upr000065 318

Mr* I.K. Bennett £2 Therefore, the only statutory requirement for a designation of the cost is contained in Section 79^ NCL, as a requirement of the application for a permit to appropriate water* The cost figure vhlch aust !*• included is the "eetiaated" cost. Furthermore, the application is not required to be made under oath* The cost figure which is called far In the printed form of affidavit of completion as furnished by the state engineer, ie not required by Section 7952 VCL, and in my opinion is only an estimate, ft is not intended to be the actual cost nor doss the statute require a filing of the actual cost* notwithstanding that the company has furnished a cost figure in this form, the language would permit the company to furnish in a hearing before the Public Service Commission, the actual coet of com­pleting such work and there would be no conflict between the actual coet and the cost figure furaiehed in the aforesaid affidavit of com­pletion of work. I note that in connection with the filing of some of the proofs of application to beneficial use, the company has included a statement of what purports to be the actual cost of completing such work, and this figure has been included in the provision for "remarks" in the printed form furnished by the state engineer, ^either Section 795k nor the printed form furnished for proof of application for water to beneficial use require a statement of costs. Consequently in Instances where such figures have been included the company has volunteered such information. However, it should be borne in mind that in such in­stances where a cost figure has been Included in the proof of bene­ficial use the information ae to cost has been furnished under oath. In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the filings in question comply with the Nevada law. 1 am also of the opinion that supplemental affidavits showing 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 company. With reference to your lnqiiry as to protection against drainage in the event that the so-called surplus water 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 HCL the state engineer has the power to reject an application for water. Under that section it is his duty to approve all applications made la proper form where such approval does not timid to impair the value of existing rights, or be otherwise determental to public welfare. This section further provides "hut where there Is no unappropriated water in the proposed source of supply, or where its proposed use or change conflicts with exist lag rights, or threatens to prove deteraental to the public interest, it shall be the duty of the