Arizona republican., 1916-02-08

and excessive cost i'll
 certain items and that
 because of this should
 be eliminated from the
 total cost to be re-
 paid .. 641,22020
 or a total reduction of. s 3,5S2, SAP, Making the proper cost
 to be repaid on June
 l 1915 ..........$ 9,527, ,515 05
 Questions to be determined by the Central Board. The difference be- tween the majority and minority find iEgs as to the amounts to be de- ducteG from the total cost, for reve- nues and other credits, has been ad- iusted. Our findings as to total cost and as to deductions to be made for receipts from various sources have been made to conform to corrected returns obtained from Washington
 There remains for consideration and adjustment by the Central Board of Review the deductions to be made from the ascertained cost of the pro-
  sive cost, etc, on which subjects the two reports are widely at variance.
 The majority reports recommends that about three and one-half mil lion dollars should be so deducted; :; the minority report recommends that q little o'er six hundred thousand dollars should be deducted The items oi cost objected to by the water users .tnd for which deductions are recom- mcnded by the water users for which deductions are recommended by ma jority of the local board are given on pages 993 and 407 of the report of the local board.
 The largest cost eliminations in the majority findings are payments for NSsteway excavation, sluiceway tun- mel. hydraulic gates and the power canal at the Roosevelt reservoir. The principal cost items recommended for elimination in the minority report are the general office expenses and the nydrlulic sluice gates.
 Arguments for Elimination. In ask ing for the elimination or reduction of certain items of the total cost, the Water Users Association contends that this work was carried out under 9 contract between the United States and the Water Users Association. whose members, when the contract was made, were the owners of nearly all the land included in the project and were appropriators of the whole Of perennial flow of Salt River. that in undertaking to carry out these works the United States assumed ali the obligations of an ordinary com mercal contract, which in this case las been defined by the Water Users Association as including the follow ing:
 The, relation is that of an owner of lanG to contractor undertaking a work for the owner adapted to the accomplishment of a particular pur- pose In such case the work should be limited in extent and scope to that purpose; should not exceed in cost the cost for which proper and ade- quate works can be installed; that the cost of errors in plan, design or experiment CT failures due to design or misinterpretation of contracts or sub-contracts, should be at the eX- penSe of the contractor: the cost ol arv features which are of not value tC the owner Shoud be borne by the con tractor: if any feature be of little value to the owner it's cost should b. abated to it's contemplated and an ticipqted value to the owner; cost of works beyond those adequate to the accomplishment of their purpose skould he eliminated as not proper and disbursements made, due to mis- takes in drawing contracts should bf charged to the contractor" See letter uf President, Salt River Valley Water Users Association, October II, 1915.
 Obligation to pay proper cost only In other words the position of the Water Users Association is that its obligation is not to repay the tOta cost but only such part thereof as may be found on investigation to b' proper cost the meaning of proper cost" being something less than th' actually ascertained cost of the work The findings of the majority repor are itl accord WlLU lIlS SSulliDlloll. Principles which should goVerr elin1inations. The central board, il dealing with deductions or elimina tions of costs, on any of these pro jects. has based it's conclusions ant recommendations on the following principles.
 l. Where. through the negligence or dishonesty Of those in charge, con tractors have been paid for work il excess of it's value and beyond wha is properly due under the terms of tn contract.
 ,. Where an item of cost is S manifestly excessive and unreasOnabl that it is impractica6le to explain O defend it.
 2. Where works of a novel or eX perifnental design have proved of n value.
 1. Where surveys or work done O material purchased for other project has been charged to this one.
 ,. W here, in disregard of economI