of supplied water reported lost
Georgia comparison: 22.2%
GEORGIA EPD WATER AUDITS / 2016–2025
Water losses in
Northwest Georgia
Ten years of water audits for nine utilities in Walker, Dade, Catoosa and Chattooga counties. See how much water they reported losing, what it cost, and how the figures changed.
See the 2025 results ↓Walker · Dade · Catoosa · Chattooga
2016–2025 audits • Analysis by Elliot Pierce • October 12, 2026
01 / 2025 LOCAL RESULTS
Local utilities reported
33% of their water lost in 2025.
The nine utilities in these audits reported 2.28 billion gallons of water losses in 2025, out of 6.90 billion gallons supplied. The audits attribute 96.1% of those lost gallons to physical leakage. The rest is water used but missing from meter or billing records, including unauthorized use.
gallons lost per day
Annual total divided by 365of local loss was physical leakage
The remaining 3.9% was apparent lossDerived from the 2025 EPD compilation, nine local rows. Georgia: 241 usable audit rows. Sources and exclusions
What these audits measure
These audits compare treated water entering the pipe network with water used by customers and the utility. They measure water loss and accounting, not drinking-water safety.
The county totals include the utilities listed under each county in the audit files. Some utilities serve customers across county lines, and some local providers do not appear separately in these files. Loss percentages show the share of water lost; they do not account for differences in pipe networks or customer use.
02 / WATER LOSS EXPLAINED
What counts as
water loss?
The audit starts with treated water supplied to the utility’s pipe network. It then subtracts authorized use to estimate water losses. Water sold to another utility is recorded as an export and is not a loss.
2025 / EVERY 100 GALLONS SUPPLIED100 gallons
Customer use that is billed
Water delivered and billed, including homes, businesses and other authorized customers.
Authorized use that is not billed
Legitimate unbilled uses such as firefighting, flushing mains, municipal facilities and utility operations.
Apparent loss
Water used but missing from the recorded consumption total because of inaccurate meters, billing or data errors, or unauthorized use.
Real loss
Estimated physical leakage from mains, service lines before the meter, and utility storage leaks or overflows.
Water losses: 33.1%
Real losses plus apparent losses. Authorized free water is excluded.
Non-revenue water: 36.2%
Water losses plus authorized use that is not billed. This includes legitimate uses such as firefighting and flushing water mains.
How leakage is estimated
Real loss is the remainder after the audit subtracts authorized consumption and apparent losses from supplied water. The leakage total is calculated from these records, rather than directly measured at every leak. Meter tests, accurate billing records and leak surveys help check the result.
A leak after your customer meter normally counts as customer consumption, rather than the utility’s distribution real loss.
Georgia Water Loss Control Manual, pp. 15–21, 75–77. 2025 balance derived from the nine local audits. Rounded components may not add exactly.
Physical losses
Pipe defects, failing joints, service-line leaks and tank overflows allow treated water to escape. Some leaks surface as obvious breaks. Others remain underground for months. Pressure can increase flow through existing defects.
Types of physical leakage
Background: small continuing seepage. Unreported: larger leaks crews have not found. Reported: known leaks until repairs are completed. The local compilations do not divide their leakage into these three categories.
Meter and data losses
A worn or poorly sized customer meter can under-record use. Missing reads, incorrect multipliers, account adjustments or meter-change errors can lose gallons between the meter and the billing system.
Why apparent-loss estimates change
Audits may use tested meter results or software defaults. A revised estimate can change apparent loss and the residual real-loss total even without a new pipe break. Ask for the input method before treating an increase as a proven rise in billing errors.
Unauthorized use
Illegal connections, unauthorized hydrant use and meter tampering are part of apparent loss. They are not the dominant category in the published local totals, which combine all apparent-loss mechanisms.
How unauthorized use is estimated
The software allows default estimates when detailed evidence is unavailable. A loss total does not show that a particular person stole water, or tell us how much of apparent loss was theft.
PHYSICAL LEAKAGE
Hidden leaks can continue
for months before repair.
Water can escape through pipes and joints without reaching the surface. Finding a leak sooner reduces the amount lost before it is repaired.
03 / TEN YEARS OF AUDITS
Water-loss trends
from 2016 to 2025
The local utilities reported losing about 29–36% of their supplied water each year from 2016 to 2025. The statewide loss share also increased during this period.
Share of supplied water reported lost
This chart shows total water losses divided by total water supplied. EPD recommends other measures for tracking a utility’s operating performance, including loss per connection or per mile of pipe.
Nine local systemsGeorgia usable audits
View the exact annual totals
Ringgold is missing from the 2017 compilation: the local total includes eight audits that year. Georgia’s annual reporting population varies. State totals exclude six suspect-unit rows across 2024–2025.
21.18 billion gallons
Combined reported water losses across the 89 available local audits, 2016–2025. This is a sum of annual estimates, not a verified volume of recoverable water.
Leakage rose faster than connections
Reported regional physical leakage rose 21.8% between 2016 and 2025. Connections rose 5.8%. Growth in the reported number of connections alone does not explain the rise in leakage volume.
The same 208 Georgia utilities also lost more
Among the 208 Georgia utilities with usable audits in all ten years, the combined loss share rose from 16.7% in 2016 to 21.9% in 2025. The statewide increase is also present when the comparison uses the same utilities throughout.
Derived from cleaned data and checked original annual compilations. Fixed statewide panel: supplied workbook “Same 208 Utilities.” Changing meters, estimates, boundaries and audit practices can affect measured trends.
04 / YOUR WATER SYSTEM
Compare the nine
local water utilities.
Choose a county and a measure to compare the 2025 results. Select a utility to read its findings, view its ten-year record and open the original audit spreadsheets.
2025 utility comparison
Why the comparison measure matters
A service connection is a physical pipe connection, including active and inactive lines and fire connections. It is not necessarily a household, resident or billing account.
A rural network can have more pipe per connection. Its rate per connection can look high even when leakage per mile is modest. Use the measure selector to see both views.
The median Georgia audit reported 55.3 gallons of real loss per connection per day in 2025. The median among 205 utilities with 1,000–25,000 connections was also 55.3. Neither is a target imposed on each local utility.
05 / FINDINGS FROM THE AUDITS
Six findings from
the local water audits
These findings compare the figures reported in the original utility audit rows. The audit notes and operating records are needed to explain what caused the changes.
WATER LOSS AND UTILITY COSTS
Utilities pay to produce
or buy water that later leaks.
Reducing leakage can reduce treatment, pumping and wholesale purchase costs. Repair costs determine how much the utility ultimately saves.
06 / REPORTED LOSS COSTS
The reported cost
of water losses
The nine utilities reported $1.91 million in estimated costs from physical and apparent water losses in 2025. Utilities use different cost inputs, and several entries need checking. Repairing losses would not automatically save the entire reported amount.
Apparent losses: 3.9% of gallons, 28.3% of cost
Loss volume
Apparent: 3.9%
Reported loss cost
Apparent: 28.3%
Real lossesApparent losses
Meter and accounting work deserves attention alongside pipe work. Apparent losses make up just 3.9% of local lost gallons, but 28.3% of the reported loss cost.
Apparent losses: $539,953. Real losses: $1,370,572. 2025 audit cost fields summed as filed.
How utilities estimate loss costs
Physical leakage is usually valued at the variable cost of producing or purchasing water: energy, chemicals and wholesale purchases.
Apparent losses are usually valued at the customer retail charge, because the water was used but not fully recorded or billed.
Fixed expenses such as much of staffing and debt service do not disappear when a leak is repaired. Scarcity can justify retail valuation of real losses. Check each audit’s stated basis.
Inspect all nine 2025 cost estimates and valuation inputs
VPC = variable production cost. CRUC = customer retail unit cost. Dollar values are nominal, as reported. Different pricing bases and suspect inputs limit comparison. These are loss costs, excluding authorized free-use cost.
LaFayette reported more leakage but a lower loss cost in 2025.
Physical leakage rose 10.1% in 2025, while the reported total loss cost fell from $571,715 to $140,858. Its production-cost input fell from $824.98 to $192.95 per million gallons. The lower cost entry needs an explanation; it does not show that leakage decreased.
ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF A REDUCTION
How much water would a reduction save?
Choose a percentage reduction in the 2025 physical-leakage total and a water cost. The calculator shows the gallons and estimated expense avoided before repair costs. It does not predict what reduction is achievable.
million gallons per year
estimated expense avoided per year, before repair costs
Before investigation, repair, equipment and financing costs. Assumes the selected reduction is feasible and the selected cost is truly avoidable.Manual pp. 23–24, 34, 69–71, 77. Scenario: 2,192.45 million gallons × reduction × assumed cost per 1,000 gallons. It does not use the suspect reported cost rates.
07 / AUDIT DATA QUESTIONS
Audit entries that
need an explanation
Some audit entries change sharply, repeat across years or appear inconsistent with other figures. The table below identifies the specific entries and the records needed to check them. They remain as reported in this analysis.
What the data validity score means
The data validity score describes audit-input practices and evidence. A score of 74 does not mean the result is 74% accurate. It is also not a drinking-water quality grade.
Fort Oglethorpe and Chattooga County Water District both scored 51 in 2025; Chickamauga scored 52. Passing 50 does not resolve individual anomalies. Scores across software versions can also reflect changed grading.
What the leakage index measures
ILI compares reported physical leakage with a theoretical technical minimum based on pipes, connections and pressure. It is not a guaranteed saving or an economic target.
Small-system applicability limits affect Chickamauga and Ringgold. Catoosa Utility District’s 0.83 warrants review, but a below-one index is not automatically impossible. The manual allows advanced leakage controls to outperform the reference.
Neither an unusual input nor identical figures prove misconduct or a compilation error. Population is not part of the leakage water-balance calculation. Stable mains or connection counts can be legitimate. The full audit, comments and supporting records distinguish the possibilities.
Manual pp. 12, 27–35, 74–77; July 2019 guidance p. 9. Specific anomalies: annual audit rows and cleaned workbook Open Questions.
08 / REDUCING WATER LOSSES
How utilities can
reduce water losses
A water-loss control plan should state the current losses, the work proposed to reduce them, its cost and schedule, and how the utility will measure the results.
Find hidden leaks
Leak surveys, sound-detection equipment and overnight flow monitoring can find leaks that are not visible at the surface.
Repair sooner
The longer a leak continues, the more water is lost. Track when each leak is found and when repairs are completed.
Manage pressure
Use measured pressure zones and sound operating controls. Protect domestic service, water quality and fire protection while reducing excess pressure.
Maintain the network
Use pipe condition, material and past breaks to decide which mains need maintenance, repair or replacement first.
Four-pillar approach: Manual pp. 65–68. Apparent-loss control also requires meter testing, billing review and unauthorized-use controls, pp. 63–65, 69–70.
Ask your utility these questions.
- What is our current water-loss control plan, and what specific reduction goals and deadlines have we adopted?
- Which audit inputs are measured, which are estimated, and which use software defaults?
- How many mains were surveyed, leaks repaired and customer meters tested? What changed in actual gallons after that work?
- Can you reconcile the unusual populations, connection counts, mains lengths or unit costs flagged in the audits?
- What is our economic level of leakage? How do repair and replacement costs compare with the benefits?
- Can residents see the full audit, auditor certification, comments and any progress reports required by our permits?
Which records would answer those questions?
From EPD
Full annual audit workbooks with Comments and Notes tabs; Qualified Water Loss Auditor certifications; submitted control programs; relevant permit review and any permit-required progress reports.
From the utility
Source/import meter flow-verification and calibration records; monthly water-balance data; customer meter testing; billing reconciliation; leak and repair logs; pressure-zone records; pipe inventory; cost worksheets and purchase invoices; funded project schedules.
Request existing electronic records. The statewide compilations do not contain every underlying audit worksheet or operational document.
Georgia’s audit and water-loss guidance
The 2024 manual describes annual calendar-year audits and loss-control programs for systems serving at least 3,300 people, with audits due March 1 of the next year. The 2019 guidance describes demonstrating progress in relevant permit reviews.
The 2020 presentation links annual program-progress reports to withdrawal permits. Purchased-water systems remain subject to the rules but were not affected by those withdrawal-permit provisions at that time.
How utilities should set reduction goals
A pipe network cannot eliminate every leak. The “economic level of leakage” is the point where reducing losses further would cost more than it would save or otherwise benefit the system. Each utility needs a target based on its own pipes, supply and costs.
The audits show questions and trends. They do not by themselves establish a permit violation, prove a particular operational cause or calculate the right capital project.
Supplied source editions: Manual pp. 7–8, 57–59, 71; 2019 guidance pp. 1–4, 9; 2020 presentation slides 5, 9, 11–13. These describe the supplied guidance, not an independent current-law review.
09 / DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
The source files
and calculations
Download the ten annual Georgia EPD audit spreadsheets, the water-loss guidance documents and the local data used on this site. The local totals and comparisons were recalculated and checked against the original files.
How this analysis was made
- Period and grain: calendar years 2016–2025, one utility per year. Nine local systems, 89 audits; Ringgold 2017 is absent from the supplied compilation.
- Source checking: 2,055 local numeric input comparisons and 46,464 statewide numeric comparisons against original source rows found no differences in the checked fields. This verifies transcription, not the accuracy of a utility’s underlying measurements.
- Water balance: supplied − authorized consumption = losses; real + apparent = losses. All 89 local rows reconcile within numerical tolerance.
- Units: source volumes are million gallons (MG). 1 MG = 1,000,000 gallons. Reported loss rates use the compiled audit’s 365-day normalization, including leap-year records. A literal daily average for a leap year would use 366.
- Aggregation: sum volumes first; divide summed loss by summed supply for percentages. Do not average utility percentages. County boundaries are audit classifications, not exact service territories.
- Comparisons: statewide median gives every usable utility one observation. The size peer group has 1,000–25,000 connections; 205 systems in 2025. Connection density, pressure and audit quality still differ.
- State exclusions: six suspect-unit rows remain unchanged in the downloadable cleaned workbook but are excluded from statewide comparisons: Eatonton-Putnam and Hinesville in 2024 and 2025; Glen of Robin Hood and South Atlantic Utilities–Bryan County in 2025. Local rows were not excluded.
- Money: apparent-loss cost + real-loss cost as reported. Nominal dollars, no inflation adjustment, no assumption that all values are comparable or all losses economically recoverable.
- Uncertainty: full underlying audit notes, repair records, billing detail, service maps and financial bases were not supplied. The website does not invent them or quantify confidence intervals the audits do not provide.
- Original memo: supplied as background. This website corrects overstatements where raw figures or guidance differ: Summerville’s highest per-connection rate was in 2022; pressure does not enter the per-connection rate; below-one ILI is a review flag rather than automatic proof of error.
Coverage: who is not represented separately?
Trenton, Trion, Rossville and Lookout Mountain do not appear as separate utility rows in these ten compilations. That alone does not establish why, which system supplies every resident, or whether a required audit was filed. Confirm service boundaries and audit scope with the utilities and EPD.