UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Robert Griffith's lawyer informed the Las Vegas Land and Water Company's lawyer that unless they withdrew their protest of the Griffith well, they would protest the water company well.
hln001101. Union Pacific Railroad Collection, 1828-1995. MS-00397. Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada. http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/d1k934654
English
Mr. E. E. Bennett: (cc - Mr. Frank Strong Mr. W. R. Bracken) In connection with the protest of Las Vegas Land and Water Company to Application No. 11077, filed by Robert B. Griffith to appropriate underground waters at point adjacent to our wells, will state that Mr. Ryland Taylor of the firm of Ham & Taylor called on me this afternoon advising that he is representing Mr. Griffith and wanted to know if there is any chance for the Las Vegas Water Company to withdraw its protest. He stated that if our protest to Griffith's application were not withdrawn, then Mr. Griffith intended to file a protest to our application filed in connection with well No. 11. I informed him that I would submit the matter to company officials and would advise him what they would be willing to do. It would appear that we are assuming contradictory positions in this matter inasmuch as our protest to Grif-fith's application recites that, all of the waters in the aquifiers at the source from which Griffith intends to drill have been appropriated by our company under our ten prior applications upon which permits and certificates have been granted, while in our Application No. 11249 (Well No. 11) we applied for 5 sec/ft. of water from the same artesian basin or subterranean channel, thereby admitting that there is water there subject to appropria-tion. If our protest ever comes to a hearing, it is going to be difficult for us to prove the contention set forth in our protest. I understand the drilling of Well No. 11 is quite essential and if so, we do not wish to be tied up by protest proceedings. Therefore, I think consideration should be given to the withdrawal of our protest. Later on when the underground waters have been so depleted that we are unable to obtain enough to supply the amount for which certificates have been granted to us, it will be the duty of the State Engineer,under appropriate proceedings, to ad-minister our water law and to allocate to the various water users their respective shares of this underground water in accordance with their legal priorities. LAM/EL LEO A. McNAMEE Las Vegas, Nevada May 2, 1945