# Bangs — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0250001 · BROWN County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/bangs/

## Summary

Bangs reported **38.7% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 86% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$45,782 a year**, as computed in the filed audit itself. **The series is not stable enough to act on**: it moves 19.1 points a year against a Texas median of 5.8.

**The filed balance closes**, to within 0.00% of reported system input.

## Filed history

| Year | Non-revenue water % | System input (MG) | Cost of losses/yr | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 38.7% | 122.2 | $45,782 | closed |
| 2021 | 6.3% | 89.6 | $30,665 | closed |
| 2020 | 26.0% | 78.7 | $38,612 | closed |
| 2019 | 18.0% | 71.9 | $21,730 | closed |
| 2018 | 3.9% | 66.2 | $6,877 | closed |
| 2017 | 20.5% | 59.9 | $2,167 | closed |
| 2016 | 6.2% | 67.3 | $1,415 | closed |
| 2015 | 35.3% | 80.6 | $11,821 | closed |

`closed` means the filed components sum to the filed input. `failed` means they do not, by the stated residual.
`insufficient` means the check could not run because figures are missing — never to be read as a pass.

## How the cost figure is built

Apparent loss is water delivered and never billed, so it is valued at the retail rate: revenue, recoverable inside a
budget year without capital work. Real loss is valued at variable production cost, because eliminating a leak saves
treatment and pumping rather than retail price. Where the filed audit carries its own cost of losses — as TWDB's
export does — those figures are used directly and no rate of ours enters the calculation.

## Source

Texas Water Development Board — historical water loss audit data. Retrieved 2026-08-09. https://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/data/water-loss-dashboard.asp

Volumes are normalized to million gallons on ingest; the export reports them in the unit each filing states.

Figures are as filed unless stated otherwise. If a number here is wrong it is wrong in the filing or wrong in
our reading of it, and both are worth knowing: ammar@municorn.us

---