upr000042 12

Las Vegas - Mar ail 18, 5.947 f rinims Mr* &. S. Bennetts I sc - Mr* Fr&nk Strong Mr. 0, M* S§w|r} Referring to my letter March 0 regarding pro­posed to the %vadn water aster law. Meat!** fled as Senate Bill 93* Mr. Gory and I spent the latter part of last week at the State Legislature In Carson City assisting Mr. ft. 1. Marks, particularly with reference to this hill. f# learned, Thursday evening, that the bill would probably case out of calamities for vote in the Senate the morning of March 14th and were, of course, present when that oeeured, ? fbe labor organizations had several represen­tatives active around the lobby, Including ex-senator 3mm farnb&le and Conductor William Craves, both of Lae Vegas* t talked with both of them and learned that they war® not ohly bitterly opposed to the bill* but, in fact# had created the impression that if the bill passed *ai3L the lawns in Las Vegas would dry up for lack of water**. X explained that under the hi 11 the Ihblio Service Com­mission alone had authority to grant permission to install the meters and then only in individual oases and after a public hearing had been held. Farndal# then said he would like to see a meter Installed on his neighbor*s house where the water was running most of the time. When the bill cam© up In the Senate Friday morn­ing, Senator Ralph L&ttin of Churchill County spoke against It on the grounds that the utilities in Reno and Las Vegas Intended to blanket those cities with meters. Senators Baker of Clark County end. Loomis of Washoe, co-sponsors of the bill, then explained its correct purpose, after which the measure was put to vote* Confirming telegram and phone advice, the result was fifteen ayes, on© no and one absent, Lattln alone voting against the bill. Senate Sill 93 was then sent to the Assembly for consideration. %* Cory and X endeavored to locate Assemblyman James * Sailor* Ryan, the majority leader of the Assembly, Thursday evening, as our contacts with the five Assemblymen from Clark County indicated some opposi­tion to the bill. This apparently was due to misunderstand­ing of the bill created by opposing lobbyists. In fact, ? the impression had been created that both the Fablls Service Commission and State Engineer were opposed to it. To cor­rect this impression, the State Engineer sent hi® Assistant, Mr. Shaiaberger, to testify at Senate Committee hearlJig, and —1 —