upr000090 100

1 ^ 2 2 Las Vegas, Nevada December 20th, 1952* Mr, Bdward C • Renwick: {^( co - Mr, E.E. Bennett ) With reference to our telephone conversation concerning the proposed transfer of the Railroad Companies* permit to appropriate water from Well No, 1 to a new point of diversion at the shop well, I regret that I have been un­able to contact the state water engineer in this area, Mr. Jamison. I wanted to confirm with him my interpretation of our water law before writing to you. I will do so at the earliest opportunity, but in the meantime I submit the fol­lowing for your information. In my opinion the Act of 1939 relating to the development and use of water in an artesian basin has no bearing on a change of the point of diversion. This Act does however, effect the development of , water in the shop wells and governs the method of drilling, power, etc., in the existing well, as well as the method of developing a standby well. The Act of 1939, Sections 7993.10-7993.24, N.C.L. Supp. 1931-1941 as amended, will have to be complied with in the drilling of a new well, and this Act invokes the provisions of the general water law of 1913 relative to application, publication, etc., Sections 59-72 of the Act; Sections 7944-7957 N.C.L. 1929, as amended. There­fore, at least several months will be involved in obtain­ing a permit for a new well in the shop grounds and I am not at all certain that such a permit would be granted by the state engineer because of his announced policy not to approve any additional wells where his approval can be rea­sonably withheld. In fact, if the Railroad*s right to appropriate water for railroad purposes is transferred to the existing shop well, I believe the state engineer may reasonably contend that there is a duty upon him to deny an application to drill a standby well for the reason that the right transferred As more than sufficient to satisfy the needs of the Railroad Company. I have in mind the Act of 1945, Section 7899 N.C.L. 1943-1949 Supp., which relates, in part as follows: