upr000048 67

Uff Y«g«« - August 88, 1948 W 23*3-5 Mr. $• c. flsht 1 reoeived copy of Mr. Poolin' a letter, addressed to Mr. Lareem, under date of August 26th, to which was att­ached a statement showing the proportion of water used hr the Railroad Company and the proportion of water used hr the water Company fro* 1936 to date, f- "f p p| p ’ _>'Vr*V '' Pill : "vV ‘ J " ‘ , , . . ^ fou win note the percentage used hy the Railroad warded fro* ||| in 1936, to 8# in 193? and dropped to 6£ in 1942. Thie Is so obviously 4a error that it neede no further comment. In May 1942, we received a hill fro* the Account­ing hopartaeat in the amount of 118,000, representing a ot Unes* for the period 1938-1942. 1 felt the charge was incorrect and pro­tested; however, ia accordance with Auditor* e request, wo passed the hill for payment. * „ i ’ ** now appears fro* the latest revised etateasnt, that we have a credit due us of nearly #80,000, covering the saae period. I strenuously object to distortion of our aoe- oujits by the use of figures which are obviously incorrect. Zt has been our experience that the Water Company used about m and the Railroad Company about 1C£ of the water consumed **» gno* This figure *ay vary somewhat, due to heavy "•}p business on the one hand, or increase in population 8f *bs city on the other, but it oertainly has no variance fro* HI to 60$. . i « * wm9 woadsrlng if I could be of any ae si stance in furnishing the oorreet figures covering water consumption in Las vegas* Zn this connection, I note a reference in Mr. Poolings letter to the Union Pacific absorbing cost of water diverted to Ranch. Z attach an exeerpt fro* Contract Audit So. 7322, between the Railroad Company and the Water Company, concerning division of cost, from which it would appear that these costs arc to be based upon amount of water PgfSu by each oonpany, and not on the total water produced; therefore, the amount of water running down the creek should