Johnson argues to keep records private

Al-Qaida lurking about in Pinal County? Developer George Johnson says terrorists could target his water and sewer utility system if information about it were disclosed to the public.

Johnson Utilities legal shroud could lift

Johnson Utilities has 10 days to present argument

Public information should be just that

Johnson made that argument in a legal filing Monday in Pinal County Superior Court. And while Pinal County is known for its sleepy suburban subdivisions - like Johnson's namesake development, Johnson Ranch - and not as a national political target, Johnson's attorneys point out that protecting the company's information from terrorists would be one reason the taxpayer-funded study should not be released for scrutiny. Government secrecy trumps the public's right to know, they say.

"Otherwise, Johnson and others in the same situation will be disinclined to voluntarily provide confidential information if they believe the information could be disseminated for anyone - competitors, vandals, and possibly terrorists to review," according to the court document.

Johnson was responding to a public records request by the Tribune to the town of Florence for a study that looked at the viability of his water and wastewater company.

Utility customers say that the service is overpriced, that the quality of the water flowing from their taps is poor and that billing from Johnson's company can be inconsistent. Johnson Utilities serves 20,000 customers in the booming unincorporated area south of Queen Creek and a portion of Florence, making it one of the largest private utilities in the state.

"I don't drink it," said Gene Kilber, a San Tan Heights resident, of the water. "I don't trust it."

Brian Tompsett, a top executive with Johnson Utilities LLC, did not return phone calls seeking comment. Attorney Chris Stuart, representing Johnson in the case, said his law firm and Johnson employees could not communicate with the Tribune because the newspaper is a party in the suit.

In January, the Tribune requested a copy of the $308,000 taxpayer-funded study conducted by the town of Florence. The town decided not to purchase the utility company for $192 million. In March, Johnson sought a restraining order to protect the documents after Florence officials said they would make the documents public.

Town officials signed at least three confidentiality agreements with Johnson's company before and during the study to protect "proprietary information" that could damage the company if made public, according to Johnson's legal filing.

Tribune attorney Dan Barr dismissed some of the arguments for shielding the documents, including the assertion that the information might fall into the hands of America's enemies.

"I don't think terrorists are waiting on the results of this lawsuit," said Barr. "A public record is something created or maintained by a public body. This report is clearly something that is maintained by the town of Florence, so it's a public record."

Florence Councilman Tom Smith said he was uncomfortable making a deal with Johnson to keep the records secret. Florence kept a record of documents Johnson said were considered confidential and proprietary without telling Johnson it was doing so.

"(Johnson's) got a lot of business connections in different areas and with different companies," Smith said. "I don't know why anyone on the up-and-up would want that agreement."

Johnson also argues that "releasing the information will place Johnson at a competitive disadvantage should its competitors or others learn how Johnson creates and maintains operational efficiencies."

But many of the company's customers say Johnson's service is poor and overpriced. Johnson Utilities customers using about 10,000 gallons a month pay, on average, about $50.25 - nearly $10 a month higher than the state average and $20 to $30 a month more than water users in neighboring communities.

Some customers have expressed concern that the reports could be hiding important information from Johnson Utilities about the safety of the water and the system that delivers it.

Johnson Ranch resident Amber Black sums up her experience with Johnson Utilities as "awful water, terrible prices."

Black, who has lived there since 2005, said she doesn't use much water but seems to have a bill for more than $100 each month.

"I don't even like to brush my teeth with it, but I have to," Black said. "I use bottled water all the way around, even for cooking - paying what we pay, it's very frustrating."

Johnson Utilities received 125 complaints from Jan. 1, 2007, until late this month - ranging from disputed billings to outages to queries as to why rates were set the way they were, according to reports by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Rebecca Wilder, a spokeswoman for the ACC, said that the complaints are hard to quantify without comparing them to other comparable utility companies.

"I think they are pretty typical for a utility company, but we'd have to dig into it further," she said.

Meanwhile, in the legal area, the burden is on Johnson Utilities to point out to the court which portions of the study would harm their business dealings, Barr said.

Florence will make its own argument to the court, town spokesman Jess Knudson said.

"If they can do that, then the court can redact that information and release the rest of the document," he said.

The Tribune's reply to Johnson Utilities' argument is due on Monday.