Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.
0084
Peer-Reviewed
A Review of Water Balance Application in Water Supply
PHILIPP KLINGEL1 AND AXEL KNOBLOCH2
1Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Water and River Basin Management, Karlsruhe, Germany
2Netrion, Mannheim, Germany
Establishing a water balance is a precondition of efficient water
loss management in water supply systems. In this article, the
applicability of available standards and methods for
establishing the water balance is reviewed on the basis of an
evaluation of literature in the field. In principle, establishing
the water balance is made straightforward by measuring,
estimating, and calculating the components of the water
balance. However, water balances are often established that do
not cover all components or are based on rough estimates. In
Keywords: water audit, water balance, water distribution, water loss management, water supply
Establishing a detailed water balance (or top-down leakage
assessment) is a precondition of efficient planning and imple-
mentation of water loss management measures in water supply
systems. Water balances are calculated to determine how much
water is being lost in a distribution system; to accomplish this,
a system’s water supply and the different components of water
consumption during the period under consideration are bro-
ken down (Puust et al. 2010). The results of the balance are
then used to establish performance indicators that allow water
losses to be compared, the effects and the decisive causes to
be analyzed, and countermeasures to be planned (Farley &
Liemberger 2005).
Lambert and Hirner (2000) point out that any discussion of
water losses must be based on a standard terminology. The
Water Loss Task Force of the International Water Association,
on the basis of Lambert and Hirner (2000), therefore defined a
standardized form of water balance for uniform international
use in 2000. System input volume (SIV) is compared with autho-
rized consumption and water losses, and a distinction is made
between billed and unbilled authorized consumption and appar-
ent and real losses. Billed and unbilled authorized consumption
can be metered or unmetered. Apparent losses comprise the
amount of water delivered to customers but not billed correctly
or at all (unauthorized consumption and metering inaccuracies).
Real losses arise from leakage on transmission and/or distribu-
tion mains, leakage and overflows of utility storage tanks, and
leakage of service connections up to point of customer metering.
The components of unbilled consumption and water losses add
up to nonrevenue water.
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E339
most cases, water balances are determined for a whole network,
not for zones, and only at long, mostly yearly, intervals,
resulting in limited informational value of the findings. The
main reasons for this seem to be the effort involved, the limited
availability of data, and the lack of adequate methods for
determining unmeasured components. This article concludes
that there is a need for developing methods and tools to support
water utilities in establishing complete, zonal water balances
with reasonable effort.
This definition has been used by many water utilities world-
wide and incorporated in the guidelines, manuals, and codes of
many technical water associations, including AWWA Manual
M36 (AWWA 2009), the Austrian Association for Gas and Water
(ÖVGW) Guideline W 63 (ÖVGW 2009), the Water Loss Guide-
lines of the New Zealand Water & Wastes Association (Lambert
& Taylor 2010), and the German Technical and Scientific
Association for Gas and Water (DVGW) Worksheet W 392
(DVGW 2003). Although the basic principle proposed by Lambert
and Hirner (2000) was incorporated in these guidelines, there
were some differences in the details because of slightly different
terminologies and definitions of components and in the limits
of consideration. Lambert and Hirner (2000) and the guidelines
referred to previously indicate a basically identical standardized
top-down approach in establishing a balance, which is sum-
marized as follows.
Both SIV and authorized consumption should be measured as
accurately as possible to obtain reliable results for water losses
that are calculated by subtracting authorized consumption from
the SIV. If unmetered components of authorized consumption
(billed unmetered and unbilled unmetered consumption) exist,
they have to be determined as accurately as possible by suitable
approaches or be estimated on the basis of guidance values.
Lambert and Taylor (2010), for example, propose a guidance
value of 0.5% of SIV as an estimate of unbilled authorized con-
sumption for New Zealand, whereas AWWA (2009) proposes a
guidance value of 1.25%. Billed authorized consumption is equal
to revenue water. Nonrevenue water can be calculated by sub-
tracting revenue water from SIV. Real losses are calculated by
JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084
Peer-Reviewed
subtracting apparent losses from water losses. Apparent losses
should be determined by means of suitable approaches or estimated
on the basis of guidance values. The DVGW (2003), for example,
indicates a guidance value for apparent losses of 1.5–2.0% of
authorized consumption. AWWA (2009) proposes 0.25% of the
SIV as an estimate of unauthorized consumption, whereas Lambert
and Taylor (2010) propose 0.1% for utilities in New Zealand. They
further recommend a guidance value of 2.0% of billed metered
consumption as an estimate of metering inaccuracies.
Lambert and Hirner (2000) and the guidelines referred to pre-
viously recommend that there be a balancing period of 12
months. They also recommend that the confidence level be deter-
mined for each component, incorporating both reliability and
accuracy grading according to, for example, Alegre et al. (2006).
The water balance is ideally established not only for the complete
system, but also separately for individual supply zones.
To avoid errors and better understand the components making
up real losses, Liemberger and Farley (2004) and several other
authors—for example, Charalambous and Hamilton (2012) and
Lambert and Taylor (2010)—recommend verifying the value for
real losses derived from a top-down assessment and thus the
initial apparent losses estimate. They distinguish two methods:
component analysis and bottom-up assessment.
For the purpose of a component analysis, the average run
time, average flow rate, and the average annual number of
reported and unreported leaks and bursts are estimated on the
basis of the burst and background estimates (BABE) concept by
Lambert (1994) and guided by the water utility’s experience.
The outcome then provides the water utility with valuable
information about the fraction of real losses attributable to
undetectable background leakage and to reported and unre-
ported bursts. Additionally, level drop tests could be undertaken
to assess losses from leaking storage tanks.
In a bottom-up assessment, methods to determine real losses
with actual field measurements and data are applied (AWWA
2009, Farley & Trow 2003). In this regard, Liemberger and
Farley (2004) propose measuring and analyzing the minimum
night flow (MNF). The estimation of the leakage rate within a
specific zone or district metered area is carried out by subtracting
an assessed amount of night consumption from the MNF. Real
losses can be determined by simulating leakage during the entire
day considering the pressure dependency of leakages, according
to Lambert (2001). For a better understanding of the real losses
and to support MNF analysis, Liemberger and Farley (2004)
further propose carrying out 24-hour zone measurements of
inflow and pressure. However, it is not possible to distinguish
leaks at service connections from leaks at mains.
Over the past 10 years, several free and commercial computer-
aided tools have been developed in an effort to support water
utilities in establishing their water balances, including CheckCalcs
(2014), Netbase (2014), WB-EasyCalc (2014), AWWA Free
Water Audit Software (AWWA 2009), the spreadsheet file1 of
ÖVGW (2009), Aquadas QS (2007), AquaLite (McKenzie 2007),
NAIS (Heydenreich & Kreft 2004), Aqualibre (Liemberger &
McKenzie 2003), and Benchleak (McKenzie et al. 2002). Most
tools offer the same fundamental functions to calculate a water
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E340
balance and key performance indicators. They differ mainly in
their makeup and in some secondary functions, such as indicat-
ing confidence levels, recommending measures, or the possibil-
ity of conducting a component analysis. Most of these tools
have in common that the user must collect and manually enter
the input data through the user interface.
Halfawy and Hunaidi (2008), on the other hand, present pro-
totype software for establishing water balances that is based on
a geographic information system (GIS) as part of an asset man-
agement system; this has been implemented by the water utility
of the city of Regina, Sask., Canada. Connecting the GIS to the
supervisory control and data acquisition system and automated
meter reading records allows water balance input data to be
entered automatically, which clearly enhances the efficiency of
data processing. Netbase (2014), whose application in Manila,
the Philippines, is described by Dimaano and Jamora (2010) and
Dimaano (2012), is another tool offering the possibility to feed
data from various systems. Aquadas QS (2007) software, which
is mainly used for administering and documenting maintenance
and for monitoring water supply systems, allows automatic feed-
ing of meter readings and consumption levels and comparisons
to be made between water input and consumption levels, thanks
to communication with a GIS. A good overview of the tools
referred to here and their characteristics is given by Halfawy and
Hunaidi (2008) and Tsitsifli and Kanakoudis (2010). Table 1
contains a summary of the characteristics of these tools.
In principle, establishing a water balance is straightforward and
fairly simple. However, “whilst in ideal cases many of the impor-
tant components are measured, the reality unfortunately is often
very different,” as Liemberger and Farley (2004) conclude. Water
balances are often established that have not covered all compo-
nents, and unmetered components are only rough estimates if
considered at all (Knobloch 2014, Knobloch & Klingel 2013,
Osmancevic 2010). The question arises of whether the definition
and the methods available are applicable with reasonable effort.
This article examines the applicability of available top-down
water balance standards in practice. The approaches of case
studies documented in the international literature are compared
with the water balance standards described previously. The
findings are summarized, deficits in the applicability of available
water balance standards are pointed out, and needs for research
and development are outlined.
METHODS
To study the current practice of establishing water balances and
to identify deficits and their causes, 36 case studies documented
in the technical literature (journal articles, conference papers, and
technical reports) were analyzed (Tables 2 and 3). In addition to
the case study analysis of individual water supply systems, a study
by the AWWA Water Loss Control Committee published by
Chastain-Howley et al. (2012) was examined in which the accu-
racy of the water audits of 21 water utilities in the United States
and Canada was analyzed, validated, and evaluated. Also consid-
ered were the results of a survey in which 29 water utilities (with
annual supply volumes between approximately 42,000 m3/year
and approximately 43 million m3/year) in the German federal
JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084 E341
Peer-Reviewed

TABLE 1 Software products for establishing water balances

IWA
Water
Balance Consideration Integration
(Lambert Appraisal of of Recommendation to GIS and Automatic Graphic
Software Spreadsheet- & Hirner Performance Confidence Component of Other IT Data Visualization
(Reference) Freeware baseda 2000) Indicators Limits Analysis Countermeasures Systems Transfer of Results
Aquadas QS √ √
(Aquadas QS 2007)
Aqualibre (Liemberger & √ √ √ √
McKenzie 2003)
AquaLite (McKenzie √ √ √ √
2007)
AWWA Free Water Audit √ √ √ √ √ √
Software (AWWA 2009)
Benchleak (McKenzie et √ √ √ √
al. 2002)
CheckCalcs (Check- √ √ √ √
Calcs 2014)
Prototype software √ √ √ √ √ √
(Halfawy & Hunaidi
2008)
NAIS √ √
(Heydenreich & Kreft
2004)
Netbase (Netbase 2014) √ √ √ √ √
ÖVGW spreadsheet filea √ √ √ √
(ÖVGW 2009)
WB-EasyCalc √ √ √ √ √
(WB-EasyCalc 2014)

GIS—geographic information system, IT—information technology, IWA—International Water Association

aMicrosoft Excel, Redmond, Wash.

state of Baden-Württemberg were asked about the approaches
they use in establishing water balances (Knobloch & Klingel
2013, Rathgeber 2012).
The case studies, the AWWA study, and the results of the
German survey were analyzed for the following points:
•• Approaches for determining individual water balance
components
•• Use of confidence levels
•• Zonal water balance
•• Balancing period
To derive general statements about the influence of countries’
development status on the practice of establishing water balances,
the 36 case studies were broken down into 15 studies from devel-
oping countries (DCs) and 21 studies from more developed coun-
tries (MDCs) in accordance with DAC (2012) (Tables 2 and 3).
The approaches used in determining water balance components
were categorized as measured, estimated (sound), estimated
(simple), calculated, set to zero, and not determined. Components
were classified in the estimated (sound) category when determined
by means of a reliable approach and not indicated as a percentage
fraction of some other component (estimated [simple]). If a water
utility is assumed to lack a component in its system, which, con-
sequently, has the rating of zero, this is listed as set to zero. Where
a component was not determined, this is referred to as not deter-
mined. As a rule, a calculated component is the sum or difference
of other components, such as billed authorized consumption
computed from billed metered plus billed unmetered consump-
tion, and the real losses are determined by subtraction of autho-
rized consumption and the apparent losses from the SIV.
DETERMINING WATER BALANCE COMPONENTS
General information. The approaches used in determining water
balance components in the 36 analyzed case studies are summa-
rized in Table 2 for DCs and in Table 3 for MDCs. When looking
at Tables 2 and 3, in which the water utilities are arranged in
descending order as a function of their SIV, it is seen that the
water utilities do not apply uniform procedures and that many
components are either not determined or are simply estimated.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate for the individual case studies from
DCs and MDCs, respectively, whether the water balance was
based mainly on measurements and sound estimates or if simple
estimates predominated. A large fraction of measured and esti-
mated (sound) data indicates high reliability of the real losses
determined, whereas water balances with large fractions of esti-
mated (simple) data furnish less reliable results.
Figure 1 shows that in DCs, the water balances of some
utilities are based completely on simple estimates (such as
Lusaka, Zambia; Kampala, Uganda; and Kalol, India). Sound
estimates were rarely applied for detailed determination of the
unmeasured components. Numerous studies have documented

JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084 E342
Peer-Reviewed

TABLE 2 Approaches for determining water balance components of case studies reviewed in DC

Leakage/ Leakage
System Billed Billed Billed Unbilled Unbilled Unbilled Leakage Overflow on
City, Country, Year SIV Input Authorized Metered Unmetered Authorized Metered Unmetered Apparent Unauthorized Metering Real on at Storage Service
(Reference) 3
m /year Volume Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Losses Consumption Inaccuracies Losses Mains Tanks Connections
Manila West, 837 M c M 0 c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
the Philippines, 2010
(Dimaano & Jamora 2010)
Tehran, Iran, 2007 709 M c M E c E E c E E c E E E
(Bidgoli 2009)

Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2007 377 M c M E E ND ND E ND E c ND ND ND

(Castaño & Aragón 2009)
Skopje, Macedonia, 2011 101 M c M E c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
(Vodovod Skopje 2012)
Lusaka, Zambia, 2005 75.8 M E ND ND E ND ND E ND ND E ND ND ND
(Sharma & Chinokoro 2010)
Port Moresby, Papua New 60.2 M c M ND c M E c E E c ND ND ND
Guinea, 2002
(Makara 2009)
Kampala, Uganda, 2007 44.8 M E E ND E ND ND E ND ND E ND ND ND
(Akita 2009)
Sandakan, Malaysia, 2002 27.7 M c M 0 c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
(Pilcher 2005)
Ibarra, Ecuador, 2007 18.9 M c M E c 0 E c E sE c E 0 E
(Beltrán 2009)
Fortaleza, Brazil, 2011 18.5 M c M sE c sE sE c sE sE c sE sE sE
(Braga Pinto & Wyatt 2012)
Kalol, India, 2009 6.3 M c 0 E c 0 E c E 0 c E E E
(Shah & Parikh 2010)
Vidin, Bulgaria, 2010 4.6 M c M ND c E E c E E c E 0 E
(Kalinkov et al. 2011)
Bhaktapur, Nepal, 2007 4.3 M c M E c 0 E c E E c E E E
(Sharma & Nhemafuki 2009)
Northwestern Province, 3.9 M c M ND E ND ND E ND ND E ND ND ND
Zambia, 2010
(Kanyembo 2012)
Dhulikhel, Nepal, 2007 0.4 M c M 0 0 0 0 c E E c E E E
(Sharma & Nhemafuki 2009)
0—set to zero, c—calculated, DC—developing country, E—estimated (simple), M—measured, ND—not determined, sE—estimated (sound)

JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084 E343
Peer-Reviewed

TABLE 3 Approaches for determining water balance components of case studies reviewed in MDCs
Leakage/ Leakage
System Billed Billed Billed Unbilled Unbilled Unbilled Metering Leakage Overflow on Service
City, Country, Year SIV Input Authorized Metered Unmetered Authorized Metered Unmetered Apparent Unauthorized Inaccura- Real on at Storage Connec-
(Reference) 3
m /year Volume Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Losses Consumption cies Losses Mains Tanks tions
Miami, FL, USA, 2009 358 M c M 0 c M sE c E sE c ND ND ND
(Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 2010)
Berlin, Germany, 2010 210 M c M 0 c M sE c sE sE c E E E
(Tennhardt 2012)
Austin, TX, USA, 2007 177 M c M sE c M sE c E E c E E E
(Elizondo et al. 2009)
Geneva, Switzerland, 2006 67.5 M c M E c E E c ND sE c ND ND ND
(Guibentif et al. 2007)
Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2010 24.9 M c M 0 c M E c E E c ND ND ND
(Las Cruces Utilities 2012)
Nicosia, Cyprus, 2010 20.7 M c M E c E E c E E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)
Guelph, Canada, 2007 18.8 M c M E c 0 E c E sE c ND ND ND
(Hetek Solutions Inc. 2008)
Larisa, Greece, 2006 17.8 M c M 0 c M 0 c E E c ND ND ND
(Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli 2009)
Nanaimo, Canada, 2010 15.3 M c M sE c M sE c E sE c E 0 E
(Lesyshen 2013)
Rio Rancho, NM, USA, 2006 14.9 M c M 0 c 0 sE c sE sE c E ND ND
(WPRC 2007)
Pforzheim, Germany, 2010 6.8 M c M 0 c M sE E ND ND c ND ND ND
(von Behren 2012)
Kozani, Greece, 2010 5.5 M c M 0 c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)
Gallup, NM, USA, 2005 4.5 M c M 0 c 0 sE c 0 sE c ND ND ND
(Stephens &
  Associates Inc. 2007)
Melito di Napoli, Italy, 2010 4.2 M c M 0 c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)
Rochester, USA, 2010 3.0 M c M E c M sE c E sE c ND ND ND
(Wright-Pierce 2011)
Kos, Greece, 2007 2.9 M c M 0 c E 0 c E E c ND ND ND
(Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli 2010)
Castellbisbal, Spain, 2010 2.4 M c M 0 c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)
Las Vegas, NM, USA, 2006 2.4 M c M 0 c 0 E c 0 sE c E 0 E
(HRC 2007)
Argeles-sur-mer, France, 2010 2.1 M c M 0 c 0 E c E E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)
Thuir, France, 2010 1.0 M c M 0 c 0 E c 0 E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)
Baho, France, 2010 0.2 M c M 0 c E E c E E c ND ND ND
(WATERLOSS 2012)

0—set to zero, c—calculated, E—estimated (simple), M—measured, MDC—more developed country, ND—not determined, sE—estimated (sound)

JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084 E344
Peer-Reviewed

FIGURE 1 Approaches for determining water balance components of case studies reviewed in DCs

Measured
Estimated (sound)
Estimated (simple)
Calculated (real water losses)
Fortaleza, Brazil
Dhulikhel, Nepal
Tehran, Iran
Northwestern Province, Zambia
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
Ibarra, Ecuador
Sandakan, Malaysia
Location

Manila West, the Philippines

Vidin, Bulgaria
Skopje, Macedonia
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Bhaktapur, Nepal
Lusaka, Zambia
Kampala, Uganda
Kalol, India

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Proportion of SIV—%
DC—developing country, SIV—system input volume

FIGURE 2 Approaches for determining water balance components of case studies reviewed in MDCs

Measured
Estimated (sound)
Estimated (simple)
Calculated (real water losses)

Berlin, Germany
Nanaimo, B.C., Canada
Castellbisbal, Spain
Pforzheim, Germany
Gallup, NM, USA
Geneva, Switzerland
Rio Rancho, NM, USA
Austin, TX, USA
Las Cruces, NM, USA
Location

Guelph, Ont., Canada

Rochester, NY, USA
Argeles-sur-mer, France
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Miami, FL, USA
Larisa, Greece
Nicosia, Cyprus
Kos, Greece
Melito di Napoli, Italy
Baho, France
Thuir, France
Kozani, Greece

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Proportion of SIV—%
MDC—more developed country, SIV—system input volume

JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084
Peer-Reviewed
that the insufficient database in DCs constituted the biggest
obstacle to establishing a detailed water balance (Mutikanga
2012, Shah & Parikh 2010, Sharma & Chinokoro 2010). Many
components of the water balance could only be estimated
because no official figures were available to the water utilities.
Consequently, many components were based, for instance, on
guidance values, rules of thumb, experience of other water
utilities, or interviews of staff and customers (Akita 2009,
Mutikanga et al. 2009, Sharma & Nemafuki 2009). Yet DCs
have also realized that the availability of reliable information is
significant in ensuring correct management decisions and effi-
cient reduction of water losses (Dimaano & Jamora 2010).
Figure 2 illustrates that a large proportion of water utilities in
MDCs have percentage fractions of measured consumption
between 70 and 90% of the SIV. Figure 2 also shows that, as a
consequence of using sound estimates to determine unmeasured
components, some case studies probably enjoy higher reliability of
the calculated real losses (e.g., Nanaimo, B.C., Canada; Gallup,
N.M.; Geneva, Switzerland). The most detailed and most thor-
oughly documented water balances were found in US and
Canadian technical reports; these utilities frequently use sound
estimates to determine unmetered components. Also, the study by
Chastain-Howley et al. (2012) shows that two-thirds of the North
American water utilities under study already have fundamental
guidelines and processes for data collection in place to precisely
determine the metered and unmetered components of a water bal-
ance and obtain reliable results. Many of the utilities participating
in the study were among the early adopters; the results, therefore,
cannot be extended to all utilities. However, there are many MDC
water utilities that are often required to fall back on estimates.
The results confirmed the opinion expressed by Osmancevic
(2010), who criticized the fact that, in practice, many components
of the water balance are not measured but instead estimated, and
that frequently no distinction is made between real and apparent
losses. The lack of availability of the data required to determine
individual components can probably be attributed to insufficient
preconditions with the water utilities. Another potential reason
is the high expenditure water utilities must incur without perhaps
recognizing any direct benefit in knowing the components.
Another reason could be that no tools and methods were avail-
able, so that the different components of unmetered consumption
and real and apparent losses could not be determined in practice
easily and with sufficient accuracy. The following paragraphs
summarize the most important findings with respect to determin-
ing specific water balance components.
SIV. SIV is measured by most of the utilities in the study. How-
ever, logging, reading, and transmitting analogue and digital
water production data are frequently accepted without any check
for correctness. Errors led to SIV under-registration or over-
registration and thus decreased the reliability of the water balance
(Lesyshen 2013, Scruton & Sheperd 2010, Elizondo et al. 2009,
Guibentif et al. 2007). Some case studies verified the deviation of
measurements among system input meters on the basis of check
measurements with portable meters (Lesyshen 2013, Guibentif
et al. 2007) or in volumetric tests at upstream elevated storage
tanks (Wright-Pierce 2011).
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E345
Billed authorized consumption. After SIV, the correct determina-
tion of billed metered consumption has, in most cases, the greatest
impact on establishing a correct water balance. Billed metered
consumption was measured by 80% of the analyzed case studies
in DCs and 100% in MDCs, respectively (Figures 3 and 4). Nor-
mally, the information about billed metered consumption was
taken from a customer information system. The North American
utilities evaluated by Chastain-Howley et al. (2012) measured
billed metered consumption with high accuracy. However, this was
not the case for the majority of utilities. Frequently, billed metered
consumption was measured without any check for data accuracy
and reliability, leading to incorrect water balances (Knobloch 2014,
Elizondo et al. 2009). The problem was aggravated by incorrect
attribution of meter readings to the balancing period (annualiza-
tion), as mentioned by several authors (Tennhardt 2012, Renaud
et al. 2009, Guibentif et al. 2007). Studies by Sharma and
Chinokoro (2010), Shah and Parikh (2010), and Akita (2009)
show that the correct determination was frequently not possible
in water utilities in DCs because not enough customers—or no
customers at all—were equipped with water meters.
Sharma and Chinokoro (2010) add that a further breakdown
of billed authorized consumption into billed metered and billed
unmetered consumption was not possible because of a lack of
reliable data. In DCs in particular, a significant number of cus-
tomers are not equipped with water meters. In this case, the water
utilities as a rule used the flat-rate charge for water volume to
calculate the water balance. Although in MDCs most customers
are metered, there may still be cases (e.g., flat-rate tariffs, defec-
tive meters) in which the water utility has to estimate consump-
tion (Elizondo et al. 2009).
Unbilled authorized consumption. Customers whose water con-
sumption was neither metered nor billed seem to represent a
significant majority in DCs (Shah & Parikh 2010, Sharma &
Chinokoro 2010). The unbilled unmetered consumption in
MDCs, however, was composed mainly of demands for fire-
fighting, flushing pipe systems, sewer extracting and street sweep-
ing, and irrigating public green spaces. Many water utilities used
lump sum values on the order of 1–2% of the SIV (WATERLOSS
2012). For many water utilities in MDCs, this value seems to
overestimate the actual level of unbilled unmetered consumption
(Tennhardt 2012, WPRC 2007). As a consequence, many water
utilities try to use sound estimates to define as accurately as pos-
sible the levels of the individual components (Figure 4). Because
there are no standard procedures for this purpose, each water
utility uses individual approaches. For example, Korkmazer
(2013), Lesyshen (2013), Kistenfeger (2012), Tennhardt (2012),
Stephens & Associates Inc. (2007), and WPRC (2007) describe
individual approaches for determining firefighting withdrawals.
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (2010), Elizondo et al. (2009), and Lesyshen
(2013) report methods for estimating demands for pipe flushing.
Some water utilities estimate the extraction of water for street
and sewer sweeping (Wright-Pierce 2011, Stephens & Associates
Inc. 2007, WPRC 2007) and for irrigating public green spaces
(Stephens & Associates Inc. 2007).
Apparent losses. In DCs, water utilities frequently have to cope
with the problem of apparent losses, which represent a much
JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084 E346
Peer-Reviewed

FIGURE 3 Distribution of approaches for determining water balance components of case studies reviewed in DCs

Measured
Estimated (sound)
Estimated (simple)
Set to zero
Not determined
Billed Authorized Consumption

Unbilled Authorized Consumption

Water Balance Components

Apparent Losses

Real Losses

0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion of Water Utilities—%
DC—developing country

FIGURE 4 Distribution of approaches for determining water balance components of case studies reviewed in MDCs

Measured
Estimated (sound)
Estimated (simple)
Set to zero
Not determined
Billed Authorized Consumption
Metered

Unmetered

Unbilled Authorized Consumption

Water Balance Components

Metered

Unmetered

Apparent Losses

Real Losses

0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion of Water Utilities—%
MDC—more developed country

JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084
Peer-Reviewed
greater problem than is usually the case in MDCs. However, the
apparent loss level is difficult to determine; this has a negative
impact on the validity of real losses determined (Kalinkov et al.
2011). Approximately 25% of the analyzed case studies in DCs
did not determine apparent losses (Figure 3). The majority of the
remaining utilities used simple estimates. Mutikanga et al. (2009)
find that DC water utilities with problematic and poorly man-
aged water supply systems were using inadequate guidance values
or rules of thumb. In less than 10% of the analyzed case studies
in MDCs, apparent losses were not determined (Figure 4). But
also in MDCs, apparent losses often are determined only by
means of guidance values, as stated by Knobloch (2014), von
Behren (2012), WATERLOSS (2012), and Kanakoudis and
Tsitsifli (2010). This is also the case for the German water utilities
surveyed by Knobloch and Klingel (2013).
Only 35% of the German water utilities surveyed take into
account apparent losses. In most cases, their level is determined
according to DVGW (2003) as a flat percentage fraction (1.5–2%)
of authorized consumption. Only one of 29 water utilities indi-
cated that they determined a separate subcomponent of apparent
losses according to DVGW (2003) by estimating unregistered low
flows. However, the approach recommended by DVGW (2003) is
an undue simplification for the case studies from MDCs. Even for
water utilities that determined apparent losses by way of sound
estimated subcomponents, apparent losses range between 0.8 and
7.1% of authorized consumption. Wright-Pierce (2011) indicate
that in MDCs the volume of unauthorized consumption is very
low and difficult to quantify, which is why they used the guidance
value of 0.25% SIV as recommended by AWWA (2009). Elizondo
et al. (2009) also report that there are no standard procedures to
determine unauthorized consumption in more detail; therefore,
they use the same guidance value. Kanakoudis and Tsitsifli (2009)
and WATERLOSS (2012) indicate that water utilities do not store
sufficient information to determine apparent losses. Therefore,
each water utility should try to determine approximately the
individual level of apparent losses by appropriate methods, as
concluded by Mutikanga et al. (2009).
Several individual methods were applied in the reviewed case stud-
ies. In a few cases, documents about the number of illegal connections
were evaluated to determine the level of unauthorized consumption
(Sharma & Chinokoro 2010, Sharma & Nhemafuki 2009,
Mutikanga et al. 2009). Tentative guidance values, estimates, manu-
facturer’s data test measurements, and experience-based data were
used for the metering inaccuracies in various cities (Lesyshen 2013,
Braga Pinto & Wyatt 2012, WATERLOSS 2012, Wright-Pierce 2011,
Castaño & Aragón 2010, Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 2010, Beltrán 2009,
Kanakoudis & Tsitsifli 2009, Makara 2009, Mutikanga et al. 2009,
Hetek Solutions Inc. 2008, Guibentif et al. 2007, Stephens &
Associates Inc. 2007, WPRC 2007, Lewis & Fanner 2005).
Real losses. In most cases, real losses are calculated (SIV minus
the sum of authorized consumption and apparent losses); often,
only water losses are determined. Figures 3 and 4 show that the
subcomponents of real losses are often not determined in the
water balances of many water utilities. Also, the literature con-
tains only a few examples of water balances in which the sub-
components are quantified individually.
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E347
In DCs, real loss subcomponents are listed in the water bal-
ances by Braga Pinto and Wyatt (2012), Kalinkov et al. (2011),
Shah and Parikh (2010), Beltrán (2009), Bidgoli (2009), and
Sharma and Nhemafuki (2009). However, the underlying
approach is not documented in most of these references and
consequently cannot be analyzed further. Only Bidgoli (2009)
indicates that the breakdown of real losses into single compo-
nents was based on the failure rates of pipes and the BABE
concept for component analysis (Lambert 1994).
Also in MDCs, allocating real losses to their points of origin is
not common. Twenty-five percent of the case studies in MDCs
indicated using component analysis to determine the components
of real losses. Only 7% of the surveyed water utilities in south-
western Germany indicated that they determine components of
real losses (Knobloch & Klingel 2013). In Nanaimo, B.C.,
Canada; Berlin, Germany; Austin, Texas; Las Vegas, Nev.; and
Rio Rancho, N.M., component analysis incorporated various
levels of detail (Lesyshen 2013, Tennhardt 2012, Elizondo et al.
2009, HRC 2007, WPRC 2007). Tennhardt (2012) and Lesyshen
(2013) are the only ones to determine the fraction of background
losses in the respective water supply system.
CONFIDENCE LEVELS
A total of 38% of the water utilities in MDCs covered in the
literature study use confidence levels as defined in the introduc-
tion of this article to evaluate input data accuracy and the
water balance outcome. The water balances from DCs exam-
ined carried confidence levels in 43% of cases. However, major
differences can be observed in the levels and qualities of the
confidence levels used.
Hetek Solutions Inc. (2008), for instance, determined unauthor-
ized consumption in the city of Guelph by means of a default value
of 0.5% of SIV. Because this value cannot be corroborated by local
information, Hetek Solutions Inc. (2008) opted for a very conser-
vative level of confidence of ±100%. Even soundly based estimates,
such as those for the extraction of water for firefighting or flushing
mains, carried a confidence level of ±30% in the case of Hetek
Solutions Inc. (2008). Also, Guibentif et al. (2007) and Kalinkov
et al. (2011) used conservative confidence levels for estimated
components of the water balance, such as up to ±50% for real and
apparent loss components. On the other hand, several water bal-
ances were found during the literature study in which the confi-
dence levels were not determined consistently on the basis of the
error propagation law for all water balance components or in
which unrealistic values, such as ±5%, were used for real losses
(Sharma & Chinokoro 2010, Sharma & Nemafuki 2009).
ZONAL WATER BALANCES
Evaluating the articles from technical journals and conference
papers did not permit any reliable conclusions to be drawn about
the extent to which the water utilities established detailed water
balances for individual supply zones or district metered areas in
addition to the water balance for the entire system—or whether
they do so at all. In the technical reports evaluated, it can be
assumed with high reliability that zonal balancing would have been
described. This was not the case for any of the otherwise highly
JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084
Peer-Reviewed
detailed and thorough technical reports from the United States and
Canada (Lesyshen 2013, Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 2010, Elizondo et al.
2009, Hetek Solutions Inc. 2008, HRC 2007, Stephens & Associates
Inc. 2007, WPRC 2007). Only two (7%) of 29 water utilities in the
southwestern German survey determine the water balance for
specific supply zones (Knobloch & Klingel 2013).
Thus, zonal water balances are rarely used in practice. This
underscores the statement by Osmancevic (2010) that water bal-
ances as a rule are established without differentiating into indi-
vidual supply zones, although this is recommended by Lambert
and Hirner (2000) and the guidelines referred to previously. This
is probably also because of the great expense involved in data
collection and data processing arising for each zonal balance.
BALANCING PERIODS
Eighty-nine percent of the German utilities that answered the
relevant question in the survey establish water balances once a
year and 11% do so every month (Knobloch & Klingel 2013).
WATERLOSS (2012) reports that some Mediterranean tourist
centers establish two or three water balances a year to take into
account the pronounced variation in water requirements. For the
same reason, Kanakoudis and Tsitsifli (2013) calculated the water
balance for the Greek city of Kos at bimonthly intervals. Beltrán
(2009) mentions that water loss indicators have been calculated on
a monthly basis since 2004 for the water supply system of Ibarra,
Ecuador. This suggests that the water balance is established monthly.
The other case studies either established a water balance once a year,
or detailed information was not given. It can be assumed that the
US and Canadian technical reports referred to previously would
have reported whether the water balance had not been established
every year or more frequently than once a year. Thus, it can be
concluded that water balances are established once a year with most
water utilities as recommended, for example, by Lambert and
Hirner (2000). However, Gangl et al. (2009) state that a water bal-
ance established once a year shows only the past status, to which a
response is possible only after some time. One remedy would be
shorter balancing periods, but this would be offset by the tremen-
dous expense involved in establishing a water balance.
SUMMARY
The findings of the study about the practical handling of the
water balance calculation can be summarized as follows: Complete
water balances for individual zones are produced by only a few of
the studied utilities. In particular, the water balances documented
by Lesyshen (2013), Tennhardt (2012), Hetek Solutions Inc. (2008),
HRC (2007), and WPRC (2007) are among the best-practice cases
and could serve as good benchmarks. However, establishing a water
balance with the tools available requires manual data collection and
processing, which is why water balances in most cases are deter-
mined for a whole network rather than for zones, and only at long,
mostly yearly, intervals. The main reasons for incomplete water
balances, not taking into account all components and subcompo-
nents according to the applied standard or guideline, seem to be the
effort involved and the lack of adequate and efficient methods for
determining components. Notably, many unmetered components
in a water balance require laboriously detailed determination.
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E348
However, flat estimates of components used instead must be seen
critically, especially if using estimates of a component via constant
ratios to some other component. Furthermore, a well-founded com-
ponent analysis to determine the components of real losses is carried
out in only a few of the analyzed case studies. Confidence levels are
not applied by the majority of these water utilities. Finally, the absence
of zonal balancing and incomplete determination of balances result
in limited informational value and usability of the findings (e.g., for
prioritization of water loss reduction measures). In addition, validity
for comparing findings of water balances and performance indicators
derived from them is limited because of different approaches and
different levels of water balance completeness.
Hence, it can be concluded from this article that there is a need
for methods and tools to support water utilities in establishing
complete, zonal water balances undertaken with reasonable effort.
It should be determined whether there are unmeasured components
that have an insignificant impact on the balance result and there-
fore could be neglected in the water balance under certain condi-
tions. Standardized procedures for determining unmeasured com-
ponents should be defined and incorporated into guidelines, as
done previously by AWWA (2009), to support establishing com-
plete water balances and comparability of the results. Developing
approaches for automating data collection, data preprocessing, and
calculating water balance and performance indicators would
reduce the effort involved, enabling the establishment of complete
and zonal water balances. It would also enable establishing water
balances for shorter balancing periods to have a shorter response
time. Automation of the water balance calculation should be fur-
ther advanced by integrating bottom-up approaches for determin-
ing unmeasured components. Subcomponents of real losses, for
example, could be determined by analyzing the system input
hydrograph and the MNF, respectively. This would significantly
increase the accuracy of the classic top-down water balance. A next
step could be to develop an approach for automated analysis of
the causes of water losses. The approach could comprise a pipe
deterioration model that processes the results of the automated
zonal water balance results together with failure data, pipe data,
and information about environmental conditions (e.g., soil char-
acteristics, traffic load, groundwater). Such an analysis would
provide water utilities a better understanding of the individual
mechanisms that lead to high or low water losses in a specific zone.
ENDNOTE
1Microsoft Excel, Redmond, Wash.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Philipp Klingel (to whom correspondence
may be addressed) is a researcher at
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),
Institute for Water and River Basin
Management, Kaiserstraße 12, Karlsruhe,
Germany 76131, where he has been the head
of the Water Supply Networks Group since
2008. Klingel has more than 11 years of
experience in the water supply field and earned his master’s
degree (Dipl.-Ing.) from the University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe,
JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084
Peer-Reviewed
Germany, and his doctoral degree (Dr.-Ing.) from KIT, both in
civil engineering. Axel Knobloch is an asset manager for
Netrion, Mannheim, Germany.
PEER REVIEW
Date of submission: 11/19/2014
Date of acceptance: 02/24/2014
REFERENCES
Akita, C.S., 2009. Water Distribution Network Modelling for Leakage Management
and Control in Kampala City, Uganda. Master’s thesis, UNESCO-IHE Institute
for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.
Alegre, H.; Baptista, J.; Cabrera, E.; Cubillo, F.; Duarte, P.; Hirner, W.; Merkel, W.; &
Parena, R., 2006 (2nd ed.). Performance Indicators for Water Supply
Services. IWA Publishing, London.
Aquadas QS (Aquadas Consulting & Software), 2007. [Aquadas QS—the Modular
Software Solution for Water Works Management]. Vienna, Austria. [In German.]
AWWA, 2009 (3rd ed.). Manual of Water Supply Practices, M36. Water Audits and
Loss Control Programs. Denver.
Beltrán, R.E., 2009. Water Loss Control in Ibarra City – Ecuador. Proc. 5th IWA
Water Loss Reduction Specialist Conf. 2009, Cape Town, South Africa.
International Water Association, London, 635–654.
Bidgoli, A.M., 2009. Water Losses Reduction Programme in Iran. Proceedings of
International Workshop on Drinking Water Loss Reduction: Developing
Capacity for Applying Solutions (R. Ardakanian & J.L. Martin-Bordes, eds.).
UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development, Proceedings No.
1, UNW-DPC Publication Series, Bonn, 80–87.
Braga Pinto, L.C. & Wyatt, A.S., 2012. NRW Data Capturing and Management
SISCOPE—Water Loss Management System. Proceedings of Water Loss
2012. International Water Association, London.
Castaño, B.A. & Aragón, J., 2010. [Water Loss Reduction Programme: The Case of
Guayaquil]. Proceedings of the 1st Regional Workshop on Water Loss
Reduction in Water & Sanitation Utilities Latin American Countries (J.L.
Martin-Bordes, ed.). UN-Water Decade Programme on Capacity Development,
Proceedings No. 3, UNW-DPC Publication Series, Bonn, 80-87. [In Spanish.]
Charalambous, B. & Hamilton, S., 2012. Water Balance—The Next Stage.
Proceedings of Water Loss 2012. International Water Association, London.
Chastain-Howley, A.; Kunkel, G.; & Jernigan, W., 2012. Establishing the First
Validated Dataset of North American Water Utility Water Audit Data.
Proceedings of Water Loss 2012. International Water Association, London.
CheckCalcs, 2014. www.leakssuite.com/software/checkcalcs/ (accessed Jan. 27,
2014).
DAC (Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development), 2012. DAC List of ODA Recipients Effective
for Reporting on 2012 and 2013 Flow. www.oecd.org/dac/stats/
documentupload/DAC%20List%20used%20for%202012%20and%202013%20
flows.pdf (accessed July 30, 2013).
Dimaano, J., 2012. The Challenge of Reducing Maynilad’s Non-revenue Water.
Proceedings of Water Loss 2012. International Water Association, London.
Dimaano, I. & Jamora, R., 2010. Embarking on the World’s Largest Non-Revenue
Water Management Project. Proceedings of Water Loss 2010. International
Water Association, London.
DVGW (Deutscher Verein des Gas und Wasserfaches e.V. Technisch-
wissenschaftlicher Verein [German Technical and Scientific Association for
Gas and Water]), 2003. DVGW Worksheet W 392. Pipe Network Inspection and
Water Losses—Measures, Techniques and Assessment]. Bonn. [In German.]
Elizondo, R.; Cruz, J.; Young, R.; Daugherty, C.; & Needler, R., 2009. Austin Water
Utility: Water Loss. Audit Report No. AU08110, Austin City Council, Austin,
Texas.
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E349
Farley, M. & Liemberger, R., 2005. Developing a Non-revenue Water Reduction
Strategy: Planning and Implementing the Strategy. Water Science and
Technology: Water Supply, 5:1:41.
Farley, M. & Trow, S., 2003. Losses in Water Distribution Networks. IWA
Publishing, London.
Gangl, G.; Dietz, R.; & Sacher, J., 2009. [Early Leak Detection at Networks Without
DMAs], energie|wasser-praxis, 60:3:2. [In German.]
Guibentif, H.; Rufenacht, H.P.; Rapillard, P.; & Rüetschi, M., 2007. Acceptable Level
of Water Losses in Geneva. Proceedings of the IWA International
Specialised Conference Water Loss 2007. International Water Association,
London.
Halfawy, M.R. & Hunaidi, O., 2008. GIS-based Water Balance System for
Integrated Sustainability Management of Water Distribution Assets.
Proceedings of the 60th Annual WCWWA Conference and Trade Show.
Western Canada Water and Wastewater Association (WCWWA), Cochrane,
1–16.
Hetek Solutions Inc., 2008. Water Conservation and Efficiency Strategy Update—
Appendix H. IWA-AWWA Water Balance and Water Audit Report. Guelph,
B.C., Canada.
Heydenreich, M. & Kreft, D., 2004. [Factor of Success Network Management],
energie|wasser-praxis, 55:12:84. [In German.]
HRC (Hydrosphere Resource Consultants), 2007. Water Use Audit Analysis City of
Las Vegas, New Mexico. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer and City
of Las Vegas, Socorro, N.M. www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/conservation/
Las_Vegas_Audit_Report_2007-06-21.pdf (accessed May 3, 2015).
Kalinkov, P.; Vladov, G.; & Radovanov V., 2011. Studies and Procedures of Water
Loss Reduction in the Water Supply System of the Town of Vidin. Water
Utility Journal, 2011:1:11.
Kanakoudis, V. & Tsitsifli, S., 2013. Using the Bimonthly Water Balance of a Non-
fully Monitored Water Distribution Network With Seasonal Water Demand
Peaks to Define Its Actual NRW Level: The Case of Kos Town, Greece. Urban
Water Journal, 11:5:348.
Kanakoudis, V. & Tsitsifli, S., 2010. Water Volume vs. Revenues Oriented Water
Balance Calculation for Urban Water Networks: The “Minimum Charge
Difference” Component Makes a Difference! Proceedings of Water Loss
2010. International Water Association, London.
Kanakoudis, V. & Tsitsifli, S., 2009. Calculating the Water Balance and the Related
Performance Indicators for an Urban Water Supply Network in Greece.
Proceedings of the 5th IWA Water Loss Reduction Specialist Conference.
International Water Association, London, 365–372.
Kanyembo, K.C., 2012. Case Study on Non-Revenue Water. Proceedings of Water
Loss 2012. International Water Association, London.
Kistenfeger, F., 2012. [Water Loss Analysis for the Water Distribution System of
the City of Stuttgart]. Bachelor’s thesis (unpublished), Hochschule
Esslingen–University of Applied Sciences and Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, Institute for Water and River Basin Management, Esslingen and
Karlsruhe, Germany. [In German.]
Knobloch, A., 2014. [Automated Water Loss Analysis in Drinking Water Supply].
Doctoral dissertation, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Water
and River Basin Management, Karlsruhe, Germany. [In German.]
Knobloch, A. & Klingel, P., 2013. [Water Balances as a Base for Water Loss
Management—State of the Art and Current Practice]. gwf-Wasser/
Abwasser, 154:11:1226. [In German.]
Korkmazer, A., 2013. [Determination of Fire Fighting Water Demand From Water
Supply Networks]. Bachelor’s thesis (unpublished), Hochschule Esslingen–
University of Applied Sciences and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology,
Institute for Water and River Basin Management Esslingen and Karlsruhe,
Germany. [In German.]
Lambert, A. 2001. What Do We Know About Pressure–Leakage Relationships?
Proceedings of the Conference System Approach to Leakage Control and
JULY 2015 | 107:7
Klingel & Knobloch | http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0084
Peer-Reviewed
Water Distribution Systems Management. International Water Association,
London.
Lambert, A., 1994. Accounting for Losses: The Bursts and Background Estimates
Concepts. Water and Environment Journal, 8:2:205.
Lambert, A. & Taylor, R., 2010. Water Loss Guidelines. Water New Zealand—The
New Zealand Water & Wastes Association, Wellington.
Lambert, A. & Hirner, W., 2000. Losses From Water Supply Systems: Standard
Terminology and Recommended Performance Measures: The Blue Pages.
International Water Association, London.
Las Cruces Utilities, 2012. Las Cruces Utilities Water Conservation Plan. City of
Las Cruces, N.M.
Lesyshen, R., 2013. City of Nanaimo Water Audit. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates
Ltd., Vancouver Island, Canada.
Lewis, J.M. & Fanner, P.V., 2005. Experience of Using the IWA/AWWA Water Audit
Methodology in Salt Lake City Public Utilities Public Utilities Department.
Proceedings of Leakage 2005. International Water Association, London.
Liemberger, R. & Farley, M., 2004. Developing a Nonrevenue Water Reduction
Strategy, Part 1: Investigating and Assessing Water Losses. Proceeding of
the 4th World Water Congress. International Water Association, London.
Liemberger, R. & McKenzie, R., 2003. Aqualibre: A New Innovative Water Balance
Software. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Efficient Use
and Management of Water for Urban Supply. International Water
Association, London.
Makara, L., 2009. Successful Outcomes from Water Loss Reduction Eda Ranu,
Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of the 5th IWA Water Loss Reduction
Specialist Conference. International Water Association, London.
Malcolm Pirnie Inc., 2010. 2009 Annual Water Loss Reduction Plan
Implementation Status Report. Report (4163042), Miami Dade Water and
Sewer Department, Miami, Fla.
McKenzie, R., 2007. AquaLite: Water Balance Software Version 2.0.2 User Guide.
Report 315/07, Water Research Commission in association with WRP (Pty)
Ltd., Gezina, South Africa.
McKenzie, R.S.; Lambert, A.O.; Kock, J.E.; & Mtshweni, W., 2002. Benchmarking of
Leakage for Water Suppliers in South Africa—User Guide for the Benchleak
Model. Report TT 159/01, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Mutikanga, H.E., 2012. Water Loss Management: Tools and Methods for
Developing Countries. Doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology
and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.
Mutikanga, H.E.; Sharma, S.K.; & Vairavamoorthy, K., 2009. Apparent Water
Losses Assessment: The Case of Kampala City, Uganda. Proceedings of the
5th IWA Water Loss Reduction Specialist Conference. International Water
Association, London.
Netbase, 2014. www.crowderconsult.com/water-network-management-system-
netbase/ (accessed May 3, 2015).
Osmancevic, E., 2010. [Water Loss Reduction in Practice]. 3R International,
49:8/9:455. [In German.]
ÖVGW (Österreichische Vereinigung für das Gas- und Wasserfach [Austrian
Association for Gas and Water]), 2009. ÖVGW Guideline W 63. [Water Losses
in Drinking Water Supply Systems]. Vienna, Austria. [In German.]
JOURNAL AWWA 2015 © American Water Works Association
E350
Pilcher, R., 2005. A Practical Approach to Developing a Sustainable Water Loss
Reduction Strategy in Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia. Proceedings of Leakage
2005. International Water Association, London.
Puust, R.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D.A.; & Koppel, T., 2010. A Review of Methods for
Leakage Management in Pipe Networks. Urban Water Journal, 7:1:25.
Rathgeber, S., 2012. [Water Losses in German Water Supply Systems]. Diploma
thesis (unpublished), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Water
and River Basin Management, Karlsruhe, Germany. [In German.]
Renaud, E.; Lapuyade, F.; De Grissac, D.; & Bremond, B., 2009. Annualizing
Metered Volumes in Water Balance. Proceedings of the 5th IWA Water Loss
Reduction Specialist Conference. International Water Association, London.
Scruton, S.R. & Sheperd, M.A., 2010. The Evaluation and Verification of System
Input Volumes from Custody Transfer Points in Durban, South Africa.
Proceedings of Water Loss 2010. International Water Association, London.
Shah, R. & Parikh, A., 2010. Preliminary Water Audit: Estimation of Water Losses
and Strategy for Loss Reduction—City of Kalol, Gujarat, India. CEPT
University, Gujarat.
Sharma, S.K. & Chinokoro, H., 2010. Estimation of ELL and ELWL for Lusaka Water
Distribution System. Proceedings of Water Loss 2010. International Water
Association, London.
Sharma, S.K. & Nhemafuki, A., 2009. Water Loss Management in Bhaktapur and
Dhulikhel Cities in Nepal. Proceedings of the 5th IWA Water Loss Reduction
Specialist Conference. International Water Association, London.
Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2007. Gallup Water Audit. New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer and City of Gallup, Albuquerque, N.M.
Tennhardt, L., 2012. [Realistic Determination of Water Losses and Application of
Water Loss Performance Indicators]. energie|wasser-praxis, 63:10:34. [In
German.]
Tsitsifli, S. & Kanakoudis, V., 2010. Presenting a New User-Friendly Tool to Assess
Performance Level and Calculate the Water Balance of Water Networks.
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Protection and
Restoration of Environment (PRE10). Stevens Institute of Technology,
University of Ioannina, Hoboken, Ioannina.
Vodovod Skopje (JP Vodovod i Kanalizacija Skopje), 2012. [Annual Report of
Company Activities for the Year 2011]. Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. [In
Macedonian.]
von Behren, K., 2012. [Water Loss Analysis for the Water Supply System of the
Pforzheim Water Utility.] Diploma thesis (unpublished), Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, Institute for Water and River Basin Management, Karlsruhe,
Germany. [In German.]
WATERLOSS, 2012. Project Management of Water Losses in a Drinking Water
Supply System. Water Balance Assessments. Report D3.1.1, Project
2G-MED09-445. www.waterloss-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/
WATERLOSS_D3.1.1-D3.1.2_FINAL.pdf (accessed May 3, 2015).
WB-EasyCalc, 2014. Free Water Balance Software. www.liemberger.cc/
WB-EasyCalc.xlsx (accessed Jan. 27, 2014).
WPRC (Water Prospecting and Resource Consulting), 2007. City of Rio Rancho
Water Audit Report. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer and City of Rio
Rancho, Fort Worth, Texas.
Wright-Pierce, 2011. 2011 Rochester Water Audit. Portsmouth, N.H.
JULY 2015 | 107:7