After buying my current home in what seems to be the "poorest county" in (north-eastern) California, I discover that the water that comes to my house is managed and sold to me by a large privately operated water company.

Just recently, a new fee was added for a service they've labeled as "Readiness to Serve". When I called their customer service center for an explanation of this service, which happens to be roughly 150% what the water I consume costs, I asked for the specifics this fee is meant to cover, assuming they'd actually tell one of their customers, over the phone, to what the funds actually go. The example I was given by this supposedly official representative is, for when a technician needs to appear at the residence to deactivate/reactivate (shut-off/turn-on) water service. Well, I have a secondary valve following the company's valve, which, in my case, makes it superfluous.

Then, just a few hours ago, it occurred to me that...

What if the actual reason for the fee, is to cover their cost of maintaining a 24-hour/day-ready "division" of technicians/repo-men/henchmen, to shut off customers who, whether or not for legitimate reason(s), aren't paying their bills on time. In essence, the company is transferring the financial burden generated from their desire to carry out what could be deemed analogous to "bullying" those customers into paying their bills on time?

Am I reading things right?!


X-Drifter's picture
X-Drifter 3 years 24 weeks ago

Does anyone else have similar (or the same) feelings on this issue?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker 3 years 24 weeks ago

Whether that's their actual intent or not doesn't really matter. Part of that fee will undoubtedly go to the technician who will cut off somebodies water supply. Any kind of service that is imperative to the well being of citizens should never be allowed into the hands of a profiteer. Eventually all of what is known as the commons will be sold to those who can pay and kept from those who cannot. If our forefathers could see what their country has become I'm sure they would have been a lot more specific when writing the Constitution.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Latest Headlines

Obama to veto legislation on refugee screening

President Barack Obama would veto a Republican bill introduced in the wake of the Paris attacks to toughen the screening process for Syrian refugees

New York officials: No credible ISIS threat against city

There is no credible threat to New York City at this time, officials said

China denies torturing political prisoners

A Chinese delegation denied mistreatement of prisoners held in police stations and deaths in custody

Florida cops are taking tons of people's property!

The ACLU wants Florida cops to stop seizing people's personal property. In a recent press release, the civil rights group is calling on the Florida Legislature to address that state's out-of-control civil asset forfeiture practices.