upr000149 199

Los Angeles - August 7, 1945 80-5 Mr* Frank Strong: oo: Mr* Walter R* Bracken Mr* Leo A* McNamee Referring to Mr* Bracken’s letter of August 2nd, to you, his file W 23-1-1I I am returning your file 1-7334-3* It is my opinion that if this firm desired to make an issue of the matter it could insist on the installation of this pipe line under Rule 9-C* I gather from Mr. Bracken’s letter that this is a new defense housing project and presumably within the City limits of Las Vegas and that the contractor is proposing to construct within a subdivision, the plan of which has been filed with the County Reoorder, a sufficient number of dwellings to comply with the provisions of Rule 9-C* Rule 9-0 was filed by the Water Company and approved by the Public Service Commission primarily for the purpose of taking care of new subdivisions* Rule 9-A, on the other hand, is primarily intended to take care of an Isolated house or houses on a street whloh is at present served by water 11 ns or has water ms ins within the immediate vicinity and where the particular house or houses are not within fifty foet of those water mains* On the other hand, Rule 9-C was published, after many months of negotiations, tp take care of new subdivisions consisting of numerous houses in territory not already served and as a condition of such ser­vice a minimum number of houses were required to be con­structed* I see no objection in suggesting to this particular firm of subdividers that we are willing to install this pipe line under Rule 9—A but, as I have stated initially, If they in­sist on going to the Public Service Commission I think it would be difficult for us to defend against an application under Rule 9-C unless there are particular facts about this proposed subdivision of which I am not advised* S*S* Bennett EXnEoB.:LS c