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?!

Comments

X-Drifter's picture
X-Drifter 4 years 1 week ago
#1

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

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker 4 years 1 week ago
#2

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

Who rejected United States-North Korea peace talks?

There were conflicting reports on Sunday regarding a recent proposal for United States-North Korea peace talks which was allegedly made before North Korea"s recent nuclear test

U.K. Pound Falls As Markets Get Brexit Jitters

Bloomberg said on Monday the pound had sustained its biggest fall against the dollar in 11 months

Clinton: I'll defend Israel but push for 'two-state solution

Hillary Clinton believes both Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz "missed the mark" with their approach to the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict

Community Archive

Here's What's the Matter with Kansas…

The verdict is in, and it's time for conservatives to face the cold hard facts.

Right-wing trickle-down Reaganomics doesn't work.

It doesn't work internationally, it doesn't work nationally, and it doesn't work at the state level.