Letter from William Reinhardt to G.F. Ashby, October 11, 1948

VS26/2Z LA 11 345P AMF RAB VEGAS ORIG GFA OL AND OMA CY AMF BAB LVEGAS YOUR 75. I AM SORRY THAT MR FOLGER DID NOT DISCUSS WITH ME HIS F 100, OF WHICH YOU RECEIVED COPY, BEFORE HE SENT IT ON AS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INITIAL STATEMENTS HAVING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL SITUATION, ON WHICH I HAVE LITTLE INFORMATION, I WITH ALL HE SAYS WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY IN THE SITUATION ALL OF THE DATA WE HAVE ACCUMULATED OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS DURING WHICH I HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE OPERATION, AND THE DATA OF THE NEVADA STATE ENGINEER WHO HAS ALSO WATCHED THE SITUATION CLOSELY, INDICATE THAT WE ARE PRODUCING WATER MORE RAPIDLY THAN THE RESERVOIR IS BEING REPLENISHED. IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT ANY ADDITIONAL WATER TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. THE STATEMENT THAT LESS WATER WAS WITHDRAWN IN 1947 THAN IN 1946 HAS NO BEARING ON THE WATER SITUATION GENERALLY AS THE WITHDRAWALS WERE ENTIRELY A MATTER OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER CONSUMED. WE KNOW THAT THE POPULATION IN 1947 WAS GREATER THAN IN 1946 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REDUCED CONSUMPTION IN 1947 MUST HAVE BEEN A FACTOR OF REDUCED PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, PROBABLY DUE TO CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT UNION PACIFIC WOULBE DAMAGED BY COM-PLETION OF THE WATER DISTRICT, I AM OPPOSED TO OUR TAKING ANY POSITION IN THE MATTER AS IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE VALUE TO UNION PACIFIC OF A CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WOULD BE MUCH GREATER THAN THE REVENUE WE ARE PRESENTLY EARNING FROM THE WATER UTILITY, AND IN ANY CASE, EVEN IF IT SHOULD LATER BE FOUND NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE FOR US TO OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER DISTRICT, I THINK THIS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT OUR APPEARING TOO PROM-INENTLY IN THE MATTER. END S1 VG26/2Z S2 SHOULD WE QT PRESENT TRUE FACTS TO PEOPLE THROUGH MEDIUM OF PRESS AND RADIO UNQT THESE SO-CALLED TRUE FACTS WOULD OBVIOUSLY FAVOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IN THE CONTROVERSY, WHICH WOULD AUTOMATICALLY PUT US IN THE FRONT LINE. AFTER ALL THE ELECTION OF OCT 19TH DOES NOTHING BUT INDICATE WHETHER THE PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT WANT A WATER DISTRICT OR NOT, AND THE EXPENDITURES WHICH CAN EE MADE BY DIRECTORS PRIOR TO THE VOTING OF A BOND ISSUE WILL BE LIMITED TO THOSE NECESSARY FOR THE ENGINEERING SURVEY REQUIRED FOR PREPARATION OF COST ESTIMATES ETC I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT WE KEEP HANDS OFF OF THIS ARGUMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN INDICATES CLEARLY WHERE OUR BEST INTERESTS LIE, AND THAT IN THE MEANTIME BOTH MR FOLGER AND MR BLONDE BE INSTRUCTED TO TAKE A COMPLETELY NEUTRAL POSITION IN ANY DISCUSSIONS WHICH THEY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. I SUGGEST THAT YOUR REPLY TO MR CRAGINS LETTER OF OCTOBER 8TH BE NONCOMMITTAL AS FAR AS ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT ACTION THE CITY SHOULD TAKE, PERHAPS ADVISING HIM THAT WE ARE OF COURSE VITALLY INTERESTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA AND THAT IT IS OUR DESIRE TO ASSIST ALL POSSIBLE IN ANY ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD TEND TO EXPAND THE INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS R259 WR.