Letter from Walter R. Bracken (Las Vegas) to Frank Strong, October 26, 1945

W 23-1-B Mr. Frank Strong: concerning the subject of water conservation in the Vegas Artesian Basin. We have analyzed your letter, as well as yours of the 12th, and have discussed this with the General Attorney. Let me emphasize at the outset that I am not "proposing to furnish water for agricultural purposes." I have consistently and aggressively opposed the use of water from the city mains for agricultural purposes, and I am opposed to it now. The proposed use of water on the Searles tract will be strictly for domestic use. With regard to your proposal that a water committee be appointed to protect the interests of the Valley in conserving the underground water supply, such an organization now exists. In 1940, we discussed with the State Engineer the potential depletion of the under-ground water supply by promiscuous issuance of drilling permits in the Las Vegas Valley, where more than 400 wells now exist. His response was that in the absence of any protest, he had no other course than to grant the permit. However, recognizing the seriousness of the threat to the underground supply, he suggested the organization of a Water Conservation District in the Valley, as provided by the Nevada Statutes. This was done, and the City of Las Vegas, County of Clark and Las Vegas Land and Water Co. became members. An artes-ian wells supervisor was employed, working under the direction of the State Engineer, and his salary was paid through donations from the above named members until the State Engineer had time to set up a revolving fund as provided in the Statutes. The Supervisor is still employed at present and his duties are to shut in wells which are not being put to beneficial use and otherwise prevent the waste of water. If you have in mind the appointment of a special committee in addition to the organization out-lined above, whose function would be, for instance, the filing of protests against issuance of additional drilling permits in be practicable for two reasons: First, the personal angle among men more or less closely associated in this community and the reluctance of any committeeman to Mr. Frank Strong Page #2 October 26, 1945 accept the responsibility and criticism that would certainly result from his efforts to prevent any cer-tain individual from securing a supply of water on his land. Second, I seriously question whether the State Engineer could make his refusal stick, even though he were backed up by such a protest. It would have to be shown that there was no unappropriated water remaining in the channel,--a more or less simple matter with surface streams, but practically an impossibility with underground sources. Of course, when the day arrives when there actually is an interference with existing wells caused by too many wells decreasing the flow, then the State Engineer must adjudicate the water on the basis of priorities granted since the Water Law became effective in 1913. You are familiar with the attitude of the people of this community on the water question, from the contacts and discussion we had in our November 1944 meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, City Commissioners, County Commissioners, State Officials and other inter-ested parties. The people of Las Vegas feel just like the people of Los Angeles or any other community: it is the responsibility of the Water Company to provide this community with water, and if they can't handle the job then will have to get our water supply from Lake Mead or some other source. However, there is a proviso; they feel that the artesian supply should by all means be conserved for domestic use; and if and when the time arrives for bringing in water thru the B.M.I. pipe line, this latter supply can be devoted to irrigation. I repeat, that is the concensus of opinion among our citizens, each of whom has his own problems to take care of. Personally, I do not believe it would be financially practicable to bring the water in from Lake Mead to irrigate this valley, and I certainly would not want to put our own investment in such a project. Therefore, it behooves us to protect our-selves. As long as we continue to operate a railroad through Las Vegas we will require water. And the people of the Community will need water for domestic use. happens out in the Paradise Valley may remotely affect us, but a method has been provided to take care of that, as evidenced by the activity of the Artesian Wells Mr. Frank Strong Page #3 October 26, 1945 Supervisor in controlling the flow. While we shall continue our interest in water conservation through-out the Las Vegas Valley, I believe we should devote our specific attention to interference with our supply from drilling in the immediate neighborhood of our holdings. That is the reason I offered you the solution in the Searles case, as unquestionably we will be required to furnish him domestic water anyway if he develops his tract along the lines shown in the print I sent you. There is a definite trend in this locality toward ranch-type homes, with an acre or two adjoining. The owner of such a plot must obtain his water from one of two sources: either from us or from a well. Experi-ence has shown that these student ranchers cannot raise alfalfa and other crops at a profit. However, if he has gone to the expense of drilling a well, he will keep trying. So, it would be a good policy for us to furnish such tracts in the vicinity of our lines, with domestic water only, until such time as the present meter law is amended, and then the supply can be pro-tected by meters. General Attorney McNamee is writing you regarding the legal aspects and we will be glad to further discuss this important subject with you on your next trip out here. cc: Mr. E. E. Bennett Mr. L. A. McNamee