Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

man000177 233

Image

File
Download man000177-233.tif (image/tiff; 26.62 MB)

Information

Digital ID

man000177-233
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

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