Q: I cover city council meetings for a weekly newspaper in Northern California. City Hall will not release names or addresses for those exceeding city water rationing requirements. The city is in a declared water emergency. I can get a list of high users identified as residential or business water users like motels or restaurants, but no names.
What gives? I think I should be able to see names. It is a sale of water from a municipality to an individual and I cannot think of what protections that would have….
A: As for your question regarding the names or addresses of those exceeding city water rationing requirements, unfortunately there is a specific exemption under the California Public Records Act that exempts from disclosure “the name, credit history, utility usage data, home address, or telephone number of utility customers to local agencies,” though it goes on to state that such information may be made released “[u]pon determination by the local agency that the public interest in disclosure of the information clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.” Gov’t Code 6254.16(f).
Given the burden that the non-payers are costing the rest of the community, there would seem to be a strong argument that the public interest in disclosing the names of the deadbeats outweighs the public interest in withholding them.
Unfortunately I could not find a published opinion on this particular exemption, so there is not much guidance from the case law on the particular factors the court weighs in making a decision.
All of that said, it may still be worthwhile to submit a public records request. For your initial missive, I would recommend sending the city a written request specifically describing the records that you seek. You probably should NOT say anything about the exemption, or why the city should release the records per the balancing test under 6254.16(f), in your first written request.
Under the Public Records Act, the city should respond to your request within 10 days, letting you know whether it will release the records or not, and if not, exactly why (citing the specific exemption and describing how it applies to the records that you seek). Gov’t Code 6253(c).
After you hear back from the city, you can then make your case with respect to the public interest in releasing this information, if necessary. Perhaps the city will realize that putting utility deadbeats to shame may actually help close the gap on unpaid bills, or at least motivate residents in the future to stay current on payment lest they be given a scarlet D to wear around their neck in the form of their name in the paper.
You can find a sample PRA request letter on the FAC’s website, available at http://ift.tt/1jmHASg.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to First Amendment Coalition hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.
One Comment
I came across an appellate case not long ago while looking at a privacy vs. transparency issue. The opinion in New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (Goleta Water Dist.) —
Does a newspaper have the right to the names and addresses of a water district’s customers who exceeded their water allocation after implementation of a water rationing ordinance? We conclude that the mere assertion by the water district of possible harassment or physical endangerment does not “clearly outweigh” the public interest in disclosure of these records. We further conclude that the superior court, in the newspaper access to the water district’s list of excessive water users, exceeded its jurisdiction in failing to place the burden to justify nondisclosure of these records on the water district, and shall annul its order. (http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/218/1579.html)
My first thought looking it again was that it predated and may have been the impetus for Gov 6254.16. And sure enough, it looks like the section was added in 1997 after this 1990 case. (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=6254.16. )
However, it also looks like the legislature might have agreed with the court. Information shall be made available under 6254.16(d) “Upon determination by the local agency that the utility customer who is the subject of the request has used utility services in a manner inconsistent with applicable local utility usage policies.”
Hopefully City Hall will decide that the press can help convince folks that the need to conserve is real. But if a simple request doesn’t work, this might be helpful to convince City Hall to release the info?
Comments are closed.