
468 
513 
188,930 
2.97 
Mauckportf 
Harrison 
154 
203 
30,100 
2.53 
Medaryville 
Pulaski 
703 
610 
G 
M 
230 
396,140 
2.88 
11 000 
7,445.50 
Medora 
Jackson 
722 
654 
G 
X 
M 
384,050 
3.27 
33,000 
Mellott 
Fountain 
302 
312 
111,320 
3.34 
Mentone 
Kosciusko 
731 
704 
G 
M 
650 
643,800 
2.151 
Meridian Hills 
Marion 
1,774,670 
1.18 
Merom 
Sullivan 
499 
397 
122,025 
2.94 
Michigan City 3 
LaPorte 
26476 
26735 
S 
X 
M 
20000 
X 
31,098,935 
.62 
640,000 
358,500 
391,000 
Michigantown 
Clinton 
417 
419 
220,470 
1.66 
Middlebury 
Elkhart 
722 
656 
G 
M 
744,048 
2.27 
Middletown 
Henry 
1520 
1348 
G 
M 
1140 
909,100 
2.66 
Milan 
Ripley 
1000 
877 
S 
X 
M 
700 
X 
671,488 
3.72 
7,000 
2,000 
2,255.36 
Milford 
Decatur 
130 
152 
16,980 
2.14 
Milford 
Kosciusko 
901 
869 
G 
M 
646,709 
2.10 
Millersburgh 
Elkhart 
384 
344 
G 
M 
321,775 
2.66 
15,700 
t Mecca 
Parke 
1000 
G 
X 
M City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
<u 
P 
P 
o 
in 
-P 
C 
<D 
E 
■P 
cd 
cu 
H 
.9 
2 
CO 
3 
c 
£ 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal I 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
Ttility Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
180 
162 
75,805 
1.86 
760 
795 
G 
X 
M 
259,890 
4.667 
41,000 
2,204 
2,725 
646 
612 
G 
X 
M 
285,752 
2.96 
7,500 
8,550 
28298 
28630 
G 
X 
M 
24500 
29,024,640 
2.44 
40,000 
163,605.52 
90,000 
3393 
3226 
S 
X 
M 
2500 
X 
1,459,305 
4.54 
115,500 
6,465.79 
15,000 
237 
236 
171,510 
2.436 
White 
1262 
1374 
G 
X 
M 
1000 
894,250 
2.28 
14,000 
405 
322 
205,425 
1.722 
518 
544 
130,710 
4.00 
994 
897 
G 
M 
530 
632,030 
2.21 
21,000 
6,000 
288 
283 
217,400 
2.92 
1366 
1292 
G 
M 
300 
407,330 
2.839 
9,000 
8,000 
510 
445 
99,115 
3.96 
White 
3153 
2331 
G 
M 
1000 
2,835,390 
2.46 
70,000 
1800 
1859 
S 
X 
P 
1100 
1,052,573 
2.98 
12,000 
79 
84 
32,340 
3.06 
496 
384 
244,590 
2.93 
359 
349 
133,350 
2.88 
1979 
1910 
G 
X 
P 
1300 
X 
943,617 
3.56 
3,000 
20,195 
724 
748 
G 
X 
M 
400 
332,965 
3.88 
13,800 
9,800 
1151 
1006 
G 
X 
M 
633,410 
2.85 
24,500 
Shelby 
665 
608 
G 
M 
100 
441,445 
2.58 
4,000 
7,000 
145 
161 
75,118 
2.14 
207 
216 
73,930 
2.60 
120 
150 
40,620 
2.46 
139 
135 
48,330 
1.901 
265 
274 
G 
M 
152,040 
2.30 
2,100 
5638 
5035 
s 
X 
M 
4200 
2,086,656 
3.96 
251,000 
42,500 
49720 
46548 
G 
X 
P 
35000 
X 
49,209,650 
3.16 
946,000 
786,925.16 
700,000 
1751 
975 
S 
X 
M 
3,726,395 
3.22 
77,000 
43,000 
50,500 Nappanee 5 
Elkhart 
3028 
2957 
G 
M 
2200 
2,853,707 
2.847 
20,000 
31,741.46 
32,000 
Nashville 
Brown 
493 
369 
230,060 
4.07 
New Albany 3 
Floyd 
25414 
25819 
S 
X 
P 
17850 
18,524,290 
3.14 
155,000 
291,700 
New Amsterdam 
Harrison 
86 
101 
22,025 
2.78 
Newberry 
Greene 
360 
366 
134,320 
3.74 
Newburg 
Warrick 
1374 
1262 
G 
X 
P 
200 
579,210 
3.36 
New Carlisle 
St. Joseph 
747 
718 
G 
M 
744,540 
1.74 
13,000 
New Castle 4 
Henry 
16620 
14027 
G 
X 
M 
13000 
X 
14,926,800 
2.71 
212,000 
44,174.35 
131,000 
New Chicago 
Lake 
466 
481 
269,590 
3.24 
New Harmony 
Posey 
1390 
1022 
G 
M 
622,061 
3.52 
24 000 
3,500 
2,250 
New Haven 
Allen 
1872 
1702 
G 
M 
1500 
X 
1,804,680 
1.16 
22 780 
3,600 
New Market 
Montgmery 
323 
330 
G 
M 
164,450 
2.89 
15,500 
New Middletown 
Harrison 
115 
118 
31,140 
3.30 
New Palestine 
Hancock 
448 
4 56 
G 
P 
100 
419,290 
2.28 
New Pekin 
Washington 
434 
383 
306,529 
3.215 
2,200 
Newpoint 
Decatur 
328 
342 
160,810 
2.06 
Newport 
Vermillion 
795 
777 
305,865 
3.36 
New Providence 
Clark 
392 
358 
206,800 
2.29 
New Richmond 
Montgomery 
368 
391 
G 
X 
M 
236,090 
2.94 
27,000 
New Ross 
Montgomery 
355 
350 
157,435 
2.00 
Newtown 
Fountain 
293 
264 
139,530 
3.26 
Noblesville 5 
Hamilton 
5575 
4811 
G 
X 
P 
3900 
4,826,175 
3.16 
18,500 
10,500 
North Crows Nest.. 
Marion 
180,040 
1.08 
North Grove 
Miami 
96 
119 
65,280 
1.79 
North Judson 
Starke 
1408 
1348 
G 
M 
1,147,940 
2.68 
3,000 
5 fiOO 
North Liberty 
St. Joseph 
978 
823 
G 
M 
629,790 
2.86 
300 
North Madison 
Jefferson 
316 
573 
144,950 
2.68 
North Manchester... 
Wabash 
3170 
2765 
G 
M 
2400 
3,155,010 
2.50 
500 
1,000 
North Salem 
Hendricks 
511 
466 
G 
X 
M 
50 
304,030 
2.96 
22,000 
North Vernon 5 
Jennings 
3112 
2989 
S 
X 
M 
2500 
X 
2,013,530 
3.88 
35,000 
26,500 
20,000 
North Webster 
Kosciusko 
343 
258,634 
2.44 
Oakland City 
Gibson 
3068 
2842 
S 
X 
M 
2700 
X 
1,369,015 
3.16 
58 700 
22,288 
Oaktown 
Knox 
793 
771 
312,710 
3.18 
45 000 
3,980 
Odon 
Daviess 
958 
981 
G 
X 
M 
577,695 
4.36 
36,200 
22,140 
Ogden Dunes 
Porter 
144 
50 
367,330 
3.00 City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
0) 
p 
o 
m 
-P 
c 
0) 
1 
(6 
0> 
EH 
ft 
2 
CO 
s 
c 
* 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal L 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
ftility Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Oldenburg 
Franklin 
533 
575 
s 
X 
M 
300 
X 
141,260 
2.64 
21,500 
Onward 
Cass 
127 
135 
118,920 
1.66 
Oolitic 
Lawrence 
1186 
1210 
s 
X 
M 
600 
268,365 
3.40 
6,000 
Orestes 
Madison 
412 
357 
160,035 
2.86 
Or land, 
Steuben 
307 
310 
206,000 
3.00 
1,250 
Orleans 
Orange 
1428 
1422 
G 
X 
M 
1200 
X 
941,245 
3.44 
39,500 
500 
Osceola 
St. Joseph 
498 
432 
380,650 
1.52 
Osgood 
Ripley 
1198 
1173 
S 
X 
M 
1000 
X 
778,604 
3.10 
60 000 
14,650 
Ossian..*. 
Wells 
784 
788 
G 
M 
500 
536,600 
2.89 
17,000 
6,000 
Otterbien 
Benton 
570 
616 
G 
M 
450 
460,855 
2.14 
Owensville 
Gibson 
1188 
1056 
G 
X 
M 
75 
448,600 
2.78 
35,000 
Oxford 
Benton 
863 
853 
G 
X 
M 
750 
598,305 
2.88 
17,750 
Palmyra 
Harrison 
274 
288 
102,360 
2.22 
Paoli 
Orange 
2218 
2016 
S 
X 
M 
800 
1,012,755 
3.94 
4,000 
3,000 
Paragon 
Morgan 
454 
366 
168,669 
2.80 
12,000 
Parker City 
Randolph 
786 
794 
G 
X 
M 
550 
550,810 
2.30 
12,500 
4,800 
Patoka 
Gibson 
569 
634 
G 
M 
229,230 
2.96 
11,000 
Patriotf 
Switzerland 
257 
288 
87,760 
4.68 
500 
Pendleton 
Madison 
1681 
1538 
G 
X 
M 
1,371,385 
2.43 
68 000 
17,000 
Pennville 
Jay 
598 
578 
G 
M 
300,031 
3.14 
15,500 
Perrysville 
Vermillion 
451 
435 
150,425 
3.28 
Peru 4 
Miami 
12432 
12730 
G 
X 
M 
10000 
X 
11,128,495 
2.16 
252,210 
6,474.31 
122,428 
Petersburg 5 
Pike 
3075 
2609 
S 
X 
M 
2000 
X 
1,320,430 
4.72 
25,000 
2,000 
Pierceton 
Kosciusko 
895 
878 
G 
M 
100 
598,062 
2.04 
Pine Village 
Warren 
303 
323 
127,310 
2.94 
t Pence 
Warren 
125 
G 
X 
P 
1 Pittsboro 
Hendricks 
510 
489 
G 
X 
M 
344,410 
1.94 
2,500 
Plainfield 
Hendricks 
1811 
1617 
G 
X 
M 
1400 
1,215,580 
2.60 
22,000 
Plainville 
Daviess 
619 
603 
272,780 
2.52 
Plymouth 5 
Marshall 
5713 
5290 
G 
M 
4500 
4,884,055 
2.92 
59,000 
33,900 
32,000 
Poneto 
Wells 
270 
237 
94,040 
2.61 
Porter 
Porter 
1190 
805 
G 
X 
1,343,390 
2.36 
6,299 
Portland 5 
Jay 
6362 
5276 
G 
X 
M 
4200 
4,172,721 
2.63 
9,250 
23,000 
Poseyville 
Posey 
948 
810 
G 
X 
M 
452,835 
3.42 
12,500 
Pottowattomie Park 
Steuben 
88,556 
2.52 
Princeton 5 
Gibson 
7786 
7505 
G 
X 
M 
6600 
X 
5,422,905 
2.82 
567,000 
14,000 
51,000 
Ravenswood 
Marion 
394 
128 
191,570 
2.28 
Redkey 
Jay 
1538 
1370 
G 
M 
150 
1,007,048 
2.70 
Remington 
Jasper 
869 
879 
G 
M 
650 
730,660 
2.27 
Rensselaer 5... 
Jasper 
3214 
2798 
G 
X 
M 
2200 
3,026,480 
2.67 
65,000 
29,500 
44,450 
Reynolds 
White 
408 
362 
G 
X 
M 
292,900 
3.24 
Richmond 2 
Wayne 
35147 
32493 
G:S 
X 
P 
28000 
X 
36,622,248 
2.38 
509,000 
522,500 
• 
Ridgeview Homes... 
Jackson 
Ridgeview 
Miami 
439 
483 
553,835 
2.03 
Ridgeville 
Randolph 
1003 
909 
G 
M 
202 
585,500 
2.51 
Riley f 
Vigo 
287 
260 
153,860 
3.04 
Rising Sun 5 
Ohio 
1545 
1379 
G 
M 
868,200 
3.82 
147,000 
4,500 
3,482.55 
Roachdale 
Putnam 
736 
631 
G 
X 
M 
350 
344,224 
2.62 
18,000 
• 
Roann 
Wabash 
429 
395 
G 
M 
100 
308,450 
2.64 
3,600 
Roanoke 
Huntington 
808 
849 
G 
X 
M 
210 
553,980 
2.82 
3,000 
5,500 
Rochester 5 
Pulton 
3835 
3518 
G 
X 
M 
2300 
X 
3,337,090 
2.90 
42,000 
3,400 
22,500 
Rockport 5 
Spencer 
2421 
2396 
G 
P 
1800 
1,060,840 
4.22 
5,200 
Rockville 
Parke 
2208 
1832 
G 
M 
1200 
X 
1,560,065 
3.26 
26,000 
24,000 
Rocky Ripple 
Marion 
315 
133 
248,650 
2.30 
Rosedale 
Parke 
712 
657 
281,700 
2.92 
Roseland 
St. Joseph 
782 
777 
645,660 
2.46 
1,800 
Rossville 
Clinton 
627 
626 
G 
X 
M 
300 
415,955 
2.56 
34 000 
Royal Center 
Cass 
865 
777 
G 
M 
400 
592,595 
2.80 
9,500 
Rushville 5 
Rush 
5960 
5709 
G 
X 
M 
5100 
5,205,060 
2.36 
3,000 
14,000 
Russellvillef 
Putnam 
380 
411 
236,779 
2.38 
St. Joe 
DeKalb 
437 
407 
272,150 
2.02 
t Riley Beach 
Kosciusko 
50 
G 
P 
t Russiaville 
Howard 
850 
G 
P City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
0) 
V 
p 
0 
m 
-P 
c 
0) 
s 
-p 
ci 
g 
H 
s 
2 
5 
c 
E 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal L 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
Itility Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
St. John 
Lake 
383 
332 
G 
X 
M 
365,380 
3.82 
55,000 
3,750 
St. Leon 
Dearborn 
276 
276 
129,120 
1.99 
St. Paul 
Decatur -Shelbey 
695 
678 
359,825 
2.11 
Salamonla 
Jay 
191 
180 
105,646 
2.51 
Salem 5 
Washington 
3194 
3194 
G 
X 
M 
2000 
X 
2,187,525 
2.96 
35,000 
9,000 
Saltillo 
125 
160 
57,496 
2.44 
Sandborn 
Knox 
602 
641 
298,590 
2.36 
Saratoga 
Randolph 
349 
303 
392,600 
1.81 
Schererville 
998 
580 
G 
M 
1,713,460 
2.62 
17,000 
7 250 
21,000 
Schneider 
283 
264 
G 
M 
292,370 
3.72 
2 763 
Scottsburg 
Scott 
2189 
1702 
G 
X 
M 
2000 
X 
1,372,770 
3.32 
119,000 
13,500 
2,450 
807 
825 
337,480 
2.68 
Sellersburg 
Clark 
1121 
1050 
G 
X 
M 
900 
X 
431,975 
3.96 
50,000 
9,500 
424 
344 
257,065 
1.99 
Seymour 5 
Jackson 
8620 
7508 
S 
X 
P 
5100 
6,680,600 
2.98 
8,500 
84,500 
81,500 
518 
512 
323,625 
2.34 
3,000 
Sullivan 
1606 
1548 
G 
X 
M 
750 
400,760 
4.66 
56,000 
Shelbyville 4 
Shelby 
10791 
10618 
G 
X 
P 
7000 
10,526,710 
2.82 
37,200 
166,000 
Hamilton 
1720 
1763 
G 
X 
P 
900 
1,365,780 
2.41 
286 
262 
275,740 
2.81 
Hancock- Henry 
952 
761 
G 
X 
M 
400 
424,560 
2.88 
471 
473 
G 
M 
400 
387,860 
2.19 
3,000 
1031 
1128 
G 
X 
M 
344,561 
4.12 
500 
4,223 
Marion 
19 
11 
84,850 
1.08 
61,040 
1.08 Sidney 
Kosciusko 
194 
182 
103,956 
2.28 
Silver Lake 
Kosciusko 
471 
442 
G 
M 
200 
300,538 
2.74 
500 
3,900 
Somerville 
Gibson 
373 
273 
108,800 
2.72 
South Bend 2f 
St. Joseph 
101268 
104193 
G 
X 
M 
99000 
148,306,970 
2.80 
952,000 
2,875,000 
964,000 
Southport 
Marion 
549 
521 
426,230 
1.78 
South Whitley 
Whitley 
1118 
1102 
G 
M 
900 
1,144,710 
2.16 
Speedway 
Marion 
2325 
1420 
G 
M 
1000 
10,957,220 
2.02 
109,000 
51,000 
Spencer 
Owen 
2375 
2179 
G 
X 
P 
900 
1,362,368 
4.50 
SpiceJand 
Henry 
645 
722 
G 
M 
300 
369,680 
2.88 
28,000 
Spring Grove 
Wayne 
237 
191 
45 
126,274 
2.76 
Spring Hills 
Marion 
28 
22 
173,020 
1.08 
Spring Lake Park... 
Hancock 
111 
69 
61,800 
2.38 
Springport 
Henry 
189 
183 
66,540 
2.86 
117.50 
Spurgeon 
Pike 
360 
375 
139,330 
3.50 
State Line City 
Warren 
157 
165 
91,300 
2.48 
Staunton 
Clay 
387 
482 
119,380 
3.22 
Stilesville 
Hendricks 
273 
313 
151,890 
2.26 
Stinesville 
Monroe 
337 
310 
62,480 
3.38 
Straughn 
Henry 
275 
212 
174,810 
2.19 
Sullivan 5 
Sullivan 
5077 
5306 
G 
X 
P 
3600 
X 
3,674,235 
4.40 
26,000 
35,000 
Sulphur Springs 
Henry 
292 
238 
. 
183,340 
1.98 
Summitville 
Madison 
991 
1017 
G 
P 
800 
452,525 
3.64 
3,000 
Sunman 
Ripley 
352 
355 
356,765 
3.36 
Swayzee 
Grant 
661 
604 
G 
M 
300 
457,200 
3.16 
34,500 
Switz City 
Greene 
405 
450 
169,915 
3.384 
Syracuse 
Kosciusko 
1346 
1190 
G 
X 
M 
900 
X 
1,156,570 
2.26 
17,500 
Tell City 5 
Perry 
5395 
4873 
G 
X 
M 
3500 
2,462,070 
3.88 
477,000 
45,000 
179,500 
Tennyson 
Warrick 
293 
335 
103,355 
3.16 
Terre Haute 2 
Vigo 
62693 
62810 
S 
X 
P 
41000 
56,420,260 
3.56 
380,000 
482,500 
265,000 
Thorntown 
Boone 
1226 
1325 
G 
M 
800 
617,310 
2.74 
Tipton 5 
Tipton 
5101 
4861 
G 
X 
M 
4000 
X 
3,246,580 
2.80 
178,000 
7,000 
32,500 
Topeka 
Lagrange 
496 
489 
G 
X 
M 
150 
439,470 
2.534 
1,000 
Trail Creek 
LaPorte 
326 
295 
344,385 
1.903 
Troy 
Perry 
599 
562 
150,930 
3.40 
400 
Ulen 
Boone 
99 
74 
240,830 
2.26 
t South Peru 
Miami 
328,020 
2.17 
1 City or Town 
County 
Popu- 
lation 
1940 
Popu- 
lation 
1930 
Water Supply 
Esti- 
mated 
Popu- 
lation 
Served 
by 
Sewers 
in 1940 
Sewage Treatment 
Plant 
Net Assessed 
Valuation 
for 1942 
Tax 
Rate 
for 
1942 
City Debts 
Town Debts 
O 
*4 
P 
o 
in 
■P 
c 
0) 
s 
■p 
$ 
9 
H 
ft 
IS 
Sh 
V 
c 
pt 
o 
Revenue 
and 
Special 
Taxing 
District 
Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Bonds 
School 
Bonds 
Municipal 1 
Payable 
from 
Revenue 
Jtility Bonds 
General 
Obligation 
Other 
Bonded 
Indebted- 
ness 
School 
Bonds 
Union City 5 
Randolph 
3535 
3084 
G 
X 
M 
2600 
X 
3,482,290 
2.68 
44,500 
23,000 
5,200 
Uniondale 
Wells 
301 
226 
214,880 
2.61 
Universal 
V ermillion 
603 
642 
103,100 
3.36 
Upland 
Grant 
900 
906 
G 
M 
180 
526,410 
3.04 
Valparaiso 5 
Porter 
8736 
8079 
G :S 
X 
M 
7500 
7,164,810 
3.50 
168,000 
111,000 
16,500 
VanBuren 
Grant 
825 
766 
G 
M 
80 
459,740 
3.41 
6,000 
1 750 
Veedersburg 
Fountain 
1781 
1606 
G 
X 
M 
400 
X 
663,970 
3.46 
1,200 
3,500 
Vera Cruz 
Wells 
142 
94 
29,190 
1.90 
Vernonf 
Jennings 
413 
410 
S 
X 
100 
129,705 
2.84 
Versailles 
Ripley 
582 
523 
s 
X 
M 
500 
X 
333,413 
3.68 
3 000 
V evay 
Switzerland 
1209 
1183 
G 
X 
M 
630,470 
5.36 
103,000 
10,500 
9,000 
Vincennes 4 
Knox 
18228 
17564 
S 
X 
M 
14500 
12,475,200 
4.78 
1,288,500 
332,204.08 
201,500 
Wabash. 5 
Wabash 
9653 
8840 
G 
X 
P 
8500 
9,353,320 
2.98 
24,577.50 
60,000 
Wakarusa 
Elkhart 
1033 
973 
G 
M 
500 
1,031,690 
2.17 
Walkerton 
St. Joseph 
1178 
1137 
G 
X 
M 
900 
923,610 
3.10 
36,500 
Wallace 
Fountain 
123 
128 
41,730 
1.96 
Cass 
710 
685 
G 
X 
M 
250 
529,165 
2.28 
47,500 
2,500 
Warren 
Huntington 
1388 
1177 
G 
M 
1050 
722,680 
2.28 
20,000 
Warren Park 
Marion 
237 
164 
173,560 
1.44 
Warsaw 5 
Kosciusko 
6378 
5730 
S 
X 
P 
5200 
7,021,906 
2.26 
12,000 
86,000 
Washington 
Daviess 
9312 
9070 
G ;S 
X 
M 
6500 
5,894,875 
3.14 
579,000 
80,000 
Waterloo 
DeKalb 
1257 
1244 
G 
P 
1000 
X 
904,900 
2.94 
29,530 
Wavelandf 
Montgomery 
530 
542 
G 
X 
M 
250,030 
3.50 
39,500 
1,100 
Waynetown 
Montgomery 
644 
664 
373,255 
2.00 
West Baden 
Orange 
949 
1174 
S 
X 
P 
650 
526,370 
3.88 
13,500 
Marion 
100 
G 
P 
Allen 
2200 
G 
X 
P W. College Corner.. 
Union 
454 
437 
G 
M 
445,860 
2.08 
9 000 
7 500 
Westfield 
Hamilton 
709 
688 
G 
M 
200 
305,480 
3.57 
32,500 
4,500 
West Harrison 
Dearborn 
311 
279 
G 
X 
P 
257,250 
2.12 
West Lafayette 5 
Tippecanoe 
6270 
5095 
G 
P 
13000 
9,063,315 
2.61 
59,000 
86,500 
West Lebanon 
Warren 
581 
595 
G 
X 
M 
325 
299,970 
3.40 
19,000 
3,200 
Westport 
Decatur 
644 
637 
368,115 
2.88 
West Terre Haute f 
Vigo 
3729 
3588 
G 
X 
M 
1,088,770 
3.48 
39,000 
Westville 
LaPorte 
523 
496 
G 
M 
296,772 
2.78 
4,500 
10,500 
Wheatfield 
Jasper 
439 
401 
193,140 
2.71 
Wheatland 
Knox 
713 
806 
292,090 
2.72 
Whiteland 
Johnson 
403 
419 
201,340 
2.15 
Whitewater 
Wayne 
114 
121 
48,980 
1.94 
Whiting 4 
Lake 
10307 
10880 
S 
X 
M 
10500 
24,641,830 
2.70 
100,000 
82,000 
Wilkinson 
Hancock 
336 
316 
247,390 
2.37 
Williams Creek 
Marion 
119 
736,370 
1.62 
Williamsport 
Warren 
1222 
1053 
G 
M 
800 
X 
585,790 
2.86 
34,000 
477 50 
Winamac 
Pulaski 
1835 
1679 
G 
M 
1200 
1,674,160 
2.38 
2,000 
Winchester 5 
Randolph 
5303 
4487 
G 
P 
3800 
X 
4,512,200 
2.70 
36,500 
Windfall City 
Tipton 
835 
734 
G 
X 
M 
100 
538,000 
2.348 
45,000 
6,000 
Wingate 
Montgomery 
380 
408 
238,120 
2.62 
Winona Lake 
Kosciusko 
743 
454 
S 
X 
450 
X 
1,170,302 
2.14 
0 500 
Winslow 
Pike 
1382 
1175 
S 
X 
M 
600 
515,535 
4.30 
11,300 
Wolcott 
White 
736 
747 
S 
X 
M 
350 
563,760 
2.02 
. 
1,000 
WolcottvilleJ 
Noble - Lagrange 
612 
646 
G 
M 
558,185 
2.572 
Woodlawn Heights... 
Madison 
59 
19 
99,005 
2.09 
Woodruff Place 
Marion 
1434 
1216 
G ;S 
1,592,290 
2.44 
Woodstock 
Marion 
30 
28 
181,410 
1.08 
Worthington 
Greene 
1729 
1687 
G 
X 
P 
800 
911,075 
3.40 
450,500 
Wynnedale 
Marion 
60 
221,140 
1.62 
3,300 
Yoeman 
Carroll 
160 
160 
94,080 
.99 
Yorktown 
Delaware 
906 
909 
G 
X 
M 
670 
536,265 
2.22 
31 000 
1 200 
Zionsville 
Boone 
1314 
1131 
G 
X 
M 
1250 
X 
829,650 
2.74 
51,000 
11,000 
t West Shoals 
Martin 
1 
132,227 
4.11 1 1 1 
1 
i 
t Woodhurn City, see Shirley City 
1 1 1