Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Omaha W M1 p' Hr# 1-# E* Bennett - Los Angeles (00 — Mr* A* IS# Stoddard Hr# tftu Beiahardt Hr# V# §* Sousa Hr# W# H, Hulslzer) • September 4, 1952 704-35 this refers to your letter of August 19# 1952 abog| tho decision rendered by the Public Service Commission of j§ Nevada la the application of the IVl&M Co# for an increaselS water rates# i&S Socket 127* Court Case No, 1SB45. the exhibits hereinafter referred to by letter are those which were offered at the hearing before the P.S.C.N* in las Vegas# Nev,, In 1951# and the exhibits referred to by numerals are those which were offered at the hearing before the District Court in Carson City, Nev## in 1952* the observations made on pages 2# 3# and f of the opinion, with respect to the new and additional evidence offered at the court hearing# are, to say the least# greatly exaggerated# and they were obviously made for face saving purposes# On pegs 3 the Commission quotes the Court as dsploring the fact that at the las Vegas hearing the former was not furnished with the data contained in Exhibits 13 to 1$# and particularly 15. Also# the Commission stated that the only records available to it were taken from the proofs filed with the State Engineer for appropriation of water* The facts are stated hereinafter# Inhibit 13 shows the year end investment of .2*AA5L EE# Co, in the water production facilities for the years 1931 to 1951# inclusive. Exhibit 8 shows the same identical data In a somewhat condensed form for the years 193d to 1950# inclusive# and consequently the “new and additional evidence” is simply confined to the expansion of the data in Exhibit 13 over that contained in Exhibit 0# Therefore, the statement made by the Commission about available records is Incorrect#' Exhibit 15 shows (a) the estimated coat by work orders for such of the production facilities that were mentioned in the water filings) (b) the actual costs of thoao facilities) (c) the actual coat of additional facilities constructed under those same work orders) and (d) the aggregate of (b) and (cl# As you §£$* 8 i_« C» C»