# Lewisville — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0610004 · DENTON County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/lewisville/

## Summary

Lewisville reported **17.8% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 50% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$3.0M a year**, as computed in the filed audit itself. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 17.8% | 7,353 | $3.0M | closed |
| 2023 | 19.4% | 7,764 | $2.0M | closed |
| 2022 | 18.7% | 7,565 | $2.1M | closed |
| 2021 | 16.9% | 5,587 | $1.1M | closed |
| 2020 | 13.6% | 5,540 | $959,148 | closed |
| 2018 | 12.8% | 5,353 | $1.0M | closed |
| 2017 | 14.8% | 5,330 | $991,933 | closed |
| 2016 | 10.4% | 4,870 | $679,254 | closed |
| 2015 | 8.9% | 4,599 | $487,069 | 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

---