Skip to main content

Search the Special Collections and Archives Portal

upr000268 127

Image

File
Download upr000268-127.tif (image/tiff; 23.24 MB)

Information

Digital ID

upr000268-127
    Details

    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

    Mr. Wm. Reinhardt: Page 3 Sept. 3, 1948 File: 80 and power to the developments of its townsite and the distrib­ution of water was confined to the residents of the townsite with one or two exceptions which will not be considered here. A resident of an abutting real estate subdivision filed an application with the then Railroad Commission of the State of California demanding that the Del Mar Water Company serve him with water and the Railroad Commission having deter­mined that the water company was a public utility and its facilities and supply was sufficient, ordered it so to do. The matter went up to the California Supreme Court and the opinion of Justice Shaw, which I think pretty well establishes the general law on this subject, contains the following languag "There can be no doubt, therefore, that the owner of a water supply may make a limited dedication of it to public use, confining the use to such territory as he sees fit. Nor can there be any doubt that one owning a water supply is not compelled to dedicate all of it to public use, or that he may dedicate a part of it, only, to such use, reserving the remainder for private purposes or for private sale or disposition as he sees fit. Accordingly, our decisions have recog­nized and have repeatedly declared the right of a water company to make such limited dedi­cation and to decline to furnish its water to persons not within the area it has under­taken to serve. (Leavitt v. Lassen Irr. Co., 16? Cal. 92 (29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 213, 106 Pac. 404); Thayer v. California Dev. Co., 164 Cal. 128, (128 Pac. 2l)j Price v. Riverside Land etc. Co., 56 Cal. 433; Hildreth v. Montecito Creek Water Co., 139 Cal. 29, (72 Pac. 395); 2 Wlel on Water-rights, 3d ed., sec. 1281; Lewis on Eminent Domain, 3d ed., secs. 254, 313.) The facts stated in the commission’s findings and ©pinion do not show that the Del Mar Company ever offered its water for use to the territory in which applicant Class lived, or to any per­sons other than those buying lots from the land company or residing within the 'old town' sur­rounded by the territory subdivided by the land company. Its dedication of its water, if it