upr000091 28

Los Angeles, September 30, 1952 80-11 Mr. Wo R. Rouse: (cc - Mr. Wra. Reinhardt) Supplementing my letter of August 29th in connec­tion with proposal of the Las Vegas Valley Water District to purchase the water properties at Las Vegas: 1 attended a meeting last Friday at Las Vegas, the District being represented by six of the seven directors, by Mr. Montgomery the engineer, and by Mr. McNamee their attor­ney, and Mr. Cory and I represented the water company and the Railroad. In my letter of August 29th I commented on ray ob­jections to the proposal of the District dated August 25th. At this meeting it was tentatively agreed that the Railroad Company would have the right to continue the use of the Shop Well and any additional well which was needed to protect the facilities of the Railroad and the PFE. It was further agreed that the encumbrance on other lands of the water company in Las Vegas Valley, subject of sub-paragraph (f) of the proposal, would be limited to the properties west of the track, exclud­ing of course properties necessary for the maintenance of the Shop Well and the second Shop Well if drilled. This would take care of the conditions in subdivisions (b), (e) and (f) of the proposal. Considerable discussion was had with respect to the meaning of the first paragraph on page 2 relative to the cost of improvements made by the water company or the Railroad subsequent to September 1st. The District took the position that that covered improvements which might have been started prior to September 1st but were not completed until after that date. I maintain that the cost of any such improvements would be broken down to money spent prior to September 1st to be paid by the water company and money spent after September 1st to be paid by the District. I told them that that was obviously the intent of the paragraph and I would not consent