Texas · PWS TX0420001 · COLEMAN County

Coleman

What Coleman filed with TWDB about the water it produced and the water it billed for, 2015–2023 — and what the filing does and does not let anyone verify.

Non-revenue water, FY2023
16.6%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx2023 AP609agency source

Where this figure comes from

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

  • system input volume 187.7 sheet 2023, cell AP609 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • billed authorized consumption 156.6 sheet 2023, cell AU609 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states

Read from data/archive/twdb/2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx (SHA-256 7270fa7072e51e70), our archived copy of the file as it stood on 2026-08-11. That path is committed to the repository and is not served here. The agency publishes its own current copy at https://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/data/doc/water-loss-data/sources/historical-water-loss-audit-data.xlsx, which may since have been revised.

Annual value of the filed loss
$99,600
Apparent loss is valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water, and real loss at its own reported variable production cost. Not our estimate, and shown to three significant figures.

2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx2023 CD609agency 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 93,833 sheet 2023, cell CD609 · republished only where the retail price it implies is one a utility could charge
  • cost of real losses, as filed 5,794 sheet 2023, cell CH609 · republished only where the production cost it implies is one a utility could incur

Read from data/archive/twdb/2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx (SHA-256 7270fa7072e51e70), our archived copy of the file as it stood on 2026-08-11. That path is committed to the repository and is not served here. The agency publishes its own current copy at https://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/data/doc/water-loss-data/sources/historical-water-loss-audit-data.xlsx, which may since have been revised.

Apparent loss that is a default
4.3%

MeasuredTWDB default

TWDB supplied the default value for unauthorized consumption and data handling error rather than this utility measuring them.

2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx2023 BL609agency source

Where this figure comes from

defaulted apparent-loss components ÷ total apparent loss × 100

  • apparent loss 18.2 sheet 2023, cell BL609 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states

Read from data/archive/twdb/2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx (SHA-256 7270fa7072e51e70), our archived copy of the file as it stood on 2026-08-11. That path is committed to the repository and is not served here. The agency publishes its own current copy at https://www.twdb.texas.gov/conservation/data/doc/water-loss-data/sources/historical-water-loss-audit-data.xlsx, which may since have been revised.

What the filing says

Coleman serves 2,799 retail connections and about 3,998 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

16.6% non-revenue water in FY2023, higher than 51% of the 785 Texas systems that filed that year.

16.6% non-revenue water in FY2023, against 785 Texas filings for the same yearA strip of 785 filings on a 0 to 64% axis. The median is 16.3%. This system is 16.6%. 4 filings above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 16.6%Texas median 16.3%
This series is flagged for review. The filed loss percentage has moved an average of 15.4 points a year, against a Texas median of 4.2, including 22% to 53% 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

20 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2, of which 12 are health-based. 20 resolved, 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.

Water balance, FY2023 · 187.7 MG system input
Billed 156.6 MG Unbilled authorized 0.39 MG Apparent loss 18.2 MG Real loss 12.5 MG

TWDB 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 187.7 MG sheet 2023, cell AP609 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • Billed authorized 156.6 MG sheet 2023, cell AU609 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • Unbilled authorized 0.39 MG computed here, not read from a cell
  • Apparent loss 18.2 MG sheet 2023, cell BL609 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • Real loss 12.5 MG sheet 2023, cell BQ609

From data/archive/twdb/2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx (SHA-256 7270fa7072e51e70), retrieved 2026-08-11 from the published source.

Filed history, 2015–2023
Year NRW Input (MG) Recoverable
2023 16.6% 187.7 $99,600
2022 39.5% 258.9 $235,000
2020 44.5% 247.1 $198,000
2019 53.2% 280.3 $88,800
2018 22.4% 183.2 $35,100
2017 37.0% 216.7 $41,400
2016 51.3% 282.1 $274,000
2015 37.4% 214.5 $156,000

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

How much of this figure was measured

Apparent loss is three components: customer meter inaccuracy, unauthorized consumption, and data handling error. TWDB supplies a default value for the last two when a utility does not measure them, and records which in its export. Across the published record, unauthorized consumption is a default on 95% of filings, data handling error on 30%. The median filing is 14.4% defaulted, and 1,329 filings are more than half. TWDB's own data-validity score averages 68.4 out of 100 on the 9,315 filings using a default, against 70.0 on the 429 using none — so the score does not tell the two apart.

4.3% of Coleman's reported apparent loss for FY2023 is a default rather than a measurement. How much of a Texas loss figure is measured sets this out across the whole filed record.

How the loss is valued

Apparent loss is water that reached a customer and was never billed: under-registering meters, data-handling errors, unauthorized use. It is valued here at the retail rate, because water that reached a customer would have sold at that rate. Real loss is valued at variable production cost only, since eliminating a leak saves what it cost to treat and pump the water rather than what it would have sold for. Valuing both at the retail rate is how a loss study produces a number nobody in a finance department believes, and that is the mistake this figure is built to avoid.

This is the value of the loss, not an amount anyone has established is recoverable. How much of it a utility can actually collect depends on which meters are under-registering, which accounts are unbilled, and what a replacement or an audit of those accounts would cost. None of that is in a filed water loss audit, and this page does not claim to know it.

Apparent loss is valued at this utility's own reported retail price of water, and real loss at its own reported variable production cost. Not our estimate, and shown to three significant figures.

Comparable systems

In the same county.

SystemBasis for comparisonNRW
Santa AnnaCOLEMAN County 22.2% FY2020
Southwest Fannin County SUD1,000–3,300 connections 29.0% FY2020
Jackrabbit Road PUD1,000–3,300 connections 8.8% FY2020
Mason Creek Utility District1,000–3,300 connections 13.5% FY2015
Kingsbridge MUD1,000–3,300 connections 10.9% FY2015
Macedonia Eylau MUD 11,000–3,300 connections 10.1% FY2015
Nassau Bay1,000–3,300 connections 17.0% FY2024
La Grange1,000–3,300 connections 11.0% FY2024

Where is it going?

This page values the loss at roughly $99,600 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 Coleman

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, “Coleman — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/coleman/ (source filings retrieved 2026-08-11).

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.