Image
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
Member of
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Thursday, August lkt 1952 PSC Approves CARSON CITY, Aug. 14 (UP) I—The Nevada, public service 5 commission today approved another 20 per cent increase in Las Vegas water rates. The commission filed in diS' jtrict court its decision after re-j viewing new evidence submitted by the Las Vegas Land and Water Co. in a court challenge of the agency’s earlier action in granting it only ten per cent of a requested 42 per cent rate hike. The new 20 per cent boost brings to 32 per cent th'e total j water rate increase for Las Ve- !gas consumers since the company originally sought to raise its rates by 42 per cent. In granting the new increase, the commission observed that it agreed with District Judge Clark J. Guild Sr. in that “it is particularly, unfortunate that this exhibit (the new evidence and testimony) was not given to the PSC originally.” The commission said that in considering the matter again it had viewed t h e water production facilities and the distribution company as a single unit, despite the contention of the applicant that this could not be done. The water company is a subsidiary of the Union Pacific railroad. The water company had claimed the value of 677 acres of water-bearing land in the Las Vegas^as $488,650 but, the commission ’said it could find only 240 acres directly related to water production. In reaching its rate decision, the commission valued this acreage at only $24,- 000. Kfi The commission found that the water company showed a net of 2.72 per cent for 1951, including four months with the original 10 per cent increase' Had the 10 per cent rate hike been in effect during all of 1951, the commission noted, the operating profit would have been 3.42 per cent. The commission said it felt a 20 per cent increase over the firm’s present; water rates— which include the original ten per cent boost—would return the company a net operating profit of 5.65 per cent which was (described as “fair and equita- Ible.” | The decision listed the com- Ibined valuation of the company’s | production and distribution syste m s as $1,197,220. | The commission considered las entirely written off water | pipelines built during World [War II to serve a defense housing project in the. Las. Vegas larea. The company contended it entitled &o list this as an expense in asking the rate increase.