California · PWS CA3310078

Mission Springs Water District

What Mission Springs Water District filed with DWR about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2019–2019 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2019
17.2%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csvSheet1 AN2663

Where this figure comes from

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

  • system input volume 28.9 sheet Sheet1, cell AN2663 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • billed authorized consumption 24 sheet Sheet1, cell AQ2663 · billed metered plus billed unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet

From data/archive/ca-dwr-water-loss/2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csv (SHA-256 f0dfea5a6026881d), retrieved 2026-09-05 from the published source.

Recoverable annually
$1,440
Apparent loss is valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water. Real loss is NOT included — DWR publishes a variable production cost whose unit it does not declare, so no dollar figure is put on the leaked water. The real recoverable total is higher than this by an amount this filing does not let anyone state.

2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csvSheet1 DH2663

Where this figure comes from

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

  • cost of apparent losses, as filed 1,437 sheet Sheet1, cell DH2663

From data/archive/ca-dwr-water-loss/2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csv (SHA-256 f0dfea5a6026881d), retrieved 2026-09-05 from the published source.

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

What the record shows

17.2% non-revenue water in FY2019, higher than 82% of the 546 California systems that filed that year.

17.2% non-revenue water in FY2019, against 546 California filings for the same yearA strip of 546 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 8.7%. This system is 17.2%. 5 filings above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 17.2%California median 8.7%

What it charges

$27.37 a month for a household using 6 hundred cubic feet — 4,488 gallons — and $77.61 at 17,952 gallons. Computed from the fixed charge and the tiers this system filed for reporting year 2025, not read off a rate sheet.

The fixed charge is $13.63 a month before any water is used. Billing is monthly, quoted in hundred cubic feet.

Where this figure comes from

fixed charge + each tier's price over the part of 6 HCF that falls in it

  • Fixed charge WRSFCostPerUOM1, system CA3310078
  • Volumetric tiers WRSFUsageCost1, WRSFUsageCost2, system CA3310078
  • Tier tops WRSFMetricUsage1, WRSFMetricUsage2, system CA3310078
  • Unit of measure WRUOM, system CA3310078
  • Billing frequency WRFrequency, system CA3310078
  • The Board's own charge field WR6HCFDWCharges, system CA3310078

From data/archive/ca-ear-rates/2026-09-09-6eba0fd85f1f-section8-charges.jsonl, extracted 2026-09-09 from the Board's published section 8a file. That file has no cells: a value is found by the system identifier and the question abbreviation above.

The Board also publishes an undocumented charge field for this volume. Our figure reproduces it to the cent, which is what establishes that the field is a bill at this volume for systems like this one.

This is what the system reported for reporting year 2025. It is not necessarily the rate in force today, and nothing in the filing says whether it has since changed.

Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, electronic Annual Report 2025, section 8a, filed under Health and Safety Code section 116530. How every California bill on this site compares.

Compliance record

3 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2, of which 1 is health-based. 3 resolved, and 0 still open.

Nothing on the record is open as of 2026Q2.

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

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

Who filed this audit

Mission Springs Water District filed 3 separate audits for FY2019, one for each public water system it operates, and this page is one of them. California keys its water loss export on the filing organization and not on the system, so a count of California audits is not a count of independent utilities. Mission Springs Water District made one set of decisions and filed it 3 times. Read any statewide figure with that in mind, including the ones on this site.

Every figure on this page is read from DWR's published export as this site holds it: a 184-column extract of DWR's 190-column file. Six columns naming individuals, including the contact and the third-party validator, are removed before the bytes are committed, so the click path behind each figure lands on the extract and not on DWR's original. The column letters differ from DWR's for that reason.

Water balance, FY2019 · 28.9 MG system input
Billed 24 MG Unbilled authorized 0.04 MG Apparent loss 0.37 MG Real loss 4.55 MG

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

Where these volumes come from
  • System input 28.9 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AN2663 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Billed authorized 24 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AQ2663 · billed metered plus billed unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Unbilled authorized 0.04 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AW2663 · unbilled metered plus unbilled unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Apparent loss 0.37 MG sheet Sheet1, cell CC2663 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Real loss 4.55 MG sheet Sheet1, cell CE2663 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet

From data/archive/ca-dwr-water-loss/2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csv (SHA-256 f0dfea5a6026881d), retrieved 2026-09-05 from the published source.

Filed history, 2019–2019
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable
2019 17.2% 28.9 $1,440

Comparable systems

The same size band — under 1,000 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
Cws Rdv Coast Springsunder 1,000 connections 18.4% FY2024
Sonoma County Water Agencyunder 1,000 connections 4.7% FY2019
Cws Krv Onyxunder 1,000 connections 8.2% FY2024
Cws Krv Lakelandunder 1,000 connections 23.0% FY2024
Modesto - Graysonunder 1,000 connections 12.5% FY2025
North Tahoe PUD - Dollar Coveunder 1,000 connections 30.9% FY2024
Lake Arrowhead Comm Svcs District 3610087under 1,000 connections 15.1% FY2023
Cws Rdv Armstrong Valleyunder 1,000 connections 17.4% FY2024

Where is it going?

This page says how much — roughly $1,440 a year. It cannot say which accounts, which zones, or which meters. That takes your billing history, your meter reads, and your production data reconciled against each other.

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

See what the Snapshot delivers Email us about Mission Springs Water District

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

Cite as

Municorn.us, “Mission Springs Water District — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/ca/mission-springs-water-district-ca3310078/ (source filings retrieved 2026-09-05).

CC BY 4.0 — reuse and redistribution are permitted with attribution to Municorn.us and a link to this page. Terms, and the one caveat that must travel with these figures.

"Water loss" is at least three different quantities depending on the jurisdiction, and nothing here supports a comparison between states.