Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1961 )

-.
THEATTORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
AUSTIN m.TExas
WILL WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
‘May 25, 1961
Honorable J. W. Buchanan, Chairman.
House Conservation and,Reclamation Committee
State Capitol Building
Austin, Texas
Opinion No. WW- 1069
Re: ~Certain legal aspects of
House Bill No. 116, now
pending before the 57th
Legislature, Regular Ses-
sion, 1961.
Dear Sir:
You have requested an opinion on House Bill No. 116 now
pending before the 57th Legislature, Regular Session, 1961. That
bill would amend an act that created the North Central Texas Mum-
cipal Water Authority,~ Chapter 86, Acts of the 55th Legislature,
Regular Session, 1957, compiled as Article 8288-193, V. C..S.
That Authority, as created by the law just mentioned,
originally contained all of the territory then contained within the
corporate limits of the Texas Cities of Seymour, Knox City, Munday,
Goree, Haskell, Rule, and Rochester.
,By a prescribed process of local self-determination, the
Cities of Rochester and Knox City voted to withdraw at the confirm-
ation election, and the City of Seymour withdrew upon the first bond
election. So the Authority currently comprises the territory of four
cities--Haskell, Munday, Goree and Rule.
The caption of H. B. 116 provides as follows:
Hon. J. W. Buchanan, page 2 (WW-1069)
“An Act amending Chapter 86, ,Acts of the 55th
Legislature, Regular Session, 1957, compiled as
Article 8280- 193 of Vernon’s Texas Armotated Civil
Statutes; providing the methods and procedures by
which any of the present member cities of North
Central Texas Municipal Water Authority may be
detached therefrom and making permanent the boun-
daries and areas of the district after the results of the
procedures for detachment have been determined;
providing methods for the payment of outstanding bonds
and indebtedness of the district in the event areas are
detached; providing other provisions which are inci-
dent? and relate to the purposes named; repealing all
laws in conflict; providing for severability; and declar-
ing an emergency. ‘I
At this point we will examine the caption and see if it meets
the requirements of Section 35, Article III of the Texas Constitution.
The purpose of Section 35, Article III in requiring a caption
expressing the subject of the bill is to enable interested persons to be
rea.sonably apprised of the contents of the bill upon a reading merely
of the bill’s title. Schlichting v. Texas State Board of Medical Exam-
iners, Tex. -, 310 S.W.2d 557 (1958). This purpose may be
accomp=d by a caption couched in broad and general terms so long
as it remains reasonably informative of what follows in the body of
the bill. Atwood v. Willacy County Navigation District, 284 S.W.2d
275 (Civ. App. 1955, error ref. n. r. e. ). Where, as in the case of
House Bill 116, the bill in question is amendatory of a prior article, the
caption will be adequate though merely naming the prior article and stat-
ing that the article is amended by the present bill, provided that the pro-
visions of the amendatory bill are germane to the amended article.
Scblichting v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, supra. See
Board of Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, 155 Tex. 111, 283
S.W.2d 722 (1955). If the caption of an amendatory bill contains, in
addition, explicit reference to ‘~ certain provisions in the bill, then
the caption is adequate as to those provisions without regard to the
rule requiring that amendatory provisions be germane to the amended
article. Shannon v. Rogers, Tex. -, 314 S.W.2d 810 (1958).
. .
Hon. J. W. Buchanan, page 3 (WW-1069)
The caption of the present bill first refers to the amen,ded
Article and then mentions in ,order the various provisions of Hou,se
Bill 116; it contains no reference to particular provisions of the
amended article. On the basis of the rules stated above, we believe
that the reference to the amended article is sufficient in this case to
meet the requirements of Section 35 of Article III, for the following
reasons.
First, the caption does not describe the bill as amending
Article 8280- 193 by the provisions which a,re listed in the remainder
of the caption; rather, it merely states that the bill amends that
article, and then lists what turn out to be. upon inspection of the bill,
the amending provisions. Thus the reader is put on notice by the cap-
tion that he may expect in House Bill 116 any provision germane to
Article 8280-193. since the caption gives him no license to rely on the
portions of the caption following the reference to the amended Article
as the sole statement of what he may expect in the bill.
The caption is thus good, in our opinion, if the provisions of
House Bill 116 are germane to the amended,Article. This we believe is
clearly the case, since Article 8280-193 creates the North Central
Texas Municipal Water Authority and in general defines the powers
of the Authority and provides procedures for its operation, while House
Bill 116 adds to, changes, or supplements these powers and proce-
dures of the same authority. For example, Article 8280-193 allows
the detachment of component cities under stated conditions, but pro-
hibits such detachment
“after the issuance of bonds which dare
payable from revenues or taxes or both. ”
House Bill 116 removes this prohibition by providing a detachment
procedure which is available, without regard to whether there has been
a prior issuance of bonds, to any or all member cities.
It should be noted that, as recognized in House Bill 116, the
effect of this last-mentioned provision is to make available a procedure
for the abolition of the authority. Such a provision, we believe, is ger-
mane to the article creating the authority. But we believe further that
. -
Hon. ,J. W. Buchanan, page 4 (WW-1069)
the caption of House Bill 116 is otherwise sufficient to put one on
notice that the detachment procedure might result in the detachment
of all component cities and the resulting abolition of the authority,
since it states that 3 of the member cities might be detached under
the procedure provided. And since it appears from the caption that
House Bill 116 does not of itself detach any cities, but merely pro-
vides a detachment procedure, it does not seem to us misleading for
the caption to state that the bill
II[ makes] permanent the boundaries and areas of
the district after the results of the procedures for
detachment have been determined. . . ‘I,
for we believe it would be clear to the ordinary reader of the caption
that this provision would be applicable only if some component cities
remain in the authority.
The file contains a letter from an interested party who suggests
that H. B. 116 is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is a special or
local law in violation of Section 56, Article III, Texas Constitution, and
we assume that our opinion is sought on that point.
In Atwood v. Willacy County Navigation District, *, the
court was considering an attack upon the constitutionality of an act of
the Legislature granting certain additional powers to an existing dis-
trict originally created under Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitu-
tion.
The Court said:
“Whether a law which creates a district under that
provision of the Constitution is a local or special
law is not an open question. ‘It is settled that a
statute is not local or special, within the meaning
of this constitutional provision, even though its
enforcement is confined to a restricted area, if per-
sons or things throughout the state are affected thereby,
or if it operates upon a subject that the people at
large are interested in. ’ ‘I
Hon. J. W. Buchanan, page 5 (WW-1069)
The North Central Texas Municipal Water Authority was
similarly created and its objective in essence is to supply water
to co-operating cities constituting its territory. See Article 8280-
193, v. CS.
The Constitution of Texas declares the conservation and
development of the water resources of the State to be “public rights
and duties. ‘I Section 59, Article XVI.
For these reasons, H. B. 116 is not a local or special law
in violation of Section 56, Article III, of the Constitution.
We find no constitutional objection to House Bill 116 on any
other ground.
SUMMARY
House Bill 116 pending before the 57th Legislature
Regular Session, 1961, is constitutional.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
````~-
Assistant Attorney General
LH:hmc:lmc
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE :
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
W. Ray Scruggs
John Reeves
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Morgan Nesbitt