upr000065 460

/ %? based m the $mm testimony of officials of the Railroad Company and the later C&mp&ay. Counsel for the Company makes the statement that the Cbm* mission vae In error in reducing the acreage of voter hearing land fro® 679.42 cores to a lesser figure. in the records of the CJomp&ny, its maps and files, indicate the area upon which veils are located, The records indicate that the veils within that area, hare gone down materially in flow and it now becomes necessary in some instances to posp from the veils that originally flowed. thy, then, should a larger area of land be included as voter bearing when thd veils upon land owned by the Railroad Cteijipany are already diminishing in flow? The area found to be vater bearing by the Commission embraces the smallest subdivisions of the public, land surrey upon which the veils are located. On page 16 of the Commission^ Opinion and on page 40 of the Petition for Reconsideration le the question concerning rights-of-ray and pipe lines, power lines, and ouch. Hlghta-of-vsy may have been of such importance as to warrant setting aside areas for that purpose, but an examination of the land and the consideration of the market value of lands in that area for other purposes, would indicate a very much neater value to the Railroad Company for sub­division purposes. This Is particularly true *hen the costs of present day subdivision areas within that vicinity amounting to, in seme oases, as much as #£80® an acre, are considered. It is alec interesting to not® counsel*© remarks on page 42, *lt is a well recognised principle that in fixing rates for utilities, a commission should consider not only results of operation in the past, but current happenings and what may be expected to happen in the future, Prescribed rates should be based upon eondition® which may reasonably be expected to obtain in the immediate future.* If such a course had been followed, the dammiealoit would have gone far astray and outside me record to find out what sight have •mijjfm- i