# Richland Hills — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX2200022 · TARRANT County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/richland-hills/

## Summary

Richland Hills reported **7.6% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 13% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$73,742 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 | 7.6% | 322.1 | $73,742 | closed |
| 2023 | 6.0% | 330.2 | $59,030 | closed |
| 2022 | 10.7% | 351.4 | $87,609 | closed |
| 2021 | 10.0% | 309.3 | $74,311 | closed |
| 2020 | 9.6% | 325.9 | $67,533 | closed |
| 2019 | 9.6% | 308.8 | $63,940 | closed |
| 2018 | 7.0% | 330.6 | $60,542 | closed |
| 2017 | 7.0% | 317.6 | $57,276 | closed |
| 2015 | 15.0% | 338.3 | $68,254 | 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

---