Chattooga County Water District

What the utility reported

In 2025, Chattooga County Water District supplied 375.1 million gallons and reported 163.3 million gallons lost, or 43.5% of supply. That equals 447,500 gallons per day.

Physical leakage changed -2.9% since 2024, +90.0% since 2020 and +34.0% since 2016. Total losses changed +1.4% in the latest year. Changes in meters, methods or audit boundaries can affect reported trends.

Reported by the utility / calculated from the audit 2025 EPD compilation, worksheet “2025 Water Audits ”, row 47. Definitions.

What deserves a closer look

A long network and limited audit documentation

The district reported 300 miles of main and 3,595 connections, or 12.0 connections per mile. Use both loss per mile and per connection when comparing a sparse network.

The data-validity score is 51 out of 100. It describes audit input documentation and checking, not 51% numerical accuracy. Request current pipe inventories, production-meter verification, customer meter tests and billing reconciliation.

Physical and apparent losses over time

Compare more than one measure

A physical service connection is not necessarily one home or one bill. Main length, pressure, density and input quality differ across systems.

Where its water came from

Net supply accounts for exports and source-meter adjustments. Raw own-source and import values may not sum directly to adjusted supply. These audits cannot trace a particular leaked gallon to a particular source.

Costs and infrastructure decisions

Physical leakage is typically valued at variable treatment, pumping and purchase costs. Apparent losses are usually valued at retail charges. The full valuation is not guaranteed savings. Project costs, fixed expenses and contract terms matter. Values are retained as filed; historical unit or basis changes limit comparison.

A loss-valuation/operating-expense ratio is withheld until the financial inputs and expense scope are reconciled. Dividing valuation by physical connections does not estimate an individual customer’s bill increase.

The default $1 is an illustration, not a utility cost estimate. Include incremental operating costs when assessing a real program. Fixed labor, debt and contracted purchase minimums may remain.

Data quality and system characteristics

An unusual input warrants explanation, not automatic correction. The leakage index compares real losses with a theoretical reference based on pipes, connections and pressure. Respect applicability flags and inspect the underlying workbook before using it. How to evaluate audit quality.

Who governs this water system?

County Water District department; county Sole Commissioner

County site lists Water District as a department and identifies its director. Chattooga operates under a sole commissioner. Do not describe it as an independently elected utility board.

Official utility information · Governing body · Meetings and public documents

Unconfirmed: Water-specific governing meeting schedule and designated records custodian not independently confirmed.

Links checked October 14, 2026. Consult current posted meeting notices. Geographic location does not establish county government control.

Records that would explain the figures

The annual compilation does not include all underlying meter results, audit notes, repair records, contracts or engineering studies.

1. How are 300 miles of mains, unchanged through the decade, verified?

   Records: Complete annual audit workbooks, Comments and Notes, meter verification, and the current water-loss control program.

2. What meter-testing and billing evidence supports the apparent-loss estimate?

   Records: Input worksheets, pipe inventory, connection counts, and corresponding financial records.

3. What funded steps will improve audit inputs and reduce actual leakage on the long network?

   Records: Monthly water balances, leak and repair logs, meter tests, targets, budgets and annual progress reports.

Records worth requesting Officials’ oversight checklist