upr000091 26

2 Mr. Bennett, there did not seem to be any particular objection to the contract, although Mr. Butterfield stated that an en­deavor was being made toward an entirely new setup for trans­mission lines and that nothing could be done until a report on that subject had been received. (e) The price offered is to cover, among other things, water production facilities and water distribution facilities (except shop well facilities) nas the same exist as of September 1st, 1952.” Mr. Bennett advises that all negotiations have been based on figures prepared by engineers of the District and of our company representing the facilities existing as of May 1, 1952. Director Butterfield, according to Mr. Bennett, goes along with the May 1, 1952 cut-off date but there is no certainty that Mr. Butterfield can sell this idea to Mr. Campbell and the other directors. It seems to me that the propriety of this change should be pressed further but not to the point of blocking the sale. This paragraph (e) includes among the facilities "the Hyde Park additions and betterments".^ Mr. Bennett advises that we are now constructing a 14-inch pipe line of some considerable length to serve the Hyde Park addition and have a contract prepared for the erection of a 300,000 gallon water tank. These facilities will probably not be completed until the first of the year. Just what portion of these facilities the District intends to include as exist­ing "as of September 1st, 1952" cannot be definitely deter­mined from the offer. Clarification is therefore necessary. (f) This paragraph of the offer requires our com­panies to "encumber" all other land in the Las Vegas Valley held by them for a term of fifty years with a covenant to the effect that no water well shall be drilled or dug there­on to a depth exceeding one hundred feet. This paragraph also will need some amendment. As it stands, it would pre-elude us from drilling another well to an adequate depth m the shop grounds and would also prevent us from drilling any possible well on the Stewart Ranch property owned by the Las Vegas Land and Water Company at some distance from but in the general vicinity of the water bearing lands coming within the District’s offer. According to Mr. Bennett, both Mr. McNamee and Mr. Butterfield seemed agreeable to the neces­sary modification of the paragraph, but like practically