Texas · PWS TX0370033 · CHEROKEE County

Stryker Lake Water Supply Corp

What Stryker Lake Water Supply Corp 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
23.0%
Computed from filed system input and billed consumption.

2026-08-11-7270fa7072e5.xlsx2023 AP628agency source

Where this figure comes from

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

  • system input volume 27 sheet 2023, cell AP628 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • billed authorized consumption 20.8 sheet 2023, cell AU628 · 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
$5,530
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 CD628agency 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 1,230 sheet 2023, cell CD628 · republished only where the retail price it implies is one a utility could charge
  • cost of real losses, as filed 4,296 sheet 2023, cell CH628 · 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
49.9%

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 BL628agency source

Where this figure comes from

defaulted apparent-loss components ÷ total apparent loss × 100

  • apparent loss 0.21 sheet 2023, cell BL628 · 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

Stryker Lake Water Supply Corp serves 323 retail connections and about 808 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

23.0% non-revenue water in FY2023, higher than 68% of the 785 Texas systems that filed that year.

23.0% 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 23.0%. 4 filings above 64% are drawn at the right edge.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%This system 23.0%Texas median 16.3%
This series is flagged for review. The filed loss percentage has moved an average of 21.8 points a year, against a Texas median of 4.2, including 62% to 23% between FY2022 and FY2023. 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

52 violations on EPA's record for this system as of 2026Q2, of which 33 are health-based. 47 resolved, 5 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.

Water balance, FY2023 · 27 MG system input
Billed 20.8 MG Unbilled authorized 0.05 MG Apparent loss 0.21 MG Real loss 5.95 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 27 MG sheet 2023, cell AP628 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • Billed authorized 20.8 MG sheet 2023, cell AU628 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • Unbilled authorized 0.05 MG computed here, not read from a cell
  • Apparent loss 0.21 MG sheet 2023, cell BL628 · converted to million gallons from the unit the filing states
  • Real loss 5.95 MG sheet 2023, cell BQ628

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 23.0% 27 $5,530
2022 62.3% 51.5 $56,900
2015 32.4% 22.8 $7,970

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.

49.9% of Stryker Lake Water Supply Corp'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
Gallatin Water Supply CorpCHEROKEE County 41.3% FY2020
Dialville Oakland Water Supply CorpCHEROKEE County 50.5% FY2020
WellsCHEROKEE County 46.6% FY2024
Maydelle Water Supply CorpCHEROKEE County 21.8% FY2015
ReklawCHEROKEE County 16.9% FY2024
Rusk Rural Water Supply Corp Us 69 PlantCHEROKEE County 22.5% FY2020
Forest Water Supply CorpCHEROKEE County 48.8% FY2020
New Concord Water Supply CorpCHEROKEE County 22.0% FY2024

Where is it going?

This page values the loss at roughly $5,530 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 Stryker Lake Water Supply Corp

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, “Stryker Lake Water Supply Corp — water loss as filed”, Municorn water loss index, https://municorn.us/water-loss/tx/stryker-lake-water-supply-corp/ (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.