upr000150 26

Loe Angeles, January 21, 1942 H & * » S o . if }94? Mr. Walter R. Bracken* Your letter of January 20th, your file W 23-1-17, attaching oopy of proposed substitute 9(o) as prepared by the Public Service Commission of Nevada: X 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 oomplex concerning or to be allergic to the word "adjaoent" as used in our rule and asked if vc could not use some other language. X 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 X 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 Bousing Projects located in the neighborhood of, but not to exoeed feet from, existing water mains of the Corn-pany.• That would abolish the word "adjacent", but ay objection to it is that it has not the flexibility of the rule pro­posed by us. In other words, if we Inserted the words "500 feet"— and X think that should be the maximum under normal circumstances— we might be faoed with someone who had a project 650 feet from the main. Then we should have to get another rule* The second suggested amendment is* "in the City of las Vsgas, 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-plnlons of you gentlemen out there, but it would seem to