man000177 149

SPENCER L. BUTTERFIELD V I C E P R E S I D E N T WILLIAM COULTHARD S E C Y .- T R E A S . HARRY E. MILLER E. OTTO UNDERHILL JAMES CASHMAN JOH N BUNCH Officers and Directors THOMAS A. CAMPBELL PRESIDENT LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ©O O S O U T H 5TH S T R E E T LAS VEGAS, NEVADA Telephone 5920 November 29 , I f SI HOWARD F. CLARK C H I E F E N G I N E E R A N D M A N A G E R P. O. BOX 1448 In response to a request for on opinion as f© the legality of the ardor Issued by the Public Service Commission of N evad a, authorizing the Lai Vegas Land & Water Company to refuse extension of water m alm to new connections for water service ©n and after December 1, pending public hearing schedule to be held In Las Vegas January 22, 1952, Franklin Ham ilton, of the law firm of O 'M e lve n y & Myers, counsel for the District, gave the fol­lowing tentative Informal opinion today? After researching the various pertinent and applicable Nevada statutes to the best of our ability within the lim ited tim e since receiving your request late yesterday, it appears t© us that the ord er was Ille g a l. From whet we can te ll, without having any of the proceedings of the Public Service Commission before us but based on what was told us over the telephone, an application had been made that the temporary order had been put down a d the matter set for a hearing sometime In January. It appears, to us that on the basis of your Nevada laws, that order was not lawful and could suc­cessfully be suspended by a temporary restraining order. There are a couple of provisions In the Nevada law which are applicable. The first on# Is under the Nevada Public Utilities Act and It Is Section 6137 of the Nevada com piled statutes. That Section provides that It Is unlawful for any public utility to discontinue service except on 20 days notice filed with the Commission and upon order of the Commission made after h ew in g. So, under that Section the Public Service Commission could not, as we construe It , make an order permitting a u tility to discontinue the service until after a hearing Has been made. Since, In this case as for as we are given to understand, and as we have bean advised, no hewing has been had ye t. So on the basis of that Section, the temporary order which they have put out would probably be unlawful. In tha same Section referred t® above, It provides that any violation by any person shall constitute a misdemeanor and imposes a fine of $«K> and $250. Possibly the Land & Water Company Is guilty of a crim inal act. Also very probably any person who Is hurt by that order could obtain a tamporwy restraining ordar. In such an action for a temporary restraining order, probably your appropriate plaintiff would be tome person who wonts to make a connection before this hewing 1$ held In January and who Is denied the right to make a connection. Such on Individual would