8" domestic, not given a meter number, on Tyrone road.
10" fireline (23006232), highway 54
10" fireline (23006231), Tyrone road
The letter says the 8" domestic was installed without inspection, and that the fireline on highway 54 was not hooked up to the account and the fire line on Tyrone road was using more water than allowed and therefore a higher rate will be charged. That’s 27.5 MG unbilled and 13.2 million at the ‘wrong’ rate.
Rapson, Tigert’s boss and the county’s top appointed official, has now told The Citizen on the record that the central claim in that letter is not accurate. County staff did inspect the meter at installation.
This accounts for the 'illegal hookup". The “central claim” is that there was a meter that was not inspected. This person has indicated that the meter was inspected.
Tigert herself has hedged her own letter publicly. She told E&E News, the Politico-owned outlet that broke the national story, “I may have hit ‘send’ too soon.” She acknowledged in the same piece that her staff may have known about the hookups, but that she had not been able to locate the inspection report.
She did not know about the hook up and inspection. She assumed there was no inspection because she could not locate the report.
I was wrong about the leak audits, I was looking at the wrong line of the reports. I will correct my comments.
I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye on this. We are reading the quotes differently. I’ll try one more time.
All from this article: https://thecitizen.com/2026/05/14/the-qts-water-story-is-real-its-just-not-about-qts/
And referencing this letter: https://protectpwc.org/2026/05/05/13786/
There are actually three meters:
The letter says the 8" domestic was installed without inspection, and that the fireline on highway 54 was not hooked up to the account and the fire line on Tyrone road was using more water than allowed and therefore a higher rate will be charged. That’s 27.5 MG unbilled and 13.2 million at the ‘wrong’ rate.
This accounts for the 'illegal hookup". The “central claim” is that there was a meter that was not inspected. This person has indicated that the meter was inspected.
She did not know about the hook up and inspection. She assumed there was no inspection because she could not locate the report.
I was wrong about the leak audits, I was looking at the wrong line of the reports. I will correct my comments.