RSS
Water Works
Ed, having been a master plumber for more than 40 years, I have some misgivings about the letter sent recently by American Water Resources to customers of the Trenton Water Department. The letter includes a pay schedule for three options for a monthly charge, ranging from $5.50 to $12.50. When I last checked, the homeowner was responsible for sewer and water service lines from home to curb line. If a problem occurred from the curb line to the water main in the street, the municipality was responsible for repairs. I personally have a recently installed water service line in plastic that will probably last 100 years. And it won’t require $8,000 to repair. Is this a new scam for our citizens? Or have new changes been put into place?
The Plumber
Sounds like you have more knowledge of water and pipes than the average ratepayer. Can you figure this out and get back to us?— Ed. Note
posted by Trentonian Editor at
10:18 AM
2 Comments:
New scam, supposedly authorized by
City Hall. Yet no one there seems to know anything about this company.
American Water Resources, Inc. is owned and operated by the parent company of New Jersey American Water Company (NJAWC). NJAWC is the company that is trying to buy the Trenton water assets in the four townships served by Trenton Water Works. The connection is obvious. What is not obvious is what Trenton gets out of this. There have been no reports that Trenton authorized this by resolution or ordinance and, if it did, there has been no reports of what monies are redirected to Trenton for allowing and endorsing this. If that is the case, then there should have been council action to approve such a contract. What has been kept quiet about this is that in 2004 the Palmer administration placed before City Council a revised ordinance that significantly changed important aspects of the ownership and responsibility of some water utility assets. Specifically, the Ordinance transferred responsibility of the water service, which is the pipe that is located from the water main in the street to the valve located on the property side of the curb or edge of pavement, from the City to the property owner. What that means is that if the pipe fails, either leaks or clogs, the property owner is now responsible for repairing or replacing it. Prior to that, the Water Utility was responsible for this and would make the repairs or install the replacement at no cost to the customer. This is a hidden rate increase for customers that the Administration kept very quiet. The insurance would provide some protection for the costs incurred for repairing or replacing a leaking service. The insurance does not provide any protection if the pipe is clogged, i.e. is not leaking and does not allow any water or insufficient water to pass through it. For a clogged pipe the property owner must repair or replace the pipe completely at his expense even if he has the insurance. Street smart property owners who have been faced with clogged pipes have broken the pipes so that they leak. They could then recoup some of the cost from the insurance it they had it. More often, they just call TWW, report the leak and TWW then repairs or replaces the pipe at no expense to the property owner, which, of course, is contrary to the Ordinance. The irony here is that the City transferred responsibility to the property owners but not ownership. Because if it had transferred ownership, then the property owners could then sell there water services to NJAWC rather than having the City do so. According to water industry executives, the insurance program is a sure money maker for the company issuing the insurance. For many, and that would be those with relatively new pipes, it is unnecessary to by the insurance. So much for looking out for the interests of the public. Another question related to this is whether it is within the City's right to transfer responsibility to Township property owner's. So far, apparently, no customer's from the Township have challenged this transfer. If and when they do and if the Board of Public Utilities finds in favor of the customers, then that would be more money that the City would have to refund to those customers.
Post a Comment
<< Home