# Friendswood — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0840002 · GALVESTON County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/friendswood/

## Summary

Friendswood reported **8.8% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 17% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$169,132 a year**, as computed in the filed audit itself.

**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 | 8.8% | 1,806 | $169,132 | closed |
| 2023 | 7.2% | 2,060 | $217,483 | closed |
| 2022 | 19.7% | 2,168 | $457,801 | closed |
| 2021 | 24.0% | 1,856 | $465,582 | closed |
| 2020 | 18.3% | 1,982 | $261,903 | closed |
| 2019 | 19.7% | 1,829 | $211,204 | closed |
| 2018 | 9.2% | 1,922 | $156,695 | closed |
| 2017 | 16.3% | 1,870 | $220,652 | closed |
| 2016 | 20.3% | 1,884 | $274,045 | closed |
| 2015 | 24.6% | 1,818 | $231,881 | 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

---