A very, very simple diagram of water and money . . . .

The diagram tries to show a very, very simplified version of where the Water you use comes from, suppliers, through a wholesaler (Santa Clara Valley Water District), the retailer for many of us in San Jose and surrounding cities SJWC (San Jose Water Company). 

Money is sent by over 220,000 water consumers and goes from Mr. H2O Consumer. He seems to be very, very surprised by the amount he must pay and the complexity of the bill. Mr. Consumer has little choice he must pay his bill or his water will be turned off, rapidly making his home "unlivable". This blogger thinks that there may be a health standard that is violated and may be grounds for a civil action, in the event this action occurs? When your a quasi-Monopoly as SJWC is termination of service is a very big stick. 

We hear the SJWC litany of fixed costs, infrastructure needs replacement and on, and on. Also it should be noted that SJW profits, revenues and dividends have significantly increased. 

Mr. John Tang's slide presentation, Los Gatos, pointed out that pumps and pipes (infrastructure) only got a D+ grade. I never found out when I talked with him after the meeting, if that was the grade for US or was specifically for SJWC? Blogger has to ask, If it was the grade for SJWC infrastructure, this blogger must ask wheres our money going are we going to be another Flint, MI.

What can Mr. H2O Consumer do? He can file Complaints. Will the complaints do any good? Yes, if Mr. H2O Consumer, his friends, family and his neighbors file complaints, the issues that are causing outrageous water bills and increases many times the rate of inflation, may be investigated.

We have three specific places to send Complaints to SJWC, CPUC and the California Department of Consumer Affairs. You can also take advantage of the social media (Facebook, Google+, Nextdoor, etc., TV stations (Investigate), Newspapers (Mercury News, San Jose Inside, etc.). You can also send Complaints to your elected officials, including elected and appointed commissioners.

The more effective a type of Complaint the more difficult it is to file the Complaint. Over time the requirements to file a Complaint have increased. This blogger has to think that the current process is biased, results in fewer consumer complaints filed and allows water utilities to say, "We get very few consumer Complaints, so there's no problems!".

What Ms., Mrs. and Mr. H2O Consumer can do:

• Sign the WRATES Petition
• Follow this blog, sjwc-rate-increase
• Join WRATES
• Send Complaints (How to send complaints to CPUC)
• Send Complaints to press, media representatives and commissioners

Remunicipalisation, putting water back in the hands of customers

We have been focused on the "outrageous" increases in our water bills, not on the root of the problem. My opinion as a blogger, it's unlikely that the underlying issues will be corrected without significant changes,  SJWC is a wholly owned subsidiary of SJW Corp. and is a privately owned water utility, our visibility into their SJWC actual financials, is limited. CPUC has also been characterized by Richard Roth CEO, as having a "constructive regulatory environment" with CPUC.  I thought CPUC has a mission statement that says:

The California Public Utilities Commission serves the public interest by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility service and infrastructure at just and reasonable rates, with a commitment to environmental enhancement and a healthy California economy. We regulate utility services, stimulate innovation, and promote competitive markets, where possible, in the communications, energy, transportation, and water industries.

We can see that "constructive regulatory environment" means in a current case of SJWC overcharging customers, by failing to pro rate increases. Please read the posts regarding SJWC overcharging customers and the apparent ex parte communications and the resulting attempt to "quash" the Formal Complaint. In this instance instead of the overcharges of $13 million were requested in SJWC Advice Letter 510 to $1.7 million. The advise letters requesting the changes did not include attachments referenced, as usual.

We are not the only city, state or even country that has had significant rate increases due to corporate greed or incompetence.  Over 180 cities have taken back their water and sewage utilities. Why, because corporate ownership works to provide profits to the owners, government ownership provides water for people, California Law states, cities or counties must not operate for a profit. CPUC does not regulate them, they operate based on the California Water Resources Board report as an agency of the local government and must follow the Public Information Laws.

Water Remunicipalisation Tracker Map of USA

The following are some links to learn about remunicipalisation:

• Water remunicipalisation tracker 
• Remunicipalisation: Putting Water Back into Public Hands
  
• Water and Power: Are public services still public?

This is not a quick fix and has taken some of the cities years to regain control of their water utility. If you look at the map for the America, on the Water Remunicipalisation Tracker,  seven US Cities have taken back or trying to take back their water utility, including Atlanta and Gary and over 280 have also done it worldwide.

The following links to added information about remunicipalisation, were contributed by William Sherman, WRATES. There are and have been a staggering number of local governments and consumer efforts, in the USA to get back the control of water utilities back for the customers:

•  It shows 57 cities in the US including both Atlanta and Houston (both larger than San Jose) who have remunicipalised and how they did it.check the data starting on page 19 of:  http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/sites/municipalservicesproject.org/files/publications/Kishimoto-Lobina-Petitjean_Our-Public-Water-Future-Global-Experience-Remunicipalisation_April2015_FINAL.pdf 
• Cleveland and East Cleveland could have been on that list except privatisation was never completed due to racketeering charges. (see http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/29/local/me-privatewaterside29).
• (Mary Robertson (WRATES) provided. A summary of a report that appears in one of the most cited on Google: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/media_briefing_english.pdf

You can take part in this effort, by simply signing an online petition, commenting on this blog or simple sending a complaint online to CPUC and California Consumer Affairs, tell them "we want our water back".

• Sign the  the WRATES petition at Change.org:
  https://goo.gl/hqXzAE
• Complaint about CPUC and your comment about SJWC:
  http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/publiccomments/
• Complaint about SJWC, to Consumer Affairs Branch:  http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/cab/
• WRATES Complaint Instruction page:
  http://sjwfacts.weebly.com/file-complaint.html
•  Sorry US Postal Service, no stamps required. We can send email to our elected officials and the press and TV Investigative services:
  http://sjwfacts.weebly.com/contactsemails.html

Remember,
".victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.", ". la vittoria ha 100 padri e la sconfitta è un orfano ."