Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )


Menu:
  • .   .
    The Honorable William J. Bernardino                 Opinion   No.    H-   280
    Montgomery   County Attorney
    Conroe,  Texas   77301                              Re:   Can a road be considered
    a health nuisance so as to give
    district health officer authority
    to order its abatement?
    Dear Mr.   Bernardino:
    You have requested our opinion on the question of whether “a
    road” can “be considered   a health nuisance so as to authorize a Health
    officer to proceed to abate same under provisions    of V. A. C. S. Art.
    4477-1,   Sec. 3(b). I’
    Article 4477-1, V. T. C. S. , establishes      “minimum     standards of
    sanitation and health protection measures.      ”    In its 5 1 (g) it defines
    “nuisance”    as:
    “Any object,  place or condition which constitutes
    a possible and probable medium of transmission     of
    disease to or between human beings or any other object,
    place or condition which may be specifically  declared
    by this Act to be a nuisance. ‘I
    In $ 2, it specifically declares certain conditions           “to be nuisances
    dangerous to the public health, ” among them:
    !, . . . .
    “(e) Any place, condition or building controlled
    or operated by any governmental    agency,  state or
    local, which is not maintained in a sanitary condition;”
    p.   1304
    .   I
    The Honorable        William     J. Bernardino      page 2   (H-280)
    I,
    .   .   .
    ‘l(h) Any collection of water in which mosquitos
    are breeding within the limits of any city, towns or
    village;”
    1,:. . . .
    Section   3 (b) provides       as follows:
    “Every local health officer who receives
    information   and proof of the existence of a nuisance
    within his jurisdiction   shall issue a written notice
    to any person responsible     for the said nuisance.
    ordering the abatement of same.        He shall at the
    same time send a copy of the, said notice to the
    local city, county, or district attorney.      Such
    notice shall specify the nature of the nuisance and
    shall designate a reasonable    time within which such
    abatement shall be accomplished.        In the event
    such notice is not complied with within the specified
    time, the local prosecuting     attorney who received
    the copy of the original notice shall be so advised
    by the local health officer,    and he shall immediately
    institute proceedings   for the abatement thereof. ”
    We believe that the basic answer to your question is controlled
    by the facts and circumstances     involved in a given case, and the most
    we can say is that there is nothing about “a road” that would prevent
    conditions existing thereon from being considered       a nuisance under
    Article 4477-l   if the conditions defined in the statute exist with reference
    to or because of the road or its maintenance.
    In your letter you enclosed a letter to you from the director of
    the Montgomery-Walker     County Health District which indicates that the
    concern emanates from that agency.      We note our belief that under $ 5 4
    and 4a of Article 4447a,  V. T. C. S., the director of a coordinated health
    p.    1305
    The Honorable   William   J. Bernardino       page 3   (H-280)
    program   such as the Montgomery-Walker      County Health District may be
    considered a “local health office” as defined in $ 3 (b) of Article 4477-1,
    with a caveat from the narrow construction      of the latter statute in ABC
    Rendering Inc. v. State,   
    342 S. W. 345
     (Tex. Civ. App.,       no writ, 1961)
    which holds that a “local health officer” under Article 4477-l must have
    taken the oath required ,of county health o,fficers and have filed a copy of
    his appointment with the State Board of Health.
    The letter from the health unit further indicates that the following
    conditions on the road in question are disturbing the agency:
    “1) When a road is so poorly built and/or maintained
    that it persistently contains significant amounts of
    stagnant or unwholesome     water liable to produce disease.
    “2) When a road is so poorly built and/or maintained
    that it interferes with proper drainage causing sub-
    surface water to the degree that it interferes with
    proper functioning of private sewage systems   or
    threatens to contaminate private or public water
    supplies.
    “3) When a private road is       the only means of egress
    to a densely populated area       (e. g. a subdivision) and
    it is so poorly built and/or      maintained that it would
    be impossible    a significant    amount of time for vehicular
    traffic to pass.
    “4) When a private or governmental      owned road is the
    only means of egress of large numbers of people living
    in a densely populated area and it is subject to periodic
    obstruction  (e. g. flooding) not due to an Act of God of
    sufficient degree that vehicular traffic cannot pass a
    significant amount of the time. ”
    p.   1306
    The Honorable   William   J. Bernardino      page 4     (H-280)
    The first two conditions described    above i. e., stagnant or un-
    wholesome    water and interference   with sewage systems or water supplies,
    could logically  fall under the broad definition of nuisance in § 1 (g) of
    Article 4477-l and also under the two quoted specific definittons from
    $ 2 (we included 5 2e on the assumption    that the road is maintained by the
    county or by a county commissioner      and, although your letter does not
    reveal this information,    your brief so indicates).    Moreover,  subsections
    e and (1) of $ 2 refer to poorly maintained sewage conditions and these
    impliedly could apply to the conditions described     in the health unit’s letter.
    On the other hand, we doubt that the conditions described   in 3 and 4
    of the letter would invoke the provisions of Article 4477-l.    The fact that a
    road is not adequate to handle the amount of traffic required of it seems
    to us remote from the health hazards contemplated     by Article 4477-l.
    The well-written    and well-reasoned    brief provided with your request
    reaches a contrary result based upon Articles        2351, 6713, 6730 and 6771,
    V. T. C. S. , which give county governments      exclusive  authority over the
    maintenance    of county roads,   including the construction   and maintenance
    of drainage facilities.    We do not believe that these statutes authorize
    a violation of Article 4477-1,   V. T. C. S. , or the maintenance    of a health
    nuisance as defined     therein,  e. g., Article 4477-1,   $2 (e), V. T. C. S. ,
    supra.
    SUMMARY
    Conditions of a road may be considered    a health nuisance
    under the provisions  of Article 4477-1,  V. T. C. S. , if the
    conditions defined in the statute exist with reference     to
    or because of the road or its maintenance.
    Very   truly yours,
    u      JOHN L. HILL
    Attorney General       of Texas
    p.   1307
    The Honorable   William   J. Bernardino    page 5   (H-280)
    DAVID M. KENDALL,         Chairman
    Opinion Committee
    p.   1308
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H-280

Judges: John Hill

Filed Date: 7/2/1974

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017