Massive residential water leak raises liability issue

In the eight years city councilmember Daryn Hamilton has been on the Water and Sewer Utilities Committee, he has never heard of a water leak as expensive as Scott and Vicki Herriott?s ? the price of a used car.

Hamilton also has never seen the city forgive a resident?s water bill for a leak on a private line, which the Herriotts requested from the committee Wednesday evening at city hall.

?This is the largest leak that we?ve seen, and also the largest request,? said Hamilton.

The Herriotts lost more than 400,000 cubic feet of water in 20 days from a leak, which was exiting into Crow Creek.

The water and sewer bill together totaled $8,492.92. The city agreed to waive the sewer portion of the utility, leaving the couple to pay $3,628.43. The committee rejected the couples? request to be relieved of the bill on the grounds the water department did not properly handle their plea for help. The Herriotts are appealing the committee?s decision to the full council tonight at city hall.

The Herriotts argue if a resident contacts the water department requesting help reading a water meter, which is property of the city, the city should be liable for the private line issue if they don?t receive assistance.

The couple appealed to the average resident, who they believed, like them, does not have much knowledge of their private line or how to read a water meter.

?I know it?s easy to say in hindsight we should have known, but think about how you would feel if this happened to you,? said Vicki Herriott.

The Herriotts noticed a significant reduction in water pressure in their home in August. They consequently contacted the water department to find the source of the problem.

The department told them to look for the telltale signs of a leak, such as spots of greener grass on the lawn, and how to read the meter pit. But after searching the property for the meter to no avail, they called back to request an employee come to their home to read the meter.

?We asked, ?could you send someone??? said Vicki Herriott. ?They said, ?No, we don?t do that.??

Water department superintendent Carl Chandler was present, and said the employee ?misspoke.?

?We made a mistake when we said we don?t read meters,? he said.

As a rule, Chandler said he goes to homes upon request, and said he?ll even turn off the water for the resident if he suspects a leak.

However, Chandler said according to the law, ?all private conveyance is the responsibility of the homeowner.?

He said he instructs homeowners to call a plumber when they encounter a problem, such as the reduced water pressure the couple were experiencing.

The Herriotts said they did call a plumber, who based on their description of the problem, did not believe they had a leak and did not come to their home. The couple assumed the low water pressure was caused by a blockage, and left for two weeks on vacation. Upon their return a plumber discovered the leak. The couple fixed the sewer line, but said they felt the city should help with the water bill.

?The water board admitted that they should have sent someone to read the meter when we asked them.  This is their standard practice,? said Vicki Herriott. ?If they had followed standard practice, the damage would have been greatly minimized.?

Hamilton said waiving the sewer portion of the bill was enough of a concession on the part of the city. He said it?s something the city is accustomed to doing, often from a leak inside the home, such as a frozen line in the basement or a leaking toilet.

?We have waived sewer fees in these cases in order to reduce the entire amount the property owner is responsible for,? said Hamilton. ?There?s no written rule, it?s just something the city has done as a courtesy.?

The committee recommended offering a no-interest two-year payment plan for the $3,628.43.

?We appreciate that they are reducing the charges for sewer usage, but that is also standard practice ? and should not be considered sharing responsibility with us for not locating the leak,? said Vicki Herriett.

She and her husband will present their argument to the full council tonight at city hall for a final determination.

?The Herriotts believe anything from the time they called and complained [to the water department] should be forgiven,? said Hamilton. ?They would have to convince the other four people on the council to override the decision the subcommittee made.?