This is the second (link) in a series of letters regarding the Los Alamos County water distribution system and what I have learned about it following my research after two leaks in the delivery lines that traverse my back yard, in February 2014 and May 2015. 

Here I will describe the remarkable rules of the DPU that shift part of the burden of their failure to address the problem of aging water lines to homeowners.

The canonical arrangement for water distribution is a water distribution line (“main”) in the street, a delivery line from the main to the water meter located at the property line, and a service line from the point of delivery (output of the water meter) to the house. The DPU owns the delivery line and the water meter and maintains both, the customer maintains the service line and beyond. 

In homes built in the 50’s and 60’s in Eastern Area, Western Area, and North Community, many of the mains are in the yards, not the street, so the DPU-owned delivery line is on the customer’s or other private property. The rule is that the customer is responsible to maintain the DPU’s line where it is on the customer’s property. Our house on 9th street has the main in our rear neighbor’s yard. The delivery line connects to the main through an inoperable valve, enters our property, and travels about 50 feet or so to the water meter located next to the house. 

After the second leak, which occurred near the point where the delivery line crossed the property line, they billed us nearly $6,000. I appealed the bill on the bases that (1) the leak occurred before it crossed the line, and (2) we were charged for time the crew spent looking for a shutoff valve so they could replace a section of line. The county reduced the bill by the time spent searching for a shutoff valve, and we agreed to split the difference because we couldn’t agree on the location of the break relative to the property line.

I give you that detail because it illustrates one of several problems with this rule. First, the delivery line is carrying water owned by the DPU from a main owned by the DPU to a water meter owned by the DPU. When it leaks, it’s DPU water going down the street, not the customer’s. The DPU cannot wait for the customer to hire a plumber to come out and fix it because it takes too long and the valves that connect the main to the delivery lines are inoperable everywhere, so they do not even attempt to locate and turn off the valve. They waltz in, fix the leak, and only send a bill if it’s the second time (!! – another story for another day). The customer doesn’t even have a choice to look for a possibly cheaper plumber.

My billing dispute with DPU focused on the actual location of the break relative to the property line. In the end, they replaced a whole section of pipe (rather than clamping the leak as they did on the first occasion) that clearly crossed the property line. There is nothing in the rule that addresses that situation. 

Finally, it’s clearly in the DPU’s interest to do timely repairs itself to mitigate its losses, minimize damage to property caused by DPU water flowing from a DPU pipe for which the DPU is clearly liable, and protect its system from contamination, so it seems grossly unfair that they turn around and make the customer pay for it.

This situation is going to get worse. These old distribution and delivery lines are past their useful life, they fail frequently, and they should be replaced. Lines in backyards should be moved into the street (as they were on Manhattan loop) and water meters placed on the property lines. That might require customers to pay for new service lines (meter to house) but that would be cheaper and to my mind much more desirable than the alternative. Customers would know when to expect the work and the bill and prepare for it. The alternative is finding a crew at your door and a backhoe in your yard with no notice, an unexpected and unpredictable cost, and your and your neighbor’s yards torn up. 

The DPU manager told me his plan is to renew these old lines by pushing plastic liners through them. In this scenario, they will still have to go into backyards, move sheds and rosebushes, dig down to the line to connect the old delivery lines to the newly lined mains, and in the process they will jeopardize the integrity of those old, brittle, and vulnerable delivery lines by manipulating them to make the new connections. Then the customers will have to pay the DPU to come out and repair the delivery lines that the DPU broke.

The DPU and the BPU have declined to do a new study to quantify the risks associated with aging water lines and the adequacy of the replacement budget. The DPU, BPU, and the council have zeroed out the replacement budget for next year. A subcommittee of the DPU has recommended that no change be made to the rule I am discussing here. The Chair of the DPU, standing alone, found merit in making a change to the rule and put off a vote on that question to the May meeting.