upr000150 115

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 ; Jhaly 1 1 # 19S1, ten years ago, and r«vli*«d am eri«r of the public Service Commission «f Vevada uad© in 19*o, and while in that eaae thm complaint alleged 7ft second foot of water claisaod fey plaint-i n ’ to he worth substantially «lftQ#999,9 9 , the answer practically a4eltteA that It waa worth that amount. based to a considerable extent on an appraisement aade by twe engineers, a. P. Qillette and C. 1., isuieo, eating Independently for the elty of Reno, who fined the value in Ifls at llfto#999.99-* in 1S17 at tha aaaa figure, and in 1889 at a like figure, .he value ef water flew-iag in the Trwekee M v e r in 1921 and prior thereto, appropriated hy the utility for municipal uses at Kano and ether pieeea# should not be used as e baala fer fixing the value ef the water of your petitioner, oeaed, appropriat'd# diverted and actually need, and available at all tlnaa for divers ion far nenleipal was at L&a Vegas# aa the eomUtlons are sntIrely different in that water, owing te its scarcity in the arid regtons of has Vegae, is of aiueh grow ter present valne than tha water flowing in the Trochee Biver wore that ten yeere ago, m submit that If any comparison ha nade, a valuation of 4 5 9 *0 9 9 ,0 9 per eeaend foot et U s Vegas under present eonditloas nisi a valuation of #£#990.09 placed on the waters ©f the truck#* giver tan yearn age, weald he fair. It assy fee that the comparison* used fcy jmtr petitioner in estab­lishing tha .value ef water at Las Vegas at #$9*999.09 per second foot should not ho sppllod owing to the dlfforsnt conditions that obtain in southern California and Las Vegas# hot wa do contend that the va last lea. placed fey year jcanis A on on the minimum Av. ealjew