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.
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries
Transcription
V A STEP F O R W A i m t v W ater District Proposal by Big Majority Nearly 5,000 voters m the Las Vegas valley area trooped to the polls yesterday, to mark their ballots in favor of progress. They approved the proposed water district for tne valley, by a r,4numping eight-to-one majority arid se-lected seven residents of the section to represent .them on the water district hoard. The vote on the ..district #as 4,171 for the district and:,- 338 against. The proposal carried in all seven of the district. by substantial margins, ' with the ohly organized opposhiobhoming froip. district numhfer seven, which included Henderson, Pittman, W hit-' ney, Carver -Park end Victory Village, Here some 209 votes w,ere cast against the. project, dearly half of the votes cast against the district . in the entire section. . y l j '? !y? ,r There was little doubt as to the intent of the voters ip: the election yesterday. The margin by which the voters-approved the district ranged from; better than 12-1 in. district number six:, whieh included the .Paradise valley area and the southern section ofjjLas .(Continued on Page 2) § ; m if 9
