Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
Member of
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Mr. Leo A. McNamee: Los Angeles * May 2$, 19^5 1-7334 (00 - M r . E. E. Bennett Mr. to. R. Bracken) v XP a-a p rl V .<?/> ’/%e nt l l S l tou have copy of Mr. Bracken’s letter May 2Bth* file W 23-l-B, enclosing copy of letter received by him from State Engineer notifying us of formal hearing upon application by Robert B. Griffith to appropriate underground water which was protested by the Lae Vegas Land and Water Oo., and application filed by the Las Vegas Land and Water Go. to appropriate underground water which was protested by Robert B. Griffith. The State Engineer’s letter is postmarked Carson City* and states the hearing will be held on June 12th in the court room of the City Hall (not mentioning what city), and I presume we are to understand the hearing will be held in Las Vegas. Mr. Bracken advises me that at the time protest was 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 munolpallty 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 effeot upon a well or wella operated under prior appropriation, which latter are located a considerable distance from the well of the applicant. It would appear that the protest filed by Robert B. Griffith against the drilling of our Well Mo. IX-le merely in retaliation for our protest against his application, and it is my suggestion that our position is untenabls, and that y o u x contact Mr. Griffith or hie legal representative and have an understanding that, conditional upon Griffith withdrawing hie protest our Company will simultaneously withdraw its protest. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Bennett* who concurs 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. FrariKftrong