Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1958 )


Menu:
  • Honorable R. M. Dixon          Opinion No. WW-473
    Board of Water Engineers
    1410 Lavaca Street             Re: May an existing Water
    Austin, Texas                      Control and Improve-
    ment District change
    its name, and related
    'Dear Mr. Dixon:                   questions.
    Your letter of June 18, 1958, requests our opinion
    on.,the,following:
    :,%
    "1.    Does Art. 7880-16 authorize an existing
    Water Control and Improvement District
    to change its name to a name more de-
    scriptive of the locale and principal
    powers to be exercised so long as the
    word "district" appears in the new
    name?
    "2 e   If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the
    affirmative, does the Board of Water En-
    gineers have tine authority to approve an
    application for such name change?
    "3.    If the answer to Question No. 2 is in the
    affirmative, may the Board of Water En-
    gineers at its discretion establish the
    procedure and fees to be paid by the ap-
    plicant?
    "4.    If the answer to Question No. 2 is negative,
    what action is necessary to change the name
    of an existing district?*
    Honorable .R. M. Dixon, page 2 (WW-473)
    Article 7880-11, V.C.S. requires that the petition
    for the organization of a water control and improvement dis-
    trict "shall designate the name of the district." Article
    7880-16 prescribes the name which may be given such a dis-
    trict.
    There is no statute which either expressly or by
    implication authorizes the change of name of an existing dis-
    trict. The district may exercise only such powers as have
    been expressly delegated to it by the Legislature, or which
    exist by clear and unquestioned implication.  Tri-City Fresh
    Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Harris CoUnty v. Mann, Atty. Gen.,
    
    135 Tex. 280
    , 
    142 S.W.2d 945
    (1940).
    Your first question is answered: No. Consequently,
    no answers to questions 2 and 3 are necessary. Your fourth
    question is answered: There is no authority for the change
    of name of an existing district.
    SUMMARY
    There is no authorization for an
    existing Water Control and Im-
    provement District to change its
    name,
    Very truly yours,
    WILL WILSON
    APPROVED;
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    J. C. Davis, Jr., Chairman                  Assistant
    Marietta McGregor Payne
    Tom I. McFarling
    Jack Goodman
    Henry G. Braswell
    REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    By: W. V. Geppert
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-473

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1958

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017