upr000061 203

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 taly 11# 19210 tea yeera ago, reviewed an order of the Publlo '•**19* Cowwlsalea at mmm mode In I960, and while ta that ease fc* eowplalat 76 second feet or water claimed by plaint* tt to bo worth substautlolly $160,000.39, the answer practically knitted that It woo worth that amount, booed to o consIdfinable attenfe ©a an appraisement wade by two engineers, H, f. Gillette ad 0, S, Burnt, acting Independently for the elty of Bono, who toed the wain# la 1616 et $160,000.09** In 1917 at the same 'Igure, and' In 1920 at e Him figure. *fhe value of water flow* ng in the Trochee liver ta 1921 and prior thereto, appropriated y the utility for municipal uses at Bene and ether places, should oi be need as a baela for fining the value of the water of your etltlonesv owned, appropriated, diverted and actually used, and vailabl® at. all times- for diversion for municipal use at Trie eg&s, as the conditions are entirely different la that water, wing to Its scarcity In the arid regions of has Vegas, la of uch greater present value than the water flowing in the Truekee Ivor wore thsn tea years ago. We submit that if any semperieen e wade, a valuation of |S0,090*00 per seeend foot- at !« Vegas ader present conditions and a valuation of $6,000.90' placed on he waters ©f the Truekee liver ten yeero age, would be fair* t way- be that the comparison* used by your petitioner in estab* Ishlng the value of water at Las Vegan at $90,©00.00 per second set shea Id not be applied owing to the different conditions that btaln In'Southern California and Las Vegas, but we do contend bat the valuation placed by your Gomel**! ©n on the vsiwiwma av»