Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000137 22

Image

File
Download upr000137-022.tif (image/tiff; 26.55 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000137-022
    Details

    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.

    Digital Provenance

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

    Publisher

    University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

    Mr. Leo A, McNamee: (OC - Mr. E. E. Bennett Los Angeles - May 2 9 , 19^5 1 -7 3 3 ^ Y. | I f | J Mr. W. R. Braoken) You have copy of Mr. Bracken's letter May 2Sth, file V 23-l-B, enclosing copy of letter received toy him from State Engineer notifying ue of formal hearing upon application by Robert B. Griffith to appropriate underground water which was protested by the Las Vegas Land and Vater Co., and application filed by the Las Vegas Land and Water Co. to appropriate under­ground water which was protested by Robert B. Griffith. and states the hearing will be held on June 12th in the court room of the City Hall (not mentioning what city), and X presume we are to understand the hearing will be held in Las Vegas. entered -by LVL&W Co. against the Griffith well it was his under­standing that the underground waters were allocated by the State Engineer for "highest beneficial use", and that the requirements of a muncipality took preference over all other applications. I now understand that this is not a fact, in that the statutes of Nevada do not so differentiate, in view of which I cannot see that we have any valid grounds for opposing the Griffith appli­cation. I do not believe we could demonstrate to the satisfac­tion of the State Engineer that a well which has not been drilled will, if placed on production, have a detrimental effect upon a well or wells operated under prior appropriation, which latter are located a considerable distance from the well of the applicant. Griffith against the drilling of our Well No. 11 is merely in retaliation for our protest against his application, and it is my suggestion that our position is untenable, and that you contact Mr. Griffith or his legal representative and have an understanding that, conditional upon Griffith withdrawing hie protest our Company will simultaneously withdraw its protest. curs In my viewpoint, and it is requested that you proceed accord­ingly. You will, of course, be prepared at the hearing to offer necessary proof to justify our application. The State Engineer's letter is postmarked Carson City, Mr. Bracken advises me that at the time protest was It would appear that the protest filed by Robert B. X have discussed the matter with Mr. Bennett, who con F: rong