upr000319 2

Mr, S, &, Bennett C copy ) (ce - Mr. C. M. Bates) With reference to the letter of July 7, 1953, from Mr. Batee, concerning BIB 2085, being an Esc tens ion Rider of Audit Ho* 58126, HID 1031, covering the fur* nishing of water to Leonard M. Fsyle, dba Quality Bakery, and requesting a termination of this agreement and the preparation of a new agreement with lessees of Fayle, 1 am wondering about the terms of the proposed new agreement in view of Section 2 of the agreement between the Water Company and the Las Vegas Valley Water District. Section 2 of the aforesaid agreement provides, in part, as followst "With respect to any water produced after the sale date from welle now or hereafter located in said shop grounds, the First Parties, and each of them, agree that none of said water so produced shall be used except by First Parties, or any of them, or corporations affiliated in ownership with First Parties or any of them." It is my understanding that the Railroad Company will be unable to furnish any so-called surplus water after said sale date. The proposed new agreement provides for a term of five years. Although our usual form of agreement permits termination upon thirty days written notice, it seems to me that any new water contract should provide for a termination to be effective upon the so-called sale date. HID 1031, Audit Ho. 58126, provides that it shall be automatically terminated without notice upon the termi­nation of the tenancy of the Baer, fhe tenancy of the Beer was terminated on May 24, 1950 when Deed Audit 1911, conveying the property to the Baer, was executed. Con­sequently, it would appear that we have been furnlehing water under a contract which terminated three years ago and 1 am wondering if you do not think we should continue this practice without a new contract in view of the limi­tations imposed by the agreement with the Water District. Z will appreciate your advising me how the proposed contract, as well as future rater contracts, should b# handled. (Sgd) CALVIN M. COWt