A retired woman in San Jacinto, Texas, has made a difficult decision: to cut off her water supply due to rising fees. This story sheds light on a controversial issue that affects many, especially those on fixed incomes.
Christina Mann, a retiree who moved to Point Blank, Texas, to be near the water, now finds herself in a challenging situation. She explains how water, a basic necessity, has become a burden. Mann drives to a friend's house every other day to fill large jugs with water, which she uses for essential tasks like washing dishes and flushing toilets. Carrying these heavy jugs is a daily struggle, and it's a far cry from the retirement she envisioned.
When Mann retired, she carefully planned her budget based on her monthly Social Security check. However, the monthly base fees for water and sewage, charged by Texas Water Utilities, have been steadily increasing, leaving her with little room to maneuver. She feels trapped, with no control over the rising costs.
"I choose to eat," Mann says, explaining her decision to cut off her water service. She couldn't afford the rising fees, and last year, she received a termination notice from Texas Water Utilities. Mann's story is not unique; 13 Investigates has reported on similar consumer concerns and frustrations across the state.
Mann's typical water and sewage bill amounts to around $160 per month, with most of that cost made up of fees set by Texas Water Utilities. In July, these fees totaled $150.18, while her actual water and sewage usage for that month was a mere $9.34. This stark contrast highlights the issue at hand.
Texas Water Utilities, an investor-owned utility company, operates differently from municipal water providers. They are for-profit and do not receive tax dollars for funding, passing costs directly onto customers. This business model has led to significant differences in billing compared to cities that provide water services.
For example, Mann's bill for Texas Water Utilities during a month with 2,000-gallon usage was $169, while a similar bill from the City of Houston for the same amount of usage was only $57. This disparity is a cause for concern and has led to the company's expansion, with plans to acquire more companies and develop new single-family home developments.
The company justifies its investments by stating that they ensure safe and clean drinking water and proper wastewater treatment. However, they have also filed to add a "system improvement charge" of $34 per month to recoup over $80 million spent on infrastructure. This additional charge has raised eyebrows and sparked debates about the fairness of such practices.
Mann believes that if her bill were similar to what she paid in Cleveland, around $60 per month, she could manage. She feels that the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) is not adequately regulating Texas Water Utilities, allowing them to operate as they please despite consumer complaints.
Since our last interview with Mann, she has returned to work, largely due to the strain of her water bill. 13 Investigates reached out to Texas Water Utilities about Mann's situation and asked about ways customers can lower their bills. The company suggested managing wastewater usage in the winter, as this amount is averaged throughout the year. However, this advice does little to address the core issue of rising base fees.
The Public Utility Commission of Texas states that investor-owned utilities must prove the necessity of rate increases, and the commission only approves increases deemed just and reasonable. But with consumer concerns mounting, the question remains: Are these increases truly just and reasonable?
This story highlights the impact of rising utility costs on individuals, especially those on fixed incomes. It raises important questions about the practices of investor-owned utility companies and the role of regulatory bodies. Have you experienced similar issues with your water bills? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
