# Northwest Harris County MUD 5 — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX1010884 · HARRIS County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/northwest-harris-county-mud-5/

## Summary

Northwest Harris County MUD 5 reported **14.2% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 38% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$1.3M 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 | 14.2% | 1,365 | $1.3M | closed |
| 2023 | 6.7% | 1,413 | $388,704 | closed |
| 2021 | 12.5% | 1,088 | $445,124 | closed |
| 2020 | 6.8% | 1,173 | $196,988 | closed |
| 2019 | 9.2% | 1,151 | $191,964 | closed |
| 2018 | 9.1% | 1,038 | $163,880 | closed |
| 2016 | 4.4% | 903.5 | $26,433 | closed |
| 2015 | 6.2% | 808 | $28,821 | 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

---