Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )

i . .
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MAlTOX November 5. I984
lttorney General
NonorAble Lloyd Doggsrt Opinion No. JX-226
-upmeme cowl BulldIng
0.80x 12sB ChAirmEn
Al”. lx. n711. zE4B Subcodttee on ConAm6r AffAirr Be: Whether Article 1175. 6ec-
512l47525Dl Texnr, Store Senate tion 19, V.T.C.S., authorize6
-elex B1074.1367
P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station A home rule city to adopt And
lIocOpl*r 512l475-0255
Auatinr Ta.6 78711 enforce regulatloa6 which Arc
.pplicAble outnide city limit6
‘14 J6ckmm. Suit. 700 and vhich provide 6tandarde for
Iah*. TX. 75202-4505 the Eafe 6torAge of hArardou6
.14i74269*4
materf.16 over the vater6hedA
in end Eurrouuding the how
624 AlBwl~ Ave., stdt* 15D rule city
il Pus. TX. 29905-1793
01- Dear SeUetor Doggatt:
You o6k vhether rection 19 of Article 1175. V.T.C.S., Authorize6
lull 1oxar. Suit* 700 - _ . _. __ . _
nouatotl. lx. 77w24111 A hom6 Nle city tD aaopt regUlAtlOne, AppllCAbl6 OUtEiOC Of City
‘lY22WBW IbitE, vhich 6et ,mtAndArd6 for the 6ofc 6torAge of harardou6
Psterial6 in the vatc~rrhedo in And 6urrounding the home rule city. We
conclude (1) that IL home ~16 city may define a6 a nuleance the
m 8roAdw*y. Suit. 312
6tOrege of hat.rdow EubntAncer ne.r it6 Voter Aupply vhen it h.6 A
.ubtwcL TX. 7B4Q1-3419
lW747.5238 vell-founded Appreh~ur6lon of dongcr from ruch Ator6ge within it6
municipal limit6 And vithin five thou6and feet of it. boundaries, And
(2) thAt A home ni1.e city, ny promulgate 6tandArd6 for the safe
IXS N. Tenth. Suit. 8
6tOrAge of tierdow mEtErid to prevent rater-6upply pollution in
kN6n, TX 7B!m.lBd5
the vater6hedr within the home Nle city’6 extrAterritoriAl juri6-
5t2mB24.47
diction.
loo Ydll Pm., Suit. 460 Article 1175 Q@AEi6e6 th.t hom6 Nle Citi66 ah.11 hAV6 “full
son Alltolllo. TX. ma32797 pover of loul ateIf -government" And enumerate6. “for greater
512R2s4101
certainty ,” p8rtiCUhr pU”Er6 pO66e66ed by hOme Nle Cities. Section
19 of article 1175 pr~wide6 a6 follow:
An Equal OpcmtunltW
Attlmutm ActIon EFPlOve- Each ci.ty 6h.11 have the pover to define all
uuieAnce6 end prohibit the 6ame within the city
and outaid; the city lioit6 for A distance of five
thousand f;et; to have paver to police All park6
or ground6;TAkecl And the laud contiguous thereto
And u6ed 1:. connection therevith, 6peedvaps. or
boulevArd6 Novned by 6Aid city And lying outride of
said city; to prohibit the pollution of 6x1~
6tre.m. dmin or tributnrle6 thereof, vhich msy
conetitutezthe lo u r c a of VAter 6upply of Any cite
Honoroble Lloyd Doggett - Purge 2 (JM-226)
And to proVid6 for policing the 6omc 06 Veil a6 to
provide for tha p;otcction of Any vater rhedr And
the policing of iom6; to inspect doirie6, 61.6u-
ghter pens And 6iiGtcr hou666 inride or outnide
the limit6 of the Icity, from which meat or milk is
furni6hed to the inhabitAnt of the city.
(Emph~clir added).
Two clou6es *re rclevcmt to your quertion: the paver to define
nui6onc66 and the povcr to prohibit voter 6upply pollution. Your
request center6 on interpret:lng the nature of there pover6. on vhether
any other provleion6 h&c preempted the povere, And on vhether the
omi66ion of “inride or outel~ic the limit6 of the city” from the above-
quoted And underecored clms~s vhich d6.16 vith pollution prevention in
Any v&y limits such control to vithin A home rule city’6 boundarie6.
Article XI, eection 5 Of the T6X.6 COnEtitUtiOn granted brood
pover6 of self-government to citleo qualifying for “home rule.”
Within their boundarler, hcme rule cities derive their paver from the
constitution rather th6n f:rom legi6lation. See Lover Colorado River
Authority v. City of San fiwco6. 523 S.W.Zd 6T. 643 (Tex. 1975). Ao
a result, the scope of thei;Ecr vithin their boundari66 depends not
upon legialotive grontr of paver but upon expre66 or clearly implied
limitation6 in the constitution. in the general 1.~6. and In indivi-
du61 city charters. Lover Colorado R&r Authority-v. City of Son
Muc0l). s. The prGG$i:ion in favor of home rule clti66’~ pover6
vithin their boundarle6 0160 affect6 interpretorion of their extro-
tarritorial pover6.
A home Nl6 city mulIt have expre66 or neC666Arily implied
6tAtUtOry Authority t0 UerCiEe paver outaide it6 bound.srle6. City of
Auetin v. Jnmail. 662 S.V.21~ 779, 782 (Tex. App. - AuEtin 1983. writ
VeceTrudgillv., 275 S.W.Zd 658. 662-63 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1954)n motion for reheering); Royel Crest, Inc. v. City of San
Antonio, 520 S.W.Zd 058. 86,b-65 (Tex. Civ. App. - Son Antonio 1975,
vrit ref’d n.r.e.). ChC6 such power exist6, hovever. any limits on
it6 cxerciee mu6t appear v:.th “unni6t8~ble clarity." City of Corpus
Chri6ti v. Continental Du6 Sgrteme. Inc., 445 S.V.2d 12, 17 (Tex. Civ.
APP . - AuEtin 1969, vrit ;efTo.r.c.) per curium. 453 S.V.Zd 470
(Tut. 1970); .*6ee. l . (G.5’ o;ivy;E 1’ ~y!&yg’&y&-~;
Inc., 406 S.W. d 23
n.r.e.1; Cameron v. City of -- WACO. 8 F.W.2d 249 (Ter. Civ. App. - WACO
1928, no vrit).
Section 19 of ortic 1175 doe6 not by It6 term6 limit voter
pollution prevention to vit’hin A home Nit City’6 boundaries merely
because of the omission of the words “inside or outside the limits of
the city.” StAtutt6 mmt be COuEtNed 06 A whole and one PrOViSiOn
vi11 not be given a meanings out of harmony or inconsistent with other
provisions even if the prwi6loa might be EUECtptiblt to such con-
6tNCtiOn if 6tanding oloue. City of We6t Lake Hills v. Westwood
Legal Defense Fund, 598 S.U.Zd 681 (Tex. Civ. App. - WACO 1980. no
Noaoroble Lloyd Doggett - PAge 3 (Jn-226)
vrit) ; lee Merchant6 F&Et Mo.:or Line6, Inc. v. kailroAd CodEriOn of
m, 73 S.W.Zd 502 (T& 1978). With regard to the other
enumerated pouera, 6ection I,9 expr666lY provide6 for their eXerCiAe
outride the city fimitr. TItu6, the over611 import Of 6rtiCle 1175,
66CtiOn 19. itI t0 prov:lde for the lx e r c i6eof p6rticulAr
extrat6rritoriAl pover6.
Article 1176 further cl6rifi66 the effect of Article 1173 by
providing that
[tJhe enumeration of power6 hereilubova m6de rhall
never be ConEtrued to pr6ClUdA. by implication or
otherwi6e. Any 6lN:h City frW 6XEtCiEing the
power6 incident to the anjoymant of loco1 Eelf-
government, provided that ouch povcrr ah.11 not be
inhibit6d by the Stats Con6titution.
Thur, the OmiAaion of “inrid,E or out6ide the limit6 Of the City” from
the vater pollution-prevvcntion clau6e of rection 19 doe6 not limit the
lXerCl6e Of 6uch pover to vithin A home Nl6 City’6 boundorier.
To the ContrArY, the v6t6r pollution prevention power6 Are not
neC666Arily limitcd t0 five thourond feet. The court in Treodgill v.
m, 275 S.W.Zd lt 661, iodicoted in dicta that the omia6ion of the
in6lde or outaide 1anguAge w.6 intcndad t0 AuthOri VAter 6Upp17
pollution prevention "vithout llmit 06 to .diEtAnce from the city
liEtit6." Section 19 rcfer,a to both nuirance-defining And water
pollution prcvention; thu6, giV66 th.t polhtion Of A public Voter
durae la A public nulMnce, Gold6mith 6 Pwell v. State. 159 S.W.Zd
534 (Tc Civ. ADO. - D.11.1, 1942. writ ref’d), and o66umin8 that the
cl&e ir not 6uperfluou6. IOM AdditIonAl pouer VAE intendid. f+-rY
legi6lotivc provieion vi11 te given effect, if pO66ible.
Life Insurance Company of Amc_rico v. Work. 77 S.U.Zd 1036 (Tex.
T 1934 .
Neverthele66, the votcrshedr of 6ome VAterCourAe6 con lxt6nd for
hundred6 of mile6, And how Nle Citi66’ general pOliC6 pOWEra. t0
promote and protect the gctrr!rd hulth. Eofety, And velfore of the
people, have not been cxtecided beyond their utrotrrritori.1 jurie-
diction AA e6tAbliEhed by l:tiuu 3 of Article 9700, V.T.C.S. Thu6.
vhen taken togethcr. Article6 1175 And 97th authorize A horn6 rule city
to dcfina nuiaonces And to prevent vAt6r 6upply pollution vithin it6
bOUndOr And vithin five thourond fact of ita boundarier. And, Addi-
t10uA11y. to prevent p01.1.uti0n of ita voter 6UPP lY in it6
extrotarritorial juri6dicticn vherc ouch jurirdiction i6 greAter than
fiV6 thourond feet.
QueEtions remain about: the nature of eactioa 19 povera: (1)
whether they lncompaaa regulating the 6ofe storage df hatArdou6
materialo, And (2) whether Any other con6titutional ot Etotutory
provi6ionA. vith “UC”d6tAti3~l6 ClArity." limit the nuisance-defining
and voter pollution prevent:.on clAuae6 of rection 19. Preliminary to
deciding the latter questioa, vhether either pov6r has been superseded
p. 1013
Honorable Lloyd DoSSett - P,aSe 4 (JM-226)
or preempted, l basic undcntendiag of the povera la necessary.
Becauoe pollutiou of a pu,:Lic vatercourse is a nuisance. Goldsmith 6
Povell v. State. m, the! povera overlap considerably. Both pavers
encompaaa regulating the safe atorage of hazardous uateriala in the
vateraheda surrounding A home rule city.
Absent CxDress Authority. _ - A city cannot declare that A subject of
regulation in a nuisance VlhAUit is not a0 per se or at come& law.
Croasuan v. City of Galveston, 247 S.U. 810, 812 (Tex. 1923). Article
1175. section 19. l xurea.?F authorizes houe rule cities to define
nuisincea vithin -their boundaries and vithln five thousand feet of
their boundaries. Treadgill v. State, 275 S.W.2d At 661; Stoughton V.
City of Port Worth. 277 S,W.2d 150 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1955.
no vrit); see also Vlanello v. State, 627 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. App. - Fort
Worth 1982, oo pet``ker, even with express authority, A city
cannot ACt arbitrarily AII~, cannot declare that a particular uae of
property is A nuisance vhlch ia not so in fact. Crossuan V. City of
GAhAStOU, D. If A f.se is a heard to the health, safety, snd
velfare of the public. it can constitute A nuisAnce in fAct. Dart V.
Cit of Dallas, 565 s.W.211 373, 379 (Tex. Civ. App. - Tyler 1978. no
.Mheless, A psrticular violation of a city’s nuisance
ordinance vhich is not a ~n~iaance per ae or at c-n lav would be A
question for A court of ctmpetent jurisdiction. See Crosanan v. City
of Galveston, Ewt v. City of D811~7 Bill V.
Villarreal, 3 83 =YS.W. d a5 (Tax. Civ. App. - SAG An%%?1964, vrit
ref’d n.r.e.); Air Curta@ Destructor Corp. v.-City of Austin, No.
12-83-0108-CV (Tex. App. - Tyler Aug. 23, 1984).
As indicated. A hCpC rule city my.declere A public nuisance that
vhich IA a hasard to the health, safety, and velfare of the public.
Vianello v. State, B; 8art v. City of Ds``As. rupra; Hill v.
Villarreal. B. An object of regulation need not affect AII entire
city in order to coaatitut:e a nuiearice. Stoughtoo v. City of Fort
E, 277 S.U.2d At 153. A necessary and uaeful business is not
itadf. a nuisance vhen operated III’A msnaer not harmful to the public
health and general velfax,e. Benson v. DeUiAOn. 546 S.U.Zd 898. 901
CT-. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1977, no vritr; City of Carthage v.
Alluua, 398 S.W.Zd 799. 804 (Tax. Civ. App. - Tyler 1966. no vrit);
hovLITcr. A city may proAcribe harmful operations. See City of a0u8t0n
v. Johnny Frank’s Auto Pwts Co., 480 S.W.2d 77bTex. Civ. App. -
Bouston [lbth Dlst.] 1972. vrit ref’d n.r.e.). The location and
uanner of the conduct of businesses involving hasardous substances
have long been subject to state and city police pover. See. e.g.,
Dudding v. Automatic GAS Co.. 193 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1946) (storage of
liquified butane gas); Tre;rill v. State. w (firevorks); Vianello
V. State, supra (dog ---v.kennels , Board of Adjustment of
University Park. 433 S.U.Zd 727 (Tex. Civ. App. - DAlIaS 1968. vrit
ref’d n.r.e.) Goning of gasoline filling station). Thus, a hove rule
city uay regulate the rmthod of storage of hasardoue materials
pursuant to section 19.
p. 1014
Ponorable Lloyd Doggett - Pslit! 5 (JM-226)
Further, in lom instan:s8, a city could determine thAt the only
“SAfe” rtorage of hAzArdour ,materiala iA ~0 Atorage ueAr it8 VAter
supply or the supply’s tributaries -- that Auch atorage is A nuisance
in fACt. Certain lubstAnces and uaea of property; hazardous enough to
cAuse a veil-founded apprehA:Mion of danger. May be totally prohibited
from the specific areas in rthlich they create A hAZArd. Treadgill V.
State. lup r a ; Stouphtoo v, ';lty of Fort Worth. B Just a0 the
atorase of firevorks and fltsmable liauida may be nrohibited because
of A-vell-founded ApprAherwl.00 of &ger tb people and property
neArby, ao way a home rule city prohibit the storage of substancea
near ita vAter aupply vhic& if introduced into the city’s vater
supply. vould endanger the he:slth, rafety, And welfare of the public.
Thus, both the method o,[ Norage of hAZArdouA substances and the
locAtion of such atorAge may be regulated i0 sensitiVe areas pUrSUAnt
to rectioo 19’s nuisance c:.ause. vithin the city’s boundaries And
vithlo five thousand feet of itr boundaries. Regulation of Unsafe
lrorage practices may also be enacted pursuant to section 19’s VAter
pollutioo prevention clause.
As indicAted. pollution of A public vatercourse is a nUisAoCe;
thus. the vater supply pollw1Loo prevention C~AUSA of section 19 also
encompAsses prohibiting as A ouisAnce the storage of certain hazardous
materials in the watersheds c’f the city’s vater supply and defining as
a nuisance certain unsafe sIxwage prActices vhlch endanger the home
rule city’s tiater -supply. Bowever, the vater pollution prevention
clause ia some&at broAder in nature. UAter pollutioo prevention may
properly include regulArion cjf activities not necessarily constituting
A nuisance. See, e.g., City of Austin v. J~mil, w
Nevertheless. general constltutionAl protections prohibit
unreasonable ordinAoces and Arbitrary applicationa of police pover.
See City of BrookAide PillAge v. ComeAu. 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tu. 1982).
zt. denfAd. 459 U.S. 1087-(1982):ty of Austin v. Teague. 570
S.U.2d 38 3-bx. 1978); Crow&n 4; City Of GalVestOO. m. The
only queAtio0 remaloiog iZIG ther any specific state or federA 1``s
linit these pavers of A home rule city. As indicated previously. the
teat is vhether limits on that uerciae of these oovers aooear vlth
“uariatatuble clarity.” cirz of Corpus Christ1 i. Continmtal Bus
SYstems, Inc., lupra.
On the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976. 42 U.S.C. 116901. et ae aa Amended by the Solid WAste
Diapos~l Act Amendmenta of 1980. -Y hereinAfter RCRA], was intended as A
compreheoaive scheme designed to deal with an alarming increase in the
uncontrolled generation, trirr~sportatioo. and disposal of hazardous
vastes. Section 6929 of the RCRA deals vith the reteotion by the
StAteO of certain Authority 8s follow:
Upon the lffecrive dAte of regulations under
this subchApter no !itate or political subdivision
may impose any requirements lass striDgant than
p. 1015
m
Hooorable Lloyd Doggett - Page 6 W-226)
those luthorited ,mder thie l ubchApter raepectiog
the lAme utter #.I governed by lueh regulations,
except that if A~,``~iUtiOO of a ?eylAtiW vith
respect to any utter under thiA subchApter is
postponed or l njo~lned by the action of AOY court,
00 StAte or pol.itical subdivision OhAll be
prohibited from eating with raapect to the same
AApACt of such matter until such tiu aa luch
regulation tAkA0 8,ffACt. NothinS lo this chaptAr
shall be conetrued to prohibit any State or
political subdiv:%on thereof fror imporins AO~
rAquiremeots, ioc~i;,ding those for rite selection,
vhich are more (~ringent than those imposed by
such regulatloom. (Rmphamia AddAd).
Thus, relevant federA lav doe8 not prevent TA~AS home rule cities
from AWCtiOg “more stringent” provisions thA0 federA regulations.
See tiuclear ingioeering Co; $1. 8&t. 660 F.2d 241, 249 0.10~ (7th Cir.
1981). cert. denied, b55 -U.S. 993 (1981). See ~180 Mlssiasippi
Comiasioo on NAtural Resowrcea v. Coatle, 625 P.2d 1269, 1275 (5th
Clr. 1980). Slmllarly. kte IAV does not prevent such lOCAl
regulation;
The StAte’s entry iota A field of 1egidAtlon doea not autow-
ticAlly preempt thAt field from city reguhtioo. City of Brookside
Village v. Come~u. 633 S.U,Ild at 796. Local regulatfoa, AOCillarg to
Andyia hamony with the general scope and purpose of atate enactmenta,
i. ACCeptAblA. Cit Of Brookside VillAge v. COWAU, a; see alsO
Cit Y of BeAmout --yh
v. PA S.U. 202 Grin-T ; City of BeAumoot
v. Bond, 546 S.Y.2d 40 (Tea. Clv. App. - Beamout 1977, writ ref’d
TizTx
Tvo date public her,Lth AtAtutea relate to the lto r 8g ofe
hazardour uterialA our vator ruppliea: Articles 4477-l And 4477-7,
V.T.C.S. Section 23(~) of Article 5477-1, however, expressly
indiutAa that the act doec, not purport to 1Mt the authority of home
rule CitiAa to enact wre c;triogeot ordiaaocea. Sirilarly, lec tio 10 o
of article 4477-7 indicate8 that. it8 proviaiooa are cuulative of
other hro and l xprrrrly dirclaims any limfting effect on the
Authority of local govermmta.
The remaining source of potential state preemption la the Texas
Idatar Code. The code colltaioo no uprers “non-preemption” ClAuse.
Aovever, 00 provlaion of the code 1Mta , vith unmistakable clarity,
the powera of how rule cil:J.as, AA enumerated in lec tto 19 o of article
1175, to regulate the ltorage of harardour materiala vhich threaten
ita va ter lupply or joy contributing vater source lo long AS the home
rule city’e regulation doe8 not purport to lessen the pollutioo
ltanderde provided for in .:Ire code.
p. 1016 I
R
RonorAble Lloyd Doggett - Page 7 (J&t-226)
The priuary lotipollu~::tou provisioos of the code appear in
chapter 26. WAter Code $926.~001, et seq. Section 26.011 provides, in
pertinent pert, thet
[e]xcept AS otherrise specifically provided. the
department ShALl Ad~mioister the provisions of this
chapter and shall ~astablish the level of qUALity
to be maintained in, And shall control the qUAlity
the vatsr in this state aA provided by this
%ptsr. (Smph~eis added).
One section is specffically preemptive. Section 26.023 grants the
Texas YAter Developueot Board “the sole And exclusive authority to set
vater quAlity standarda for ~11 vater lo the state.” Tuo other
provisiona, sections 26.124,(a) and 26.177, specifically prescribe
methods of loccll govenmert pArticipatioo in enforcement of code
provisions. All three of theBe proviAioos require explicatioo.
Section 26.023 is the .mly relevAnt proviaioo of the Water Code
clearly intended to be premptive. By granting the board sole and
exclusive authority to set, by rule, vater quality StAudards. the code
does not prohibit A Gle city from regulating the location of and
sAfe storage standArda for hazardous materials IO its vatersheda. The
TAXaS Supreme Court encountered A much closer question in City of
Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.U.Zd at 796. vhere the court found
thAt atAte and federal regl:lation of the construction, SAfetyI And
iostallatioo of mobile homes did not preempt consistent city zooing~
orditmuces regulating the lmation~ uobile homes And the constmc-
tioo. operatlou. and maluteosnce of uobile home perks.
The reuainisg provis1ot.r deal primrily with luforceueot of code
provisions rather than lufoccement of independent, cousisteot. regs
tioo pursuant to other lav. Section 26.124(a) provides for enforce-
ment of aectioo 26mling vith unauthorized diechArges) by local
gave-ots but expressly ILimits such lnforceuenta to the 10``1
gwemment’s bouodaries. exclusive of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
City of Bouatoo v. Clear Cfzk Basin Authority, 589 S.U.2d 671, 680-81
(Tu. 1979). Although sectToo 26.121 uay itself be broad enough to
reach ACCidentAl “discharges” caused by unsafe storage practices, it
does not preeupt regulacim by horn; rule cities. -See City of
Brookside Village v. Comeau, supra. Section 26.124 does-t purport
to limit independent regulatioo vhich is othervise authorized by lav.
The final provision. sc’ction 26.177, deAls vith vater pollution
control by cities and expressly authorizes enforcement by cities of
vater pollution control and AbAteOmIt programs vithin their extra-
territorial jurisdiction. City of Austin v. Jauail, suprs. Although
the city of Austin based 1;; authority on section 26.177 rather than
on article 1175, the ca;w provides general support for local
ordinances vhich are conslatent with code provisions.
p. 1017
Donorable Lloyd Doggett - Palge 8 (JH-226)
The deciaioo about sec:tiou 26.177 in City of West LAke Hills v.
Uestvood Legal Defense Fudk. D. is ioapposite here. The court
held that section 26.177 does not specifically grant the paver to
liceose private revAge :facilities located vithin the city's
extrAterritorial jurisdictim because other Water Code proviSiOos
specifically granted the pover to the TAXAS Wstcr COWi~SiO~.
LiCeuSiAg authority is 001: A povsr thAt tvo diffAreut, ind;si;;t
goveraveotal bodies can ulelily and consisteotly lXer Ci*e.
the court in West Luke Bills dealt vith A general l~v City. Rome 1~1i
cities have the benefit of ;;ticle 1175 and Are subject to a different
test for limita on their paver; state StAtUtOr]r limit8 00 home rule
cities uust appear vith umi#takAble clarity. The Texas Water Code
does not prevent how rule cities from regulAtiog the storage of
hAZArdOur uateriAls vithl.o their extraterritorial jurisdiction
pursuant to sectioo 19 of a.rticle 1175.
SUMNARY
Fureuant to 6ectiou 19 of Article 1175.
V.T.C.S., hove :rule cities my regulate the
locstion and atmage of hAxArdOu8 materials in
their vatersheda vithio their boundaries snd
vithio their ext~:a~territorial jurisdictioo.
7-x n WATTOX
Attorney GeoerAl of TEAS
TOM GRRXN
Firat AaAiStAAt Attorney G,AuerAl
DAVID R. RICRARDS
Executive A88iatAnt Attorney GeoerAl
RICX GILPIN
ChAiimau, GpiuiOu Cmittea
PrcpAred by Rick Gilpio
ASSiStAnt Attorney tinera
APPROVED :
OPINION COMIITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colio CArl
SuSAn GarriaOn
Jim Moellinger
NAnCy SUttOD