Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000063 79

Image

File
Download upr000063-079.tif (image/tiff; 26.55 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000063-079
    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

    V the character of the water production facilities and water-bear­ing lands of the Railroad Company and stated that the total In­vestment Cost as of December 31, 1950 of the total plant, ex­cluding land, was $>773,554.20, that the Investment Cost of 679*42 acres of water-bearing land carried on the books of the Railroad Company was $>19,321,40, making a total Investment Cost for both plant and land of $792,375*60. Exhibit G introduced by Mr. Wehe showed the historical increase in the Investment Cost of such facilities and land at the end of each year between the year 1930 and the year 1950. Table B in Exhibit A showed the In­vestment Cost of these facilities as of December 31, 1949, broken down by classes of facilities. At the time .of the hearing the Commission did not question these Investment Cost figures nor did the City of Las Vegas. In fact Everett L. Clark, witness for the City of Las Vegas, based his testimony as to the proper rate base of the Railroad Company upon these basic figures and made certain deductions therefrom for depreciation, amortization, etc. (June Transcript 260). The Water Company also introduced evidence showing the estimated Investment Cost of such facilities and land of the Railroad Company as of December 31, 1951, but at the present time we will not refer to those figures. The fact is that no evidence other than that introduced bjr the Water Company as to Investment Cost or recorded book cost of the Railroad Company facilities was introduced in evidence. No issue was made with respect to the figures produced by the Water Company and the Water Company - 2 9 -