# Sugar Land - New Territory — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0790253 · FORT BEND County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/sugar-land-new-territory/

## Summary

Sugar Land - New Territory reported **15.8% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 43% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$421,556 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 | 15.8% | 713.9 | $421,556 | closed |
| 2023 | 20.0% | 818.7 | $654,264 | closed |
| 2022 | 21.8% | 815.2 | $619,906 | closed |
| 2021 | 19.2% | 668.1 | $372,235 | closed |
| 2020 | 19.6% | 766.7 | $432,792 | closed |
| 2019 | 18.2% | 745.4 | $269,137 | closed |
| 2018 | 15.7% | 773.8 | $286,215 | closed |
| 2017 | 10.6% | 886.8 | $208,099 | closed |
| 2015 | 36.3% | 217.4 | $198,350 | 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

---