upr000090 91

a Los Angeles, November 14, 1952 1-7534 E. E. &' Mr. E. E. Bennett / NOV IB 1 E* ?=? 8 joe (CC - Mr. Wm. Reinhardt) Referring to your letter of November 7, 1952, attach­ing redraft of proposed agreement between the Railroad Company and Las Vegas Valley Water District, covering removal of pipe lines, easements, etc.: My comments are, as follows: 1 - It appears that the LVL&WCo. should be a party to this agreement due to the fact that some of the pipe lines mentioned therein and shown on the map are now owned by the LVL&WCo. 2 - Under Section 2, page 2, line 4, believe we should insert after the word “capacity" the words “equal to or exceeding that". At the end of line 4 add “and cast iron". This for the reason that the kind of 16" pipe would then be described correctly. In line 8, the District has stated that the Union Pacific shall construct a pipe line "of 59-inch cast iron or pipe of a similar character". Mr. Maag actually included in his estimate a 36-inch concrete pipe in in exact location where the District proposes 39-inch pipe. However, it is my opinion that we should allow the "39-inch pipe, etc." to remain in line 8 for the following reasons: (a) It will fit in with the design prepared by James M. Montgomery for the Water District both as to size and location. (b) Mr. Maag’s estimate is liberal enough to take care of the 39-inch pipe. (c) The District pays the cost of this pipe line whether it is 36-inch or 39-inch. 3 - Page 3, third paragraph, reads: "The right to construct said pipe line shall include the right to construct pump, valves and appurtenances." This is not clear to me. If It has reference to