Agencies of Las Cruces city government may be engaged in organized misconduct. The more responses which I get from the Water Section of the Utilities Department, now headed by Ms. Adrienne L. Widmer, or the Utilities Board of Commissioners to my complaint about large fluctuations in billed water usage, the more I suspect that apparent incompetence masks actual illegality.
My complaint about these fluctuations to the Water Section goes back several years (detailed in 13 Nov and 21 Dec blogs); after every visit, its response is the same: on the basis of its meter, it claims that I have a leak of 1 to 2 gallons per hour (GPH); however, its personnel cannot find even a trace of a leak in my yard or home. My 10 November presentation of my complaint about these fluctuations to the Board prompted a visit by Commissioner Ray Hickman, whose 9 December letter repeated prior Water Section responses, and a request to the Water Section to investigate my complaint. On 6 January, it issued a 40-page report from Ms. Rhonda Diaz, Water Conservation Program Coordinator, with the same response plus data from meter readings over a two-week period in December.
Members of the Board and the Water Section know that I define my complaint by these large fluctuations. My presentation read and copied to the Board began with a statement of the problem:
I address an old but persistent problem. For the past several years, my utility bills have shown fluctuations, including spikes of thousands of gallons per month, in water usage. I have failed several times to get a sensible explanation of these fluctuations from the Utilities Department. Its explanation—it is a leak—does not fit the facts.
The Board’s and the Water Section’s explanation is not sensible for two obvious reasons. One, leaks do not expand and shrink on an annual cycle (only bills do). Two, the amount of water—in some months, equal to that in large swimming pools—is too great to go undetected. (A 9,000 gallon leak would fill a pool 20’ long, 15’ wide, and 4’ deep.)
Neither the Water Section’s investigation nor Diaz’s report addressed my complaint about fluctuations. Instead, its investigation acted on its misrepresentation of it—“your concern over meter accuracy” (emphasis mine)—by selecting a 2-week period in a 3,000-GPM-month, monitoring my meter, and amassing a huge amount of irrelevant data to give seeming support to its standard response. The investigation’s flawed approach could not and did not address the fluctuations.
First, it assumed, obviously wrongly, that the data from this period are typical of any other 2-week period in the year. If so, billing for water usage would be roughly level throughout the year. But it is not. If the leak is 1 to 2 GPH, then Diaz is wrong that “the billing and electronic reads correlate.” During the months of fluctuation, either the meter is not reporting a lot of water or the billing overcharges me in those 7 months.
Second, it assumed, unquestioningly, that my water meter operated perfectly and read water flows accurately. Maybe so. But, as a relatively new technology, my meter, though tested before installed, can malfunction or error. Even established technologies have such liabilities; computers crash, software has bugs, radars sometimes have blips which correspond to no object. The Water Section has work-arounds for meter failures, but only independent audits can establish whether the meter readings correspond to the actual water flows. Moreover, because the meter uses two-way electronic technology, Utility Department personnel can manage its operations and readings from the office. So no matter how much data the Water Section collects and how many pictures it takes, it cannot prove that it delivered the water for which I have been billed.
Diaz’s two-part report explains and reports this irrelevant material. Its first part is a 7-page letter with two sections: “Analysis/Explanation of Daily Readings and Total Consumption Volumes” and “Below is a summary of actions related to your concern over meter accuracy.” Its second part is a 33-page attachment of meter readings and photographs. Again, since I complained about fluctuations in water usage, not meter accuracy, the Water Section has wasted a lot of resources to avoid addressing my complaint. The inevitable question is why avoid it and a sensible response to it.
The Water Section’s investigation and report show stupidity. Its motive may have been cupidity. Built into the mission and operation of the Utilities Department is the possibility of corruption and the need to cover it up. According to its website, “Las Cruces Utilities (LCU) operates as a non-profit organization governed by the Utilities Board of Commissioners that established [sic] strategic policy. LCU is solely funded by rates and charges authorized by the Board, providing utility services to approximately 100,000 residents and businesses within its service territory.” So, under Board direction, the Water Section funds its water purchases, operations, and maintenance by charging consumers for water usage. There are two ways for it to cover costs: by adjusting rates—raising them is never popular—or by over-charging users with spurious claims of usage.
The Water Section’s response to my complaint—avoidance, misdirection, and data-dazzle—leads me to one conclusion: the Water Section is raising money by manipulating either its meters or its billing. Whether money is going to legitimate purposes to avoid unpopular rate increases, or to office slush funds or private pockets, I do not know. I believe that it has engaged in illegal behavior and that the Board of Commissioners, City Councilor Kasandra Gandara, and City Manager Ifo Pili, having received Diaz’s report, are complicit if they continue business as usual and do nothing to address not only my complaint, but also the issues which it raises.
No comments:
Post a Comment