Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1952 )


Menu:
  •                      July 18, 1952
    Hon. H. A. Beckwith
    Chairman, Board of,Water,Rnglneers
    Austin, Texas,
    Opinion No. V-1482
    Re:, Authority of:the Board of
    Water'Engineersto'distin-
    guish between "receiving"~
    ,.and "filing"'applicatlons         I
    to enable the return of
    filing fees after prelimi-
    ;;;;o~amlnations of appli-
    .
    Dear Sir:
    'In yourrequest   for a,nopinion you state:
    "~TheBoard of Water Engineers has
    required all fees to be paid at the time
    an application Is 'recelved';.theBoard
    then makes preliminary examination.under~
    Article 7503, and If the application Is
    rejected it has been the practice of the
    Board.to return all fees. No~applicatlon
    is now 'filed' until all"amendatory.matter
    is requested and obtained.' The applica-
    tion, etc., Is now kept in a. 'received'
    status until the file is complete."
    You then state other possible ~interpretationsof the
    statute and ask: ,,
    "1. Do existing statutes govern-
    ing the Board of WaterEngIneers of Texas
    allow the 'receiving' of applications and
    preliminary'examination thereof before
    same are 'filed,' or must applications be
    -      -
    Hon. H. A. Beckwith - page 2 - V-1482
    'filed' immediately upon receipt of
    same with correct fees, and preliminary
    examination  then be made under Article
    7503,  R.C.S., 1925?
    "2. Does the last paragraph of
    Article 7532, R.C.S., 1925, prevent the
    Board of Water Engineers of Texas from
    returning any filing fees?
    "3.  If the Board must 'file' an
    application before preliminary examination
    is made, can the Board adopt .a rule so as
    to require submission of corrective data
    within ten (10) days or other reasonable
    time, after preliminary examination Is
    completed and further provide that any ap-
    plicant who falls to amend and furnish the
    required data within such time may suffer
    the rejection of his application for failure
    to comply with Board rules?"
    The following articles of Vernon's Civil Statutes
    are pertinent to your inquiry':
    Art. 7501 -- "Every such application
    shall be accompanied by the fees herein-
    after provided, and shall not be filed or
    considered until such fees are paid."
    Art. 7503 -- "Upon the filing of such
    application, accompanied by the data and
    fees hereinbefore provided, it shall be,
    the duty of the Board'to make a preliminary
    examination thereof and, If It appear that
    there is no unappropriated water in the
    source of supply, or that, for other reasons,
    the proposed appropriation shall not be al-
    lowed, the Board may thereupon reject such
    application; in which case, If the applicant
    shall elect not to proceed further, the
    Board may return to such applicant any part
    of the fees accompanying such application."
    Art. 7504 -- "The Board shall determine
    whether the application, maps, plats, con-
    -   .
    Hon. H. A. Beckwith.: Rage 3   -   V-1482
    tours,,plans, prof.$lesand statements
    accompanying same.are in compliance
    with the provisions -of the"Board and    ~.
    may require the amendment thereof."
    ,.
    ‘.
    : Articles 7503 and 7504 were,.Rassed.asdifferent
    para raphs.oP Section 22-of Acts 35th,Leg., R..S,1917,
    ch. 88, p. 211, and should be construed accordingly.
    - _  You
    will note that-the first sentence of Article 7503 lndi-
    cates .that.the.applicationshould be "accompanied by the
    data and fees"provided in.the'statute before it is
    filed.: Thenda.tawhich should accompany an application
    is set out in.Articles 7493, 7494,,..and
    7500; V.C.S. The
    Board 1s.directed,in Arti.cle.7504,V.C.S., to determine
    If this data complies w,ith-the,requlrementsi
    That the application ~shouldnotbe. filed'until
    It is received in proper form is further Indicated by
    Article 7523, V.C.S., which provides that the priority
    of the appropriation "shall date~from the filing"of the
    original applica~tionin the office.of the Board.   The
    Legislature would not have intended~a priority to,date
    from the submission of an incomplete application. This
    has long been.the interpretation given the~statute by the
    Board of Water Engineers. Article 7488, V.C.S., gives
    the Board power to make all needful rules for Its govern-
    ment and proceedings. Pursuant to this article, the
    Board adopted Rule 3, Rules and Regulations of the Board
    of Water Engineers, which provides:
    "All.applicationsfor permits to use
    or store water, which are not in conform$ty
    with the statute, or are not accompanied by
    the required filing fees, shall be, if in
    the judgment of the Board it be necessary
    to amend,or revise same,.returned to the ap-
    plicant; but ifs the fillng~fees be insuffi-
    cient such application may-be ,heldpending
    notice to .the.applicantof amount of.fees
    necessary. In no event shall an applicant
    have priority based onany other dating than
    that which indicates the da.teof recelpt>in
    this office of the corrected application, and
    the receipt of the full filing fees."
    Hon. H. A. Be&with    - page 4 - V-1482
    r,i::ft
    e rii
    ."
    In the absence of provisions of the statute to the con-
    trary, this departmental tiotitructlonand rule Is per-
    suasive. Shaw v. Stronq, 
    128 Tex. 65
    , 
    96 S.W.2d 2
    6 291
    (1936); Kay vi Schneider, 110 ?ex. 369, 221 SIW. 8 lo* ~,(1920)
    In answer to your first question, therefore; the-
    application should not be filed until thenrequirements
    with rerlpectto the form of the application and Eiccom@anyL
    ing data and fees have been complied with.
    However, It Is, our opinion that the "prellmlhary
    examination" mentioned in Article 7503 does not refer to
    examlnation'for the purpose of determxning the sufflc~iency.
    of the application and accompanying data as to form, Hthic)i
    would take place before the application is filed. After
    the application Is flled,'the Board then makes the pre-
    liminary examination mention&d in Article 7503 for the
    purpose of ascertalnlng'whether the application should
    be denied for atiyof the reasons set out,ln that artlcleT
    In your second question you inquire whether~
    filing fees may be returned by the Board. Artlrcle7532,
    V.C.S., provides, in part:
    "The board shall charge and collect for
    the benefit of the State the fees hereinafter
    provided, . . . said fees being as follbws:
    11. . .
    "For filing each application for a permit          1'
    a fee of $Pj.OQ and costof publishing notice
    and maillllgnotices.
    n
    -, :
    "The fees paid upon application for a per-
    mit qther khan the filing fees herein provided
    shall be held by the Board until said appli-
    cation is passed upon, and if the same ia n&t
    granted such fees shall be returned to the ap-
    plicant therefor, prdvided if such application
    Is thereafter granted by judgment of a court;
    then said fee shall be paid before such permit
    shall be effective."
    Hon. H. A. Beckwith - page 5 - v-1482'
    Article 7532 direct.s..that
    certain fees not
    Including the filing fee shall be returned under.given
    conditions. It does not preclude the return of the
    filing fee. Article 7503 provides tha~tupon the filing
    of the application, the Board ls.,to,make a prelim%.nary
    examination thereof and if there.is no'unappropriated,
    water or if, for other'reasons, the abpropriatibn
    should~not be allowed,and the applicantshall note.lect
    to proceed further, "the Board'may re~turnto such.ap;
    pllcant any part of the ~fees.accompanying``
    such appli-
    cation.' Therefore,.the.Board may;'.'ln:i:tsdiscretion,
    return any part of the filing fee.:.where-lthasd&ifed
    the appropriation on preliminary~examination.
    ./     :~
    As Article 7532 dire&s the collectionof a
    fee for flling~the application and-Article7503 contains
    the only provision allowing a.refund, the filing fee
    should be retained in all.cases where the application
    has been filed unless the application is deni.edyonSthe
    basis of the preliminaryexamination. That ~p'art0.fthe
    filing fee collected in advancefor cost of publishing~
    notice and.mailing notices should, of course,~,berefunded
    where such costs are not incurred.
    In answer to your third question, the filing of
    an application would not preclude the Board from.there-
    after requiring further amendment 'or supplemental material
    as provided in the statutes. Under the~power.conferred by
    Article 7488,  the Board could adopt a ~rule req@lng    the
    amendment to be made within a reasonable time to .-.be specl-
    fied in each instance.
    The conclusions reached in- this opinion are
    based upon the provisions of the particular.'statutes
    here involved. They are not intended to apply generally
    to statutes which make no distinction between the sub-
    mission of an application and its filing, nor do they
    necessarily apply where the statute makes no provision
    for a return of the filing fee.
    ,   .
    cTi’      Hon. H.   A.   Beckwith - page 6 - V-1482
    i-2  *,
    SUMMARY
    The Board of Water Engineers upo,n
    receiving an application for approprla-
    tion of water should refuse to file,lt
    unless it is in the statutory form and
    accompanied by the required data and fees.
    Upon the filing of the application; lf~
    it appears on preliminary examinatl,on.~that
    there is no unappropriated water in,the
    source of supply or thatfor other reasons
    It should not be .allowed,the.Board may
    reject the application Andyreturn any part
    of the filing fees the Board deems proper,
    Otherwise, the Board should retain all
    fees properly charged for filing the ap-
    plication.
    The Board may adopt a rule requlr-
    lng amendatory or supplemental material
    to be filed within a reasonable time.
    Yours very    truly,
    PRICE DANIEL
    APPROVED:                       Attorney .General
    Jesse P. Luton
    Land Division
    Mary K. Wall
    By K&%4&
    K. B. Watson
    Revfewing Assistant                         Assistant
    Charles D. Mathews
    First Assistant
    KBW:bt
    

Document Info

Docket Number: V-1482

Judges: Price Daniel

Filed Date: 7/2/1952

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017