File
Information
Creator
Date
Description
Bennett proposed that they offer to sell water at a wholesale rate to Robert Griffith to resolve the conflicting applications issue.
Digital ID
Physical Identifier
Permalink
Details
Time Period
Place
Resource Type
Material Type
Archival Collection
More Info
Citation
hln000751. Union Pacific Railroad Collection, 1828-1995. MS-00397. Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada. http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/d1q23v06f
Rights
Standardized Rights Statement
Digital Provenance
Digital Processing Note
Language
English
Format
Transcription
Los Angeles - May 7, 1945 Mr. W.R. Bracken: cc: Mr. Leo A. McNamee Mr. Frank Strong You have a copy of Mr. Strong's l e t t e r to me of May 5th, h i s f i l e 1-7334, i n connection with a p p l i c a t i o n of Robert B. G r i f f i t h . I note i n Mr. Smith's l e t t e r to Mr. McNamee of March 3rd, he states that i t might be for the best in-t e r e s t s of a l l concerned i f the Water Company could f u r n i sh G r i f f i t h water for h i s subdivision development, p o s s i b l y at wholesale rates. It had always been my understanding that G r i f f i t h was not having a s u b d i v i s i o n but had b u i l t a ranch house and intended to develop h i s property from an a g r i c u l - t u r a l standpoint. I do think i t advisable that we give consideration to Mr. Smith's suggestion and the question a r i s e s as to just what i s the nature of Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s proposed development. I f i t i s merely a ranch house with a g r i c u l t u r a l development for his own use, I see no reason why the Water Company could not s e l l him water wholesale, i f the water i s a v a i l a b l e , which i s a matter which you and Mr. Strong would have to determine. I f , on the other hand, Mr. G r i f f i t h i s proposing a home subdivision development and the Water Company desires to serve such development on that side of the track, i t would seem that consideration should be given to handling t h i s p a r t i c u l a r suggestion as we have handled r e a l estate subdivisions here-tofore, namely under Rule 9 ( a ) . Whether such a rule would be applicable to a subdivision of f i v e acre semi-farm t r a c t s , which G r i f f i t h may have in mind, is something which would have to be discussed with Mr. Smith or Mr. Shamberger. I suggest you and Mr. McNamee discuss this matter with Mr. Taylor and Mr. G r i f f i t h and develop any information as to the nature of Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s proposed development. I understand that Mr. Strong w i l l be i n Las Vegas the 9th or 10th of t h i s month. It may be that you w i l l have an oppor-t u n i t y to discuss the matter with him a l s o . Apparently i t w i l l be necessary to withdraw our protest to Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n for water, i n view of the language i n Mr. Smith's l e t t e r of March 3rd to the Water Company as i t i s obvious that Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be granted and then I presume i n spite of h i s protest the a p p l i c a t i o n of the R a i l - road Company for Well No. 11 would be granted. #2 - Mr. W.R. Bracken May 7, 1945 I believe t h i s has developed e n t i r e l y into a question of amicable discussion of a l l interested p a r t i e s . I suggest that you and Mr. McNamee go over i t f i r s t and then discuss i t with Mr. Taylor and Mr. G r i f f i t h . EEB:LS