Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
June 1 CONFERENCE WITH THE HYDRAULIC ENGINEER OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. William Stava. 3rd Floor, State .Building, San Francisco. I spent an hour with Mr. Stava, the present Hydraulic Engineer of the P.U.C. for California, Friday May 26th. We had known each other just as I entered World War I. I wanted to know from him: Present concept of water rights when handled before his Commission in a rate or vaulation case. If he used REPRODUCTION COST NEW LESS DEPRECIATION on any of his cases. As to water rights— always a moot question— he said that there were so many angles to it that no exact answer was possible. His policy was to allow any and all historical cost in entering such an item in the rate base; when it came to a sale value, then he said difficulties arose. I quoted some decisions made by Eshleman, Pres. RR Com., 1916, in Glendale, which the Courts had not upset-(but might hav e ) . There just seemed to be no measuring stick. I mentioned B o w e n ’s water adjudication work at Pasadena, which State knew about. We just could not find an answer, period(.). As to donations made or demanded by the water utility before service would be rendered to the property, Stava said that when the amount was small the Cal. PUC was inclined to deduct donations. They had a case of the CROCKER IRRIGATION SYSTEM to which MILLER AND LUX had donated $250,000 of land for a reservoir. This was so huge a sum that it was deemed wise not to take the case to higher court because of deducting such an amount— so the gift was included in the rate base and there was no appeal to higher courts. I wanted to secure some recent rulings in water rate cases decided by the Cal PUC Commission. Stava was most co-operative but his assistant was making use of a triple holiday, and the data will be briefed for me, and in case we wish to read the Commission’s order, we can then secure copies of what appears to be applicable cases. M r , Stava gave me several blank forms for valuation sheets. Monday, May 29. I returned, at Mr. Stava*s request, but he had not been able to collect the information he desired for me and said he would write me soon— after his assistant returned. HFC