upr000197 68

Mr, * a lt «r K. Souse* Los Angeles, December 21, 1951 #0-11 I I r . A , a . Stoddard Mr, life* E t lu lw r d t M r. W* H* H u le is e r Mr* S, M. S u tton Mr* C a lv in If* C o ry ) 1 h ave a c o p y o f y o u r l e t t e r o f December 1 # , 1951» t o M r. S to d d a r d r e f e r r i n g t o th e s u g g e s t io n s c o n t a in e d i n my l e t t e r o f Decem ber 4* 1 9 5 1 , t o M r, R e in h a r d t r e ­l a t i n g t o t r a n s f e r o f t h e e a t e r p r o d u c t io n f a c i l i t i e s o f t h e R a ilr o a d a t Las Y e g a s , K e v a d a , t o a s e p a r a t e d i s ­t r i b u t i o n company* I t t h e p r e s e n t time my v ie w # a s to the questions which you raised in your la t te r upon which you desire sty comments are only te n ta tiv e . However I a® writing yo u now s© as- t o s u g g e s t t h a t an in vestigation b e mads oy the proper departments as to the fe a s ib ilit y o f the Railroad Company*# developing it s own water supply i f the tran sfer o f the water production f a c i l i t i e s lo c a t­e d ia the water f i e l d which serves domestic w a te r to the C ity o f Las Y o gs# is consummated. My present view is that there would be some d i f f i ­culty ia making a contract whereby the distrib u tion com­pany could furnish the Railroad Company an assured sup­ply o f not less than 2.5 cubic fe e t o f water per second at coat, Use Railroad*s appropriation o f 2.5 cubic feet, o f water per second re la tes to Well Ho* 1 in the water f i e l d , which would be sold to the d istrib u tion company, and the d istrib u tion company would become the operator ©f tha w ell and the transmission system through which the water would be delivered to the Railroad Company• Since the d istrib u tion company would be a public u t i l ­i t y , X doubt i f i t would be able to make a va lid con­tra c t whereby i t could furnish a supply o f water at coot which would be paramount to the righ t o f other persons served by tha same u t i l i t y . Such a contract would be subject t© the claim that i t was discrimina­tory and in v io la tio n o f the statutes which prohibit a u t i l i t y from charging a greater or- lees compensation j #—*“? . i — -