upr000197 44

Mr. Wm. Reinhardt 5 December 4, 1951 f o r i t s c o n t r a c t s w it h th e W ater Company because we have n e v e r a d m itte d t h a t th e R a ilr o a d Company s o ld w a te r to th e W ater Company. The W ater Company r a t h e r than th e R a ilr o a d Company has a lw a ys f i l e d a p p lic a t io n s to a p p ro­p r i a t e th e w a te r d e v e lo p e d by w e lls upon th e R a ilr o a d la n d s , and th e s u c c e s s iv e c o n t r a c t s betw een th e R a ilr o a d Company and th e W ater Company have a lw ays bean drawn up­on th e t h e o r y t h a t th e R a ilr o a d Company was m e r e ly a c t in g as a c o n t r a c t o r f o r th e W ater Company in p ro d u c in g th e wa­t e r w hich th e W ater Company had a p p r o p r ia te d and t h a t th e R a ilr o a d Company was m e r e ly le a s in g to th e w a te r Company th e use o f i t s r e s e r v o i r s and tr a n s m is s io n mains f o r th e w a te r tak en by th e a t e r Company. I th in k i t i s e n t i r e ­l y p o s s ib le i f th e m a tte r w ere l i t i g a t e d t h a t a c o u rt o r com m ission m igh t d e c id e th a t th e R a ilr o a d Company in e f ­f e c t was s e l l i n g w a te r a t w h o le s a le t o th e W ater Company. T h ere I s c o n f l i c t in th e d e c is io n s w it h r e s p e c t to w h eth er a w h o le s a le r o f a p rod u ct d is t r ib u t e d by a p u b lic s e r v ic e c o r p o r a t io n i s i t s e l f a c t in g as a p u b lic u t i l i t y . U nder th e f a c t s o f p a r t ic u la r ca se s w h o le s a le r s have in some in s ta n c e s been h e ld n ot t o be p u b lic u t i l i t i e s . How­e v e r t h e r e a re a number o f d e c is io n s h o ld in g d i r e c t l y to th e c o n t r a r y . I n th e ca se o f fioquacfcanonk W ater Co. v . Board o f P u b lic U t i l i t y C om m issioners (W e w J e r s e y ), l l f f A t l . 535. I f was h e ld 'th a t a company"which s o ld w a te r a t w h o le s a le to o t h e r w a te r d i s t r i b u t i o n com panies was n e v e r t h e le s s a p u b lic u t i l i t y s u b je c t t o r a t e r e g u la t io n by th e Board o f P u b lic U t i l i t y C om m ission ers. In th e ca se o f O r n d o ff v . P u b lic U t i l i t i e s Commission (O h io ), 21 N. § . 23~5J57™a p ro d u c er o f n a tu r a l gas who s o ld gas to a gas company w h ich as a u t i l i t y d is t r ib u t e d gas t o consumers was h eld to be a p u b lic u t i l i t y and r e q u ir e d to make a r e p o r t to th e P u b lic U t i l i t i e s Commission. In th e ca se o f sou th Oklahoma Pow er Company v . C o r p o r a tio n Commission (b k la - Hb'aaT, "220 "P'ac. 370, i t ' "was H e ld t h a t a c o r p o r a tio n gen­e r a t i n g e l e c t r i c power and s e l l i n g i t a t th e sw itch b oa rd o f i t s p la n t t o a d i s t r i b u t i n g company w hich d is t r ib u t e d i t t o th e p u b lic was i t s e l f a p u b lic u t i l i t y and r e q u ir e d to f i l e annual r e p o r t s w it h th e S t a t e C o r p o r a tio n Commis­s io n . In th e ca se o f d a l l a t i n N a tu r a l Qas Co. v . P u b lic S er v i c e Commission (M o n ta n a ), :iJS P a c . 37$, i t was h e ld