Letter from A. M. Folger to Walter R. Bracken, May 7, 1945

Mr. Bracken: Ryland Taylor phoned this morning, saying in effect that if we did not withdraw our objection to the Griffith application, he would file a protest against our drilling of any more wells. And also that inasmuch as the remaining time is short he would like to know our attitude promptly so he would know what to do. and not because it should have any effect on our judgment. I never was impressed by high pressure methods; and he certainly was not calling up to help us, but to help himself. Of course, if he can get us to withdraw our protest, that is what he gets paid for. But it isn't what we get paid for. When our protest was filed June 2, 1944, our wells were falling off at an alarming rate. There was no sense at all in making a bad condition worse by permitting promiscuous drilling by others in that vicinity. As you know, we had discussed with State Engineer the necessity for closely scrutinizing appli-cations for drilling of wells, but he stated that in the absence of any protests he had no course open to him other than to approve any application submitted. So we filed the protest in order to give the State Engineer some measure of backing, not only on the Griffith well, but on the drilling of wells throughout the Valley in general, the thought being to avoid the history of the artesian basin in California. Mr. McNamee is in Reno and will not return until May 16th. The final publication on our Well No-11 was made in Las Vegas Age April 22nd, after which there is a 30 day period in which State Engineer may receive any protests. That is to say, the matter must be brought to a head in the next two weeks. withdrawing our protest at this time. It is true that that is the easiest course, but the easiest course is not always the right course. If we withdraw our protest now, it would mean that we were wrong in the first place and all the fuss raised at the Chamber of Commerce was merely a waste of time. Department that we may be over-ruled in a hearing the ground that we based our protest on the fact that all of the available water in the underground channel was already appropriated, then turn around and apply for more in our application for Well No-11. But there is another angle that enters into this, and that is from a practical stand-point: whether it is more important that a rapidly growing city be adequately supplied with water or whether it should be awarded for irrigation purposes so the land-owners can subdivide at a profit. Getting down to basic facts then, the whole subject is right in the hands of the responsible officer, and that is the State Engineer. Therefore, I think we should: First: Stand pat on our protest, so far as Messrs. Taylor and Griffith are concerned. Second: Discuss with Mr. Smith on your trip to Reno this Sunday whether we would cause him and Mr. Shamberger any embarrassment by maintaining this stand, or whether it would strengthen their stated position that the supply of water in the Las Vegas Valley should be conserved. With the end of the war in Germany, there is no doubt that the Department of the Interior will soon sponsor and bring into fact, plans for further irrigation of acreage for returned veterans, and I suppose the Las Vegas valley will soon be high on this list. However, the artesian water should still be conserved for domestic purposes. A. M. Folger, May 7, 1945.