upr000204 286

recital evidently includes not only the residue water left over from the Railroad Company’s appropriation after serving itself and the private contract users but also the l.&B cubic feet per second appropriation of the Water Company which may be used by the Water Company for irrigation and domestic purposes and the 21.49 cubic feet per second which may be used by it for municipal supply and domestic pur­poses. There is another phase of our present operations which might possibly, under Nevada law as pointed out by Mr. Bennett, bring our railroad companies into the class of public utilities in the water furnishing field. Section 1 of 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 of the existing water production facilities located thereon all water which Second Party and Water Company can put to beneficial use not in excess of the amount thereof which both are entitled to appropriate and divert from the water bearing lands.” This wholesale delivery of water might bring the railroad companies within the definition of public utilities if a court were asked to pass upon that question. Mr. Bennett points out a series of important disadvantages which in my judgment would justify us in studiously avoiding coming within the public utilities definition as far as the fur­nishing of water is concerned. It would be desirable if the Railroad Company could retain as its own so much of the water as it uses out of the 2.5 cubic feet and also furnish out of that appro­priation water needed by the PFE to the extent of the bal­ance of the appropriation. There is, however, some doubt as to whether water furnished the PFE is for a railroad purpose. The same question, under somewhat different cir­cumstances of course, was considered in connection with the possible providing of water by the Railroad Company at Laramie for PFE purposes but it was there concluded that an attempt to furnish water to the PFE under the classification of a nrailroad purpose” might lead to difficulty and the considered plan was disregarded. Considering that the Rail­road Company has long been delivering water to the PFE under a private contract, we may be able to arrive at a different conclusion at Las Vegas than the one we arrived at at Laramie. Mr. Bennett’s views on this question would be valuable. The Railroad Company has its own appropriation for water at Las Vegas, and consequently can use the water to the limit of such appropriation, and in my judgment this right, irrespective of whether the Water Company is reorganized, should be safely guarded for at least one especial reason — that in time of shortage of water it should not be compelled to submit to a prorate of water ip "• - 2 -