Water company rate increase draws ire

Letters to the Editor

In reading about New Mexico American Water Company’s proposed rate increase of 25 percent, I was not a happy camper.
The Clovis News Journal article mentions the 11- percent rate increase of (2005). That may have been a needed increase, but as it is with gasoline and other current natural resources we need, they have the customer by the throat.

There is a recourse though. Customers of the water company can write to the Public Regulation Commission in Santa Fe.
The address:
Public Regulation Commission
224 E. Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, NM. 87501

The proposed increase of 25 cents is unacceptable. Some readers may be able to afford the increase; most however cannot.
My letter to the Public Regulation Commission went out in the mail on Tuesday. I hope enough readers can take a few minutes to write a letter also.

Christian K. Heller Sr.

Above inflation rate hike completely out of line
The 25-percent increase that the New Mexico-AmericanWater Company is requesting doesn’t make sense to me. A year ago, they got an increase of 11 percent. Clovis residents did not jump for joy then, nor will they jump for joy now.

Doesn’t this company care about how this will hurt some families if it’s approved?

There is no one that I know of who is getting a 25 percent increase in their salary, and those of us who are retired are certainly not getting a 25 percent increase. Look at Social Security checks and see if they have increased 25 percent in the last few years. And salaries in Clovis certainly haven’t jumped that much either.

A 25 percent increase is way out of line. I think a 10 or 12 percent increase is more realistic. There is no need for the water company to be so greedy.

I am not putting the blame on the employees of the water company. I know they are hard working and dedicated. But the big boys high up in the company are not thinking about the common everyday working citizens of Clovis.

Any rate increase should be no more than the rates of inflation the rest of us have to live by.

Billy J. Cooper

Safety regulation lowers insurance rates for all
Regarding “Our Viewpoint” in Thursday’s paper (“Safety should be our choice, no one else’s”):

I’ve never heard of Ben Roethlisberger since I don’t follow sports and wasn’t aware of his accident, but I spent 30 years managing safety and health programs.

Unfortunately safety is not our choice as long as some entity is paying for injuries. If we did away with government safety regulations, electrical codes, traffic laws and other codes and regulations that are designed to keep us alive, the cost of medical treatment and insurance would be out of sight. In fact insurance companies would probably go out of business.
It has been proven that when someone wears a helmet and an injury is minimized, all of us reap the benefit by having more affordable insurance.

I’m a firm believer in less government regulation of our daily lives, but the codes and safety regulations that I dealt with were written in blood and I consider them positive mechanisms to keep insurance and medical costs under control.

Karl D. Spence