If the bond issue failed, the public might try and force the railroad to increase water production, so the company should consider transferring all water production to the Las Vegas Land and Water Company who was in a better position to resist "unreasonable demands." "Copy" and "80-12" written in red pencil. Letter has several date stamps: E.E.B., E.C.R. and U.P. R.R. Co., Los Angeles.

Discussion of strategy to resist the railroad being forced to spend money to increase water production; Letter has date stamps from E.E.B., E.C.R. and U.P. R.R. Law Department, Los Angeles. "80-12" is written in red pencil in top right corner.

Discussion of the relevant legal issues and court decisions relating to the question of whether the railroad could be forced to increase water production

Comparison of the economic benefit of selling water production and distribution facilities in Las Vegas to the Water District versus donating them.

If the Union Pacific should divest itself of water production to the Las Vegas Land and Water Company, Wehe describes what the operation of the company should look like. Letter has several date stamps, including one from E. E. Bennett and one from the Union Pacific Railroad Law Department.

Attorney Oscar W. Bryan referring to the state engineer's denial of Jack Wollenzein's application to drill a well. The official ruling is referenced below.

The Water District advised that they did not have the facilities to supply enough water to Las Vegas and would not object to the Union Pacific Railroad providing water from its shop well.