upr000197 65

I 2 - 4 r e c it a l evidently Includes not only the residue water l e f t over from the Railroad Companyf s appropriation a fte r serving i t s e l f and the private contract users but also the 1,SB cubic fe e t per second appropriation o f the Water Company which may be used by the Water Company fo r ir r ig a tio n and domestic purposes and the 21.49 cubic fee t per second which may be used by i t fo r municipal supply and domestic pur­poses. * There is another phase o f our present operations which might possibly, under Nevada law as pointed out by Mr. Bennett, bring our railroad companies into the class o f public u t i l it i e s in the water furnishing f i e l d . Section 1 o f the November 30, 1950 contract provides that the "Second Party (U .P .) shall use reasonable diligence to pro­duce from said water bearing lands by means o f the existin g water production f a c i l i t i e s located thereon a ll water which Second Party and Water Company can put to b e n e fic ia l use not in excess o f the amount thereof which both are e n title d to appropriate and d ivert from the water bearing lands.” This wholesale d eliv ery o f water might bring the railroad companies within the d e fin itio n o f public u t ilit ie s i f a court were raked to pass upon that question. Mr. Bennett points out a series o f important disadvantages which in my judgment would ju s tify us in studiously avoiding coming within the public u t i l it i e s d e fin itio n as fa r as the fu r­nishing o f water is concerned. I t would be desirable i f the Railroad Company could retain as it s own so much o f the water as i t uses out o f the 2.5 cubic fe e t and also furnish out o f that appro­priation water needed by the PPE to the extant o f the bal­ance of the appropriation. There is , however, some doubt as to whether water furnished the PFI is fo r a railroad purpose. The same question, under somewhat d iffe re n t c ir ­cumstances of course, was considered in connection with the possible providing o f water by the Railroad Company at Laramie fo r PFS purposes but i t was there concluded that an attempt to furnish water to the PFS under the c la s s ific a tio n o f a "railroad purpose” might lead to d iffic u lt y and the considered plan was disregarded. Considering that the R a il­road Company has long been d eliverin g water to the PFE under a private contract, we may be able to arrive at a d iffe ren t conclusion at Las Vegas than the one we arrived at at Laramie* Mr. Bennett*s views on th is question would be valuable, The Railroad Company has it s own appropriation fo r water at Las Vegas, and consequently can use the water to the lim it o f such appropriation, and in my judgment th is rig h t, irresp ective o f whether the Water Company is reorganised, should be s a fely guarded fo r at least one esp ecial reason -- that in time o f shortage o f water i t should not be compelled to submit to a prorate o f water