Waterworks cites test findings in claim denial

In a discussion with a client which prompted the utility to review their rules and regulations on damages, Creston Waterworks denied a claim from a customer who wanted funds for repairs to her system. The result? Threats of up to $10,000 in additional claims to disprove the waterwork’s findings.

What began as a reimbursement request for a small repair quickly spiraled into accusations of elder abuse and escalating threats of high claims.

Karen Nichols requested a $289.97 claim for her sump pump system at her Creston home. Nichols, appearing at the waterworks meeting Feb. 10, described how ice had pooled on the west side of her home. Waterworks General Manager Steve Guthrie investigated and found the home’s sump pump was discharging improperly and was cracked.

Initially, the waterworks assumed this was based on repairs to a gas line a few miles north of the property on Cherry Street where the line was flooded with water. Waterworks informed Nichols they believed this was the problem.

However, after retrieving samples after the gas line was repaired, the water in the sump pump was not the same as the utility’s water. Waterworks water contains chlorine which is easily identifiable through sample tests. With no chlorine in the sump pump water, the utility concluded the issue was not with any waterworks operations.

This proved to be contentious with Nichols, who addressed the utility’s board during the meeting explaining how she firmly believed the issue came from the waterworks and was requesting compensation for repairs “as a courtesy.” Nichols said she didn’t believe the pooling ice could come from natural sources with recent dry conditions and lack of rain, calling it “common sense.”

“I may be 65, but I’m not dumb,” Nichols said. “Water don’t just appear from nowhere. The only water that’s there is city water.”

Repeatedly throughout the meeting, Nichols was reminded how waterworks water contains chlorine. Samples collected before and after the meeting did not show any chlorine in the sump pump water.

With the sump pump discharging on a regular schedule for unknown reasons throughout the winter, the water froze and caused the pump to crack. The utility couldn’t come to a definite conclusion where this water came from, although members of the meeting guessed it’s likely to do with emerging groundwater.

City council representative Jason Cook noted during the meeting he used to live in a nearby property to Nichols and said he had a similar issue, with the problem coming from groundwater.

As the meeting continued, Nichols berated the board for how she’d been treated throughout the process, including extraneous events which didn’t connect with the sump pump issue she appeared before the board to discuss. She mentioned an instance where a waterworks employee cited a policy incorrectly which created further confusion.

At one point, Nichols claimed the utility was committing elder abuse, saying her treatment by the waterworks was “the worst treatment by a company in [her] 65 years of living.” Nichols said she thought about moving away from Creston entirely due to how she was treated.

Guthrie and other members of the water board pushed back against the elder abuse claim. Guthrie said the employee who cited the policy wrong no longer works for the utility and said other accounts were properly handled.

As it became clear the water board was leaning toward denying the claim, Nichols continuously interrupted the meeting, reiterating her feelings of injustice and swapping between saying she was trying to save the utility money and threatening to heap the cost of excavating her property to disprove the waterworks’ findings. Nichols estimated this to be between $5,000-$10,000.

Even while the water board offered to test the sump pump water again to show Nichols the difference between it and the waterworks water, Nichols continuously blamed waterworks projects, either from the gas line or recent construction along Cherry Street, for the issue.

With both sides exasperated from the discussion, the board made a decision to deny the claim unless a test showed the sump pump water contained chlorine. As Nichols left after the decision, she said she’d commit to hiring an excavator as soon as possible.

Testing has occurred since the waterworks meeting and concluded, again, that the water in the property’s sump pump does not contain any chlorine.

Nichols has previously appeared during the public forum section of a January Creston City Council meeting criticizing the ethics of the city’s water department. She had previously requested to receive her water deposit and, at the time, did not receive it. Since the council meeting, Nichols has received her deposit.

In other waterworks news...

A new map for Creston Waterworks’s water main extension project has been released, detailing additional construction which will occur through the summer. Notably, Adams Street will receive segmented construction starting in April beginning at Walnut Street. Construction will head west through the summer, eventually ending at Sumner Avenue by August.

April will also mark the beginning of construction on Division Street, the fourth division of the long-awaited project. Starting on Irving Street, construction will head north and end at Seneca with a projected completion in June.

Montgomery and Cherry streets will receive services and surfacing throughout February and March, hopefully the final steps for a water project which began last year.

Guthrie said that, during these projects, contractors and the utility will work to limit street closures as much as possible without jeopardizing safety or the project.

Two pay applications for the utility’s water main extension project, the first for work on Montgomery Street for $71,826.10 and the second for $2,995.41 on Cherry Street, were both approved.