Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

Letter from A. S. Halsted (Los Angeles) to [F. R.] McNamee, December 16, 1924







Halsted proposed that the company not apply for water rights for the Las Vegas Springs but merely ask for a certificate since there were no conflicting claims.

Digital ID


Physical Identifier

Box 75 Folder 174-2 Vol. I Law Department UPRR Water Supply-Las Vegas


hln001060. Union Pacific Railroad Collection, 1828-1995. MS-00397. Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada.


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 ( or contact us at?

Standardized Rights Statement

Digital Provenance

Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room

Digital Processing Note

Manual transcription





Waters - Las Vegas Springs. Los Angeles, December 16, 1924. Mr. McNamee: Referring to your letter of December 3d, and our several conferences, in regard to establishment of title to the matters of Las Vegas Big Springs: I understand your position to be that our title to the full flow of these springs is complete in that all of the waters have been put to a beneficial use for many years. You recommend, however, that we submit to the State Engineer of Nevada proof of this ownership. An inspection of the compilation of the water laws of Nevada, which you have furnished, does not indicate clearly to my mind that proof of said ownership is necessary. The statutes seem to contemplate the adjudication of relative rights on streams where there are several users, or where there are conflicting claims to the waters of the stream. The letter of the State Engineer which accompanied your letter suggests the advisability of our filing "a proof of ap-propriation" and "the gaining of certificates." As I understand your construction of the law, if we filed proof of ownership, in would be necessary to show upon what lands the water has been put to a beneficial use. It might be that we could not show use on all of the lands embraced within the Clark Ranch. In your opinion, would a certificate issued by the State Engineer limit our right of use to the lands to which the use had heretofore been applied? And if such certificate were so limited, could we at some future time change the place of use? I think these matters are of considerable importance, because we would not desire to accept a certificate limiting in anywise our right to use this water on the lands owned by the two companies. Stated another way: Would the advantage to be gained from making a matter of record our title to the property be subjected to any limitations by a certificate issued by the engineer covering such rights? I would like to have you consider these questions. Would it not be a good plan to write to the State Engin-eer in response to his letter that the title to all of the waters of these springs is not subject to the law, because there are no relative rights, and that you have some doubt as to the desirability of making this proof if, in any way, his certif-icate would be a limitation, and asking him what his views are, particularly with respect to the kind of certificate that will be issued in a case of this kind? My thought is that it would be desirable to make proof of title to all of the waters of the springs, unless by so do-ing we would subject ourselves to limitations that would not obtain should we not make such proof. A. S. Halsted cc-Mr. Leo McNamee ASH:ENG