Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000091 39

Image

File
Download upr000091-039.tif (image/tiff; 23.68 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000091-039
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

Mr. Wm. Reinhardt Page 2 \ U Ifm &Z Sept. 5# 1952 | | S |f | ^lr p!| | IS | j|| ? ^v*,, With respect to Paragraph (f), the encumbrance of the lands and the reservation not to drill* would have to be modified to take care of the additional shop well and any possible well on the Stewart Ranch* which'seems to be agree* able to both Mr. McHamee and Hr. Butterfield. 1 suggested that we thought the fifty-year period was too long and also suggested we limit such encumbrances to lands immediately abutting the water-bearing lands. Mr. Butterfield stated he personally saw no objection to that but he would have to discuss it with Mr. Montgomery or some water engineer. I then discussed the draft of the contract referred to in the fourth paragraph of my letter relative to the removal of the facilities from certain of our lands not acquired by the District and the granting of easements over our lands to connect with relocated facilities of the District. In general, there did not seem to be any particular objection to the contract although Mr. Butterfield stated Mr. Montgomery had some rather inchoate ideas which he was trying to formulate into something definite with respect to an en­tirely new setup for transmission lines and that nothing could be done until they had a report from Mr. Montgomery, The paragraph in the proposed contract relating to the forfeiture of the Trust Fund in the event the two main trans­mission lines were not removed from our property did not meet with any great enthusiasm from either Mr. Butterfield or Mr, McHamee. It was agreed that our meeting was entirely informal and that nobody was commiting either the District or the Railroad to these suggested changes.or modifications but I was submitting them as our informal views of our proposal and they were re­ceived as such. Mr. Butterfield stated Mr. Campbell would not be back until the tenth of the month and that nothing could be done until his return. E. E. Bennett EEB:AFK Mr Coryt Herewith copy of bid in question which I don't believe you ever received and copy of my letter of August 29th to Mr. Rouse. E.E.B.