238 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



the engineer employed by the water users had discov- 

 ered the inaccuracy of this statement. Your hoard 

 finds that new unit costs shown in exhibit 42 at 26 

 cents per cubic yard was obtained by simply dividing 

 the new quantity into the old expenditure. (Many 

 other items of unit costs, where reference is made to 

 the six exhibits filed by the service simply show a jug- 

 gling of quantities and unit costs.) Your board finds 

 that the original costs per unit on this work was suffi- 

 cient and reasonable and that the sum of $32,000 in 

 this item is an improper charge and should be charged 

 to profit and loss. Your board furnished finds that 

 over half of this west embankment on main canal was 

 unnecessary for the acreage under the present project. 



7. MAIN CANAL. Reference to said exhibits 

 show 44,311 cubic yards of excavation, class 3, at a 

 cost of $2.03 per cubic yard. This was not difficult 

 work and was easily accessible, and should have been 

 done for $1.00 per cubic yard. Your board finds that 

 the sum of $4,563.93 is an improper charge and should 

 be charged to profit and loss. 



8. DARK CANYON SYPHON. Reference to exhibit 

 29 filed by the Service shows excavation and back-fill- 

 ing of 19,083 cubic yards and unit cost of 57 cents per 

 cubic yard, making a total cost of $10,887.76. The 

 project manager has testified that the excavation was 



14 feet deep, 12 wide at the bottom, with slopes of 

 \y 2 to 1. Exhibit 37 shows this feature. The length 

 of the excavation is 400 feet. Your board finds that 

 the first excavation could have been done for 40 cents 

 per cubic yard by any efficient and experienced con- 

 tractor and that back-filling should have been done for 



15 cents per cubic yard, as it was loose. Your board 

 finds that the yardage actually excavated was less than 

 8,000 cubic yards, according to the dimensions fur- 

 nished by the project manager. Your board finds fur- 

 ther that a reasonable cost and a proper charge for 

 removing this yardage should be 55 cents for excavat- 

 ing and back-filling both, making a total cost of $4,400. 

 Your board finds that further the sum of $7,487.76 is 

 an improper charge and should be charged to profit 

 and loss. 



9. This board finds that by segregating the engi- 

 neering and overhead charges as best we can from 

 other charges into which such engineering and other 

 charges have been merged by the Sen-ice that a total 

 of $132,904 have been spent by the Service for engi- 

 neering and overhead charges. According to the state- 

 ments of local officials of the Carlsbad project, the 

 total cost of the project is $933,840.96. The old Pecos 

 Irrigation Company cost $150,000 and the engineering 

 and overhead charges amounted to $132,904, making a 

 total for these two items of $282,904. Subtracting this 

 from the total cost of $933,840.96 leaves $650,840.96, 

 as construction cost. Your board finds that this is 

 over twenty per cent (20) of the money that was actu- 

 ally spent on construction. 



Your board finds that this is very excessive (see 

 record, page 241, and exhibit 34, page 787) and that 

 ten per cent (10) would have been a liberal^allowance 

 for such services. If you consider the fact that the 

 old P. I. Company had the canals and many laterals 

 already located, ten per cent is a rather high allowance. 

 Your board finds that $68,000 of this engineering 

 charge is an improper charge and should be charged to 

 profit and loss. 



10. The board finds in the case of maintenance 



and operation that charges have been handled by the 

 Reclamation Service by transferring items from opera- 

 tion and maintenance, etc., that it is difficult to segre- 

 gate operation and maintenance from construction 

 charges vice versa. The result of this is that your 

 board can only submit the record for review. 



This board finds that $1.00 per acre for 3 acre 

 feet on this project is ample to operate and maintain 

 the system with its present acreage of 24,796, provided 

 competent and experienced managers or administra- 

 tors are employed and economy and efficiency obtain. 



11. Your board finds that 2,240 bags of cement 

 were transferred from this project to the Hondo 

 project and that the cost of these including freight, 

 amounted to $1.391.62 (see exhibit 34, page 751, also 

 record, page 193). At present your board has not 

 arrived at a satisfactory explanation and advise that it 

 be looked into. 



12. Your board finds that during construction. 

 20,865 cement bags were not returned in serviceable 

 condition. This cost the project $2,986. Giving the 

 project the benefit of all doubt, your board finds that 

 $1,043, half of this amount, should be charged to profit 

 and loss. This was due to negligence, in our judg- 

 ment (see exhibit 34, page 756, record, page 201). 



Recapitulation of Finding No. 1 



Total cost of project, as shown by project 



books, exhibit 50 $933,840.96 



Improper costs eliminated 



Excavation, Avalon Dam $ 28,100.00 



Cuddling 832.00 



< )ld Spillway 2,886.40 



Spillgates 91,000.00 



McMillan Dam 3,000.00 



Main Canal 32.000.00 



.Main Canal 4,563.93 



Dark Canyon Syphon 7,487.76 



Engineering and overhead 68,000.00 



Cement to Hondo l,3<n.<>2 



Cement Bags 2.086.00 



Total amount eliminated and charged to 

 profit and loss $241.347.71 



We find the proper building charge should 



be $692,493.25 



This finding is based upon area of 20,273 acres. 

 excluding the new unit and after charging oft" items 

 above mentioned, which were eliminated by this board 

 for reasons heretofore set forth, that produces a net 

 cost per acre which is found proper by this board 

 amounting to $34. 



Evidence and exhibits show that a new unit has 

 been added amounting to 4,523, known as unit No. 2. 

 and the farmers and settlers agreed to and understood 

 that this unit should be brought into the project at $5.00 

 per acre in excess of the proper cost of the first unit. 

 We, therefore, find that this unit of 4,523 acres should 

 pay $39 as a proper cost per acre and that the accruals 

 therefrom should be credited to the entire project for 

 the purpose of completing laterals, cement lining and 

 drainage provided for in report signed by D. W. Mur- 

 phy, Scott Etter, W. T>. Wilson and L. E. Foster, which 

 is marked as an exhibit. 



This board finds that the total area of this project 

 as now constituted is 24.796 acres and while the orig- 



