Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000285 354

Image

File
Download upr000285-354.tif (image/tiff; 27.18 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000285-354
    Details

    Rights

    This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.

    Digital Provenance

    Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    W aters - L as V egas S p rin g s Los Angeles, December 16, 1924. Mr. MeNamee: R eferrin g to your l e t t e r o f December 3d, and our several conferences, in regard to establishm ent o f t i t l e to the waters o f Las Vegas B ig Springs: I understand your p o s itio n to be that our t i t l e to the f u l l flow o f these springs is complete in that a l l o f the waters have been put to a b e n e fic ia l use fo r many years. You recommend, however, that we submit to the State Engineer o f Nevada p ro of o f th is ownership. An in spection o f the com pilation o f the water laws o f Nevada, which you have fu rnished, does not in d ica te c le a r ly to my mind that proof o f said ownership is necessary. The statu tes seem to contemplate the adju dication o f r e la t iv e rig h ts on streams where there are severa l users, o r where there are c o n flic t in g claims to the waters o f the stream. The l e t t e r o f the S tate Engineer which accompanied your l e t t e r suggests the a d v is a b ility o f our f i l i n g "a proof o f ap­p ro p ria tio n " and "the gain in g o f c e r t i f i c a t e s . " As I understand your construction o f the. law, i f we f i l e d proof o f ownership, i t would be necessary to show upon what lands the water has been put to a b e n e fic ia l use. I t might be that we could not show use on a l l - o f the lands embraced w ith in the Clark Ranch. In your opin ion, would a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the State Engineer lim it our rig h t o f use to the lands to which the use had h ereto fo re been applied? And i f such c e r t if ic a t e were so lim ite d , could we at some future time change the place o f use? I think these matters are o f considerable Importance, because we would not d e sire to accept a c e r t if ic a t e lim itin g in anywise our r ig n t to use th is water on the lands owned by the two companies. Stated another way: Would the advantage to be gained from making a m atter o f record our t i t l e to the property be subjected to any lim ita tio n s by a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the engineer covering such rig h ts? X would lik e to have you consider these questions. Would I t not be a good plan to w rite to the S tate Engin­eer in response to h is l e t t e r that the t i t l e to a l l o f the waters