redacted information is not disclosure

A perspective for your consideration . . . ?East Valley Tribune – Jason Massad – Reporting 6-16-08 … Johnson Utilities' rates 30% higher … A private utility company that serves the booming suburbs around Queen Creek charges its customers 30 percent more for water and sewer services than the state average as it struggles to meet state standards for potentially poisonous compounds, according to documents obtained by the Tribune.
Johnson Utilities, one of the largest private utility companies in Arizona, in some cases charges twice as much for water as large Valley cities, according to the documents.
Those records also show that approximately 20 wells that serve Johnson Utilities' more than 20,000 customers sometimes exceed safe concentrations of potentially poisonous levels for nitrates.
Nitrates can cause serious side effects, such as impeding blood flow at high doses.
The company report and other documents were released after the Tribune successfully sued in May for records kept by Johnson Utilities and Florence. The Tribune received the documents after a legal fight with utility owner George Johnson, also a major developer in Pinal County who commissioned parts of the report.
Much of the information in the report was redacted.
The report shows that in 2007, Johnson Utilities charged its customers an average of $88.75 per month to use 10,000 gallons of water and 5,000 gallons of wastewater.
Phoenix and Tucson charge less than $40 for the same amount of water and wastewater usage. Florence and Globe also charge approximately $40 a month, according to a survey.
Looking for a solution…? At some point don’t we ask of what value is freedom of information acts – if – those providing the information can at their sole discretion redact (edit) the information prior to making it public. So much for full disclosure…? We have in our hands the power to change this in a New York minute, so what’s stopping us…?