Littlefield
What Littlefield filed with TWDB about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2015–2017 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.
- Non-revenue water, FY2017
- 17.0% Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.
- Recoverable annually
- $56,171 As computed in the filed audit itself: apparent loss valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water, real loss at its own reported variable production cost. Not our estimate.
- Balance check
- closed The filed water balance closes.
What the filing says
Littlefield serves 2,528 retail connections and about 6,372 people. Because it reports fewer than 3,300 connections, it is on a five-year water loss audit cycle with TWDB.
What the record shows
17.0% non-revenue water in FY2017, higher than 47% of the 641 Texas systems that filed that year.
The reported figure is stable, moving 5.69 points a year against a Texas median of 5.81, so the level is more likely to reflect the system than the paperwork.
Components sum to within 0.00% of reported system input, inside the 0.5% tolerance.
| Year | NRW | Input (MG) | Recoverable | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 17.0% | 256.3 | $56,171 | closed |
| 2016 | 21.9% | 266.4 | $57,759 | closed |
| 2015 | 15.4% | 272 | $42,047 | closed |
How to read the recoverable figure
Apparent loss is water that reached a customer and was never billed — under-registering meters, data-handling errors, unauthorized use. It is valued at the retail rate, because recovering it is revenue, and it is recoverable inside a budget year without capital work. Real loss is valued at variable production cost only: eliminating a leak saves what it cost to treat and pump the water, not what it would have sold for. Adding those two at the same rate is how a loss study produces a number nobody in a finance department believes.
As computed in the filed audit itself: apparent loss valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water, real loss at its own reported variable production cost. Not our estimate.
Comparable systems
Same county, or the same size band — 1,000–3,300 connections.
| System | Basis for comparison | NRW |
|---|---|---|
| Sunnydale Water Supply Corp | LAMB County | 22.5% |
| Cameron | 1,000–3,300 connections | 14.4% |
| Zephyr Water Supply Corp | 1,000–3,300 connections | 44.0% |
| Harris County MUD 119 | 1,000–3,300 connections | 41.2% |
| Atlanta | 1,000–3,300 connections | 58.5% |
| El Paso County WCID 4 Fabens | 1,000–3,300 connections | 14.8% |
| Blue Ridge West MUD | 1,000–3,300 connections | 3.1% |
| Gonzales County Water Supply Corp | 1,000–3,300 connections | 18.5% |
Where is it going?
This page says how much — roughly $56,171 a year. It cannot say which accounts, which zones, or which meters. That takes your billing history, your meter reads, and your production data reconciled against each other.
Our Water Loss Recovery Snapshot is three weeks, one flat fee, and the deliverable is a ranked list of specific accounts and zones with dollars and a confidence on each.
See what the Snapshot delivers Email us about LittlefieldSources and corrections. Every figure above is either filed by the utility or computed from filed figures, and each one says which. If a number here is wrong, it is either wrong in the filing or wrong in our reading of it — tell us which and we will correct the page and say what changed.
- Texas Water Development Board — historical water loss audit data. Retrieved 2026-08-09 from tx-historical-water-loss-audit-data.xlsx. https://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/data/water-loss-dashboard.asp