upr000097 79

#2 - The Honorable Board of Directors of Las Vegas Valley Water District - 9-9-53 2. In 1949 the Act was amended (Stat. 1949* Ch. 130, p. 208). No changes were made in Section 1. Section 19 was amended, among other things, by the addi­tion of authority to the District to own and operate its water distribution system within any municipal corpora­tion. Section 20 was amended by the addition of the following: 11 Such power of eminent domain is hereby specifically made to Include the right to condemn for the purposes of the district any existing water system and the franchise thereof, whether or not such existing water system may lie, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of any municipal corporation; provided, that the power of eminent domain herein specified shall not in­clude the right to condemn any existing water system or the franchise thereof which is owned, operated, or controlled by any incorporated city within said district.11 (Emphasis added.) 3, In 1951 the Act was last amended (Stat. 1951, Ch. 307, p. 477). Section 1 (listing the objects and purposes) was amended by the addition of subparagraph 15 authorizing the establishment of a depreciation fund; no change was made in subparagraph 7 relating to eminent domain. Section 19 was amended in other respects not here pertinent. No changes were made to Section 20 which prohibits the condemnation of a municipally owned water system. The cardinal rule of statutory construction followed by all courts is to ascertain and declare the in tention of the legislature; a construction will not be adopted which will nullify, destroy or defeat the inten­tion of the legislature. 50 Am. Jur. 200. In the in­terpretation of a statute effect is to be given to the whole of the statute, including each of its express pro­visions and it should not be construed so as to render it partly ineffective or as to result in absurd consequences Board of Commissioners v. Schmidt, 157 Pac. 1073 (Nev., 1916); Brooks v. Dewars 106 Pac. (2d) 755 (Nev., 1940). ’’Every word and clause in an act must be given effect if possible and none rendered meaningless by over-nice con­struction.” State v. Clark County, 83 Pac. (2d) 1050, 1054 (Nev., 193HT