upr000280 38

Mr. W. R. Rouse 2. July ?, 1952 Mr. F. A. Hubbard Introduced exhibita showing devel­opment of the original cost of the property and very clearly counting e xpprlacatiinceeds ,t hef rdoimf fwehriecnhc et heb etIwneveens tbmeetntte rcmoesnt t isa cd­e­briyv ewdh,i cahn do rriegtiinrael mecnotst anids rdeeprlivaecde.ment accounting practices, Mr. William H. Johnson, Acting Manager of the Las Ve­gas hand and Water Company, testified concerning the local coregranniinzga tthieo.n reoafs otnhse wfaotre rth ed eppuarrcthmaesnet aotf Ltahse vVaergiaosu sa npda rccoenl­s of land which comprise the water hearing lands which we seek to have included In the rate base of the Union Pacific. Mr. 0. M. Bates, Land and Tax Agent at Los Angeles, testified concerning his appraisal of the present market value of the water bearing lands, which is being used as a basis for negotiation for the sale of these lands to the Las Vegas Valley Water District. Mr. Roy Vehe Introduced exhibits showing estimated re­sults of operation for the year 1952 and the deficiencies in revenue which exist when measured by returns of 6 and 6||j§ upon investment cost, original cost and present-day value rate bases. He also introduced a very effective exhibit showing that by the use of correct capital figures and correct oper­ating expense figures and using the principles followed by the Commission in its decision of August 24, 1951, the in­creases sought in the proposed rates will be more than post­il ifled. At the outset General Mathews, the Attorney General who tried the ease for the Commission, announced that he was go­ing to ask for a continuance for the purpose of preparing such rebuttal as he deemed necessary. The Court at that time also announced that he considered the 15-day period fixed by law within which the Commission must reconsider the case to bceo unesnetli rfeolry tbooot h sphaorrtt ieansd tos aaigdr ethea tu phoen wao urelads oenxapebclte tpheer iod. During the course of the hearing we were-able to have the Attorney General withdraw his request for a continuance,and we agreed that the Commission should have 30 days rather than 15 days to reconsider the ease after the record has