When Cameron Green opened his latest utility statement, he said the figure on the paper felt impossible. The bill tallied $2,777 and listed 344,000 gallons of water used over a seven-month period — a total Green says does not match life at his house. "I think my stomach got sick. I'm thinking this can't be real. There's no way," he said.
Water meter (left) and the homeowner's bill showing a $2,777 charge (right); homeowner Cameron Green says a city transmitter failed to report usage for seven months.
Green told city staff and reporters that his household does not have the typical high-consumption features that would explain such a spike. He said the home has no pool or jacuzzi, only a single bathroom and a bathtub that is rarely used. After the bill arrived, Green contacted the Phoenix Water Services Department seeking an explanation.
City officials told him the utility had not been receiving monthly usage reports from a city-owned transmitter attached to his meter. That transmitter — the remote electronic device used to relay monthly water consumption readings to the utility — had stopped functioning intermittently, officials said, leaving the department unable to place the usual charges on Green's account during the seven-month span.
Once the transmitter was repaired and readings were transmitted to the city, the utility applied charges covering the unreported months and issued a single, consolidated bill for the full period. Green said the city made no adjustment to the total and did not accept responsibility for the equipment failure that he believes prevented earlier detection of an underground leak on his property.
Green described finding a leak beneath the surface in front of his home that was not visible from the street. He said that loss of water over time produced the elevated usage the repaired transmitter later reported, and that if the transmitter had been working, he would have seen higher month-to-month readings and been able to locate and fix the leak sooner. "They did not take responsibility for the broken transmitter which connected the bill, which prevented us from having information to solve the problem sooner, and they take no responsibility and make no adjustments for it," Green said.
The city's Water Services Department responded with written comments explaining that failures of the remote transmitters, known as ERTs, are rare but can occur. "Intermittent failures with ERTs are unusual (under 1%), but can occur near the end of the lifespan," the department said. It also noted that "monthly reads indicating zero consumption are routinely checked... but zero consumption doesn't always mean zero water use." City officials said those operating and checking procedures are why some delays in identification and resolution can occur.
Green said he posted his experience to the neighborhood platform Nextdoor and received many messages from other residents who reported sudden, unexpected spikes in their own water bills. Amid the attention and the cost, Green said he has reached an agreement with the city to repay the $2,777 over 36 months rather than in a single lump sum. "I understand things break. I understand my responsibility. But the city has a responsibility — if they are going to bill you, they can't make some error in a way that is very prolonged and you bear responsibility for something that could have been solved six or seven months ago," he said.
The exchange between Green and the Water Services Department underscores the mechanics of municipal water billing when remote-reading equipment is part of the system. The transmitter attached to a customer's meter typically sends monthly consumption data to the utility so that the account reflects current use. When that data stream is interrupted, the utility's normal billing process can be interrupted as well, leaving customers unaware of rising consumption until the equipment is repaired and historical usage is posted.
Green declined to say whether he had pursued any credit or formal dispute beyond the payment arrangement. The city has acknowledged the potential for intermittent equipment failures and said staff checks are intended to catch anomalies such as consecutive zero-consumption readings. In this case, city officials have said those checks and the age of the transmitter may help explain why the problem was not identified sooner. Green, for his part, is left with a multiyear repayment plan and the belief that earlier detection would have prevented much of the water loss and reduced the amount he now owes.
The City of Phoenix has a Deferred Payment Arrangement (DPA) program launched in March 2020 that allows single‑family customers to enroll for payment plans or deferred payments and protects enrolled customers from disconnection and certain penalties while the arrangement is active. (phoenix.gov)
City staff have also explored a partnership with HomeServe — a private home‑repair and utility‑service vendor — that would offer programs including water/sewer line coverage and a Water Leak Adjustment program for Phoenix customers if adopted. (phoenix.gov)
Phoenix’s billing process includes automated reviews for unusually high bills (local reports note the city flags accounts when usage is roughly three times or more above a customer’s typical usage), and customers can request a formal meter test or “bench test” — a procedure that has been reported to cost about $253 but whose fee can be waived if the city finds the meter is significantly over‑registering. (kjzz.org)