UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
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
Transcription
may contain other reasonable provisions not inconsistent with the other provisions of this rule* This rule"'shall remain in effect only during the present National Emergency." When the Public Service Commission agreed to the cancellation of Rule 9-*C, in 19^3# "the order,providedi "That if, at some future time, the growth of Las Vegas, Nevada, demands that the rule again is necessary, the Company will "be required to reinstate this rule in its rules and regulations,# and we anticipate that if the Subdividers oppose our proposed Rule 9 at the coming hearing the Commission may order a reinstatement of Rule 9-0 which IQSffiQCWM would require refund to the Subdivider of his cost upon completion of a given number of homes in the Subdivision, in which event we would have no assurance that the houses would be occupied thus producing revenue to the Water Company** In addition, Subdividers contend they can construct
