# Cockrell Hill — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0570038 · DALLAS County · filings 2015–2020
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/cockrell-hill/

## Summary

Cockrell Hill reported **26.0% non-revenue water** in FY2020, higher than 71% of the 1,775 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$69,078 a year**, as computed in the filed audit itself. **The series is not stable enough to act on**: it moves 23.3 points a year against a Texas median of 5.8. The figure is trending worse across the record.

**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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 26.0% | 127.6 | $69,078 | closed |
| 2019 | 67.8% | 133.8 | $26,644 | closed |
| 2018 | 37.2% | 147.5 | $112,062 | closed |
| 2017 | 50.4% | 198.4 | $218,937 | closed |
| 2016 | 25.6% | 175.2 | $79,813 | closed |
| 2015 | 19.5% | 152.6 | $53,814 | 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

---