upr000105 77

g^glU Mr. Robert A. Allen Page 2 /1 .x August 20, 1953 general business and le a competitor of Mr. Henderson. As a result of those negotiations, we revised and reduced our oharges and published a rate under Rate No. 55A, approved by your Commission and effective September 1, 195lvo? IbO^oO'Tbr^Iibti^rf this character having a capacity in excess of 2500 ou. yds. which was the capacity of the plant of Young & Smith and which, incidentally, is the capacity of the Henderson plant. The same basic charge le now being made to the Hender­son plant Jiltss an additional charge of #2.40 for his office water facilities, #1.80 for two public water closets, or a total of #54.20 to Mr. Henderson. I do not have data re­garding total oharges made to Young & Smith but presume, if he has accessorial facilities such as Mr. Henderson has, that he pays not only the basio charge of #50.00 but the additional oharges such as have been described above being oharges against Mr. Henderson. As you know, the Water District is planning to call a bond election for some time the latter part of {September. I respectfully suggest for your consideration, that we let the present rates ride along until the outcome of that election is determined. If the bonds are voted, the Dis­trict will presumably take over shortly thereafter and it may desire a complete readjustment of all rates. Any special tariffs filed (incidentally I understand Mr. Henderson is the only one making any objections to these increases) would not become effective for thirty days prior to which very possibly the Water District question may have been settled. As you know, these ready mix concrete plants use a very large volume of water and since Mr. Henderson*s oompetltor, Young 1 Smith, agreed to the $50.00 basio charge, it would seem that Mr. Henderson would have no serious grounds for objection. Very truly yours E. E. Bennett Ene BCG: Messrs. Bates, Reinhardt & Gory with enclosure EEB:AFK