When John McNeely saw that he had been issued a $3,775 water bill, his first thought was that it was a simple mistake that could easily be resolved.

As it turns out, that wasn’t the case.

Nearly one year after McNeely first received the bill, he remains locked in a battle with the City of Waterloo over whether he should have to pay it – and if he ever used as much water as it claims.

“It works out to losing 90 gallons an hour over a period of 119 days,” he tells CTV News.

“I don’t think I could possibly have used that much water. “

McNeely contacted the city, which sent inspectors to his home on two separate occasions.

They couldn’t find any signs of leaks, but also confirmed that the meter reading appeared to be accurate – particularly because, after the period of high consumption, it settled back into a regular pattern.

 “We don’t suspect the meter to be an issue here,” says Denise McGoldrick, Waterloo’s director of water services.

“It appears to be reading accurately now. A meter doesn’t speed up and then slow down again – it’s just impossible with its mechanics.”

McGoldrick acknowledges that the bill represents “significantly” more water than a two-person household would typically consume, but says it’s not uncommon for homeowners to have plumbing issues they’re not aware of.

“It is feasible that that amount of water could have flowed through the meter during that time period,” she says.

In the year leading up to the dispute bill, McNeely never used more than 155 cubic metres of water over a two-month period.

The $3,775 bill equates to approximately 1,200 cubic metres of water.

There has been some leniency for McNeely.

The city has agreed to reduce his bill to closer to $1,700 – reflecting only the amount the city pays the Region of Waterloo for the amount of water his meter says was used.

Additionally, the meter has been removed, replaced and sent away for testing to ensure that it’s properly measuring the water flowing through us.

But for McNeely, it’s still not enough – he says he’ll keep fighting the bill until a resolution is reached.

“$1,700 is still a lot of money – and I’m sure we didn’t use that water,” he says.