Bettis stating that prohibiting outside faucets would not solve the problem of unauthorized users, and would punish those who haven't given permission to neighbors who were using it anyway. It was also hard for owners to stand guard over their taps.
hln001046. 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/d1z60g247
English
April 13, 1906. 375 Mr. H. I. Bettis, Vice-Prest., Land and Water Company, Building. Dear Sir,- of lots using the water tape of their neighbors and am afraid this is a matter that cannot be easily overcome. Relative to prohibiting all outside faucets: I would favor this for the reason that, while I believe there are few, if any, lawns, at Las Vegas, yet if a property owner did want to improve his place in the way of a lawn, trees, shrubbery, etc., he would certainly want an outside faucet and I do not believe we should prohibit then. Relative to the suggestion offered in the first paragraph on page two of your letter in the way of a circular addressed to the water consumers providing that in case another party uses water from their tap, the company will require full payment for each user at the same rates as would govern if separate taps were reached: on the face of it, it looks all right, but I am afraid it would be a hard rule to enforce as a man if accused of allowing his neighbor to use water from his tap might say that he had informed him that he could not do so and we could hardly expect him to stand over the faucet all day long to see that he did not do so. Relative to rule providing for payments on the first of the month and if delinquent on the tenth, water should be turned off and a charge of One Dollar for turning it on again: I approve of this. CC-Mr. Whittemore, CC-Mr. Bancroft, CC-Mr. Gibbon.