Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000067 274

Image

File
Download upr000067-274.tif (image/tiff; 23.24 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000067-274
    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

    V Draft November 24, 1952 80-11 Mr. Leo A. McNamee Attorney at Law El Portal Building Las Vegas, Nevada Rej Las Vegas Valley Water District bid Dear Leot We have been considering the new pro­posal made by the Las Vegas Valley Water District, which is dated October 15th, and which came to this office November 4th, and after considering the proposal I have felt it advisable to make up a draft of a new proposal which embodies some changes, prin­cipally for clarifications which we think are desirable. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the proposed revised proposal, and in connection there­with have the following comments to make* Referring to sub-division "A" of the proposal of October 15th, I have m e r e l y added to that proposal the reference to conditions, encumbrances and reservations of record, and the question of taxes* As you know, the title of this property shows as encumbrances the various water appropriations with which you are familiar. 1 1 have followed closely sub-division WB? of the proposal, except I have eliminated the 100 ft. restriction against drilling a second well in the Shop Grounds, which is not acceptable to us, and I have also provided that we can, if we so desire, maintain the two wells, one as a standby if the other fails. As you know, the present well is quite old, and we hope to use it, but in view of its condition we may desire to drill a second well, and possibly have it - 1 -