MSWD Public Affairs Committee - February 6

The audio recording of this meeting of the Mission Springs Water District Public Affairs Committee is available here. Directors John Brown and Nancy Wright constitute the Public Affairs Committee. This meeting was to deal with an appeal of "water consumption charges" (the water bill) for August 2011 for the residence owned by Marshall Annau on Flora Avenue.

The summary of events provided by MSWD:

• There was a meter read on August 3, 2011.
• The read was unusually high. MSWD's system is set up to flag that and notify customer service for an investigation, which took place on August 8.
• "As a courtesy," the customer service rep contacted someone on the property and told them water was going through the meter at 8 cubic feet per minute.
• Later readings at the meter showed that the high water flow ceased almost immediately after this notification.
• The water usage between August 3 and August 8 was more than 106 HCF (hundred cubic feet). In that billing period 133 units were billed at Tier 3, $1.83/HCF.
• Water use after August 8 was slightly higher than normal for this account.
• The owner of the property showed the location of the leak to MSWD staff. It was in the rear easement "near the connection point of the original meter." Staff confirmed that the leak was in the service line on the customer's property.
• The customer insists the easement is not his property and that MSWD should be responsible for it.

Couple of other relevant factoids not on the list provided by staff:

• MSWD's ownership and responsibility for lines ends at the meter. Beyond that they are the property and responsibility of the happy homeowner, come what may.
• When originally constructed, the water line ran through the easement. The meter was in the easement. Water went from the line in the easement to the meter in the easement and then into the back of the house. Some years later as part of a project to get water lines out of the rear easements, a new water line was built in the street. A new meter was installed by the street. From that new meter a new line (property of the owner) ran to the back of the property to connect into the existing line where the old meter was, which had now been removed. It was done this way because it's not good to change the flow of water in a house. The fewer things you have to change, the lower the expense and the fewer things to go wrong.

MSWD staff provided a brief analysis:

• The MSWD customer service department followed the established protocol correctly with due diligence.
• The leak was in a customer line in the easement.
• The meter was accurate.
• Property owners do retain ownership of their easements.

The outstanding balance for the billing period is $264.66.

Here are the facts from the owner's point of view, as presented in his first letter to the water district:

September 16, 2011

Matt McCue, Director of Finance
Mission Springs Water District
66575 Second Street
Desert Hot Springs. Ca. 92240

On August 8, 2011 a service representative of Mission Springs Water District of Desert Hot Springs, Ca. knocked on our door and advised us we were using a lot of water and could he check. We can hear water running through the pipes in the house when a toilet is flushed. irrigation system watering or washing machine etc., there was no evidence of any running water at this time in the house.

The representative and myself went to the water meter in the street on Flora Avenue and it was ascertained that there was indeed water running through the meter, and lots of it. We then walked through the house and the outside premises and found nothing. The representative advised us to get a leak detection company to find the leak.

We got a man out immediately and he found the leak to be in the easement on the rear of our property on the far side of our fence. This land is dedicated as an easement for the utility companies use I am told. The leak was detected by a large wet spot that when dug up turned out to the the water main. What the water main is doing on the far end of the property before ever going into the house I do not know and that is why we heard no water running because it was before comming into the house about 125 feet away from the meter. Very strange installation on part of water company I would say. This detection cost us $200.

In order to stop the teak I had our plumber come and repair the broken pipe fitting at our expense to stop the flow of water as soon as possible. This was even though the leaking pipe was the main water line (not ours) located on the easement we had no business being on much less monitoring it for leaks in my opinion.

Additionally, why was it not the responsibility of the water company to find the leak on the easment? The representative came here to find the leak and he neglected to find it on the easment

I complained to the service manager about this and he cited some legal jargon whereby we are responsible for THEIR pipes on this easement. This situation is absurd, insulting and most definately not fair to the consumer/property owner. Why on earth would we be monitoring the empty space of the easment for anything, much less for a leak in the WATER MAIN? Either we have ceded useage of the piece of land or we haven't. If I am responsible for it then why can't I grow a garden on it or park a car there or whatever else I might want to use it for?

The 1st billing to 9/01/11 was for $217.47, about $100. more than usual. The 2nd billing to 10/05/11 was for $348.11. about $250.00 more than usual.

On receipt of this outrageous $348.11 bill I went to the Water Company Offices and discussed it with the manager who said she would speak to the Service Manager. Today since she did not get back to me I went again to your offices and spoke to Don Mathein, Service Manager who suggested I direct my discussion to you for disposition.

My contention is that it is unreasonable the property owner is responsible for maintaining the MAIN LINE, no matter where it is located and its' location at rear of property was for convenience of the water company, not the property owner when the water meters were put in.

Additionally, it is preposterous that we are reponsible for monitoring your Main Line for leaks in the dedicated easement for utilities. This land is outside of the fence that all owners seem to put up to indicate the end of their property that they are using, the balance being the easment for utilities. This line is however connected to our meter even though no water is yet available.

Finally, why when you sent a representative to locate the large water useage and he neglected to check the main out in the easement, it is again unreasonable that the responsibility falls to the property owner. He could and should have checked there for a leak if he knew of the location of mains in these houses. If he didn't know how on earth could the property owner be expected to know? Sounds to me like some training might be necessary for your service representatives if they are unaware of this exotic arrangement of Meter to Main to House.

In these terrible times of rampant inflation, decrease in income for retired people who live mostly on social security, it is unacceptable that we are expected to absorb these unfair charges for water metered but not used by us.

I feel in all fairness that these excessive charges should be bourn by the Water Company as well and the $200. for leak detector and $50.00 repair to Main Line.

Incidentally, the line that was broken was a much larger pipe than that going into the house and that would account for the tremendous useage in the relatively short period of time involved. It would have taken a very tong time to run up that volume of water through our regular line.

I am enclosing a check for $100.00 on account for the September Bill pending resolution of this problem.

Cordially,
Marshall E. Annau

In the district's response (from Finance Director McCue) dated September 20 they explained why the water line ran around to the rear of his property despite the meter being at the street. The switch was made over 20 years ago. They say that even though it is in the easement, it's on his property. They cite the water district ordinance that says "The district's responsibility ends at the beginning of the water user's side of the meter." It's the owner's line on the owner's property. They offered him the option of a payment plan.

In a subsequent letter (December 23, from John Soulliere, Administrative Officer) to Mr. Annau it was explained that there could be no credit applied to his bill, but late fees had been waived. It repeats that under California law property owners are the legal owners of utility easements. Data from the district meter showed that water use dropped from 107 cf/hr to 0 on August 8. 106 HCF of water went through the meter from August 3 to August 8. The letter included information about the Emergency Relief Fund. It also offered to let him pay over 6 months time. And it offered the right to further dispute the matter.

Mr. Annau requested a meeting with the Public Finance Committee in this letter:

January 4, 2012

Public Affairs Committee
Board Of Directors
66575 2nd Street
Desert Hot Springs, Ca. 92240

Re: Water Bill Dispute

Dear Public Affairs Committee:

This letter is a formal grievance against the Mission Springs Water District and the intractable position they take on a water leak and the subsequent highly elevated water bills for June July and August of 2011.

I will attempt to present a reasonably clear litany of events.

1. In the early morning of August 8 a service representative of MSWD, Jesus, at our door advising of a large water useage and could we look for a leak. We inspected the inside and outside of our property and walked the grounds checking for pipe leaks in house and for irrigation leaks on the grounds and found nothing. A visual check of water meter indicated a vast amount of water going through it.

2. Jesus advised me to get a Leak Detection Company up to discover the leak which I did and he was here within a couple of hours. He found a large puddle of water out in the 6' EASEMENT AREA at the rear extremity of the property. This easment was created when the homes were built in the 1960's for utilities. All property owners then erected walls, fences hedges etc to separate the easement area from the homes.

3. My plumber was here the same day and repaired the PVC Main Supply line that was leaking. lt looked to be about 18 inches into the ground.

4. The August water bill was $200.00 higher than the two previous years and at that point I wrote Customer Service Manager Don Mathein. I felt that the leak in the main supply line should not be the burden of the property owner. He referred to your Ordinance 93-3 Section 5-17 which artfully transfers responsibility to the property owner for the service line from the new Street Location of Meter all the way back to the old location of the meter in the easement and finally from there to the actual home. Mr Mathein advised me that the meter change had occurred about 20 years ago. My question was and remains why did they not then reroute the water directly to the home rather than send it all the way out to the old location of meter? The answer in probably as simple as they didn't want the expense and could simply by ordinance transfer the maintenance to the property owner. CLEVER BUT NOT FAIR.

5. On 9/16 I then wrote Matt McCue, Director Of Finance with pretty much the same response

6. On 10/3 I then wrote Arden Wallum General Manager who after a long delay referred it to John Souliere, Administrative Officer.

Always the same, hiding behind the self serving Ordinance. This ordinance is unfair, very transparent and wrong.

I continue to ask why it is the responsibility of the property owner to monitor what is going on with the piping for the old/original location of the meter? It is unreasonable to think that a property owner would somehow "devine" the information of this responsibility, We property owners pretty much leave the easement area alone as all the walls, fences, hedges would attest and concentrate on our useable land. Maybe twice a year we clean up the garbage that the good citizens of this community throw there but other than that we have no reason to go there.

I continue to believe that the water line should have been rerouted directly to the house at the time of the meter change not send it clear across length of property to the easement and then to the house which of course made sense when the meter was at the rear. I am convinced that this was done as a cost saving effort on part of MSWD. Then just absolve themselves of responsiblity. If the leak had occurred within the yard it wouldn't have been a big deal, the "lake" would have appeared and we could have had it repaired. lt happened out in the old location where we do not monitor. Your firm hides behind this self serving ordinance as to responsibility. Additionally, if your serviceman Jesus did not know of the exotic route of the water line when we were checking for leaks, how can the property owner be required to know? It just is not reasonable.

I feel strongly enough morally as well as financially to continue my fight for right and fair. I have contacted one newspaper so far and they would be interested in my fight if we do not settle it. I am also trying to find a pro bono lawyer to represent me in the matter. It stands to reason if I can't afford the water bill I sure cannot afford a lawyer, but I think I can find one through Social Services of Riverside County. So even if you rule against me and threaten to turn off the water and I am forced to pay, the Fight will go on.

I am almost 82 years old and struggling to keep afloat in these perilous times what with failing health and precarious financial condiion. I have always supported myself and happy to do so, but this situation is very dibilitating and l grow weary and my income is always decreasing through no fault of my own. Inflation is frightening and yet I have to continue this battle with MSWD. So far it has elevated approximate costs of $50.00 June, $100.00 July and $250.00 August as well as $200.00 for Leak Detectors and $50.00 for actual repair for a total of $650.00 which is back breaking for people of not fixed, but declining income.

I have enclosed a copy of all correspondence, plus a copy of my graff showing elevated water useage for 3 months culminating in the August 8 find. I believe it all started with a small compromise in the pipe in June gettting progressively worse in July and then the break in August.

I would be happy. to appear in person to further discuss this problem.

Cordially,
Marshall E. Annau

ADDENDUM TO LETTER OF 1/4/2012

Regarding Mr Soulliere recommendations:

1. I do not want Emergency Relief Funds

2. I do not want extended payments of outstand balance

3. What I do want is someone who can evaluate the facts of this dispute and come to a fair and just relief. The staff at MSWD appear to be operating with closed minds and no appeal for common sense or fairness gets past ordinance 93-3 Section 5-17 whose very essence is contrary to fairness or common sense.

The meeting began with an explanation by John Soulliere of the process the district goes through when there is a high meter reading. The meters are read wirelessly with a handheld device. The data from the device is then loaded into the computer at MSWD. The system can identify reads that are unusually high or unusually low based on the usual usage at each particular property. There isn't a month that goes by without at least one high read. District staff did a manual re-read of the meter on August 8, five days after the wireless read on August 3. At the manual re-read the meter showed water flowing at 8 cfm (one cubic foot = 7.5 gallons, so this was 60 gallons/minute). The meter reader contacted the resident of the property to advise them of this. If the resident had not been at home, the meter reader would have left a door-hanger and staff would have attempted to contact them by phone.

Mr. Soulliere handed around some bar charts showing water usage at the property from August 5 at 1:32 AM to August 10 at midnight. The charts show very high, very steady use until August 8 between 10:32 and 11:32 AM when it plummeted and then continued to drop to nearly zero by 2:32 PM. After that the charts show normal water usage highs and lows.

Mr. Soulliere made it clear that although Mr. Annau called the location of the leak a "main line," there is no main line there. All the main lines are out in the street. The location of the leak was near where the "new" (it's at least 20 years old) service line connected into the older service line at the point where the old meter used to be. The reason for connecting at that point was that most of the homes of that age had used galvanized pipe, and the water district didn't want to touch the galvanized pipe or mess with the residential plumbing. Also, coming bringing water into the house at any other point could have reversed the flow inside the house. "With that galvanized pipe if you have any kind of tuberculation from rust or anything else and reversed the flow, it could have been a big problem." [New word for me, very exciting. "tuberculation: a condition which develops on the interior of pipelines due to corrosive materials present in the water passing through the pipe and which results in the creation of small,more or less hemispherical lumps (tubercules) on the walls of the pipe."]

Mr. Annau said he moved here in 2008. He says he's an old man. "I've been fighting for common sense, fairness and justice against a stonewall on the part of this firm." When the meters were moved responsibility for the line to the house was "artfully" transferred to the homeowner. [Actually the line to the house had always been the property owner's responsibility.] He doesn't understand why they didn't run the new service line in to the front of the house. He says the ordinance that defines where MSWD ownership ends is "self-serving."

Everyone built fences, walls or hedges to delineate the utility easements at the back of the properties, he said. He handed out some photos of utility easements. He didn't see the water leaking in the easement because it soaked right into the ground. He asked why he has to monitor the easement. And what if he had been in the hospital, which he frequently is "at 82 years old."

He retired in 1992 and had a comfortable income. Today he is struggling financially. But he would still fight this on moral grounds.

There was a discussion of whether Mr. Annau could move his fence back to the mid-line of the easement, and whether that was advisable, and if he did so would he have to put in a gate for utility access.

Ms. Wright explained again that changing the flow of water in an old house can mess up the plumbing and can break stuff loose from the pipes and serve it up as drinking water. Ms. Wright said that she also owns a house in DHS with one of those rear easements and she shares his pain. She had to clean out that easement in order to get escrow closed.

Mr. Annau says he cleans his easement annually.

Mr. Brown asked what the effect would be if the water usage was billed at the Tier 2 rate rather than Tier 3. Mr. Soulliere did the calculation and said that would reduce the amount owed by only about $20.

Mr. Annau said he was seeking justice. "We wouldn't even be here if the leak was inside my property - our fence." He said when he bought his property he doesn't recall seeing any CC&R "or any notification from this firm" about his having to maintain a pipe in the easement. Ms. Wright said that would have been in his title report. Mr. Annau said it could be in there "but if it is it got by me, and I'm a retired real estate broker."

Ms. Wright said he should know about disclosure then.

Mr. Annau said even if it is his responsibility "your own people apparently don't even know about this exotic arrangement." He said that when the service rep visited, they didn't go to the easement.

Ms. Wright said MSWD had abandoned its claim the easement long ago. Mr. Annau countered that if they abandoned the easement, they should have abandoned the pipe. Ms. Wright said it's his property. It was explained to Mr. Annau that the service line is part of his plumbing.

Mr. Annau said he still maintains it is not his property.

Mr. Soulliere pointed out the extra customer service that that MSWD provides even though it is not required. "I take exception to the 'stonewall' issue." His home was visited at least three times by different MSWD employees to try to help him. If he were hospitalized the district would have continued to try to contact him.

[Indeed, here are a couple of definitions of stonewall: obstruct or hinder any discussion; engage in delaying tactics or refuse to cooperate. Mr. Annau doesn't like the decisions being made by MSWD, but they are not stonewalling.]

Mr. Annau said his first bill was elevated in June. It probably started as a pinhole that grew. The district provided a table of his water usage from January 2008 through January 2012. Here's a selection of relevant months:

	2008	2009	2010	2011
June	unk	31	21	25
July	22	29	25	45
August	30	49	36	87
September	26	41	36	147

October 2011 was back down to 30.

Mr. Annau said no one had explained to him how he was supposed to know that he was supposed to go out and check that his pipes weren't leaking. Ms. Wright asked if they had showed him how to check his water meter to see if it was spinning. "I'm not talking about the future," Mr. Annau responded, "I'm talking about the past."

He said he keeps records and he knows when a bill is elevated. [The July 2011 bill was clearly elevated - 45 units compared to 30, 22, 29 and 25 in prior years - and yet he took no action.]

"We're old people. We lead the same lives we were leading in 2008. We don't drink. We don't smoke. We don't throw parties. We're just old people."

Ms. Wright asked if he had a cellphone number that was on file with MSWD, so that if they need to contact him in the future when he is in the hospital, they will be able to do so. He said that's not material, "this will not happen again," he added emphatically.

Ms. Wright asked Mr. Annau to clarify exactly what he was asking for at this point. He said he did not feel he should be held responsible for the elevated part of his water bills. He said he would also like to be reimbursed $200 for the leak detector and $50 for the repair, but he doesn't have to have it, although he thinks it would be fair.

Ms. Wright said she thought reimbursement for the leak detection and plumber would not be fair to other ratepayers. She suggested that they could give General Manager Wallum some time to calculate some accommodation. Mr. Wallum said he would see what he could do, and that if Mr. Annau didn't like what he offered, the next step would be to take it to the full board.

Mr. Brown suggested that after staff did some additional research and came up with a recommendation, that it come back to the Public Affairs committee again, rather than go to the full board. Mr. Soulliere did some quick calculations and said the disputed amount is around $200. Mr. Wallum said that a policy change might be required, and that would take a vote of the full board.

Mr. Annau had only disputed his September bill in his request, and September was high by about 106 units. At $1.83 per unit, that comes to $193.98. Then Mr. Annau said his dispute was the elevated bills for June, July and August, which Mr. Soulliere clarified were actually July, August and September. Mr. Annau said the elevated amount in June (meaning July billing) was approximately 50, July (August bill) was approximately 100, and August (September bill) was approximately 250. He did not state what units he was using. If those are dollars, then the disputed amount is $400. At an earlier point he had asked for $350. If the units are HCF, then it's $1.83 x 350 = $640.50. He probably meant dollars.

Mr. Brown offered to split the difference and give him a credit of $200. Mr. Annau said he did not think that was fair. "There you go," said Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown said he could not possibly offer anything better than that. Ms. Wright agreed, saying she would have thought it more fair to offer him only a $100 credit.

Mr. Brown, who chairs this committee, said that staff would do more research and the next step would be to go to the full board. Mr. Annau indicated he understood the process and that if the full board turned him down, he couldn't come back to get the $200 offer. Mr. Annau said "I still have options." Earlier he had made reference to going to the newspapers and TV.

Finance Director McCue got Mr. Annau to clarify that the units he referred to above (50, 100, 250) were dollars, not HCF.

Mr. Annau left the meeting.

Comments

Mr. Brown asked if a lot of houses had been hooked up the same as Mr. Annau's and, if so, could this become a larger problem. Mr. Wallum said the whole area had been done that way. Mr. Brown said it's just a time bomb. Mr. Soulliere said Mr. Annau was not the first. Mr. Wallum is considering providing a notice to the property owners. Mr. Brown thought a simple reminder that the easements are the responsibility of the property owner would not bring about any legal problems.

Mr. Wallum wondered why Mr. Annau hadn't called about his elevated bills in July and August. It was the water district, not Mr. Annau, who caught the high reading and alerted Mr. Annau. A staff member said that when you look at the detailed logs you can see that the leak in the easement was not the cause of his higher usage in the two prior months. MSWD staff had notified him two months earlier that his irrigation control valves were leaking. That was the cause for the elevated usage in June and July (July and August bills). This wasn't brought up in the meeting because in his request for a hearing Mr. Annau had said he disputed only the September bill for August usage, which was only due to the line leak.