upr000270 24

Los Angeles - September 25, 1952 Nr. V. S. Johnson - Las Vegas (CO - Nr. S. X. Bennett) Referring to your letter ef September 22nd, in which you outlined water consumption figures and estimated total production capacity for the seamier months just poet* Xhese figures are very illuminating and I think will be quite helpful in presenting ear case. There la one point, however, which will have a very defi­nite bearing on our position before the Commission and could ba waxy helpful in avoiding an objectionable order from the Commission. This has to do with the effectiveness of the conservation measures which were undertaken both years, but I understand from conversation with you were very much more effectively policed during year 1952 than they were in year 1951. There art two paints in this oonnsotion upon which infor­mation should bs had if obtainable! 1, If possible, estimate how much water each day mat saved by the sprinkling regulation. 2, Bid this regulation have any noticeable bad effect on the lawne and other vegetation which were water­ed only every other day as compared to what they would have been had they been watered every day* Obviously, the above information will give ns some measure of the wastage that is taking place in that one item, me well as establish­ing the faet, of which we have all barns convinced for a long time, that wata? wastage under today's conditions is the principal reason for water shortage during the periods ef high demand. % i m «EP 25 1952 I M Jrar. X B n m A g jQ Vm. Reinhardt m <?5 J 1952