Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
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.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
July 6, 1951 You, o f course, are fa m ilia r with the fa c t th at Case No. 1207 i s s t i l l under submission by the Commission, t h is being "In the M atter o f the Water Service Furnished the R esidents o f the City o f Las Vegas by the Las Vegas Land & Water Company*. This c ase, you r e c a l l , was heard in September 1950 and p r io r to the term ination th ereo f an agreement was reached th at we would i n s t a l l pumps b e fo re th is summer, a l l o f which has been done. The testimony o f our expert w itn esses, Mr. Robinson, D is t r ic t Engineer, U .S . G e o lo g ic a l Survey fo r the Ground D iv isio n , and Mr. Hugh Shamberger, now State Engineer, were s u b s ta n tia lly to the e ffe c t th at there was a g reat o v e rd ra ft in the underground basin and that the con tin ual d r i l l i n g o f w e lls would, in the lo n g run, In crease that o v e rd ra ft . Mr. Shamberger f e l t that new w e lls could be d r i l l e d and a la r g e r water supply secured as an emergency measure pending the a c q u is itio n o f water from other sources which he f e l t was d r a s t ic a lly n ecessary. He fu rth e r sta te d that i f the d i s t r i c t d id not go to some o u tsid e source, the state would p robably have to r e s t r i c t d r i l l i n g . There i s , o f course, the danger that i f we f i l e the a p p lic a tio n proposed and pressed i t , that the C ity o f f i c i a l s would I n s is t on a fu rth e r h earin g in Case No. 1207 and demand that the Water Company e ith e r d r i l l more w e lls o r acquire p re se n tly producing w e lls pending fu rth e r in v e s tig a tio n as to the n ecessity o f going to Lake Mead o r pending any oth er excuse they might think o f . I b e lie v e th is m atter should be consid e re d se rio u sly when con sid eration i s bein g given to f i l i n g the proposed a p p lic a tio n . Mr. Wm. Reinhardt Page 7 . Bennett