# Sugar Land River Park — water loss as filed

TWDB · PWS TX0790354 · FORT BEND County · filings 2015–2024
https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/sugar-land-river-park/

## Summary

Sugar Land River Park reported **37.4% non-revenue water** in FY2024, higher than 85% of the 908 Texas systems that filed that year. At the utility's own reported water rates that is **$365,167 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 | 37.4% | 278 | $365,167 | closed |
| 2023 | 6.1% | 274.1 | $80,751 | closed |
| 2020 | 3.4% | 225.6 | $27,127 | closed |
| 2019 | 6.2% | 236.1 | $39,580 | closed |
| 2018 | 3.4% | 233.7 | $20,918 | closed |
| 2017 | 3.6% | 228.1 | $27,508 | closed |
| 2016 | 14.0% | 222.8 | $80,120 | closed |
| 2015 | 0.8% | 200.2 | $4,698 | 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

---