Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-14- <br /> <br />, <br />farmers in the Sterling area to the Riverside Irrigation Dis- <br /> <br />trict. <br /> <br />2. Conclusions <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />We conclude, from the evidence available, that John L. <br /> <br />Samples engaged, over the period 1959 through 1963, in a practice <br /> <br />of arranging purchases of Prewitt Reservoir water through Alex <br /> <br />Michel at $1.25 per acre-foot, when he knew that the buyers had <br /> <br />offered to pay $1.50 per acre-foot. I~ apparently pocketed the <br /> <br />difference. The principal buyer was the Riverside Irrigation <br /> <br />District, a tax-supported quaSi-municipal corporation. At least <br /> <br />some of the officers of the District were aware of this prac- <br /> <br />tice, and were aware that the District could have purchased the <br /> <br />water itself by telephoning Michel, without going through John <br /> <br />L. Samples. In addition, serious discrepancies in water adminis- <br /> <br />tration arc revealed in these transactions. <br /> <br />TELEPHONE TOLL REIMBURSEMENTS <br /> <br />1. Allegation <br />It was alleged that John L. Samples had demanded and received <br /> <br />reimbursement from water users for telephonc toll charges in ex- <br /> <br />cess of his actual expenses for this purpose. <br /> <br />2. Conclusion <br /> <br />John L. Samples billed local water users, and was reimbursed <br /> <br />by them for, amounts apparently in excess of his actual telephone <br /> <br />expenses in the following years and amounts: <br /> <br />1957 <br />1958 <br />1959 <br />1960 <br />1961 <br />1962 <br />1963 <br /> <br />$25.80 <br />30.25 <br />38.83 <br />35.15 <br />15.80 <br />27.35 <br />24.10 <br /> <br />WOOOWARD.CLYDE.SHERARD AND ASSOCIATES <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />u <br />