Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000204 263

Image

File
Download upr000204-263.tif (image/tiff; 26.72 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000204-263
    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

    Los Angels*t January 10, 1952 *0-11 Mr. W. H. louse: W M . R. JAN 14 1952 I have your latter of January #, 1952, your file 21dO, regarding the Las Yagas water facilities in which you asked for my comments on Mr. Hulsiser^ letter to Mr. Stoddard of January 7, 1952, on the same subject* I agree with Mr. Hulsizer that the primary consid­eration is to divest the Railroad and the Las Vegas Land and Water Company of the ownership of the water produc­tion and distribution facilities at Las Vegas as soon as possible if that can be done advantageously to the Rail­road. So long as the Railroad or its subsidiary oper­ates the water system at Las Vegas it will be called up­on to make additional capital expenditures, and our pres­ent experience indicates that we shall have difficulty in obtaining satisfactory rates. Furthermore the operator of the water system at Las Vegas must deal with the troublesome problem created by the limited supply of un­derground water. The Company has spent a large amount of money in the last ten years on capital improvements, and X agree with Mr. Hulsisar that our substantial investment is a risky investment as a long-range project because the growth and prosperity of Las Vegas is not based upon a substantial foundation* The suggestion contained in my letter to Mr* Rein­hardt of December 4, 1951» that consideration be given to the transfer of the water production facilities of the Railroad to the Water Company was not intended as an alternative to the idea of disposing of the water system altogether to the District. Nor was anything In that letter intended to comment upon the terms upon which the water system would be ultimately disposed of to the District. I did not suggest, as Mr. Hulsizer ap­parently understands,that the Railroad or the Water Com­pany retain bonds as a lien upon the properties after transfer to the District. It was my idea that while the Water Company Was the operator of both the production and distribution system,the ownership of the Railroad Company in the Water Company should be evidenced both by equity and loan capital. My letter was intended as J