million gallons of estimated physical leakage
UTILITY PROFILE / WALKER
Chickamauga
Walker County audit grouping. Ten-year reporting period: 2016–2025. Latest audit: 2025. Annual estimates help identify questions about infrastructure and spending.
What the utility reported
In 2025, Chickamauga supplied 289.4 million gallons and reported 124.8 million gallons lost, or 43.1% of supply. That equals 341,794 gallons per day.
million gallons of apparent losses
gallons of physical leakage / connection / day
Physical leakage changed -7.3% since 2024, -48.7% since 2020 and -34.6% since 2016. Total losses changed -7.0% 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 49. Definitions.
What deserves a closer look
Pressure and leakage require separate evidence
Reported average pressure was 145 PSI in 2025. Physical leakage was 122.3 million gallons. Higher pressure can increase flow through existing defects, but these annual figures do not establish a cause.
Pressure-zone measurements, minimum service pressures, fire-flow requirements and an engineering review would help evaluate pressure management. Small-system limits affect the leakage index, so it should not be used as a simple grade.
Physical and apparent losses over time
Reported water losses, 2016–2025
Compare the total gallons with the two types of loss. An apparent-loss revision can also change the residual physical estimate.
Interactive chart loading. Exact annual values are available in the table below and the source downloads.
Source: Georgia EPD annual compilations, 2016–2025. Missing observations remain missing. Figures are audit estimates; changed methods and inputs can affect the trend.
| Audit year | Supplied (MG) | Total loss (MG) | Physical (MG) | Apparent (MG) | Loss / supply | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 352.01 | 191.46 | 187.05 | 4.41 | 54.4% | 2016 EPD compilation, worksheet “2016”, row 50 |
| 2017 | 282.30 | 225.23 | 221.58 | 3.65 | 79.8% | 2017 EPD compilation, worksheet “Sheet1”, row 50 |
| 2018 | 324.28 | 212.73 | 209.45 | 3.27 | 65.6% | 2018 EPD compilation, worksheet “2018 Final”, row 49 |
| 2019 | 325.24 | 213.08 | 209.79 | 3.29 | 65.5% | 2019 EPD compilation, worksheet “2019 Water Audits”, row 49 |
| 2020 | 360.46 | 242.02 | 238.51 | 3.51 | 67.1% | 2020 EPD compilation, worksheet “Final Version”, row 48 |
| 2021 | 323.37 | 134.29 | 129.27 | 5.03 | 41.5% | 2021 EPD compilation, worksheet “Final”, row 48 |
| 2022 | 316.95 | 145.39 | 140.79 | 4.60 | 45.9% | 2022 EPD compilation, worksheet “Final”, row 48 |
| 2023 | 293.04 | 93.17 | 90.22 | 2.95 | 31.8% | 2023 EPD compilation, worksheet “2023 Water Loss Audits”, row 47 |
| 2024 | 286.89 | 134.17 | 131.91 | 2.26 | 46.8% | 2024 EPD compilation, worksheet “2024 Water Audits”, row 47 |
| 2025 | 289.45 | 124.75 | 122.30 | 2.45 | 43.1% | 2025 EPD compilation, worksheet “2025 Water Audits ”, row 49 |
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
| 2025 supply item | Million gallons |
|---|---|
| Own sources | 285.754 |
| Imported from other systems | 0.800 |
| Exported to other systems | Not reported |
| Adjusted net water supplied | 289.448 |
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.
Produced, imported and exported water, 2016–2025
Interactive chart loading. Exact annual values are available in the table below and the source downloads.
Source: Georgia EPD annual compilations, 2016–2025. Missing observations remain missing. Figures are audit estimates; changed methods and inputs can affect the trend.
Where every 100 gallons went
Billed use, legitimate unbilled use, apparent losses and estimated physical leakage add up to supplied water. Firefighting and flushing mains are authorized uses.
Calculated from the selected audit. Physical leakage is the residual after authorized use and apparent losses, not a measurement of every leak. Non-revenue water also includes legitimate unbilled use.
Costs and infrastructure decisions
| 2025 financial field | Reported value |
|---|---|
| Physical-loss valuation | $48,941 |
| Apparent-loss valuation | $13,821 |
| Total estimated loss valuation | $62,762 |
| Physical-loss valuation basis | VPC |
| Variable production cost ($ / MG) | $400 |
| Retail charge ($ / 1,000 gallons) | $5.77 |
| Reported annual operating expense | $913,250 |
Physical leakage is typically valued at variable treatment, pumping and purchase costs. Apparent losses are usually valued at retail charges. The full valuation is not guaranteed savings. Project costs, fixed expenses and contract terms matter. Values are retained as filed; historical unit or basis changes limit comparison.
A loss-valuation/operating-expense ratio is withheld until the financial inputs and expense scope are reconciled. Dividing valuation by physical connections does not estimate an individual customer’s bill increase.
Reported physical and apparent loss valuations, 2016–2025
Interactive chart loading. Exact annual values are available in the table below and the source downloads.
Source: Georgia EPD annual compilations, 2016–2025. Missing observations remain missing. Figures are audit estimates; changed methods and inputs can affect the trend.
| Year | Production cost ($/MG) | Retail ($/1,000 gal) | Operating expense | Physical valuation | Apparent valuation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 272.29 | 2.94 | $360,912 | $50,931 | $12,960 |
| 2017 | 246.41 | 10.16 | $419,939 | $54,600 | $37,069 |
| 2018 | 227.44 | 3.97 | $425,315 | $47,638 | $12,992 |
| 2019 | 280.99 | 3.89 | $417,775 | $58,949 | $12,790 |
| 2020 | 233.50 | 4.12 | $464,798 | $55,692 | $14,456 |
| 2021 | 319.80 | 3.34 | $590,656 | $41,339 | $16,791 |
| 2022 | 327.49 | 3.54 | $593,289 | $46,107 | $16,292 |
| 2023 | 380.00 | 4.22 | $686,865 | $34,284 | $11,988 |
| 2024 | 340.00 | 6.08 | $881,735 | $44,848 | $13,327 |
| 2025 | 400.16 | 5.77 | $913,250 | $48,941 | $13,821 |
ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO
What would a leakage reduction avoid?
Test an assumed reduction and an independently chosen avoidable cost. These are hypothetical variable expenses before repair and program costs. No future rate reduction is predicted.
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
Audit data validity, 2016–2025
A score documents input practices and checking. It is not a numerical accuracy percentage or a water-safety grade.
Interactive chart loading. Exact annual values are available in the table below and the source downloads.
Source: Georgia EPD annual compilations, 2016–2025. Missing observations remain missing. Figures are audit estimates; changed methods and inputs can affect the trend.
| Year | Mains (mi) | Connections | Pressure (PSI) | Population | ILI / applicability | Software | Source flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 41.9 | 2,024 | 165 | 4,150 | 5.86 / | AWWA v5 layout | No cleaned-workbook flag |
| 2017 | 41.9 | 2,024 | 165 | 4,150 | 6.94 / | AWWA v5 layout | Data validity score below 50 (EPD guidance p.9 threshold) |
| 2018 | 41.9 | 2,232 | 165 | 4,150 | 6.19 / | AWWA v5 layout | No cleaned-workbook flag |
| 2019 | 41.9 | 2,241 | 145 | 5,125 | 7.04 / | AWWA v5 layout | Data validity score below 50 (EPD guidance p.9 threshold) |
| 2020 | 41.9 | 2,262 | 145 | 4,150 | 7.96 / | AWWA v5 layout | Data validity score below 50 (EPD guidance p.9 threshold) |
| 2021 | 41.9 | 2,005 | 145 | 4,150 | 4.63 / | AWWA v6 layout | Data validity score below 50 (EPD guidance p.9 threshold) |
| 2022 | 41.9 | 2,347 | 145 | 6,102 | 4.60 / | AWWA v6 layout | Data validity score below 50 (EPD guidance p.9 threshold) |
| 2023 | 41.9 | 2,402 | 145 | 5,720 | 2.90 / | AWWA v6 layout | No cleaned-workbook flag |
| 2024 | 41.9 | 2,469 | 145 | 5,486 | 4.17 / | AWWA v6 layout | No cleaned-workbook flag |
| 2025 | 41.9 | 2,485 | 145 | 5,486 | 3.86 / | AWWA v6 layout | No cleaned-workbook flag |
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.
Source footnotes and available audit comments
| Year | Source footnotes | Available compilation comments |
|---|---|---|
| 2016 | rep_real_gal_mile_day=N/A | Volume from own sources; Billed metered; Unbilled metered; n/a; Water Audit certified by Carlos R. Haney QWLA # 0158. After reviewing Water Audit conducted by Debbie Gossett. had meeting with Debbie Gossett and City manager Micheal Haney about putting a leak detection program in to policy and implementing it with in the next year. Also re-evaluating policy on City school water use. ; Chickamauga, City of Worksheet 2015.xls |
| 2017 | rep_real_gal_mile_day=N/A | Volume from own sources; Billed metered; Unbilled metered |
| 2018 | rep_real_gal_mile_day=N/A | Volume from own sources; Billed metered; Unbilled metered |
| 2019 | rep_real_gal_mile_day=N/A | Volume from own sources; Billed metered; Customer metering inaccuracies |
| 2020 | water_exported=Note 1; rep_real_gal_mile_day=N/A | Volume from own sources; Billed metered; Customer metering inaccuracies |
| 2021 | water_exported=Note 1; billed_unmetered=Note 1 | Level II (26-50); Volume from own sources; Billed metered; Customer metering inaccuracies |
| 2022 | water_exported=Note 1; billed_unmetered=Note 1; nrw_volume_2=Note 6 | No extra compilation comment |
| 2023 | water_exported=Note 1; billed_unmetered=Note 1 | No extra compilation comment |
| 2024 | water_exported=Note 1; billed_unmetered=Note 1 | No extra compilation comment |
| 2025 | water_exported=Note 1; billed_unmetered=Note 1 | No extra compilation comment |
Some older extra columns contain software labels rather than substantive comments. Full provenance preserves their original column positions. Download complete source-cell provenance.
Who governs this water system?
Independently documentedCity utility; city government
Official city site identifies elected Mayor and City Council and lists water/sewer responsibilities. Government page directs readers to its calendar. Names on this page may be stale; avoid republishing them without current confirmation.
Official utility information · Governing body · Meetings and public documents
Unconfirmed: Current official meeting schedule, agenda archive and water-specific delegation of authority require further verification. Do not publish a schedule inferred from third-party directories.
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.
- Which repairs, meter changes or audit-input changes explain the decline after 2020?
Records: Complete annual audit workbooks, Comments and Notes, meter verification, and the current water-loss control program.
- How was average pressure measured, and what pressure-management opportunities preserve service and fire protection?
Records: Input worksheets, pipe inventory, connection counts, and corresponding financial records.
- What improvements will move the audit beyond the recent data score of 52?
Records: Monthly water balances, leak and repair logs, meter tests, targets, budgets and annual progress reports.