upr000065 385

% Hr. william Reinhardt * #2 well Ho. £&£>UsmSi Permit Ho. Affidavit Bv * fAt least* f VflMt Co. 10456 LVL&W Co. that at $13,746.92 4 LVLAW Co. 105C6 its expense expend* ed s i 10,924.00 5 LVL&W Co. 10708 # • 4,869.74 6 LVLas 0f* 10707 • # 7,830.26 7 LVLAS Co. 10887 t*VLAW Co. that at 4,500.00 e LVL&W Co. 10888 Its expense and at expense of Up® for use and benefit of LVLisr Co. there h&# been expended * s 5,000.00 9 LVL&W Co. 10869 « • 4,500.00 10 1rum Cc. 10870 « s 10,000.00 11 LVLAW Co. 11249 « # 16,277.00 Xt will be noted three affidavits were i filed In connection with Well No. 1, one by the hA&SLRB Co. and two by the VfLSm Co. also that two affidavits were filed by JUVLi® Co. In eonneotion with Well Ho. 2, although Hi the ease of well Ho. 2 Proof of Application of Water to Beneficial Use was filed only under Permit Be. 10127 as it covered all water produoed by the well. fhe Affidavits of Completion of fork filed by VflM Co. pursuant to Permit Hoe. 10458, 1CS08, 10708, and 10707 state the expenditures were made at expense of applicant whereas all other affidavit#- filed by Wl&M Co* state the expenditures were made at expense of applicant and at expense of either i^ASLJW Oc. or Co. 'for use and benefit of applicant. All affidavits contain the statement that *at least* a named amount of money has been expended. Some of the amount# may be actual cost although