upr000279 175

E t M i -2- usually about three months, will commence receiving substantial revenue from sale of water to consumers located within the project, in view of which the subdlvlder should be refunded his costs iznder an arrangement similar to that in effect dur­ing the development of War Housing projects as covered by our former Rule 9**C, which provided* "Defense Housing Projects * Subject to the approval'"'6$ ''the fubllc Service Commission, the Com­pany will enter into contracts for the refund of the cost of constructing water mains, advanced by others to and within Defense Housing Projects, located in the present city limits of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, but within a distance from the Company*s nearest existing water main, equal to not more than SO feet multiplied by the number of houses which such others agree with the Company to construct within such project, k Defense Housing Project within the meaning of this rule is a project under which the party contracting with the Company constructs within a subdivision, the plat of which has been filed with the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada, not less than twenty (20) dwelling houses, but at least one dwelling house for each fifty (50) feet of such water mains constructed within such subdivision. Such contract shall pro­vide that such water mains shall be constructed at the cost of the party contracting with the Company and under the supervision of the Company! that such water mains shall be owned, operated and maintained by the Company upon the completion of the construction thereof and that the Company shall refund to the party contracting with the Company the cost thereof if and when said party shall have completed the construction of the number of houses required by said contract. Such contract may con­tain other reasonable provisions not inconsistent with the other provisions of this rule* ibis rule shall remain in effect only during the present National Emergency." When the Public Service Commission agreed to the can­cellation of Rule 9-0, in 1945, the order provided* "That if, at some future time, the growth of Las Vegas, Nevada, demands that the rule again is necessary, the Company will be required to reinstate this rule in its rules and regulations," and we anticipate that if the subdividers oppose our proposed Rule 9 at the coming hearing the Commission may order a re­instatement of Rule 9-G which would require refund to the