upr000105 295

L o s i n g o l e * , L o e o a b o r 2 1 , 1 9 5 1 <0-11 Mr* Waltff R* I©use* Coo Hr. k * %, Stoddard Mr. Us* Ee lithe rdt WHr.. HU B. Wulaiser 1, If. Smfctom Mr. @al rim. M* Cory) I hart a copy of your letter of 8*c**feer It, 1951, to Ifif* Stoddard referring to tho aiiggostiois* contained in ay lot tor of Locaabor 4, 1951, to Sr. leAahsrtifc ra­llying bo transfer ©f tho wator production facilities of the Satlroai at. Lao Y*f*o, Saved®, to a m p& m to dis­tribution ©osspaiiy#' it tho present ttao ay view© at to the quootloftO which y m raised in your lot tor upon which you desire ay coi2'i«»t@ «r® only tentstive. However 1 an writing ft«j sow so os to suggest that -m. Invest if;»t tea be aaoo fey th* proper dopos*taonto as te the feasibility o f the tailrood Company’s developing its ©wo water supply if the transfer #f the water predoetios foollltieo locat­ed i& the water field which serves domestic water to the City ©f La* Vegas is eeaauaMftted. My preteat view is that there would fee oono diffi­culty la m«kin.g s contract whereby the distribution com­pany could furnish tha Railroad Comp m y m assured sup­ply ©f sot lose than 2.5 cubic feet of water per seooad * t ’c0 *t« the Railroad** appropriation of 1*5 cubic feet of water per second relate® to Well Ho* 1 is the water field, which weald fee sold to the distribution company, mad the distribution eessepimy would h o m m the operator of the well and the trsnsisiaaioa system through which the water would be delivered to the -Railroad Oomp&ay• Sisco the distribution eanp&ay would be a public util­ity., 1 doubt if it would be able to oak® a valid eon-trset idsoreby it could f a m i s h « supply of water at coot which would b e . pamoouab to the right of other persons served by the m u ® utility. Such a contract would be subject to the clai* that it was discrimina­tory and In violafeloa of the statute* which prohibit a utility f r m charging a greater or Its* coopaasatiofi