Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1975 )

T~ECATTOEENEYGENERAX~
OF TEXAS
AUSTIN. TKXAS 78711
January 21, 1975
The Honorable Tom Hanna Opinion No. H- 501
Criminal District Attorney
Jefferson County Re: Authority of a commis-
P. 0. Box 2553 sioners court to prepare,
Beaumont, Texas 77704 approve and amend the
budgets of drainage
Dear Mr. Hanna: dietricte.
You have aeked:
What authority, if any. does the Commissioners
Court of Jefferson County have to prepare, approve
and amend the budgets of Jefferson County Drainage
Districts No. 3, 6 and 7?
In Jones V. Jefferson County Drainage Diet. No. 6, 139 S. W. 2d 861(Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1940, err. ref’d. ), it was held that:
Drainage districts created under the provisions
of Chapter 7 of Title 128, Art. 8097, V. C. S., enacted
under authority of Art. 16, Sec. 59a, of the State
Constitution, Vernon’s Ann. St., are political sub-
divisions of the state of the same nature and stand
upon exactly the same footing as counties, or pre-
cincts, or any of the other political subdivisions of
the state . . . .
In Tri-City Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Harris County V. Mann,
142 S. W. 2d 945 (Tex. 1940). the Court said:
It is a general rule of judicial construction
that even a normal municipal corporation has only
such implied powers as are reasonably necessary
to make effective the powers expressly granted.
That is to say, such as are indispensable to the
declared objects of the corporation and the accom-
plishment of the purposes of its creation.
p. 2256
The Honorable Tom Hanna, page 2 (H-501)
That Court also said:
Governmental agencies, or bodies corporate
such as Fresh Water Supply Districts, under our
statute, are commonly referr’ed to by courts as
quasi municipal corporations, for the reason that
they are constituted by the legislature to exercise,
in a prescribed area, a very limited number of
corporate functions, and they are said to be ‘low
down in the scale or grade of corporate existence. ’
The powers of such districts are measured by the
terms of the statutes which authorized their crea-
tion, and they can exercise no authority that has
not been clearly granted by the legislature. As
expressed by the court in Stratton v. Commissioners’
Court of Kinney County, Tex. Civ. App. , 137 S. W.
ll70, 1177, writ of error denied, the powers of such
governmental agencies as counties, townships, and
school districts ‘are generally more strictly con-
strued than those of incorporated municipalities. I
. . .
Your letter contain,6 nothing to indicate that these drainage districts
were created by special act, and we therefore assume that they were
created under the general law pertaining to drainage districts, formerly
article 8097,, et seq., now incorporated in Chapter 56 of the Texas Water
Code.
Section 56.082 provides that
(a) Except as other,wise provided in this chapter,
the commissioners court has exclusive jurisdiction to
hear a~nd determine
(1) contests and objections to creating a district:
(2) matters relating to creating a district; and
(3) all proceedings of a district after it is organized.
(b) The commissioners court may adjourn a hearing
from day to day, and the judgment of the commissioners
court rendered tinder Subsection (a) of this section is final.
p. 2257
The Honorable Tom Hanna, page 3 (H- 501)
Although this section gives the commissioners court some authority
over the proceedings of a drainage district, we believe the language and
context of the statute indicate that this authority is primarily judicial
rather than administrative.
The statutes do not set forth the duties and powers of the drainage
district board. However they do provide under 56.069 as follows:
(a) The functions, powers, rights, and duties
exercised by or relating to the board of any’district
may be transferred to the commissioners court of
the county in which the district is wholly located,
but before the transfer is made, the commissioners
court and the board must pass resolutions authorieing
the transfer.
(b) After the transfer is made, the commissioners
court shall bs the sole governing body of the district
and shall exercise the functions, powers, rights, and
duties transferred.
(c) The members of the commissioners court are
not entitled to receive any compensation for the exercise
of these functions, powers, rights, and duties.
By implication, in the absence of such a transfer the Commissioners’
Court is not the sole governing body of the district and the Board thereof
has functions, powers, rights and duties which it may exercise or which
relate to it. One of those powers and duties, we believe, is the power
and duty to prepare, approve and amend the budget of the district. The
act referring to drainage districts does not expressly deal with authority
to prepare, approve, and amend budgets for drainage districts. However,
we think this power is within the implied powers of the Board as being
reasonably necessary to make effective the powers expressly granted.
And see, Texas Water Code, sections 56.126, 56.112, 56.001(b).
In the absence of a lawfully authorized transfer of power, we find no
authority for the Commissioners’ Court of Jefferson County to prepare,
approve or amend the budgets of drainage districts. It is elementary
that the authority and power of commissioners’ courts is limited to that
given by the %onstitution or lawfully delegated to such courts by the Legis-
p. 2258
. .
The Honorable Tom Hanna, page 4 (H-501)
lature. Attorney General Opinion H-412 (1974). Nowhere in the statutes
pertaining to drainage districts does there appear to be any attempt to
give the Commissioners’ Court any such authority, even though the
Commissioners’ Court is given certain duties with respect to drainage
districts.
Accordingly, in the absence of express statutory authority or authority
necessarily implied, it would appear that the Commissioners’ Court has
no authority to prepare, approve, and amend the budgets of these drainage
districts.
SUMMARY
The Commissioners’ Court of Jefferson County
has no authority to prepare, approve, or amend
the budgets of Jefferson County Drainage Districts
No. 3, 6 and 7.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
DAVID M. KENDALL. First Assistant
2. RGRERfHEATH. Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 2259