upr000278 183

through booster pumping stations. In addition, due to th® vary substantial growth in population and heavy demand for water in the summer period, pumps have been installed in 5 of the wells to aug­ment the water supply. In the Water Company * s last rate proceeding before the Public Service Commission of Nevada (I.8.Docket 52) decided under date of August 28, 1951, the Commission then recognised a water right value of $2000 per eubie foot per second. At that tie*®, 1951 the Water Company*s use was found to be i eubie feet per second and #6000 was assigned to the water rights. In coming to this con­clusion the Commission stated* *In the Reno Light and Water Case, Judge Farrington approved a water right value of #2000 per cubic foot per second, based upon the actual amount being used, and not the amount which has been appropriated, which was claimed by the Utility# We are of the opinion that water at Las Vegas would not have any greater value than that devoted to the public sesp.ee in Reno and Sparks, and therefore a value of $2000.00 per cubic foot per second, baeed upon * eubie feet per second, which amount is in excess of that being consumed at the present time, would be a fair value, or $8000.00 for a water right value8* Using the same $2,000 per cubic foot per second as found by the Commission in the case just cited, Involving this company, the currently effective water right value would be this #2,000 amount times the present water usage of 15 cubic feet per second, or $30,000. In any mathematical approach to the development of water right values, such will develop many times this amount. Two common approaches are (1) *ks measured by the cost Of securing the next most available supply and (2) the capitalised annual saving accruing from the present artesian supply as compared to what it would cost to pump a like quantity from non-flowing wells. Th& Las Vegas Valley Water District, organised i n 1947,