Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident and water department clash over unexplained 226,000‑gallon bill; no abatement granted
Summary
A Duxbury homeowner disputed $4,900 in summer water charges after readings showed a 226,000‑gallon spike. Assistant Water & Sewer Superintendent Dan Gage told commissioners the meter showed water passed through; commissioners declined an abatement tonight and asked for more evidence and policy changes for meter preservation and data logging.
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A Duxbury homeowner asked the town on Aug. 3 for relief from two unusually large water bills after meter readings recorded a 226,000‑gallon usage over a long billing period. The town’s assistant superintendent for water and sewer, Dan Gage, told the commissioners the meter body indicates water physically passed through the device and that the department could not locate where the water went.
Gage said the first high reading covered March–November 2024 and explained that the meter body — the mechanical element that records flow — “can only go one way” and “I’m confident that the water passed through the meter.” He also said the department had replaced the meter and has already begun work with a consultant to upgrade to real‑time reads so future discrepancies can be investigated more precisely.
The resident urged the board for a fair remedy and said the department replaced and recycled the old meter before the owners could pay for a test. The resident said the disputed charges total several thousand dollars and asked the town to consider splitting the bill or using a historical average; she also asked the town to preserve meters for testing when unusually large bills arise.
Board members said they sympathize with the property owner but rely on the objective meter records. After discussion the commissioners took no abatement action at the meeting and asked staff to provide additional documentation, consider whether an average billing method would be appropriate in similar cases and to preserve future meters for possible testing. The board directed staff to return with follow‑up information; no formal abatement was granted this evening.

