upr000092 15

V S. S. B. July 10, 1952 pany, who was Mr. M. 1, Heady, whose business Mr. Wthe in effect took over, testified to a valuation of #100,000 for each million gallons per day of developed water rights, of which there were approximately 1 # million gallons, and 450.000 per million gallons per day of undeveloped sup­plies, o r a total of |2,720,500. The witnesses for the Government testified as to a minimum value of 1340,000 and a maximum of 4530,000. The Court found that the fair value of the water rights, both developed and undeveloped, on January 1, 1917, was |1,320,000. In reaching this con­clusion he valued the undeveloped water rights at one-third of the value of the developed price. It does not clearly appear from the decision what exact values were placed upon the developed water rights, but apparently the undeveloped water rights were likewise figured at 18 million gallons per day. On this basis the value at­tached by the Court to each million gallons per day or developed water rights was 143,333* la 1951 the total annual production in gallons of water at Las Vegas, as reported in the annual reports of the LVL&WCompany to the Public Service Commission, was 3 .6 8 7 ,8 2 3 ,8 3 9 , or the equivalent of approximately 11 mil­lion gallons per day. If our water rights were valued on the basis of 140,00© for each million gallons, the total valuation would be $440,000. I am not mentioning our un­developed water right® because of the^present condition of the underground supply. Our actual production in 1951 was the equivalent of 15.63 cubic feet per second.where- ae the Las Vegas Land and Water Company owns certificates to appropriate from the underground 23.37 cubic feet per second. Advances from Subdlvlderi Mr. R. M. Sutton*s wire of July 9, 1952, states that 4 3 3 8 ,0 8 2 .4 6 is the amount of construction advances subject to refund as of May 31,1952, and points out t h a t t h i s i s one of the items which should be deducted from the agreed sales price of the property. Although we ^ a y i n t h e end be willing to allow the District credit for the full a-mount of these advances, I do not think that we should take this position at the outset because there are many reasons which would justify a smaller credit.