Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1972 )


Menu:
  •           THE    ATTORNEY                 GENERAL
    ,OF      TEXAS
    Aus~nv.      -78711
    Sept.embsrlS~ 1972
    Honorable C. J. Eden                 .,Opinion No. M-     1218
    County Attorney
    Stephens County.~                        Rer   Authority of the Com-
    110 East -Walker                               missioners Court to
    Breckenridge, Texas 76024                      grant a permit   to a
    corporation for use
    of,right-oi,lrlaysof
    county roads for
    locating pipeline for
    transmission
    .              ~of water
    in connection with
    water flood operation
    Dear Mr. Eden:                                  in oil p.roduction.
    '.
    We have received your recent request, .accompanied
    by your able brief, for an opinion of this department on the
    following question:
    ,"Whether or not the Conmkssidners Court of
    Stephens County or.a Commissioner of said county
    has the authority.to grant a permit    or license
    to give consent for a Texas corporation, quali-
    fied.as a public utility, to lay pipeline along
    the right-of,-way of a county .road.for the trans-
    mission of water to a s,econd corporation, ,an oil
    produoing'corporation, for use.,,inwater-floe@
    operations :inzo'nne&ion with.the production of
    oil."
    Yourletter which~accompanied your request indicates
    that the applicant is. "Gra-Pet Gas,Company, a~Texas ,corpora-
    tion, which corporation is classified as a public utility. . . .'I
    An examination of the Articles of Incorporation of
    the Gra-Pet Gas Company leaves considerable doubt in our mind
    Hon. C. J. Eden, page 2,          (M-1218)
    as to whether the purpose clause gives the corporation the
    authority to buy and sell water.  Nor do we find in the arti-
    cles any provision which would classify the corporation as a
    public utility in connection with the sale of water.
    We are of then opinion that absent an amendment to
    the articles to remedy the above stated deficiencies, the
    Commissioners Court has no power to grant the permit, nor
    doesthe corporation have the right to lay the lines.
    We are of the opinion, however, that a Texas corpor-
    ation with authority to sell and transport water as a public
    utility would have the right under Article 1433, Vernon's Civil
    Statutes, so far as the county is concerned, to lay its lines
    along the right of'way of a county road.
    Article 1433 reads as follows:
    "Any water corporation shall have the power
    to sell and furnish such quantities of water as
    may be required by the city, town or village
    where located for public or private buildings or
    for other purposes; and such corporation shall
    have the power to lay pipes, mains and conductors
    for conducting water through the streets, alleys,
    lanes and squares ,of any such city, town or vil-
    lage, with the consent of the governing body
    thereof, and under such regulations as it may
    prescribe. Such cornoration is further author-
    ized to lav its pipes, mains and conductors
    and,other~ fixtures forconductinq~water  throuqh,
    under, alonq, across and over all'public roads,
    streets and waters lvinq and situated outside
    the territorial limits of any such city: town,
    or villaqe in such manner as not to incommode
    the public in the use of such roads, streets
    and waters. Any such corporation shall notify
    the State Highway Commission, or the Commissioners
    Court having jurisdiction,' as the case may be,
    -5973-
    .
    Hon. C. J. Eden, page 3;             (~-1218)
    when. it.proposed-to build 1ines:along the right
    of way of any.State Highway, or county road;.
    outside the limits ofiany 'incorporated city'or
    town, whereupon theyHighway .Commission, or the
    Commissioners Court'may~, if. it SOS desires,~
    designate the'place alon      the,right,of,way:
    where such lines shall be constructed.       The
    public-agency, having' jurisdiction' or 'control
    of ~a highway:$or county'.ruad,:that isi the:.:.
    Highways Commission~orthe     Commiss%oners- Court,
    :be, may-:require.any such cor-
    .:as:the,-:case~,may
    poration, at its 'bwn,,expense;:to.  relocate:its
    lines on a State Highway or county road outside
    ..the:.limits,
    _.._ ., ofan inaorporated..city:or~town; so
    ,,
    asto-permit~'the &$&ng~:,or      charqfng pf: trafffq.
    ,~:.lanes. by.giving thirty,,..QC)-days'~writtenhotic,e
    tosuch .corp&ati'on~'a&specifying .the'line or,'
    ..linesYto``.be.moved,``~and indicatirq the pla&on,
    the,ne~.~right of way,were ~such-line or lines.
    .mny,-.be,..placed..
    'When deemed necessary'to:pre-     ':
    ,..serve.~the.public health;~ any company .or corpora-
    ,tion-chartered:under:the.-laws of this .State::for
    the purpose.lof.,,,constructing:waterworks  or' fur-."
    ni,shing water supply :ta'.anycity .ortown,. shall.
    have::the.right:of :emin'entdomain ~to condemn.'
    ,private property ~necessary.',for  the construction
    of supply reservoirs:~or standpipes~ for water
    work.:Actsl87.4, ‘p. 134; G.L. ,Vol. 8. p. '136:
    Acts'l909, .p. 8; Acts 1949.;.51st.Leg.. p. 137~0,
    ch. 622, S 1."     (Emphasis added.)              ,t:
    ,,Attorney.lOene~al'e'.Opi~ion,Nb;M-508 (1969) includes
    'the follautin~.:pete~ne~t'~
    l&+aQ&:
    .
    "It has been recognized further that.it is
    in the public interest to,receive utility services:
    therefore; oublic;utilities~ are authorized to use
    ~the streets-and highways.:"Gtate v. City of',Austin'
    (State,v. ~City.of-,Dallasj; 160 Tex. '348; 331 S.W;2d
    131 (1960).
    -5974-
    I
    Hon. C. J. Eden, page   4,       (M-1218)
    "The Legislature acting for the State has
    primary and plenary power to control public roads
    and streets. Recognizing this proposition,'the
    Court in State v. City of Dallas (State v. City
    of Austin), 
    319 S.W.2d 767
    (Tex.Civ.App. 1959.
    aff. 
    331 S.W.2d 737
    ) said at page 773:
    'There can be no question but that the
    Legislature can lawfully,,permit cities and
    private corporations to place facilities
    in streets and highways to provide essential
    utility.service for the public, . . .'
    "The Legislature has seen fit to grant direct
    statutory authorization to public utilities to
    use public roads~.and~hiqhwavs. Some,such authority
    isfound in Articles 1416, .1433, 1436a and 143633,
    Vernon's Civil Statutes. .IGuld    therefore appear
    that Article 6203d, Vernon's Civil Statutes, would
    be rendered inapplicable to the q'uestion presented,
    since no additional grant of an easement would be
    necessary in order to entitle public utilities to
    take advantage of the right-of-way of existing
    public roadways. Accordingly, the Texas Board of
    Corrections would not be obligated to collect, nor
    public utilities required to pay, for placing lines
    in, on, along or across existing public roadways
    traversing State land under the custody and control
    of the Texas Department of Corrections."    (Emphasis
    added.)
    In view of all of the foregoing, a Texas water
    corporation, qualified as a public utility, hasthe  right to
    lay its pipes along the right of way of county roads pursuant
    to Article 1433.
    Note that we have held that under certain facts, the
    corporation has the right to lay its lines. This is under
    authority of the Legislature as expressed in Article 1433 and
    -5975-
    Hon. C. J. Eden, page 5,          (M-1218)
    is not pursuant .to any permit issued by the county. Indeed,
    the statute does not provide for a permit  except as to where
    on the right,of way the pipes shall be laid.
    We make the above statement for the reason that the
    question hae~ been raised of ~claims that the abutting land
    owners might have against the county where the county right
    of way has been obtained by ,prescription, ,As we interpret
    Article 1433, the county is not a party to any .action taken
    by the corporation.   Such action is under authority of a
    legislative.enactment, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity
    protects the State from suit.
    With reference to the right under.a State statute
    of the utility to lay its lines, see Heldt v. Southwestern
    Bell Te1ephon.e Co., 482 S.W.Zd 352, 356 (Tex.Civ.App. 1972)
    where the Court wrote, in what we co,nsider a'valid analogy:
    "Appellee. under the authority of Article
    'V.A.C.S.., is authorized to erect its poles,
    .~1464~,
    w~ires and other fixtures along, upon and across
    any public roads,, streets and waters-of Texas,
    subjeot only to the restriction that same must
    be done~ in a manner as not to incommode the pub-
    lic inthe use of such roads, streets, and waters;
    This is a right granted by the State.which cannot
    be denied by a municipality or city. . . ."
    (Emphasis added.)
    SUMMARY
    -------
    A Texas, corporation, provided it is quali-
    fied as a water corporation and as a public
    utility, has,the right under Article 1433,
    Vernon's Civil Statutes, to lay its pipes along
    the right of way of county roads, subject to
    the conditions set out in said Article.
    -597 6-
    .
    Hon. C. J. Eden, page 6,          (~-1218)
    truly yours,
    Prepared by James S. Swearingen
    Assistant Attorney Gener~al
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Kerns Taylor, Chairman
    W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman
    Pat Bailey
    Jack Sparks
    Charles Lind
    Scott Garrison
    SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
    Staff Legal Assistant
    ALFREDWALKER
    mecutive Assistant
    NOLA WHITE
    First Assistant
    -5977-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-1218

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1972

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017