Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

Letter from E. E. Bennett to Leo A. McNamee (Las Vegas), November 24, 1952

File

Information

Creator
Date
1952-11-24
Description

Discussion of the changes made to the purchase contract draft to protect railroad company water rights.

Digital ID
hln001255
Physical Identifier
Box 25 Folder 80-11 Vol. 2 of 3 Part 1, LVL&W Co. Proposed Sale of Water Production Facilities of UPRR Co.
Details
Citation

hln001255. 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/d1rf5pg13

Rights
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at?special.collections@unlv.edu.
Standardized Rights Statement
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Digital Processing Note
Manual transcription
Language

English

Format
application/pdf

Draft November 24, 1952 80-11 Mr. Leo A. McNamee Attorney at Law El Portal Building Las Vegas, Nevada Re: Las Vegas Valley Water District bid Dear Leo: We have been considering the new proposal made by the Las Vegas Valley Water District, which is dated October 15th, and which came to this office November 4th, and after considering the proposal I have felt it advisable to make up a draft of a new proposal which embodies some changes, principally for clarifications which we think are desirable. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the proposed revised proposal, and in connection therewith have the following comments to make: Referring to sub-division "A" of the proposal of October 15th, I have merely added to that proposal the reference to conditions, encumbrances and reservations of record, and the question of taxes. As you know, the title of this property shows as encumbrances the various water appropriations with which you are familiar. I have followed closely sub-division "B" of the proposal, except I have eliminated the 100 ft. restriction against drilling a second well in the Shop Grounds, which is not acceptable to us, and I have also provided that we can, if we so desire, maintain the two wells, one as a standby if the other fails. As you know, the present well is quite old, and we hope to use it, but in view of its condition we may desire to drill a second well, and possibly have it available in case the present well should fail. I do not think the District will object to that modification. With respect to sub-division "C" of the District proposal, I have reworded it. I hope while you are considering this new draft, you have prepared small maps to be attached to the new bid to be submitted by the District showing the lands to be conveyed, and also hope to have the contract covering the relocation of the pipe lines, subject of your letter of November 4th, redrafted, so that a copy thereof can be attached to the new proposal. In that way we will have everything pretty well completed so our executives will be able to understand the proposal and the facilities involved. With respect to sub-division "D" I have included two wells as excluded from the transfer of our water production facilities, both of these being designated as Las Vegas Land and Water Co. wells, and both being immediately adjacent to the Ranch. I understand both of these wells are very small, and I do not think the District is interested in purchasing them. Incidentally, these two wells are in Section 27. With respect to sub-division "E" I have made a slight clarification in that, which I do not believe will be objectionable to the District. I have added a new sub-division "F" relative to those railroad 9-A contracts/which I have felt advisable to refer to in the proposal. Possibly you can improve upon the wording, or possibly you prefer to include such a provision in the contract to be prepared for the sale of the properties, et al, but that is some- Mr. Leo A. McNamee Page 2 November 24, 1952 Draft Mr. Leo A. McNamee Page 3 Nov. 24, 1952 thing you can think over. , The rest of the draft follows the wording of the proposal of October 15th. Yours very truly, E. E. Bennett Draft