Water-leak warfare

On February 14, 2015, the City of San Diego installed a new digital water meter at a University Avenue property belonging to Edwin Widjojo. The installation took place in the middle of a bill period, and the $610.76 water bill that came on April 2 caused Widjojo zero concern. But the following bill, dated June 2, shocked him.

Although Widjojo claims his water usage did not change, the bill stated that he owed $2937.87 for the billing period between March 31 and June 1. In one bill cycle, his property’s 636 gallons-per-day average jumped to 3218 gallons per day. 

“Even customer service care said, ‘No, this is not right,’” Widjojo says. “The bill shoots up five or six times? It doesn’t make sense.”

The Public Utilities Department suggested Widjojo perform a water-leak test and said they’d look at their end to see if the meter was read correctly. They said they’d get back to him either Friday, July 3, or Monday, July 6.

“We did a general basic water-leak test,” Widjojo says. “We told the three [businesses on the property] not to use any water for the next 15 minutes. Basically, after the first 5 minutes, of course, the water’s still flowing a little bit, but after that, there was no water consumption at all because the meter didn’t run.”

In addition to this preliminary leak test, Widjojo went to the property outside of business hours, when the ice cream shop, coffee shop, and noodle shop on the property were closed. The meter was not moving.

“Based on that evidence, there is no leak,” Widjojo says.

By July 6, Widjojo received no callback from the Public Utilities Department. He decided to give it a couple of days, thinking maybe the holiday weekend had caused a delay. But when he hadn’t heard back by July 13, he tried again.

“I was getting a little impatient. I called them again. ‘What the hell’s going on?’” he says.

He was informed that a test had been performed on July 8 but that they’d found nothing wrong on their end. They offered to send someone out to do a water-meter inspection, for which he’d be billed $66. Frustrated, Widjojo contacted the Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN), which opened an investigation into his case.

“It’s not that I can’t pay the $66. I can. The question is, is it right for you to charge me for the possibility of fault [on your end],” he says. “If the investigator is going to be an independent, private company, then that’s a different story. I’ll be willing to do so. But if it’s paying you guys again, I’m not going to do it.”

On July 16, two days after the UCAN investigation opened, Widjojo received confirmation that the city is looking into the matter. The same day, he also received a shut-off notification for non-payment.

On July 17, the city agreed to extend his shut-off (originally scheduled for July 23) to August 3. In the event that the issue has not been sorted out by that date, however, Widjojo says he will be forced to pay the $2937.87 bill.

“I guess I’ll have to pay it. We don’t want to have the water shut off."