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
Mr, Was* Reinhardt 2 May 20, 1952 tion at various points down the course of the river and that the water used for Irrigation likewise to a large extent through seepage found its way back into the river. It also emphasized the fact that the plaintiff did not contend that it was not then possessed of an ample supply of water. Under the circumstances the Court denied the plaintiff’s complaint alleging the act was unconstitutional without prejudice to any rights the Power Company might have in the future by reason of any change in conditions. This case is obviously one of practical and possible political application, and in view of the loose language of the Court and the fact that we could probably show that the water wasted did not return to the Las Vegas Valley Basin, from which we draw our supply of water, we might at least have a better factual situation. However since it is the last ease in Nevada on the subject, we would have two strikes against us. Apparently neither of these cases has been decided later in the digest, nor do I find in the digest any references to other antimeter laws. E. I. Bennett EBB:MSB
