Texas · PWS TX1490002 · LIVE OAK County

Three Rivers

What Three Rivers filed with TWDB about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2016–2023 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2023
34.8%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.
Recoverable annually
$442,280
As computed in the filed audit itself: apparent loss valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water, real loss at its own reported variable production cost. Not our estimate.
Balance check
closed
The filed water balance closes.

Read this page as markdown →

What the filing says

Three Rivers serves 1,360 retail connections and about 4,411 people. Because it reports fewer than 3,300 connections, it is on a five-year water loss audit cycle with TWDB.

What the record shows

34.8% non-revenue water in FY2023, higher than 86% of the 785 Texas systems that filed that year.

The reported figure is not stable enough to act on. It has moved an average of 10.5 points a year, against a Texas median of 5.79, including 5.6% to 34.8% between FY2021 and FY2023. A distribution system's real losses do not change that fast — pipe does not deteriorate or repair itself in a single year. A series that moves like this is describing how the water is being measured and recorded, not how much of it is being lost, and which year is closer to true cannot be settled from this filing.
Water balance, FY2023 · 561 MG system input
Billed 365.6 MG Unbilled authorized 0.91 MG Apparent loss 13.1 MG Real loss 181.4 MG

Components sum to within 0.00% of reported system input, inside the 0.5% tolerance.

Filed history, 2016–2023
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable Balance
2023 34.8% 561 $442,280 closed
2021 5.6% 545.3 $90,430 closed
2020 24.1% 461.1 $246,825 closed
2019 19.4% 426.4 $184,731 closed
2018 18.5% 433.8 $181,127 closed
2017 9.8% 600.1 $139,848 closed
2016 11.2% 651.6 $114,985 closed

How to read the recoverable figure

Apparent loss is water that reached a customer and was never billed — under-registering meters, data-handling errors, unauthorized use. It is valued at the retail rate, because recovering it is revenue, and it is recoverable inside a budget year without capital work. Real loss is valued at variable production cost only: eliminating a leak saves what it cost to treat and pump the water, not what it would have sold for. Adding those two at the same rate is how a loss study produces a number nobody in a finance department believes.

As computed in the filed audit itself: apparent loss valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water, real loss at its own reported variable production cost. Not our estimate.

Comparable systems

Same county, or the same size band — 1,000–3,300 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
El Paso County Tornillo Wid1,000–3,300 connections 8.5%
Bunker Hill Village1,000–3,300 connections 8.7%
Northwest Harris County MUD 321,000–3,300 connections 3.7%
Sugar Land River Park1,000–3,300 connections 37.4%
Canadian Municipal1,000–3,300 connections 15.6%
Lytle1,000–3,300 connections 25.4%
Sand Flat Water Supply Corp1,000–3,300 connections 34.1%
Reno1,000–3,300 connections 25.2%

Where is it going?

This page says how much — roughly $442,280 a year. It cannot say which accounts, which zones, or which meters. That takes your billing history, your meter reads, and your production data reconciled against each other.

Our Water Loss Recovery Snapshot is three weeks, one flat fee, and the deliverable is a ranked list of specific accounts and zones with dollars and a confidence on each.

See what the Snapshot delivers Email us about Three Rivers

Sources and corrections. Every figure above is either filed by the utility or computed from filed figures, and each one says which. If a number here is wrong, it is either wrong in the filing or wrong in our reading of it — tell us which and we will correct the page and say what changed.