upr000153 104

Mr. %a, Beinhardt Page 4 Sept. 3, a#4® Filei 00 ha#? node any* extended no further than that* There has been no dedication of the water to the use of any portion of the public outside of that area. *®For these reasons I on of the opinion that even if it should be conceded that the company is administering a public use, It does not appear that it is administering a use to which (Hass is a beneficiary or that glass comes within’the Glass of persons to which Its water has been dedicated. This being 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, tha t 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 re 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 m bases on this particular point that I have been able to find but it la my opinion that even though such extension of cor-vice was made 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#