upr000160 177

Mr. W. E. House 5# April 2, 1952 F u rth e rm o re , this same section expressly declares that the furnishing of water by the District is a public purpose* "Since the water district, for the creation of which provi­sion is herein made, is created for the purpose of supply­ing its inhabitants with water as a public and municipal function, all property of the. district shall be exempt from taxes by the State of Nevada and the political subdivision thereof, and the bonds issued by the district and fchp in­csotmaet e.t"herefrom shall also be exempt from taxation in this In Volume 34, Words and Phrases, under heading "Pol­itical Subdivision" are found numerous eases dealing with the question whether various public bodies are political subdivisions* The courts arrive at conflicting results in these cases depending upon how the question arises and what statutory provisions are involved, but it is my opin­ion after examining many of these cases that the las Vegas Water District should be classed as a political subdivision of the State of Nevada in the sense that it exercises some of the sovereign powers of the State for the purpose of providing a public utility service* The following are a few cases which support this views State v. Lincoln Power Diet* #1 (Nev.}, 111 Pac. 2d 52$, holding a power district created un­der the statutes of Nevada for the purpose of dis­tributing power in the Pioche mining district was a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State and exempt, from state taxation* Commissioner v. Shambergts E s ta te and Commis­sioner V. White’s Estate, above mentioned* Ashton v. Cameron County* etc*. 29# U.S* 513, in whidh the Supreme Court held unconstitutional certain amendments to the bankruptcy law,but stat­ed that an irrigation district organized under the laws of Texas to furnish water for irrigation and domestic uses, having power to borrow money and levy taxes, was a political subdivision of the state created for the local exercise of its sov­ereign powers*