# Harris County MUD 55 Heritage Park — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX1010678 · HARRIS County · filings 2015–2023
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/harris-county-mud-55-heritage-park/

## Summary

Harris County MUD 55 Heritage Park reported **4.8% non-revenue water** in FY2023, higher than 6% of the 785 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$75,967 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4.8% | 414.8 | $75,967 | closed |
| 2022 | 8.6% | 444.2 | $148,608 | closed |
| 2021 | 22.0% | 466.4 | $368,684 | closed |
| 2020 | 21.2% | 493.7 | $378,675 | closed |
| 2019 | 24.3% | 497.6 | $455,834 | closed |
| 2018 | 15.1% | 466 | $218,402 | closed |
| 2016 | 14.1% | 454.7 | $161,629 | closed |
| 2015 | 12.5% | 456.7 | $84,670 | 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

---