upr000091 75

Las Vegas, Nevada August 18th, 1952. 80-12 Mr. E.E. Bennett: Replying to your letter of August 12th 1952, X understand why you are not quite clear and wish to apologize for the apparent confusion in my letters of January 3rd and March 5th. I believe section 7993.18b would preclude our claiming that the Railroad water right 2.5 c.f.s in well No. 1 is a ‘’vested right” since the right was not acquired prior to March 22, 1913. However, this section specifically recognizes "existing water rights” and it was this language which X had in mind when I wrote you on January 3rd, 1952, relative to transferr­ing the Railroad's water right in Well No. 1, to a new point of diversion at the shop well in Las Vegas. Un­fortunately, in my letter of March 5th, 1952, I used the term ’’vested". I should have called the Railroad water right in Well No. 1, an existing water right ac­quired prior to March 25th, 1939, and therefore capable of* being transferred to a point of diversion where less water may be developed than 2.5 c.f.s. because the statute recognizes existing water rights. ing of the Attorney General referred to in my letter of January 3rd, 1952, with reference to the quantity of water capable of being developed at the new point of Aversion is inapplicable, because the permit being transferred is an "existing” water right. However there still would be the possibility of forfeiture under'Sec­tion 7993.18a as pointed out in the next to the last paragraph of my letter of March 5th, 1952. January 3rd anI dh Moaprec ht hi5st h.m ay clarif_y my letters of I still believe we can claim that the rul- CMC/b CALVIN M.CORY