Atlanta water-bill spike proposal would require quick inspection and months of usage records

Atlanta water customers seeking relief from a sudden recorded usage spike would face two evidence timelines under a proposed credit procedure: a no-leak inspection within 30 days of the bill’s payment due date, and records showing consistent usage for three months after the spike.⁠[1]

Ordinance 26-O-1545 is on the City Utilities Committee’s held docket for its Oct. 13 meeting at 10 a.m. in the Larry M. Dingle Committee Room. The listing provides another opportunity for consideration, not an enacted credit policy or a guaranteed final vote.⁠[1][2]

An unexplained high bill alone would not qualify. The recorded spike would have to cover one month and exceed three times the customer’s prior 12-month average. It could not be part of a seasonal or annual pattern, such as summer irrigation. The Water and Sewer Appeals Board would have to conclude that the spike reflected a departmental recording error rather than actual consumption.⁠[1]

Customers would have to submit evidence of consistent usage during the preceding 12 months and the following three months. They also would need a leak-detection specialist or licensed plumber to inspect the property within the deadline and find no leaks. That makes the inspection tied to the bill’s due date a separate requirement from the later usage record.⁠[1]

One eligibility detail needs clarification: the consistency clauses say no billing period may have a “greater deviation than one hundred fifty percent (150%)” from the prior average. The ordinance does not explain how that deviation would be calculated.⁠[1]

The standard credit formula would cover the difference between recorded usage and 150% of normal usage—not necessarily all usage above the normal average. An alternative calculation would be available when that comparison is not possible or representative. Credits would be limited to one billing period in each rolling 18-month period.⁠[1]

The committee unanimously held the measure Sept. 29 at the sponsor’s request. Full Council returned it to committee as held Oct. 5. Those actions left the proposed remedy pending; they did not authorize customers to receive the new credits.⁠[1][2]