Massachusetts · PWS 2282000

Sterling

What Sterling filed with MassDEP about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2019–2025 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Unaccounted-for water, FY2024
25.0%
As reported by the utility; the underlying volumes are not published.
Recoverable annually
Not estimable from what MassDEP publishes. A loss percentage cannot be priced without the volume it is a share of.
Balance check
inapplicable
This state does not require a component water balance.

What the filing says

Sterling serves an unreported number of retail connections. Municipal suppliers averaging 100,000 gallons a day or more calculate unaccounted-for water and residential gallons per capita per day in the Annual Statistical Report, and both are Water Management Act performance standards. MassDEP publishes those two percentages but not the volumes behind them, which is why this page carries no dollar figure — the volumes are in this system's own ASR filing.

What the record shows

25.0% unaccounted-for water in FY2024, higher than 87% of the 278 Massachusetts systems that filed that year.

The reported figure is not stable enough to act on. It has moved an average of 12.6 points a year, against a Massachusetts median of 3.8, including 1.0% to 25.0% between FY2020 and FY2021. A distribution system's real losses do not change that fast — pipe does not deteriorate or repair itself in a single year. A series that moves like this is describing how the water is being measured and recorded, not how much of it is being lost, and which year is closer to true cannot be settled from this filing.
Water balance, FY2025

Massachusetts reports unaccounted-for water and residential gallons per capita per day as Water Management Act performance standards. It does not require the component water balance — billed, unbilled authorized, apparent loss, real loss — that the closure check tests, so there is nothing here for the identity to be evaluated against.

inapplicable · not part of this state's reporting

This is deliberately not recorded as a disclosure gap. Nothing was withheld: these figures were never requested of a Massachusetts supplier. The findings on this page are the standards comparison above and MassDEP's own review note.

Filed history, 2019–2025
Year UAW RGPCD Recoverable Balance
2025 54.5 inapplicable
2024 25.0% 56.4 inapplicable
2023 10.0% 57.4 inapplicable
2022 29.0% 55 inapplicable
2021 25.0% 54 inapplicable
2020 1.0% 61.3 inapplicable
2019 2.0% inapplicable

How to read the recoverable figure

Apparent loss is water that reached a customer and was never billed — under-registering meters, data-handling errors, unauthorized use. It is valued at the retail rate, because recovering it is revenue, and it is recoverable inside a budget year without capital work. Real loss is valued at variable production cost only: eliminating a leak saves what it cost to treat and pump the water, not what it would have sold for. Adding those two at the same rate is how a loss study produces a number nobody in a finance department believes.

Not estimable from what was filed.

Comparable systems

Same county, or the same size band — size not reported.

SystemBasis for comparisonUAW
Adams Fire Districtsize not reported
Agawamsize not reported
Amherst DPWsize not reported
Atholsize not reported
Belchertown Water Districtsize not reported
Bernardston Fire & Water Districtsize not reported 35.0%
Cheshiresize not reported
Chicopeesize not reported

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 Sterling

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.