California · PWS CA1010004

Coalinga

What Coalinga filed with DWR about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2017–2025 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2025
20.8%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csvSheet1 AN394agency source

Where this figure comes from

(system input − billed authorized) ÷ system input × 100

  • system input volume 1,301 sheet Sheet1, cell AN394 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • billed authorized consumption 1,031 sheet Sheet1, cell AQ394 · billed metered plus billed unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet

Read from data/archive/ca-dwr-water-loss/2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csv (SHA-256 f0dfea5a6026881d), our archived copy of the file as it stood on 2026-09-05. That path is committed to the repository and is not served here. The agency publishes its own current copy at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/d6cdd89e-49b0-4b1f-86ee-8b7237e5f169/resource/058ac6ca-a8b4-4f28-b6c8-11e48309f3b4/download/ca-retailer-waterlossdata.csv, which may since have been revised.

Annual value of the filed loss
$187,000
Apparent loss is valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water. Real loss is NOT included — DWR publishes a variable production cost whose unit it does not declare, so no dollar figure is put on the leaked water. The real recoverable total is higher than this by an amount this filing does not let anyone state.

2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csvSheet1 DH394agency source

Where this figure comes from

cost of apparent losses + cost of real losses, both as computed in the filed audit

  • cost of apparent losses, as filed 187,011 sheet Sheet1, cell DH394

Read from data/archive/ca-dwr-water-loss/2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csv (SHA-256 f0dfea5a6026881d), our archived copy of the file as it stood on 2026-09-05. That path is committed to the repository and is not served here. The agency publishes its own current copy at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/d6cdd89e-49b0-4b1f-86ee-8b7237e5f169/resource/058ac6ca-a8b4-4f28-b6c8-11e48309f3b4/download/ca-retailer-waterlossdata.csv, which may since have been revised.

What the record shows

20.8% non-revenue water in FY2025, higher than 91% of the 141 California systems that filed that year.

20.8% non-revenue water in FY2025, against 141 California filings for the same yearA strip of 141 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 6.9%. This system is 20.8%. 1 filing above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 20.8%California median 6.9%
This series is flagged for review. The filed loss percentage has moved an average of 4.4 points a year, against a California median of 2.6, including 5% to 13% between FY2018 and FY2019. The flag is that comparison and nothing more: mean absolute change per year, above the seventy-fifth percentile for this state.

It does not establish what moved. A meter replacement program, a main break, a change of billing system, a corrected prior-year filing and an ordinary reporting error all produce a series that looks like this, and a filed water loss audit does not say which happened. What the flag does say is that the years disagree with each other by more than most of the state's do, so a single year of this series is a weak basis for a decision without the records behind it.

Compliance record

17 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2, of which 14 are health-based. 16 resolved, 1 archived, and 0 still open.

Nothing on the record is open as of 2026Q2.

Counted as distinct violations, not as rows: EPA's export carries one row per enforcement action taken against a violation, so a row count would multiply this system's record several times over. A violation here is a breach of a reporting, monitoring or contaminant-level rule as reported to EPA — it is not a measurement of the water, and this site has none.

Source: US EPA, Safe Drinking Water Information System, via the ECHO national download, 2026Q2. How we hold it.

Who filed this audit

Coalinga City Of filed this audit for FY2025 and operates no other system in the export that year. California keys its export on the filing organization and not on the system, so the two coincide here rather than by definition.

Every figure on this page is read from DWR's published export as this site holds it: a 184-column extract of DWR's 190-column file. Six columns naming individuals, including the contact and the third-party validator, are removed before the bytes are committed, so the click path behind each figure lands on the extract and not on DWR's original. The column letters differ from DWR's for that reason.

Water balance, FY2025 · 1,301 MG system input
Billed 1,031 MG Unbilled authorized 2.58 MG Apparent loss 66.3 MG Real loss 201.1 MG

DWR derives water losses from system input minus authorized consumption, so these parts sum to the whole on every filing. What a filing can get wrong is which of these numbers were measured.

Where these volumes come from
  • System input 1,301 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AN394 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Billed authorized 1,031 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AQ394 · billed metered plus billed unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Unbilled authorized 2.58 MG sheet Sheet1, cell AW394 · unbilled metered plus unbilled unmetered, converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Apparent loss 66.3 MG sheet Sheet1, cell CC394 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet
  • Real loss 201.1 MG sheet Sheet1, cell CE394 · converted to million gallons from acre-feet

From data/archive/ca-dwr-water-loss/2026-09-05-f0dfea5a6026.csv (SHA-256 f0dfea5a6026881d), retrieved 2026-09-05 from the published source.

Filed history, 2017–2025
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable
2025 20.8% 1,301 $187,000
2024 22.8% 1,203 $295,000
2023 18.2% 1,073 $271,000
2022 20.4% 1,274 $315,000
2021 12.9% 1,413 $107,000
2020 10.0% 1,272 $85,800
2019 13.2% 1,224 $79,100
2018 5.2% 1,219 $85,500
2017 9.6% 1,184 $79,500

Balance closure is inapplicable on every filed year above, so the column that repeated it is not shown. DWR derives water losses from system input minus authorized consumption, so this decomposition holds by construction. This is neither a pass nor a disclosure gap.

Comparable systems

The same size band — 3,300–10,000 connections.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
Dixon Public3,300–10,000 connections 12.5% FY2024
East Palo Alto3,300–10,000 connections 14.7% FY2025
Kerman3,300–10,000 connections 12.3% FY2024
Cambria Community Services District3,300–10,000 connections 22.5% FY2024
Montebello Land & Water Company3,300–10,000 connections 10.9% FY2025
San Bernardino Csa 643,300–10,000 connections 11.3% FY2024
Greenfield3,300–10,000 connections 1.7% FY2025
Scv Water - Newhall3,300–10,000 connections 7.6% FY2024

Where is it going?

This page values the loss at roughly $187,000 a year. It cannot say which accounts, which zones, or which meters, and it cannot say how much of that value is collectable. Answering either 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 Coalinga

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 looks wrong, tell us: the error may be in the filing, in our reading of it, or in something the export does not show. Send a correction. We will check it against the source, correct the page where it is wrong, and say what changed.

Cite as

Municorn.us, “Coalinga — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/ca/coalinga/ (source filings retrieved 2026-09-05).

CC BY 4.0 — reuse and redistribution are permitted with attribution to Municorn.us and a link to this page. Terms, and the one caveat that must travel with these figures.

"Water loss" is at least three different quantities depending on the jurisdiction, and nothing here supports a comparison between states.