Atlanta property owner beats city hall over $81K water bill, wins in court

ATLANTA - Taking the city of Atlanta to court is daunting, and it's not usually a winning strategy. A northwest Atlanta property owner felt she had no choice after getting $81,000 in water bills, so she sued the Department of Watershed Management. 

The FOX 5 I-Team has been covering these odd cases of outrageously high water bills for more than a year. In this latest case, Gail Mapp and the Atlanta Department of Watershed Management agree that no one can find a leak. Yet she was expected to pay for sudden high water consumption. 

Last June, Mapp told the I-Team's Dana Fowle the property was dilapidated and had "no running water."

She also told the Department of Watershed Management that same thing when she appealed her $81,000 bill. Her attorney told a Fulton County judge that same thing when they took her case to court.

"Based on this much water usage, the ground of the property would have likely caved in," attorney Monica Owens said at the October hearing. "The property would have been floating down the street. If there was a leak to that extent, it certainly would have been noticeable."

But no one noticed. Not the plumbers that she hired. Not the city's inspectors. The property, unused and falling apart, sits on Donald Lee Hollowell Parkway. It's busy, but no one alerted the city to swimming pools worth of water suddenly coming from the address.

Previous Stories on high water bills

• Atlanta woman receives outrageous water bill, she's not the only one
• Empty Atlanta lot with no water line gets nearly $30K bill, owner appeals and loses
• Atlanta water bills: City Council member says he 'wouldn't put up with' rejected appeals
• Atlanta Water appeals board has low rate of refund approval, most cases denied
• Plumber says $12K water bill result of defective meter, Atlanta Watershed refuses to adjust bill

Still, the Atlanta Department of Watershed Management expected Mapp, whose bill for years was slightly more than $13 monthly, to pay up.

"The city would basically like everybody to leave their common sense at the door to accept its arguments, and apparently the board's custom is to do so, rubber-stamping the department's billing errors," her lawyer said.

For the first time since this stressful water fight started, someone heard her. In the October hearing to have the bills tossed out, the judge questioned the city's equipment that reads water consumption. It had been replaced twice during the time these crazy bills poured in.

"I see on Dec. 20, 2022, two days before the register was replaced, it was a normal reading as it had been for the past decade, and suddenly the next month it shoots up," remarked Fulton County Superior Court Judge Emily Richardson. "It stays incredibly high until the register is replaced again in August of 2022."

Then the bills suddenly go back to $13.12 without any repair by the property owner.

Last month, Richardson told the city that Mapp does not owe this money. Plain and simple.

"The evidence ... reflects that the abnormally high water bills were invalid," Richardson wrote. She goes on to say that the board's decision to deny a billing adjustment was "not supported by any evidence." She called the board's denial "erroneous."

The appeals board admitted it couldn't find a leak source. Board members speculated about all sorts of things - like someone stealing millions of gallons of water without anyone noticing.

"Maybe there's a chance of vandalism or somebody stealing your water in an unattended building," DWM appeal board member Gabby George speculated last March.

They considered leaks deep underneath the building that no one could see. One suggested that the plumbers were not qualified. But they presented no proof of this.

And for the first time since January 2023, Gail Mapp doesn't feel like she's drowning in millions of gallons of water that didn't seem to exist.

"It seems to me there's a problem with the meters," she said. 

For months, the I-Team has tried to engage the city of Atlanta - from the mayor's office to the Department of Watershed Management - and were told they couldn't comment because the case was in litigation. 

We are still getting a ‘no comment’ response. It's a case in litigation, they said, which leaves open the possibility the city will appeal this decision. 

Another homeowner is waiting for a judge's decision in a similar case.