upr000206 44

I Los A ngeles, March 26, 1925 20-6 v*v * C Gei M l enersi Jer'* L Mr. F. H.' Knickerbocker? I £ **GElV'~ C’ Referring to your mailgram K-663 March 24 and my le tte r March 11 IT regarding proposed se ttlin g basin and renewal of pipe lines at Las Vegas* The work as proposed by 1925 Budget Item No. 98 involves a portion of the woi'k now authorized by Work Order 4707. The 1816* of 24" wood stave pipe is intended to convey water from the se ttlin g basin to end of present 16" wood stave pipe lin e , while Work Order 4707 provides fo r making this connec­tion with 16" wood stave pipe. In my opinion it is essential to in s ta ll the larger pipe at the upper end in order to reduoe losses in pressure due to fric tio n and thus increase capacity and pressure at the outlet end. Work Otder 4707 was authorized on the basis of accounting for the renewal of a portion of the pipe lin e as Property Retired and Replaced, which in my opinion, is incorrect as the portion of the pipe lin e to be renewed con­sists of a minor portion of the lin e , and the work should be handled on a Better­ment b asis. A lso, due to the fact that the Budget Item and existing authority overlap, it is my recommendation that Work Order 4707 be closed out on the \ basis of charging only the new w e ll and fence around Big Spring, replacing the \ • i buildings and pipe lines from Springs A and 3 and concrete forebay. The to tal / expd&aditures to date against W.O. 4707 amount to $6,734 of which $1,555 Is Capital Account and $4,605 Operating Expenses, taking into consideration re t ir e ­ments above mentioned. The fence around spring has not been b u ilt and is estimated to cost $500 chargeable to Capital Account, making the total charge to A&B $2,055 while $5,740 was appropriated by W.O. 4707.