Letter from E. E. Bennett (Los Angeles) to Walter R. Bracken (Las Vegas), May 7, 1945

Los Angeles - May 7, 1945 Mr. W.R. Bracken: cc: Mr. Leo A. McNamee Mr. Frank Strong You have a copy of Mr. Strong's l e t t e r to me of May 5th, h i s f i l e 1-7334, i n connection with a p p l i c a t i o n of Robert B. G r i f f i t h . I note i n Mr. Smith's l e t t e r to Mr. McNamee of March 3rd, he states that i t might be for the best in-t e r e s t s of a l l concerned i f the Water Company could f u r n i sh G r i f f i t h water for h i s subdivision development, p o s s i b l y at wholesale rates. It had always been my understanding that G r i f f i t h was not having a s u b d i v i s i o n but had b u i l t a ranch house and intended to develop h i s property from an a g r i c u l - t u r a l standpoint. I do think i t advisable that we give consideration to Mr. Smith's suggestion and the question a r i s e s as to just what i s the nature of Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s proposed development. I f i t i s merely a ranch house with a g r i c u l t u r a l development for his own use, I see no reason why the Water Company could not s e l l him water wholesale, i f the water i s a v a i l a b l e , which i s a matter which you and Mr. Strong would have to determine. I f , on the other hand, Mr. G r i f f i t h i s proposing a home subdivision development and the Water Company desires to serve such development on that side of the track, i t would seem that consideration should be given to handling t h i s p a r t i c u l a r suggestion as we have handled r e a l estate subdivisions here-tofore, namely under Rule 9 ( a ) . Whether such a rule would be applicable to a subdivision of f i v e acre semi-farm t r a c t s , which G r i f f i t h may have in mind, is something which would have to be discussed with Mr. Smith or Mr. Shamberger. I suggest you and Mr. McNamee discuss this matter with Mr. Taylor and Mr. G r i f f i t h and develop any information as to the nature of Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s proposed development. I understand that Mr. Strong w i l l be i n Las Vegas the 9th or 10th of t h i s month. It may be that you w i l l have an oppor-t u n i t y to discuss the matter with him a l s o . Apparently i t w i l l be necessary to withdraw our protest to Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n for water, i n view of the language i n Mr. Smith's l e t t e r of March 3rd to the Water Company as i t i s obvious that Mr. G r i f f i t h ' s a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be granted and then I presume i n spite of h i s protest the a p p l i c a t i o n of the R a i l - road Company for Well No. 11 would be granted. #2 - Mr. W.R. Bracken May 7, 1945 I believe t h i s has developed e n t i r e l y into a question of amicable discussion of a l l interested p a r t i e s . I suggest that you and Mr. McNamee go over i t f i r s t and then discuss i t with Mr. Taylor and Mr. G r i f f i t h . EEB:LS