upr000276 131

Los Angeles, April 4th, 1932. Mr. C. C. Barry: 9215-3-W Enclosed p lease fin d copy of Mr. Gray1s l e t t e r March 17th , together with statem ent re ferred to , concern­ing f in an eial retu rns from operation of Las Vegas Land and Water Company in furnish in g water a t Las Vegas fo r period January 1 , 1930 to September 30th , 1931. Your a tte n tio n i s p a r tic u la r ly d irected to the restatem ent o f expenses mentioned in second paragraph of Mr. Gray’ s le tte r, and d e ta ile d in footn ote on sheet 3 of the statem ent, a ffe c tin g the years 1927, 1928 and 1929; a lso to the obviously extraordinary maintenance charges of $ 5 ,8 5 3 .7 7 in 1922, $18,748.33 in 1924 and $17,543.99 in iS 2 6 , during which years su b sta n tia l renewals of the water d is trib u tin g system were made. From records a t our d isp o sa l, am not in p o sitio n to determine the amounts accumulated in ’’Accrued Deprecia­tio n ” ap p licab le to the portion s of the d is trib u tio n system replaced in these y e a rs , and which might properly have absorbed p art of the heavy maintenance charge, but i t does appear th at the reserve created during the l i f e of the old pipe lin e s should have been charged, u n til exhausted, with the co st of replacem ent. I t i s my understanding th a t th is would probably have been done but fo r the method employed in securing au th o rizatio n of the renewals mentioned, and i t is with the idea in mind of securing a restatem ent of these tra n s­a c tio n s , as w ell as an expression of your opinion a f te r reviewing the statem ent, th at 1 am r e fe rrin g the m atter to you a t th is tim e. There may a ls o be other exceptions to the a llo c a tio n of expenses which would be apparent a f te r you have analyzed the charges. F- H. Knickerbocker ^ i^j & m 6 ' 932 RLA.