upr000275 210

has Vegas - January 27, If 4® Mr* €• B» Saxton, Chat naan, Pu%l%e se rv ic e C o n is s io ft, Carson City, Severe. Peer sir* 4s per our phone conversation. v« bare re­drafted the rule covering “tefenee Mossing Projects* »a& have re-numbered sen® as Rule 9-©, so ©a not to conflict with the proposed Rule 9-b that eat submitted in Case Ro. 1126, as.it is our thought that a defense houeing project should be distinguished fro® extensions to ordinary real estate subdivisions. * ... lieu of the word * adjacent*, a# submitted in the proposal that Mr. Bracken handed you, we have substituted *a distance fro® the Company's nearest existing filter aain, equal to not more than 2© feet SMitiplied by the number of houses* constructed within the project, this wording will ©over all contemplated project# of this character that we. know of. As we do not knew where this rule, if approved, will come in on the PSCM sheets, we have left out the reference thereto and also Rules 1© and 11, which were at the end of your suggested. Rule 9-b. would appreciate quick action on this proposal as pending projects are awaiting approval of contract#. Very truly yours, im a. ucmmt i9U 110/ ee-ir. Bennett Mr, bracken. Mr. strong Mr. ©wild OFFICE OP M a tt IND, 'AN DEV, 1342 r„ ca W .H .J. JAN 2 8 1942