BY MATT HERSH

When Lester Pearson opened his water bill in November, he couldn’t believe the numbers he saw.
“I thought it was a mistake,” he said.  “It’s wacky.”

The bill informed Pearson and his wife Andrea that they owed $1,819 for water they had used over the past 11 years.

Typically the couple, who lives at 42 Matthias St., pay about $75 for water per quarter, Pearson said.

Currently, they have been disputing the amount with town officials in hopes they can reduce it.

After a town-wide survey of the accuracy of water meters recently began, at least 17 other households have been asked to pay back bills, said Town Manager Henry LaBranche.

Most of the other households will owe about $100 extra, he said, calling the Pearsons an isolated case.

The accuracy problem is due to the measuring devices.

The town monitors and records water-use levels for more than 6,000 homes and businesses by using a remote device placed on the outside of a building.

Another meter is set up in the basement, which measures the actual amount of water used.
The two devices are supposed to give the same information but sometimes the remote meters don’t sync up with their counterparts, causing discrepancies.

If the discrepancy goes unnoticed for a long period of time, as it did with the Pearsons, a high bill can easily accumulate.

Lester Pearson said he doesn’t contest that he used the water, but he’s upset that Salem isn’t being held to state regulations because are separate from the state Public Utilities Commission.
If Salem’s water bills were governed by the state, they wouldn’t be able to charge the Pearsons $1,819.

The state requires private water utility companies to check meter accuracy every two years, according to rules listed on the Public Utility Commission’s Web site.

Salem checks their meters approximately every five years.

“Since Salem’s water is run by the municipal government, our rules do not apply to them,” said Eileen Hadley, a consumer affairs analyst with the commission.

The rules state that a private utility can only charge up to 12 months of back bills.

If this were the case, the Pearsons would only be liable for a few hundred dollars.

After months of back-and-forth communication with town officials, Pearson said he’s frustrated.

“We’re pretty upset about this,” he said.  “We’re still in limbo waiting for an answer.”

Still, LaBranche said he’s been working to get the problem solved quickly.

The Pearsons have filed an abatement with the town which is currently being reviewed by the finance department.

Selectmen will make a decision on the Pearson’s bill within the next week, LaBranche said