upr000275 224

y Mr. Walter R. Brackens Loe Angeles, tour letter of January £Oth, your file W £3-1-17, attaching copy of proposed substitute 9(c) as prepared by the Public Service Commission of Nevada: I talked to Mr. Sexton over the telephone and he states that he is not sold on the language In his re­vised rule, namely: “located in the present city lim­its of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada", but he seems to have a complex concerning or to be allergic to the word "adjacent* as used in our rule and asked if we could not use some other language. I explained to him that we had given a great deal of thought to that word and felt that it was the most suitable word to be used under the cir­cumstances, but in view of his pronounced views on this subject I am submitting for your consideration certain modifications of our proposed rule, to be Inserted af­ter the words "Defense Housing Projects* in the fourth line of the rule. The first suggested insertion is: "to serve Defense Housing Projects located in the neighborhood of, but not to exceed ______ feet from, existing water mains of the Com­pany. * That would abolish the word "adjacent", but my objection to it is that it has not the flexibility of the rule pro­posed by us. In other words, I f we inserted the words "500 feet*— and I think that should be the maximum under normal circumstances— we might be faced with someone who had a project 550 feet from the main. Then we should have to get another rule. The second suggested amendment is: "in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, provided, however, that the nearest existing water main of the Company is within a distance equal to 20 feet multiplied by the number of houses constructed within said project." The 20 feet is an arbitrary figure and subject to the o-pinions of you gentlemen out there, but it would seem to W .H .J . JAN 22 1942