# Springs Hill SUD — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0940022 · GUADALUPE County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/springs-hill-sud/

## Summary

Springs Hill SUD reported **28.5% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 73% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$744,591 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 | 28.5% | 1,384 | $744,591 | closed |
| 2023 | 26.5% | 1,418 | $765,243 | closed |
| 2022 | 30.2% | 1,464 | $1.8M | closed |
| 2021 | 49.4% | 1,573 | $3.1M | closed |
| 2020 | 31.7% | 1,255 | $1.6M | closed |
| 2019 | 20.1% | 929.3 | $1.1M | closed |
| 2018 | 24.3% | 932 | $805,184 | closed |
| 2017 | 29.7% | 966.9 | $1.1M | closed |
| 2016 | 25.9% | 848.8 | $1.0M | closed |
| 2015 | 26.1% | 892.4 | $681,652 | 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

---