Fresno City Council Approved $4.2M in Pandemic Water Bill Relief in 2021

Fresno’s City Council voted December 2, 2021 to authorize the Department of Public Utilities to apply for $4.2 million in state-administered federal pandemic relief funding. The money would forgive past-due water bills for approximately 12,650 residential and commercial customers who fell behind between March 4, 2020 and June 15, 2021.

The California Water and Wastewater Arrearage Payment Program drew from $985 million appropriated by the state from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The State Water Resources Control Board administered the program. The application window ran from October 5 through December 6, 2021.

Of Fresno’s estimated $4.2 million total, $4.1 million would apply directly to past-due customer accounts. The remaining $100,000 would cover administrative costs.

The Breakdown

• The program covered arrearages accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic bill relief period — March 4, 2020 to June 15, 2021.
• Fresno estimated 12,650 eligible residential and commercial accounts.
• The $4.2 million figure was pending final determination of eligible accounts at the time of the vote.
• The State Water Resources Control Board adopted program guidelines September 21, 2021.

What This Means for You

The City Council’s vote determined whether Fresno would seek federal pandemic relief to wipe out water debt accrued during the period when many residents faced income loss and eviction moratoriums. The decision directly affected whether 12,650 customer accounts would carry that debt forward or have it forgiven — a distinction between ongoing collection pressure and a clean slate. This was one mechanism Fresno’s council used to deploy federal aid during the pandemic, and the choice of whether to pursue it at all, or let the debt stand, belonged to the officials voters elected.

What to Watch

The staff report states the funding would reduce accounts receivable and “thereby improving the collection rate.” What it does not state: whether those 12,650 customers would have paid eventually without the relief, or whether the city wrote off uncollectible debt it would never have recovered. If the latter, this was federal dollars covering a shortfall the water system’s enterprise fund would otherwise have absorbed — a real cost to the water system’s financial position, not just a customer-service gesture.

The report also does not break down how much of the $4.1 million in direct relief went to residential versus commercial accounts, or whether large commercial accounts consumed a disproportionate share of the total. A reader has no way to know whether this primarily helped households or subsidized business arrearages.

The $100,000 difference between the total amount and the direct relief represents roughly 2.4% of the total. Whether that represents efficient use of relief dollars or excessive process cost depends on what the administration actually required, which the material does not detail.