upr000159 10

oc Mr. A.S.Halsted (COPY) Orig. 36-15-LVL&W Co. Copy 36-47-LVL&W Co Los A n g e l e s , February 19, 1929 085-355 Mr. F. R. McNamee: With Mr. Halsted's letter to me May 18, 1927, he submitted a proposed agreement between L A & S L R R C o . and Las Vegas Land and Water Company covering arrangement where­by the latter company secures water at Las Vegas, Nevada, which agreement had been prepared by you. The two originals and six copies of the document which he sent me are returned to you herewith. As I advised you in m y letter June 10, 1927, after the enclosed draft of agreement was prepared, it was decided to hold in abeyance the making of a new contract un t i l we could obtain meter readings showing the water consumed b y each company, on which to base division of cost. We now have such readings for the year 1928, and find that on basis of use of facilities serving the two companies, the charge against the L. V. L. and W. Cov~shouid be approximately $975.00 per month, instead of $500.00, a s called for in attached draft of agree­ment. I suggest;, therefore, that the enclosed document be revised accordingly. I think we should at the same time make provision in this agreement for revision each year of monthly charge on basis of previous y e a r ’s consumption, and also include a provision that the Land and Water Company shall bear its 'proportion of increased cost of water due to improve­ment in the fac i l i t i e s . Ishall appreciate it if you will kindly have the enclosed document revised accordingly, and then return the papers to me for further handling. In this connection you sent me October 12, 1927 an agreement extending to October 1, 1928, the old agreement between the Railroad Company and the Land and Water Company 'contract audit No. 2850-A), covering sale of water and elec­tricity by the X ormer to the latter. The extension agreement was duly executed, which/ therefore, covered the arrangement to October 1, 1928. Pending fu r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t respecting the electrical situa t i on, I think the old agreement should be extended for "another* year ,1 .o'., to October 1, 1929, insofar as furnishing' of electricity is concerned. As I question the advisability of making the newwat er agreement retroactive, I