upr000163 87

47 While' the rates proposed will no doubt result in objections from some, as is always the case, yet the proposed increases are be­lieved to be reasonably distributed,, Under flat rate service it is impossible from a practical standpoint to provide complete equality as between water users, as flat rates lead to waste and to difficulty in assessing the water usage as between customers. A comparison with rates paid for water service in other com­munities will for the most part show that the people in Las Vegas not only have, but will continue to receive favorable water rates under the proposals herein made. Likewise, the proposed increases are in general materially below the average rise in income as shown on Chart B (page 48), and are still not sufficient to completely offset the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. The over-all increase on the basis of 1950 average is es­timated to amount to approximately $90,000 or 40 per cent. Comparative Water Consumption In a semi-arid climate, such as exists in Las Vegas, water consumption will be higher than in many other areas,. whether water were sold on a flat rate or metered basis, although there is no question if service at Las Vegas were metered, the amount of consumption would fall sharply„ There follows a tabulation of water usage in s-everal cities throughout, the country• Average Daily Water Consumption per Capita - 1948 City Gallons Denver, Colorado 198 Detroit, Michigan 147 Little Rock, Arkansas 86 Los Angeles, California 150 Louisville, Kentucky 151 Phoenix, Arizona 220 Richmond, Virginia 150 Seattle, Washington 152 Worcester, Massachusetts n o LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 400 Source; 1948 Annual Reports I From Journal of American Water Works Association, February and April 1950. All consumptions based upon metered service except Las Vegas.