Discussion

The complainants acted reasonably when they constructed the well and pump to replace the service withdrawn by the Company. The Company's February 27 withdrawal of service letter was unequivocal, and even gave permission for the complainants to pursue other sources using its riparian water rights.

The only question remaining is whether the Company should refund the connection fee paid by the complainants, which is the only relief requested here. We conclude that it should. The Company simply reversed its original commitment to provide water service. The complainants received no material benefit from the service for the relatively brief period before it was withdrawn, and they should not be required to pay a contribution for the system cost, because they are bypassed by the system. They are now providing their own water service at their own expense, with the full knowledge and consent of the Company.

Any dispute about legal rights or responsibilities for disturbance of the Company's two-inch line across the driveway or the removal of the concrete blocks is immaterial to the connection fee issue, and will be resolved in the pending lawsuit. The Commission can order restitution of tariff charges, but it has no jurisdiction to award damages for property loss or adjudicate property rights such as easements, and those issues are properly before the court.