Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000286 40

Information

Digital ID
upr000286-040
Permalink
http://n2t.net/ark:/62930/d15x27w3g
Details
Member of
Water supply - Las Vegas
Rights
This material is made available to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. It may be protected by copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity rights, or other interests not owned by UNLV. Users are responsible for determining whether permissions are necessary from rights owners for any intended use and for obtaining all required permissions. Acknowledgement of the UNLV University Libraries is requested. For more information, please see the UNLV Special Collections policies on reproduction and use (https://www.library.unlv.edu/speccol/research_and_services/reproductions) or contact us at special.collections@unlv.edu.
Digital Provenance
Digitized materials: physical originals can be viewed in Special Collections and Archives reading room
Publisher
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Libraries

f t Las Vegas May g, ] I Mr. 1. E. Bennett: (co - Mr. Frank Strong Mr. W. R. Bracken) In connection with the protest of Las Vegas Land and Water Company to Application No. 11077, filed by Robert B. Griffith to appropriate underground waters at point adjacent to our wells, will state thatMr. Ryland Taylor of the firm of Ham & Taylor called on me this afternoon advising that he is representing Mr. Griffith and wanted to know if there is any chance for the Las Vegas Water Company to withdraw its protest. He stated that if our protest to Griffith’s application were not withdrawn, thep. Mr. Griffith intended to file a protest to our application filed in connection with well No. 11. I informed him that I would submit the matter to company officials and would advise him what they would be willing It would appear that we are assuming contradictory positions in this matter inasmuch as our protest to Grif­fith’s application recites that, all of the waters in the arfgHLifiers at the source from which Griffith intends to drill have been appropriated by our company under our ten prior applications upon which permits and certificates have been granted, while in our Application No. 11249 (Well No. 11) we applied for 5 sec/ft. of water from the same artesian basin or subterranean channel, thereby admitting that there is water there subject to appropria­tion. If our protest ever comes to a hearing, it is going to be difficult for us to prove the contention set forth in our protest. I understand the drilling of Well No. 11 is quite essential and if so, we do not wish to be tied up by protest proceedings. Therefore, I think consideration should be given to the withdrawal of our protest. Later on when the underground waters have been so depleted that we are unable to obtain enough to supply the amount for which certificates have been granted to us, it will be the duty of the State Engineer,under appropriate proceedings,_ to ad­minister our water law and to allocal users their respective shares of this accordance with their legal priority to do. LAM/EL