DEP hits Queens woman, 86, with $22K water bill she says is mistake — but which could make her lose her home

New York Post - Mar 28th, 2025

Margaret McGowan, an 86-year-old resident of Queens, NY, is at risk of losing her home due to a disputed $22,828.71 water bill issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). After her water meter was shut off for repairs for two years, the DEP back charged her approximately $850 per month, an amount McGowan and supporters argue is incorrect. Despite two denied appeals, McGowan faces a final appeal with the Water Board. State Senator John Liu and State Assembly Member Ed Braunstein have publicly supported McGowan, demanding the DEP cancel the bill and apologize. The DEP claims the high bill is due to elevated consumption, but McGowan and her supporters find this explanation implausible.

The situation arose when the DEP discovered an equipment issue in January 2022 and froze McGowan's billing. Once resolved in January 2024, they issued the back bill. The DEP has threatened to place a lien on McGowan's home if the bill is not paid, which has led to significant distress for her. Lawmakers are concerned that similar situations might affect other residents. McGowan, currently without legal counsel, is working with an auditing agency to contest the charges. The situation underscores potential flaws in the DEP's billing and dispute resolution processes, with significant implications for McGowan's home ownership and financial stability.

Margaret Mc Gowan Queens, Ny Department Of Environmental Protection John Liu Ed Braunstein Water Bill Dispute Home Ownership Threat

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a compelling narrative about Margaret McGowan's dispute with the DEP over an unusually high water bill. It effectively captures the emotional and financial stakes involved, with support from local politicians adding weight to the story. However, the article's accuracy is somewhat limited by a lack of corroborating evidence and reliance on anecdotal accounts. The balance is skewed towards McGowan's perspective, with insufficient exploration of the DEP's side. Despite these shortcomings, the article is timely and of public interest, highlighting potential issues with municipal billing practices. It is well-written and engaging, likely to resonate with readers concerned about consumer rights and housing security. Overall, while the article succeeds in raising awareness about McGowan's situation, it would benefit from more comprehensive sourcing and a balanced presentation of perspectives.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as the amount of the water bill ($22,828.71), the historical billing of $85 per month, and the assertion of back charges by the DEP. These claims are specific and verifiable, though the article does not provide direct evidence or official documents to substantiate them. The story accurately reports the involvement of State Senator John Liu and Assembly member Ed Braunstein, who support McGowan's claims. However, the DEP's response, stating the high bill is due to elevated consumption, is presented without additional context or verification of the alleged leak. While the story captures the essence of McGowan's situation, it lacks corroborating evidence for some claims, such as the exact duration of the meter issue and the DEP's formal stance on the lien threat.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on Margaret McGowan's perspective and the support she receives from local politicians. While it provides a brief statement from the DEP, the article does not delve deeply into the agency's side of the story or offer a detailed explanation of their billing process. This creates an imbalance in the narrative, as the reader is primarily exposed to McGowan's viewpoint and the criticisms of the DEP by politicians. Including more information from the DEP or independent experts on water billing could have provided a more balanced view of the situation.

Clarity

The language and structure of the article are clear, with a logical flow that guides the reader through McGowan's situation and the ensuing controversy. The tone is neutral, avoiding sensationalism while effectively conveying the gravity of McGowan's predicament. However, some elements, such as the technical details of water billing and the DEP's procedures, are not fully explained, which might affect comprehension for readers unfamiliar with such processes. Overall, the article is accessible, but additional details could enhance understanding.

Source quality

The article cites statements from McGowan, local politicians, and a DEP spokesperson. However, the source quality is mixed, as it heavily relies on the perspectives of McGowan and her supporters without offering substantial evidence or documentation. The DEP's response is included, but it is brief and lacks depth. The reliance on anecdotal evidence from McGowan and political figures without more authoritative or diverse sources diminishes the overall credibility of the article. Additional input from water billing experts or legal advisors could have enhanced the source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context, such as the history of McGowan's water bills and the involvement of local politicians. However, it lacks transparency in terms of the methodology used to verify claims, such as the calculation of water consumption equivalent to ten swimming pools. The article does not disclose potential conflicts of interest, such as the political motivations of the involved politicians. Greater transparency about the basis of the claims and the potential biases of the sources would improve the article's clarity and impartiality.