Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000062 272

Image

File
Download upr000062-272.tif (image/tiff; 26.59 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000062-272
Details

Rights

This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

Digital Provenance

Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

Publisher

University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

\ h&@ order on the bringing of Lake Mood, water to bos Vegae by m of a pipe line, ponding and storage system* In a report^/ on tbs present and future water supply for Las Vegas Valley, prepared for tbs water District, toe feasibility end cost of each a project has been set forth, based upon toe as­sumption that the entire existing Lee Vegas eater system would be acquired by to® District and that Its (the system*s) present water resources would be utilised* In this connection toe report states i ®¥lto the aequiai- & tion of these properties the low-cost water fro© the well fields will, in some measure, offset the high-cost water from Lake Mead*. It is further estimated that under combined system opera­tion in 1930, the average cost of water would be #31*80 per million gallons compared with #33*33 paid by toe customers of ? toe .Las Vegas Land and Water Company in 1343 and #34*72 in 1949* Shat represents an increase of some 53$ • Sash increase .in annual coats when capitalised at present rate of water consumption is in excess of #900,000 - the equivalent capital investment saved by toe low-cost water from tbs well fields of toe water utility and production company* Likewise toe capitalised annual costs due to saving in pa®f* facilities is a very material figure* Attention should likewise be called to tbs fact that tbs present-day land values claimed of #100 per acre on little more then half of the water-bearing acreage are merely normal values for the surface rights for ordinary uses, and do not include any Increment in value because of the water-bearing character of the land. the water companies recognise (for rate making, but not in mm of sale) the propriety of sharing with toe public toe very high intrinsic value actually residing in the water rights* There­fore the #30,000 amount is looked upon as the Minima upon which a 1/ Sy Oreeley and Hansen, Engineers - under date of October, 1349 jj/ Underscoring added 5*