Water District discusses delinquent accounts: restrict flow or shut off? | News

The Indian Wells Valley Water District is drafting a policy which would allow them to place flow restrictors on the properties of customers with overdue payments, rather than shutting off their water completely.

The Water District board of directors discussed the policy at their monthly board meeting on Monday. No vote was taken on the topic, but discussion indicated the board’s interest in seeing Water District staff draft a policy so they could review and potentially approve it.

Water District general manager Don Zdeba said, “Right now, if someone is delinquent on their payment, they’re locked off. There’s no other option if they don’t enter a payment plan. Of course, payment plans are always an option.”

“A flow restrictor could offer a temporary lifeline to people to give them a little extra time,” Zdeba said.

He explained that the Water District board previously discussed policy on flow restrictors over the summer, and is coming back to the topic now because the California moratorium on water shut offs ended on Dec. 31, 2021.

According to comments from Water District staff at the meeting, there are currently 323 accounts who have not paid the Water District by their due date. Zdeba said the past due payments amount to $315,942.46.

As the water shut off moratorium came to an end, board members stated they believe customers with overdue bills are likely to begin paying those bills soon.

Water is not immediately shut off or restricted for customers with overdue bills. Water District staff and directors stated that customers with overdue bills are first informed that they have 30 days to get on a payment plan.

Once those thirty days have passed, the Water Distract may shut off their water service. Or if this policy on flow restrictors comes to pass, the Water District may instead install a flow restrictor on the property.

Board director Chuck Griffin asked if there were liability concerns when it comes to restricting a customer’s water. He asked what the Water District’s liability would be if a residence with fire sprinklers caught fire, but didn’t have the water pressure for the sprinklers to work due to flow restrictors.

“Would it be better to just turn the water off for non-payment, because then we’d be justified to do so. I believe that might be better than saying that we’ll give you just a little bit of water,” Griffin stated over the phone. He was attending the meeting from home due to a Covid-19 infection.

Water District legal counsel Jim Worth responded, “I’m not sure you would have more liability if you put in a flow reducer instead of shutting the water off altogether. To me, a flow reducer is a lesser restriction on a home owner. They can at least receive needed water for health and safety concerns.”

Another concern with the flow restrictors is the…