upr000317 29

I Mr. Walter R. Bracken ~ Las Vegas: Referring to your letter of April 27th, your file W 23-^3* regarding delivery of water to the Stewart burial plot )/from Las Vegas Creek: I have reviewed the deed conveying Las Vegas Ranch to W. A. Clark. This deed conveys certain land “together with all water arising on said land or flowing therefrom, and all water rights belonging thereto and used in connection therewith, except four miner's inches of water (California Measurement) or so*much thereof as may be required by the parties of the first part, to irrigate said burial plot, from the Vegas Creek". X think the words "so much thereof as may be required by the parties of the first part to irrigate said burial plot" refer to the four miner's inches of water, rather than to all the water arising on Las Vegas- Ranch. To construe the excep­tion otherwise would render meaningless the reference to the four miner’s inches. It is also my opinion that the amount of water should be measured at the intake of the ditch leading from Las Vegas Creek rather than at the boundary of the burial plot. If Mrs. Stewart and heirs desire to construct a closed pipe from Las Vegas Creek to secure the full four-inch head of water at the burial plot they would undoubtedly have the right to do so. In the case of Bean v. Stoneman, 101* Cal. 4-9, it was held that under a grant of an amount of water equal to two- fortieths of all the water rising upon the lands of the grantor so /far as such water" could be brought to the north line of the lands of the grantee by the ditch or flume of the grantor, the loss from seepage in conveying the proportion of the water granted by means of the ditch must be borne by the grantee. I suggest you notify Mrs. Stewart' and heirs not to Interfere with the weirs placed at the intake of the ditch. If they do not comply with your instructions we undoubtedly could prlng an action to enjoin them from taking more than their propor­tionate share of the water from Las Vegas Creek. ECRlEBS E. E. Bennett.