Letter from R. L. Adamson (Los Angeles) to E. E. Bennett, November 14, 1952

Los Angeles, November 14, 1952 1-7334 Mr. E. E. Bennett: (CC - Mr. W. H. Johnson) Referring to your letter of November 5, 1952, file 80-11, attaching copy of new proposal by the Water District at Las Vegas to purchase the water producing and distributing facilities of the Railroads and the Water Company in Las Vegas: In accordance with our conversation, my comment on each of the items mentioned in the Water District's proposal is, as follows: The 507 acres, more or less, of water bearing land is that area shown in tinted pink on Drawing 1-128, no date, marked "Exhibit A". As I understand it, the Water District does not propose to purchase any additional area, but does desire to obtain easements for certain ^ pipe lines and power lines on property which will still be owned by the Railroad Company, all as outlined in following items: The wording of this item appears satisfactory to me, except that I would suggest the word (or" in lines 14 and 19, page 2 of this Item (b), should be "and/or", for the reason that I believe in all fairness we should have a stand-by well in the shop ground area so we will not have to depend upon water from one well: hence the changing of "or" to "and/or". With reference to drilling an additional well at a point within radius of 100 ft. from present shop well, I have previously discussed question of location of the so-called additional stand-by well with Mr. Hugh Shamberger, Nevada State Engineer, and he agreed that it would be satisfactory to drill a well within the limit of the shop grounds. However, the priority date of this new well would be the date of the application to the Public Utilities Commission for a permit in event we do not plug the present shop well. In event we do plug the shop well, then the priority date of our new well somewhere in the shop ground area would be August 23, 1924, for production equal to amount transferred from Well No. 1 in the water field to the present shop well, all as outlined in my letter to Mr. Reinhardt, copy to you, March 6, 1952. The description of the shop well as given in (b) is correct. The State Engineer's local field number for the shop well is 159; however, our records do not indicate that permit number was ever applied for by Railroad Company or granted by the State. In event a new well should be located within radius of 100 ft. from the present well, it would place the two wells too close together; also, the new well would be located within the limits of existing shop buildings and facilities, which would be very objectionable. We should have the right to drill the additional well at a suitable location within limits of shop grounds. It appears to me that it might be well to use the word "temporary" immediately before the word "rights-of-way" in lines 1 and 4 of (c) on page 2. However, the wording of (c) states that rights-of-way and easements are subject to an agreement to be executed between Railroad Companies and the District in the form marked "Exhibit B and made a part hereof", which agreement provides for temporary and permanent easement, and. because of this, it might not be necessary to insert the word "temporary" as mentioned above. The wording of this item appears satisfactory, with the following exceptions: Apparently the District, in addition to the shop well, intends to exclude LVL&WCo. Well No. 2, drilled in April, 1949, Work Order No. 598, located in Section 27. Item (d) states this well is in Section 26, and, without doubt, this refers to the LVL&WCo. Well No. 2, which is actually located in Section 27, a short distance east of Fifth Street highway. No mention is made of LVL&WCo. Well No. 1, which was drilled in 1959, and is also located in Section 27 on the parcel of land which LVL&WCo. recently sold to the Mormon Church. Well No. 1 and water rights in this well and under the property sold, together with access to the well from Fifth Street, are reserved in the deed. It appears to me both wells should be excluded in the wording in paragraph under (d). You will note that the description pr&pared by the Water District is in error in stating that LVL&WCo. Well No. 2 is located in Section 26. It should have stated Section 27. Both LVL&WCo. Wells Nos. 1 and 2 are located in NE^ of N^ of SE^ Sec. 27, T20S, R61E, MDB&M. The reference to "additions and betterments (including the Hyde Park additions and betterments), as the same exist as of September 1st, 1952", etc. is a little vague as to whether entire cost of the Hyde Park facilities are included. Only a small part of the Hyde Park facilities was constructed as of Sept. 1, 1952. After that date, Railroad forces constructed pipe line, installed pumps, etc., both labor and material, to serve the Hyde Park Addition, and we have recently awarded a contract to Chicago Bridge Company for furnishing and erection of a 300,000-gallon elevated tank, which, of course, has not yet been done. Mr. Maag and I believe that it is the Water District's intention that the wording in (d) does include all the Hyde Park water facilities. This point should be cleared up. The next to last paragraph on page 3 reads, as follows: "The cost of all improvements for the construction of which contracts have been executed subsequent to September 1st, 1952, and up to the date of consummation of the sale, will be added to the amount of the purchase price". Therefore, this question must be cleared up. This paragraph encumbers with drilling restrictions for water all land now owned by the Railroad Companies and the LVL&WCo. (including the approximately 507 acres to be purchased by the District), with exception of the major portions of the Las Vegas Ranch, which are"located in Sections 26 and 25. This item includes Section 27, which includes a small portion of the Las Vegas Ranch located east of Fifth Street highway and opposite the Mormon Church purchase parcel, which area would also be encumbered by drilling restrictions. I understand that in subsequent negotiations with the District, after submission of their first bid, it was mutually agreed that we would not encumber the Las Vegas Ranch with these drilling restrictions. Question of drilling a well within a radius of 100 ft. from our shop well is again brought up in this item. Our remarks on this particular feature are Included in comment on Item (b) above. Also this item (e) specifies that no "water well" shall be drilled or dug down to a depth exceeding 100 ft., except the "shop well to replace same". It is my understanding that the State of Nevada(inLas Vegas, will not permit the drilling of a water well^ to a depth less than 400 ft. below the ground surface on account of probable contamination of water in the aquifer sands by surface drainage and seepage. In other words, a well must be drilled deeper than 400 ft. and not perforated above the 400 ft. depth. This question came up at the time we drilled LVL&WCo. Well No. 2 in 1949. The State specified that wells should be drilled beyond a 400-ft. depth and no perforations made above the 400-ft. elevation. I understand that we have already agreed to encumber all sections of land listed in (e) (with exception of Las Vegas Ranch) with a covenant that we will not drill a water well to a depth exceeding 100 feet for a period of 50 years (except as otherwise outlined in this agreement). Paragraph 2, page 4, of the proposed agreement. I have one or two questions to discuss with you on this paragraph. R. L. Adamson,