California · PWS CA3110040

Placer County Water Agency Bianchi

What Placer County Water Agency Bianchi filed with DWR about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2016–2024 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2024
4.2%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csvSheet1 AN2402

Where this figure comes from

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

  • system input volume 10.1 sheet Sheet1, cell AN2402 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • billed authorized consumption 9.69 sheet Sheet1, cell AQ2402 · 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
$464
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 DH2402

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 464.2 sheet Sheet1, cell DH2402

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

4.2% non-revenue water in FY2024, higher than 9% of the 545 California systems that filed that year.

4.2% non-revenue water in FY2024, against 545 California filings for the same yearA strip of 545 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 9.2%. This system is 4.2%. 1 filing above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 4.2%California median 9.2%

What it charges

$62.69 a month for a household using 6 hundred cubic feet — 4,488 gallons — and $108.27 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 $50.03 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 CA3110040
  • Volumetric tiers WRSFUsageCost1, WRSFUsageCost2, WRSFUsageCost3, system CA3110040
  • Tier tops WRSFMetricUsage1, WRSFMetricUsage2, WRSFMetricUsage3, system CA3110040
  • Unit of measure WRUOM, system CA3110040
  • Billing frequency WRFrequency, system CA3110040
  • The Board's own charge field WR6HCFDWCharges, system CA3110040

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

EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System carries no violation for this system in the 2026Q2 download.

That is a statement about the record. SDWIS is a state-to-EPA reporting pipeline and its completeness varies by primacy agency and by quarter, so an empty record is not the same as a system that has never been in violation.

Who filed this audit

Placer County Water Agency filed 8 separate audits for FY2024, 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. Placer County Water Agency made one set of decisions and filed it 8 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, FY2024 · 10.1 MG system input
Billed 9.69 MG Unbilled authorized 0.02 MG Apparent loss 0.15 MG Real loss 0.25 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 10.1 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AN2402 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Billed authorized 9.69 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AQ2402 · billed metered plus billed unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Unbilled authorized 0.02 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AW2402 · unbilled metered plus unbilled unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Apparent loss 0.15 MG sheet Sheet1, cell CC2402 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Real loss 0.25 MG sheet Sheet1, cell CE2402 · 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, 2016–2024
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable
2024 4.2% 10.1 $464
2023 4.6% 9.16 $322
2022 4.7% 10.4 $296
2021 4.7% 10.5 $340
2020 11.6% 10.5 $320
2019 5.3% 8.67 $279
2018 4.8% 9.1 $294
2017 4.7% 8.52 $276
2016 11.4% 9.17 $280

Comparable systems

The same size band — under 1,000 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
Nid Smartsvilleunder 1,000 connections 23.4% FY2024
Cws Vis Mullenunder 1,000 connections 25.7% FY2024
Wmwd - Rainbowunder 1,000 connections 35.7% FY2024
Calaveras County Water Districtunder 1,000 connections 54.4% FY2025
Cws Av Grand Oaksunder 1,000 connections 29.7% FY2024
Cws Rdv Noel Heightsunder 1,000 connections 20.0% FY2024
California - American Water Company - Monterey District - Garrapataunder 1,000 connections 10.4% FY2024
California - American Water Company - Sacramento District - Security Parkunder 1,000 connections 14.9% FY2024

Where is it going?

This page says how much — roughly $464 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 Placer County Water Agency Bianchi

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, “Placer County Water Agency Bianchi — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/ca/placer-county-water-agency-bianchi/ (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.