upr000342 128

4 Las .Vegas Review-Journal Monday, October 18, 1948 Water District Issue Is Debated at H end erson Property Owners Taxes Will Not Be Affected, Declares Archie Grant • HENDERSON, Oct. 18, — Re­quests for explanations and in- : terpr etations of the Baker water district act. occupied the floor at i the- open forum meeting held in ‘ Henderson Sunday at the high I school auditorium. Archie Grant, ? i Las Vegas businessman and pio-j : neer in the water district organ-] ; izatiori field, and Ira Law, well- ' known Henderson resident, took! opposite sides of the problem in : ; order that both the negative and £ affirmative views could be pre- | sented. Grant was introduced by Jack ,j Wood, chairman of the Masonic club policy committee, and Grant' '; explained the background and ; history of the water situation in ? the valley. He brought out that '• a survey had been made in the late 1920’s with, the view of de- ; v eloping an agricultural. area. ! Industrial use, at that time, had t not been considered. Contact had' . been made with the then secre-j tary of the interior, Harold Iekes, ? and funds were' allocated for. a mineral and agricultural w3ter survey. Two surveys Were made ; which included canals, pipelines and pumping stations. The cost of ! such a program proved to be pro- ; hibitive and the plan was tabled. According , to Grant, the war : came along and the government : ; installed the water facilities at J ! Henderson for the use of the; | E," M. I. In the meantime, the ! population grpwth in the valley | reached a figure which made a 1 drain upon the . existing water j supply in Las Vegas particularly, j Studies were made from-various ! regions such as Utah and Cali-j fornia and the present: act was ,i patterned after those of the. cities ! and districts studied. Grant remarked that the queg- I tion had arisen whether or not I the property- owners' would be ;>! taxed and he commented they I] would not be affected. He fe- :T ferred to the Lincoln county pow- ! er district as an example of hpw the proposed water district could | be financed and handled .Si Law was introduced next and stated he was all for progress in the valley and for water coming into the valley. What he ques­tioned was sections of the bill and the lack of publicity regard­ing the contents of the bill. He-men tioned that his knowledge there had been no open forum or educational program. Law stated that the bill fol­lowed the general run of such bills, and his main complaint was the “quickie” manner of holding the election and the difficulty in obtaining a copy of the act. He , felt these two things failed to in­spire confidence in the election. He quoted from several sections of bill which stated that taxes could be levied that Clark coun­ty could advance funds, and la­beled the section pertaining to the eminent domain “a blank check without authority or re­strictions.” He said he would be the first to acknowledge the hard wOrk done by all of those con­nected with the program to get water into the valley. He said he knew the valley -needed water and believed they should have it but he did not believe Las Vegas should have it from the Hender­son facilities, which might en­danger industry at the plant. A question and answer period followed the addresses by the speakers. Grant was. asked where the water would "come from and he replied that he, hoped they would be able to use the Hen­derson facilities at' least in the beginning.! He mentioned that the Las Vegas army air field would be an important customer. He brought out that 300,000 acre feet had been allotted to Nevada and that unless, this water was; withdrawn and used the state' was in danger of losing it to game] , other state. He mentioned Cali- - j fornia and its requests for more] , water. | a s B H H ? !The question as to why Hen­derson and Pittman were not represented bn the proposed! board was brought -up and Grant | answbv.rfd I that only landowners ?could serve. . It was brought,out] Ion the ’floor that there are land* ? owners living in Henderson and: ? Pittman both. Grant believed] I the answer then laid in the office; 1 of the district attorney and the) ? county commission, and com-: Imented that perhaps an injustice) ?had been done. J I When Law was asked why the) ?proposal had not been submitted! ?at the general election instead o ff la special-election, he replied that! ?he had been-unable to -find! the’ . ? answer.' Grant said that he be- * Ilieved it was to avoid confusion.;' I When Law, was asked where! ? copies of the Davis act could be ?found, he replied that if he had; I his way every-, voter in Clark I county would have a copy, but She did not .know where they ? could be obtained; ( When asked why all voters could not vote at the election, Grant replied that they could, but it was pointed out to him ?that the oath quoted in section ?six of the act restricted regis- Itrants to be “bona fide holder of ?title or evidence of title of real ] •property within the boundaries | lo f the Las Vegas valley water 1 district, and such holding is for fall purposes and not simply for ?this election or matters connected, ftherewith.” Grant g commented! {that inequities should be correct-fed by the ' legislature when it {meets in January. ! A resolution was introduced ffrom the floor asking that, the (Baker act be published in its en­tirety by the Las Vegas Evening, (Review-Journal with the aid qf, the Las Vegas chamber of com­merce. The resolution was passed and a committee consisting , of (Mrs. George W. Patterson, Mrs. [Ira Law and N. D. Van Wagenen (was selected. | The sections under question [were: The introduction to the jbill which says in part, “to auth-lorize a tax levy, for the payment lof obligations during the organ­izational period, and to provide ? for the'issuance of district bonds