Planning-level financial screening
Leak detection and repair program
Summary
At the utility's reported real losses of 99.1 million gal per year, a leak detection and repair program recovers its cost only toward the favorable end of the planning range. The benefit-cost ratio is 0.5 to 3.7, and net annual value is -$68,000 to $78,000.
That range is wide because repair cost per leak and leaks found per mile are planning ranges rather than the utility's own figures. The program breaks even at a repair cost of $5,700 per leak, so the average of the utility's recent repair work orders settles the answer without further analysis.
Of the cycles compared below, the best return per dollar spent comes at 3 years between surveys. Checking more often costs more and recovers more; checking less often does the reverse.
What the utility reported
| Measure | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| System input volume | 612 million gal | [1] |
| Real losses (leakage) | 99.1 million gal | [1] |
| Apparent losses (meter, billing, theft) | 24.8 million gal | [1] |
| Service connections | 5,600 | [1] |
| Length of main | 140 miles | [1] |
| Average operating pressure | 68 psi | [1] |
| Customer service line length | 0 miles | [2] |
| Variable production cost | $3.40 per 1,000 gal | [3] |
| Customer retail unit cost | $6.40 per 1,000 gal | [3] |
| Audit data validity score | 76 of 100 | [1] |
What the figures indicate
| Measure | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Unavoidable annual real losses | 39.6 million gal | [1][2][4] AWWA M36 formula from mains, connections, service lines, and pressure |
| Infrastructure leakage index | 2.5 | [1][2][4] Real losses divided by unavoidable real losses |
| Service connections per mile of main | 40 | [1] Service connections divided by length of main |
| Real losses per connection | 48 gal per connection per day | [1] Real losses per connection per day |
| Real losses per mile of main | 1,939 gal per mile of main per day | [1] Real losses per mile of main per day |
| Water losses as a share of system input | 20% | [1] Real plus apparent losses divided by system input |
| Annual cost of real losses | $337,000 | [1][3] Real losses valued at variable production cost |
| Annual revenue lost to apparent losses | $159,000 | [1][3] Apparent losses valued at retail unit cost |
What comparable programs achieved
Reference cases are published programs and statewide analyses. Each shows who paid for the work and whether a vendor published or supplied it. The comparability column judges each case against this utility rather than in general: a result from a system many times larger shows direction, not magnitude.
| Reference case | Size | Comparable to this system | Result | Funding and vendor role | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Town of North Kingstown (RI) | 182 miles scanned | Similar size | 44 leaks found, about 90% repaired; estimated water value of losses avoided $204,807 | Town of North Kingstown; vendor role: yes (Asterra satellite service) | [5] |
| New Hampshire community water systems (47 systems) (NH) | 750 miles surveyed | Larger | 46 leaks found, at least 500 gpm (732,000 gal per day) combined | State of New Hampshire; vendor role: no | [6] |
| City of Roseville (CA) | 725 miles of main | Larger | 119 leaks identified since 2022; more than 12.3 million gal in potential savings | City of Roseville; vendor role: no | [7] |
| Dallas Water Utilities (TX) | 5,000 miles of main | Much larger | 285+ leaks located on large-diameter mains; main leaks fell from 40 to under 21 per 100 miles | Xylem; vendor role: yes (vendor-published) | [8] |
| 155 Pennsylvania water utilities (PA) | 155 utilities | Not comparable by size | 17,888 of 56,203 million gal per year of real losses judged economically recoverable; $10.7 million per year in production cost | Natural Resources Defense Council (advocacy organization); vendor role: no | [9] |
| 882 utilities in CA GA TN TX | 882 utilities | Not comparable by size | Median cost of water saved through leak management $277 per acre-foot ($427 in Texas); efficient reduction 34.7% of losses for the median utility | Peer-reviewed academic research; vendor role: no | [10] |
| New Mexico Environment Department, LeakTracer (NM) | 5 communities in the pilot | Not comparable by size | A five-community pilot verified more than 78 leaks, which the department estimates could save 345,000 gallons a day. The statewide program is open to rural systems serving fewer than 20,000 people and covers the cost of detection. | State of New Mexico; vendor role: yes (Asterra satellite L-band radar service) | [11] |
| California Department of Water Resources small system leak detection program (CA) | 3,000 connections, eligibility ceiling | Not comparable by size | California funds leak detection surveys at no cost to the utility, run by the California Rural Water Association, for systems serving fewer than 3,000 connections including Tribal systems. No outcome figures are published. | California Department of Water Resources; vendor role: no | [12] |
| Colorado Water Loss Initiative (Colorado Water Conservation Board) (CO) | Not published | Not comparable by size | Colorado's program trains water providers of all sizes in the AWWA water balance method and gives technical assistance. Its advanced track includes supply meter testing, billing data analysis, real loss component analysis, and leak detection. About 85 percent of first-phase participants reported spending 40 hours or less outside the workshops. No recovered-volume figures are published. | Colorado Water Conservation Board; vendor role: no | [13] |
Costs, value, and benefit-cost ratio
| Item | Planning range | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Share of reported real losses treated as economically recoverable | 20% to 32% | [9] |
| Average run time of an unreported leak with no active detection program | 3 years | [14] |
| Time from locating a leak to repairing it | 0.1 years | [15] |
| Recoverable real losses per year | 19.8 to 31.7 million gal | [1][2][4][9][14][16] Recoverable share of real losses at this cycle, capped at losses above the unavoidable level |
| Value of recovered water per year | $67,000 to $108,000 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16] Recoverable volume valued at variable production cost |
| Years between full-system leak detection surveys | 2 years | [16] |
| Miles surveyed per year | 70 miles | [1][16] Length of main divided by years between surveys |
| Leak detection survey cost per mile of main surveyed | $300 to $500 per mile | [17] |
| Leak detection survey cost per year | $21,000 to $35,000 | [1][16][17] Miles surveyed per year times cost per mile |
| Leaks found per mile surveyed | 0.06 to 0.24 | [18] |
| Leaks found per year | 4 to 17 | [1][16][18] Miles surveyed per year times leaks found per mile |
| Repair cost per leak found | $2,000 to $6,000 | [19] |
| Repair cost per year | $8,400 to $101,000 | [1][16][18][19] Leaks found per year times repair cost per leak |
| Program cost per year | $29,000 to $136,000 | [1][16][17][18][19] Survey cost plus repair cost |
| Net annual value | -$68,000 to $78,000 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Value of recovered water less program cost |
| Benefit-cost ratio | 0.5 to 3.7 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Value of recovered water divided by program cost |
| Program cost per 1,000 gal recovered | $0.93 to $6.85 per 1,000 gal | [1][2][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Program cost divided by volume recovered |
| Published median, CA GA TN TX utilities | $0.85 per 1,000 gal | [10][20] Median cost per acre-foot converted to per 1,000 gal |
Planning parameters marked as planning assumptions or low confidence in the sources are replaced with the utility's written quotes and work-order costs in a commissioned engagement.
What has to be true for the program to break even
Each figure below is the point at which the value of recovered water equals program cost, holding everything else at the middle of its planning range. The utility's own records answer these directly.
| Measure | Break-even value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Break-even repair cost per leak | $5,700 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18] Repair cost per leak at which the value of recovered water equals program cost |
| Break-even leaks found per mile | 0.21 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][19] Leaks per mile at which the value of recovered water equals program cost |
Choosing a survey cycle
Recovered volume depends on how long a leak runs before it is found, so a shorter cycle recovers more water and costs more to run. The table compares cycles on the utility's own figures.
| Years between surveys | Recoverable per year | Program cost per year | Benefit-cost ratio | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year | 25 to 40 million gal | $59,000 to $272,000 | 0.3 to 2.3 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Benefit-cost ratio on this cycle |
| 2 years | 19.8 to 31.7 million gal | $29,000 to $136,000 | 0.5 to 3.7 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Benefit-cost ratio on this cycle |
| 3 years | 14.7 to 23.5 million gal | $20,000 to $91,000 | 0.6 to 4.1 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Benefit-cost ratio on this cycle |
| 4 years | 9.5 to 15.2 million gal | $15,000 to $68,000 | 0.5 to 3.5 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Benefit-cost ratio on this cycle |
| 5 years | 4.34 to 6.94 million gal | $12,000 to $54,000 | 0.3 to 2.0 | [1][2][3][4][9][14][16][17][18][19] Benefit-cost ratio on this cycle |
What would change the answer
| If this is true | Benefit-cost ratio becomes | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Base case | 0.5 to 3.7 | Reported figures and planning ranges above |
| A quarter of reported real losses is meter or billing error rather than leakage | 0.4 to 2.8 | Test a sample of production and large customer meters |
| Unreported leaks run only 2 years without a program, not 3 years | 0.5 to 3.7 | Review how long the last several unreported leaks ran before discovery |
| Repairs cost twice the planning range | 0.3 to 2.9 | Average the utility's repair work orders for the last two years |
| Recovered water would otherwise be sold, as in a supply-limited system | 0.9 to 6.9 | Confirm whether supply or treatment capacity limits sales in peak months |
Data checks
Every point in the estimated program cost of $0.93 to $6.85 per 1,000 gal recovered sits above the published median for leak management programs. The cost parameters in this screening are planning ranges, not quotes, so the likeliest reading is that they are high for this utility rather than that the program is unusually expensive. Quotes for the leak detection survey and the utility's own repair work orders settle it.
What this screening does not cover
This is a financial screening, not an engineering evaluation. It does not assess the condition of specific mains, select equipment, or specify repairs. Design and specification are performed by the utility's engineer of record, and site-specific evaluation precedes any purchase.
Figures are planning-level. They support a decision on whether to seek quotes, not a contract award.
Method
Loss volumes and costs come from the utility's water audit prepared under the AWWA M36 method. Unavoidable annual real losses are recomputed from length of main, service connections, and average pressure. The leakage index is reported only for systems inside the size and connection density range where the AWWA formula applies. Recovered water is valued at variable production cost, not retail rates, except where a sensitivity case states otherwise.
Recoverable volume responds to the checking cycle through average leak run time, taken as half the interval between surveys plus the time from location to repair, measured against the run time of a leak with no program in place. Ranges reflect the spread of published programs and planning parameters, not statistical confidence intervals. Each planning parameter lists its basis and confidence in the sources.
Sources
- Example Valley Water District. 2025 water audit worksheet (fictional). 2025. Fictional record created for this sample.
- LeMay Civic Advisory. Planning assumption: customer meters sit at the curb, so no customer service line length counts toward unavoidable losses
- Example Valley Water District. 2025 purchased water and production cost summary (fictional). 2025. Fictional record created for this sample.
- American Water Works Association. Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, Manual M36, 4th ed. 2016. https://www.awwa.org/resource/water-loss-control/. Confidence high; funded by AWWA
- CitizenPortal.ai meeting summary. Town Council presentation on the leak detection program. 2025-11-03. https://citizenportal.ai/articles/6731779/. Funded by Town of North Kingstown; vendor involvement: yes (Asterra satellite service); confidence medium
- NH Department of Environmental Services. 2023 Leak Detection Survey Grant Results. 2023. https://www.des.nh.gov/news-and-media/blog/2023-leak-detection-survey-grant-results. Funded by State of New Hampshire; vendor involvement: no; confidence medium
- City of Roseville. Stopping sneaky leaks in their tracks. 2026-03-17. https://www.roseville.ca.gov/articles/pping-sneaky-leaks-in-their-tracks-341.php. Funded by City of Roseville; vendor involvement: no; confidence high
- Xylem (vendor case study). Utility saves an average of 7 million gallons of water per day. https://www.xylem.com/en-us/resources/case-studies/utility-saves-an-average-of-7-million-gallons-of-water-per-day-by-utilizing-innovative-technologies-to-support-their-leak-detection-program/. Funded by Xylem; vendor involvement: yes (vendor-published); confidence medium
- Kunkel Water Efficiency Consulting. Report on the Evaluation of Water Audit Data for Pennsylvania Water Utilities. 2017-02-15. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/pa-utilities-water-audit-data-evaluation-20170215.pdf. Funded by Natural Resources Defense Council (advocacy organization); vendor involvement: no; confidence high
- Environmental Research Letters (Rupiper et al.). Untapped potential: leak reduction is the most cost-effective urban water management tool. 2022. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac54cb. Funded by Peer-reviewed academic research; vendor involvement: no; confidence high
- StateScoop. New Mexico is using satellites and AI to help rural water systems find hidden leaks. 2026. https://statescoop.com/new-mexico-satellites-ai-rural-water-systems-leaks/. Funded by State of New Mexico; vendor involvement: yes (Asterra satellite L-band radar service); confidence medium
- California Department of Water Resources. To Support Saving Water, State Offers Free Leak Detection Surveys to Small Water Systems. 2022-03-16. https://water.ca.gov/News/Blog/2022/March-22/To-Support-Saving-Water-State-Offers-Free-Leak-Detection-Surveys-to-Small-Water-Systems. Funded by California Department of Water Resources; vendor involvement: no; confidence medium
- Colorado WaterWise. Colorado Water Loss Initiative. 2026. https://coloradowaterwise.org/page-1840013. Funded by Colorado Water Conservation Board; vendor involvement: no; confidence medium
- LeMay Civic Advisory. Planning range: unreported leaks run until they surface or are found by chance. Sets how much a shorter survey cycle recovers. 2026-09-15. Confidence low
- LeMay Civic Advisory. Planning assumption of about one month from location to repair. 2026-09-15. Confidence medium
- City of Dallas. DWU Leak Detection and Repair/Replacement Programs (full system every 2.5 years). 2025-06-12. https://www.dallascitynews.net/dwu-leak-detection-and-repair-replacement-programs. Confidence medium; funded by City of Dallas
- Town of North Kingstown (upper anchor). Town Council report on satellite-guided leak detection: $85,000 for 182 miles ($467 per mile). 2025-11-03. https://citizenportal.ai/articles/6731779/. Confidence low; funded by Town of North Kingstown
- NH Department of Environmental Services; Town of North Kingstown. NHDES 2023 Leak Detection Survey Grant (46 leaks in 750+ miles); North Kingstown 2025 (44 leaks in 182 miles). 2023. https://www.des.nh.gov/news-and-media/blog/2023-leak-detection-survey-grant-results. Confidence medium; funded by State of New Hampshire; Town of North Kingstown
- LeMay Civic Advisory. Planning range pending client work-order costs. 2026-09-14. Confidence low
- U.S. Geological Survey. Water measurement conversion. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-acre-foot-and-acre-inch. Confidence high; funded by USGS