Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Water board votes 3–2 to split $8,392 disputed retroactive bill after customer appeal
Loading...
Summary
After an appeal by property owner Jerrick Gannon, the San Diego Water District board voted 3–2 to split a disputed $8,392 retroactive bill tied to an inactive meter and to offer a payment plan; the board also directed staff to improve monitoring of inactive meters.
The San Diego Water District board on April 15 voted 3–2 to split a disputed $8,392 retroactive water charge and offer the homeowner a payment plan following a public appeal and extended board questioning.
The dispute centers on two meters at 541 Hermes Ave. Staff told the board it had identified 939 units of unbilled water on an inactive meter — roughly 702,000 gallons using the district conversion of 748 gallons per unit — and assessed $8,392 in charges. Finance manager Aguilar told the board the meter was originally locked after a prior owner canceled service in October 2022, but was later found unlocked with continued usage; staff cited district administrative code and Penal Code provisions regarding tampering and said property owners are responsible for water use on their property.
Appellant Jerrick Gannon disputed the assessment and the process. “Over 700,000 gallons of water were wasted, and the responsibility for that immense water was the district's failure to follow its own procedures,” Gannon said, asking the board to accept a settlement he submitted in writing that would pay setup fees and a reduced amount tied to reasonable expected use.
Gannon told the board he purchased the property in 2022, that an ADU on the lot was vacant for much of the period in question, and that an old sprinkler controller and broken heads in a vacant backyard ran at night after electricity was restored. He said staff manually read the allegedly locked meter in May 2024, noted flow, and took no action; he argued the district’s retroactive billing practices and choice of code citations were not applicable to a dormant meter with no customer of record.
Staff responded that, under the district’s administrative code, accounts are to be opened in the name of a property owner or tenant and that the district must recover costs for water provided. “Property owners are responsible for all water use on the property,” Aguilar said, adding the district cannot provide special treatment to individual customers.
Board members pressed staff for documentary evidence and technical explanations. Board members noted a gap between a May 6, 2024 meter read that recorded 4 units and a November 2025 read showing the large usage; staff said there were no reads in between and that some meters’ transponders or batteries can fail, and that the district has begun quarterly checks of inactive meters and is rolling out AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) to reduce such gaps.
Board member Schaeffer moved to split the amount owed in half and include a payment-plan option to be agreed between the district and the appellant. The clerk read the motion as splitting the total amount in half with a payment plan; after discussion the motion passed 3–2, with Vice President Ehlers and President O'Hara voting no.
The board directed staff to work with Gannon on a payment plan within district policy and to continue implementing quarterly checks of inactive meters and AMI deployment to improve early detection of unauthorized flow.
The disputed account and the settlement offer remain subject to the district-staff agreement on terms; the board’s split-payment resolution resolves the present appeal. The district’s staff said it will continue to offer a walk-through to map the property’s meters and investigate whether plumbing on the parcel could have caused shared service.
