Court Opinion

ID: 9538264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:33:53.860924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:42.330953
License: Public Domain

Badt, C. J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result, but for a different reason. Putting aside for a moment the needs of Virginia City,1 Silver City, and Gold Hill, it is a matter of common knowledge that within the past several years the State of Nevada has been compelled to buy water from Marlette to serve the State Capitol, the State Prison, the Capitol grounds and other buildings owned by the state essential to the use of its public officers and various commissions, departments, agencies, and employees. This occurred at times when Carson Water Co., the public utility supplying Carson City, was curtailing and regulating the use of water by the citizens of Carson City (including hundreds of state employees who by reason of their employment had their residences in the city) by prescribing the hours of the day and the days of the week during which lawns, trees, and gardens might be irrigated. Without thus supplementing the city’s regular water system with water purchased from Marlette, the state’s historic Capitol and its beautiful Capitol square,2 with its age-old pines, firs, and cedars (not to mention American elms, Norwegian and sugar maple, and English linden) would have suffered greatly, and possibly have been lost. With the Marlette property on the market for sale (and this means in essence its water rights *340and its watershed), such property may not be available in the future. A state government without an adequate seat of government cannot reasonably be envisioned.3
Petitioner’s opening brief presents this issue: “The purpose of the contract between the State of Nevada and Marlette Lake Company is to transfer the Marlette Lake water system from the company to the state. The water system supplies water to the state-owned buildings in the Carson City area. No citation of authority is necessary to establish * * * that the purpose of the contract is to protect and preserve state property * * Nowhere do the respondents controvert this. In contending against petitioner’s assertion that the bonds could be issued unaffected by the limitation of authorized state indebtednesses to 1 percent of the assessed valuation “for the protection and preservation of its natural resources * * respondents argued that the Marlette property was not a part of “its” — the state’s — • natural resources, and said: “This authority which the people gave to the legislature in 1934 to incur debts for the protection and preservation of its property [despite the 1 percent assessed value limitation] must be construed to have reference only to property owned by the state.” The issue, then, thus stated by petitioner and conceded by respondents should dispose of the question presented to this court.
I would approve the contract and issue the writ of mandate under the constitutional provision authorizing the incurring of the indebtedness free of the limitation of the first paragraph of art. 9, § 3, and under the authority of the second paragraph of said section “for the protection and preservation of its [the state’s] property” and under the legislative finding that it is “both expedient and advisable * * * for the purpose of obtaining and continuing the benefits thereof now *341and in future years for the state and its citizens.” I do not think that the necessities growing out of the present petition and answer require a holding of such far-reaching implications as found in the majority opinion.

 Shortage of water in Virginia Oity during several seasons is a matter of public record in the files of the office of the Public Service Commission, importuned by the citizens of that city to compel the Marlette Water Company to repair its flumes and make other necessary repairs and improvements to permit enough water to reach the consumers to afford sufficient water for domestic use.

 Marred though it is by the erection upon it of a state office building constructed along the lines of modem architecture.

 The constitution requires the seat of government to be at Carson City, Nev. Const, art. 15, § 1.