Georgia · PWS GA2370000 · PUTNAM County

Eatonton-putnam

What Eatonton-putnam filed with EPD about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2012–2025 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2025
Not reported in the filing.
Recoverable annually
Not estimable from what EPD publishes. A loss percentage cannot be priced without the volume it is a share of.
Balance check
insufficient
The filing does not publish enough components to decompose system input.

What the record shows

20.9% non-revenue water in FY2023, higher than 40% of the 224 Georgia systems that filed that year.

20.9% non-revenue water in FY2023, against 224 Georgia filings for the same yearA strip of 224 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 25.1%. This system is 20.9%. 6 filings above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 20.9%Georgia median 25.1%

Compliance record

21 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2, of which 8 are health-based. 12 resolved, 9 archived, and 0 still open.

Nothing on the record is open as of 2026Q2.

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

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

3 filed values that cannot be true.
  • The FY2025 volumes are not published here because the filing contradicts itself — 98,767 gal/person/day implied by this filing's own system input and population.
  • The FY2024 volumes are not published here because the filing contradicts itself — 105,390 gal/person/day implied by this filing's own system input and population.
  • FY2021 reports a leakage index of 0.013869838021175569, which would mean less real loss than the unavoidable minimum the same audit computes for this network.

Each is reproduced exactly as filed and excluded from every figure computed on this page. A number that contradicts its own audit is a finding about the filing, not a gap in ours.

Water balance, FY2025

This filing reports totals but not the components a balance is made of, so the identity input = billed + unbilled authorized + apparent loss + real loss has nothing to be tested against. Absent: system input volume, billed authorized consumption, unbilled authorized consumption, apparent loss, real loss.

insufficient · not checkable

This is recorded as unverifiable and not reported as a pass. The difference is the one between a disclosure gap and a clean bill of health.

Filed history, 2012–2025
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable Balance
2025 n/a insufficient
2024 n/a insufficient
2023 20.9% 463.3 $35,500 inapplicable
2022 18.1% 421.5 $30,800 inapplicable
2021 8.1% 394.6 $32,400 inapplicable
2020 17.8% 384.1 $30,700 inapplicable
2019 28.3% 369.3 $36,000 inapplicable
2018 31.8% 339.1 $34,500 inapplicable
2017 29.6% 328 $83,100 inapplicable
2016 35.3% 355.4 $74,400 inapplicable
2015 37.9% 343.9 $64,400 inapplicable
2014 36.5% 347.1 $22,500 inapplicable
2013 33.2% 306.3 $34,700 inapplicable
2012 34.1% 326.5 $22,300 inapplicable

Comparable systems

The same size band — 3,300–10,000 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
Richmond Hill3,300–10,000 connections 27.5% FY2025
Lee County3,300–10,000 connections 11.6% FY2025
Satilla Regional3,300–10,000 connections 9.3% FY2025
Moultrie3,300–10,000 connections 18.5% FY2016
Cordele3,300–10,000 connections 34.8% FY2025
McDonough3,300–10,000 connections 28.2% FY2025
Douglas3,300–10,000 connections 22.6% FY2025
Lawrenceville3,300–10,000 connections 10.7% FY2019

Where is it going?

This page says how much. 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 Eatonton-putnam

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, “Eatonton-putnam — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/ga/eatonton-putnam/ (source filings retrieved 2026-09-06).

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.