Lost water

Cottage resort owners seek relief from $13,000 water bill

Consider this: a pipe bursts on your property, sending thousands of gallons of water back into the ground from whence it came. This goes on undetected for months. If it’s your own well, your pump might give out—or the source dry up. But if you’re on municipal water the water will never run out. It just keeps running and running— until the water gurgles to the surface. Or the bill arrives. Or fate steps in.

It was only when a water meter reader noticed that the meter was “spinning out of control” did the owners of Merland Park Cottages, between Picton and Glenora, realize they had a problem. A big one.

When the bill arrived it nearly knocked Jennifer and Kevin Lavers off their feet. By the time they got the leak under control, more than $13,000 of water had spilled uselessly back into the groundwater system.

The couple came to a committee of council last week looking for relief from their water bill. Typically their monthly bill during a busy summer ranges up to $500 a month. But the bill for July and August was $8,087.92—more than eight times the expected amount. The October bill was $5,022. By then they had discovered the leak and repaired it—but they still had a $13,000 water bill. The couple spent a further $2,500 finding and fixing the leak.

“We are at your mercy,” said Jennifer Lavers to the committee.

She explained to the committee that her plumber had suggested the problem had been caused by a spike in water pressure. The plumber had observed the municipal water pressure fluctuating and recommended the Lavers install a pressure regulator at their property line to protect their system from high pressure events.

County engineer Rob McAuley countered that it is to be expected that a municipal water system would fluctuate between 60 and 100 pounds per square inch of pressure.

“These are normal fluctuations,” said McAuley. “It is a dynamic system.”

He noted as well that the Lavers’ bill reflects the water system’s costs to retrieve water, treat it and deliver it to their property. The fact that it wasn’t used but rather spilled into the groundwater doesn’t change the intrinsic costs of producing it.

There was a wide range of views from council on the Lavers’ plight. Some felt the property owners were victims of unfortunate circumstances and shouldn’t bear the full bill.

Others warned that any forgiveness to the Lavers would result in a long line of other water and sewer system users seeking similar relief. One councillor was offended the Lavers would even ask for help with the bill.

But Councillor Heather Campbell wanted to know how the municipality and its officials might use the Lavers’ case as a means to broaden consumer awareness of their responsibilities and duties in regard to their water and sewer systems.

“They’ve brought an important issue forward,” said Campbell, councillor for Hallowell. “I would like to see some public education around this issue to empower users.”

“I have never thought to check my water meter before. After learning about the Lavers’ situation I certainly will now.” McAuley agreed to come back to council with some recommendations regarding the Lavers’ bill and the broader implication of their situation.