upr000286 23

Hr. Hm. Reinhardt: -3- Aug. 17, 1949 *Xn this connection the commission and court must hear In mind the provisions of our state Consti­tution that no person shall be deprived of his prop­erty without due process.of law, and thatprlvate property may not be taken for public use until a Just compensation shall be paid therefor, as well as the similar provisions'in the federal Constitution* Sec­tions 13 and 14, art. 1, Idaho Constitution. 3?o com­pel the proprietor of a utility to make enlargements or extensions under such circumstances that he could not make a fair return upon his whole Investment would certainly be depriving him of his property without due process of law. In order to Justify the commission In ordering enlargements, the commission should be sat- , isfied from the evidence: first, that the existing plant is not reasonably sufficient to render adequate service (Washington ex rel. 0« R. <i H. Co. v. Fairchild, ' 224 U.S. 310, 32 Sup. Ct. 535, 56 2*. Ed. 063); second, that the extension or enlargement Is within the soope of the original professed undertaking of the proprietor of the utility (H. F. K. Co. v. H. Dak., 236 U.S. 585, 35 Sup. Ct. 429, at page 433, 59 L. Ed. ___ ); third. that after the making of the enlargements or extensions the owner will be insured a fair return upon his whole investment (Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466-546, IS Sup. Ct. 418, 42 It* Ed. 819); fourth, that the particular enlargements or extensions are reasonably necessary to insure reasonably adequate service (N. P. B. Co. v, N. Dak., supra, and Washington ex rel* 0# B. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, supra).* I think, in our particular case, we could very well sustain our contention that such an order Issued by the Heva&a Public Service Commission would be highly unreasonable and that we could not hope to secure a fair return upon the investment. On this point, and having in mind the statement in the editorial we discussed, that such a pipe line would cost a million and a quarter, would it be possible, before your proposed discussion with the City F&thers, to secure some rough approximation of the layout of such a pipe line, the probable cost thereof, and the amount of water which we might be able to divert from the exist­ing pipe line over and above that now used by the industries in and around the basic magnesium Plant? I think the resulting _ figures would be so large that ® City Fathers realize that the cost thereof would be such an additional burden on the water users of Vegas by way of increased water rates, that they would lose interest in It. EEB:AF E. E. Bennett