upr000154 74

Mr. la# Pelnhardt Page 4 Bept. 3, 1940 rilai 80 has mad© any, extended no further than that. There has been no dedication of the water to the us© of any portion of the public outside of that area, "For these reasons I am of the opinion that even if it should be eonoeded that the company Is administering a public use, it does not appear that it is administering a use to which Glass is a beneflol&ry or that Blass comes within the olase of persons to ’ which its water has been dedicated. Hiie feeing so, the commission has no power to com­pel an additional dedication or to compel an extension of the service beyond that to which it Is already dedicated, and its order direc­ting the extension and additional service was in excess of its authority and void.* It is my opinion, therefore, that the Nevada Public Service Commission could not compel us to dedicate our water facilities or to furnish water to any territory beyond which we have heretofore dedicated such services and to which we have heretofore furnished water. The next question arises as to whether if we volun­tarily extended our water mains beyond the city limits for fire protection purposes only, whether we could later be com­pelled to broaden such services to general use. There are no oases on this particular point that X have been able to find but it is my opinion that even though such extension of ser­vice was mad# under such a restricted reservation, that the Nevada Public Service Commission could very properly, after hearing, and upon a finding that there was sufficient water and facilities, determine that our refusal to furnish such services and water for other purposes, was unreasonable, such a ruling depending, of course, upon the adequacy of water supply, the cost of the initial investment, the return on the investment etc.