# Sugar Land - Greatwood — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0790296 · FORT BEND County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/sugar-land-greatwood/

## Summary

Sugar Land - Greatwood reported **7.2% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 11% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$186,525 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 | 7.2% | 633.9 | $186,525 | closed |
| 2023 | 5.5% | 742.7 | $167,194 | closed |
| 2022 | 12.4% | 780.7 | $353,123 | closed |
| 2021 | 16.0% | 636.4 | $290,090 | closed |
| 2020 | 13.0% | 756.3 | $364,857 | closed |
| 2019 | 15.1% | 745.6 | $300,921 | closed |
| 2018 | 12.0% | 695.2 | $212,535 | closed |
| 2017 | 10.2% | 760.8 | $203,098 | closed |
| 2015 | 27.7% | 283.7 | $169,794 | 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

---