upr000283 7

Mr. Eenwiek a ls o discussed with Mr. Allen the failure of the Q©mission to include in the rate base all of the 679*42 acres of land surrounding the wells. Mr. Allen said that he had included only the five 40-acre parcels upon which the various wells are located and that the Company did not need the remaining land to protect its water rights because the State Engineer would protect our wells from drainage by adjoining wells if we should sell our surplus land. It appears to me that as a practical matter this would be very little protection. However, I would like to have your opinion as to the protection which we would have under the Nevada water law against drainage from adjoining wells on this so called surplus land if we sold it by reason of our prior appropriations. We are going ahead With the filing of the complaint against the Commission but are not abandoning the hope of working out a satisfactory solution with Mr. Allen through informal conferences. We intend to furnish him further detailed evidence in support of our investment in production facilities. We expect to have further confer­ences with him in the near future and will therefore appre­ciate if you will give the above prompt handling. E. 1. Bennett