Swenson Water Supply

To Whom It May Concern:

We are providing this response to the complaint you received from one of our customers with the hope of providing the full timeline of the facts and events that occurred and explain how we believe that we acted in good faith and have made reasonable attempts to resolve this issue.

Here is a timeline of events leading up to the dispute:
December 26, 2019: we sent a text message to the wife of the complainant asking if the tenants had moved out. The response we received was that she was not sure and would ask. We received another response that they had not received any rent from the tenants but that they were letting them stay just to keep the grass and weeds mowed.
January 13, 2020: From the appearance of the property, we believed the tenants had moved out. Our Water Operator turned off the meter by turning the valve and did a final reading of XXXXX and sent that information to our Treasurer. The meter that is installed at this property turns off by valve and does not have the capability to be locked.
February 1, 2020: We received a text message from the wife of the complainant stating that the previous tenants had moved out and they had new tenants who were going to be moving in. She asked if they were responsible for the water bill for the gap period between the two tenants.
February 2, 2020: In the normal course of business, our meter readers read the meter at the property. The read on the meter was XXXXX. From this we could tell that someone had turned the meter back on since January 13, 2020 and that there had been about 3,300 gallons of water used at the house. The complainant had been seen back at the house several times since January 13, 2020, so we believe that he had turned the meter back on for his own use and consumption while he was back at the property. Even though the complainant does not live at the property, he still regularly visits and stays back at the property and often has friends and others with him to go hunting out on his property.
In between February 2, 2020 and the next sequence date on February 9, 2020, we experienced freezing temperatures for a couple of days.
February 9, 2020: New tenants are moving into the house. Water operator goes by the house to do a meter read, which read XXXXXX. 47,931 gallons had passed *** the meter since the previous read. New tenant and our Water Operator inspect the property and find that the water faucet in a set of livestock pens had frozen and busted. Upon it thawing out, it openly ran water into the pens. Complainant has a cut off valve between the house and the pens that he had not shut off. The owner of the property should have had this cut off valve closed since the pens were not being used to stable any livestock and there was no need for water at the pens.

We believe that our conduct was reasonable in the ensuing sequence of events. Our staff went out to the property at the complainant's request to do a final read when the previous tenants moved out and we closed the valve to keep from any water loss occurring while the property was unoccupied.

It is our belief that the complainant himself is the one who turned the water back on for his own use when he was seen back out at the property on different occasions. 3,300 gallons of water was used between January 13 (when we closed the valve) and February 2 (the move in date of the new tenants). There are several neighbors who live across the street from this property and this property is located in a small unincorporated community that is not obstructed by view from several other people or the highway. We have not received any other reports of anyone being at the house unauthorized between the time of January 13 or February 2. Who else would have gone out there to use 3,300 gallons of water?

The loss from the frozen pipe is an unfortunate situation, but it is a situation that the complainant had the ability and duty to be aware of and control. He had a cut off valve to the set of pens that weren't being used. He could have prevented this situation from occurring.

Furthermore, we feel we have gone above and beyond in trying to work with the complainant to resolve this situation in a reasonable manner for the following reasons:
Our water rates are $14 per 1,000 gallons for the first 6,000 gallons used. It is $22 per 1,000 gallons after that.
The bill that we sent to complainant is at a reduced rate where we only sent a bill for $14 per 1,000 gallons plus our standard $50 meter fee. 47,921 / 1,000 x $14 + $50 = $721.03.
If we had billed the complainant the full amount it would have been 6 x $14 = $84 + 41,931/1,000 x $22 = 922.48 + $50 for a total bill of $1,056.48.
Further more, we did not charge the complainant for the 3,300 gallons of water that was used between January 13 and February 2.
We also did not seek payment for the unpaid bills for usage that occurred when the previous tenant was living there. The previous tenant had always paid us directly, so we didn't seek the payment for the unpaid amounts from complainant for those bills.
In addition, we sought further resolution with the complainant and offered to settle this dispute if the complainant would just pay our costs for the water that was lost during the freeze, which is $500.00. The complainant rejected this offer.

It is not lost on us that the circumstances and occurrences that have led us to this point are regrettable, but we feel that the complainant is the one who opened the door to these events by turning the water valve back on and had the ability to prevent the loss that occurred by utilizing his cut off valve to an exposed faucet (that was not being used) in the middle of winter.

We turned the main valve off per the request of the complainants and did not remove the meter all together because the complainant had already informed us that someone was going to be moving in and asked whether they were responsible for the usage during the gap. We believe that them asking us who was responsible during the gap indicates that complainant and his spouse contemplated that some usage would occur while the house was unoccupied and that this further indicates that it was complainant himself who turned the valve back on.

We also feel that we have acted reasonably and in good faith in our efforts to resolve and diffuse this situation in 1) billing a reduced amount for the loss of water, 2) not billing for portions of water usage, and 3) offering a settlement with the complainant that simply covered the amount of money that we are out to our water supplier for the water that was lost as a result of complainants actions.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If we can provide any more information to you, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Swenson Water Supply