upr000281 54

Mr, S.S. Bennett #2 Therefore, the o n l y statutory requirement for a designation of the eoat la contained la Section 7?M» HCL, as a requirement of the application for a permit to appropriate eater. The coat figure which must he included la the "estimated" cost. Furthermore, the application la not required to he made under oath. The eoat flgora which la called for in the printed form of affidavit of completion aa fumiehed hy the etate engineer, la not requited hy Section 795a XGL, end in ay opinion la only an eatlnate* It la not intended to he the actual cost nor deee the statute requite a filing of the aetual coot, notwithstanding that the ecnqmay has furnished a coat figure in this form, the lastgua&i would permit the company to furnish in a hearing before the Public Service Commission, the actual cost of com­pleting such work and there would he no conflict betveen the actual coat and the cost figure furnished la the aforeeaid affidavit of com­pletion of work. . I note that in connection with the filing of some of the proofs of application to boneflcial use, the ecstasy has laeluded a statement of shat purporte to ho the actual coat of completing sush work, and this figure has been laeluded in the provision for "remarks" in the printed form furnished by the state engineer* Neither Section 795t nor the printed form furnished for proof of application for sator to boneflcial use require a statement of costs * Consequently in instances shore such figures have been included the company has volunteered such informatioa. However, it should be borne in mind that in such ia-staaoe* share a sost figure has been included in the proof of bene­ficial use the information ae to cost has bean furnished under oath. la view of the foregoing, f am of the opinion that the filings in question comply with the Xevada law. t am also of the opinion that supplemental affidavits shoving the true cost of construction of the completed works should be filed if the Public Service Commission is going to consider the various filings in the office of the state engi­neer as evidence of the capital investment of the conpaay. tilth reference to your iaqitry as to protection against drainage in the event that the so-called surplus sater land of the company sur­rounding the wells is sold, I agree with your Observation that there would be little "assured" protection for the company. It is true that under Section 79^8 VSL the etate engineer has the poser to reject an application for water. Under that eeotion it is his dirty to approve all applications mads in proper fora where such approval doe# not to impair the value of existing rights, or be o th erw ise determents! to pufehB welfare* This eeotion further provides "but where there is no unappropriated water la the proposed source of supply, or where its proposed use or change ccnflicte with existing rights, or threatens to prove determents! to the public interest, it shall be the duty of the m