Fort Oglethorpe

What the utility reported

In 2025, Fort Oglethorpe supplied 301.1 million gallons and reported 108.8 million gallons lost, or 36.1% of supply. That equals 298,001 gallons per day.

Physical leakage changed -6.4% since 2024, -1.9% since 2020 and -13.8% since 2016. Total losses changed -6.4% 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 93. Definitions.

What deserves a closer look

Purchased water has contract costs

Fort Oglethorpe reported 301.1 million gallons imported and 107.8 million gallons of physical leakage in 2025. Its audit reports no water from own sources.

The city’s 2025 audited financial statements say it purchases virtually all treated water from Tennessee-American Water Company. Supplier identification is independently documented; annual audit imported gallons still represent the audit quantity. The financial report describes a 273,750,000-gallon annual take-or-pay minimum. Obtain the executed contract and amendments before estimating avoidable purchase expense; reducing leakage below a purchase minimum may not immediately reduce wholesale expense.

City’s 2025 financial report, printed page 60 (PDF page 70). The operating/contract narrative is in a supplemental statistical section labeled unaudited.

Check source-meter accuracy and historical production-cost units. Some early cost inputs differ by roughly a factor of 1,000 from later entries, so historical dollar comparisons need review.

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. Fort Oglethorpe: its published financial report describes a take-or-pay purchase minimum; inspect the executed contract before treating reduced leakage as avoided purchase expense.

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?

City utility; Mayor and City Council

The city council is the governing authority. Published regular meetings: second and fourth Mondays at 6 p.m. Council page links agendas and recordings.

Official utility information · Governing body · Meetings and public documents

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. Are the earlier production-cost values in a different unit than the later entries?

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

2. What explains the low 2023 loss estimate and subsequent rebound?

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

3. How are monthly wholesale meter volumes reconciled with customer consumption?

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

Records worth requesting Officials’ oversight checklist