Atlanta’s water-billing debate involves a large overdue balance, a disagreement over how to measure it and questions about how to collect what customers still owe. A city audit put delinquent water and sewer balances at $236 million as of April 2026, spread across 60,168 accounts.
The City Auditor’s Office released the follow-up report in August. The figures are not a live September balance. They concern unpaid customer accounts—not a finding that $236 million in city money was stolen or disappeared.
What changed since the earlier audit?
Auditors compared the April 2026 position with June 2023, when delinquent balances were approximately $198 million across more than 54,000 accounts. The newer balance was about 19% higher despite nearly $62 million in write-offs during the period. The follow-up found that more than half of customers on payment plans had not complied with the agreed terms.
The report did not issue new recommendations. It urged Watershed Management to implement the remaining recommendations from the prior review and develop a collection strategy consistent with its assessment of what can realistically be recovered.
Why Watershed Management gives a different number
In Atlanta News First’s reporting on the council discussion, Watershed Commissioner Greg Eyerly cited a departmental total of $184 million rather than the audit’s $236 million. He also estimated that roughly $150 million might not be collectible.
Those figures should be attributed to the department, not substituted into the audit as though the auditor had changed the report. Eyerly’s collectability estimate is also not a court finding or a guarantee that precisely that amount will be lost. The disputed total and the recovery estimate answer different questions.
A write-off is not a payment
Two actions can make a reported overdue balance smaller: a customer can pay, or an amount can be removed from the receivable total through an accounting write-off. Only the first brings in payment. That distinction is why a falling balance, on its own, would not demonstrate that a collection effort had succeeded.
Likewise, an account count does not tell readers how large the typical unpaid bill is. A small group of large balances can influence the total substantially. Dividing the entire balance evenly among all accounts would produce an average, not a reliable estimate of what an individual household owes.
Payment-plan changes are being discussed
Atlanta News First reported that Deputy Chief Operating Officer Theodis Pace discussed lowering the upfront payment needed to enter a repayment plan. He described the current requirement as half the overdue bill and raised 20% or 25% as possibilities. The report describes a discussion, not an adopted new rate.
A lower initial payment could change when money is due without changing the total amount owed. Residents should request the terms currently offered to their account, including the down payment and subsequent installments, rather than treating a proposal discussed at a meeting as an available agreement.
A disputed bill has a separate review process
Customers who believe a bill is wrong should distinguish a billing dispute from a request for more time to pay. The city’s Water and Sewer Appeals Board page says the board hears cases only after Watershed Management has completed its formal dispute process.
The board’s published information describes an opportunity to present documents and witnesses and to have legal representation, although the city does not provide that counsel. The page also contains the formal-dispute link and appeal instructions. Read the decision letter promptly and check the applicable deadline rather than assuming a complaint or phone call automatically starts an appeal.
For readers following the wider issue, the next useful developments are a reconciled explanation of the totals, any adopted changes to repayment terms and evidence of collections actually received. This account separates the August audit’s April measurement from the department’s September response.
