Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1967 )

May 17, 1%
Honorable Joe Resweber Opinion No. M- 76
County Attorney
Harris County Courthouse Re: To what extent may the Harris
Houston, Texas 77002 County Commissioners Court
regulate the construction
and location of .,flre-fighting
facilities and equipment in-
stalled and operated by ,a
water control and improvement
district or a fresh water
supply district when it is
proposed to locate such
facilities and. equipment
in the area1 confines of
Hear Mr. Resweber: Harris County roads.
In recent letters to this office you have requested an
opinion In regard to the above referenced matter.
The answer to this question is dependent upon whether
water control and Improvement dlstrlcts or fresh water supply
districts are authorized to acquire and maintain fire-fighting
facilities and equipment. While this authority was granted to
such districts by statutory enactment (water control and improve-
ment districts - Article 7880-1, et seq., Vernon’s Civil Statutes);
e;zhs;;;;;,u ply districts - Article 7881; et seq., Vernon’s
? the Texas Supreme Court has held that those por-
t&s of the &tutes granting such authority are unconstitutional
as regards water control and Improvement districts.
“Section 52, Article 3, speclfles that’
water control and improvement districts may
Issue bonds for certain purposes. The pur-
poses,enumerated do not include the right to
purchase, own and operate fire engines, flre-
fighting equipment and appliances.
- 344 -
. I
Hon. Joe Resweber, Page 2 (M-76)
‘Section 59(a), Article 16, the other
constitutional amendment involved here, contains
no language which would support a holding that
the people In enacting the amendment contemplated
that a water control and Improvement district
created for the purpose of conserving and develop-
ing the natural resources of the district would
have the power to provide fire-fighting equipment
and appliances for a town within said district.
“Both constitutional amendmentsspecify the
circumstances and purposes for which water control
and Improvement districts may be organized and the
Legislature is without power to add to or withdraw
from the circumstances and purposes specified.
II Deason v. Orange County Water-Control and
&r&ement Dlst. No. One, 151 Tex. 29, 35; 244
. * 81, t14 152.
The Deason case was cited with approval In Harris
The holding In the Deason case, supra, is equally
applicable to fresh water supplydistricts. Inasmuch as water
control and Improvement districts and fresh water supply districts
do not have the authority to acquire and maintain fire-fighting
facilities and equipment, the question as to the extent of the
authority of the Harris County Commissioners Court to regulate
such dl8trictS as regards the construction and location of such
facilities and equipment is not reached.
The term “fire-fighting facilities, and equipment” as
used In the above holding Is limited to fire engines, fire
stations and the necessary and usual equipment and appliances
therefor.
Such districts have the power to erect and operate a
sewage disposal plant. Parker v. San Jaclnto County Water Control
and Improvement District No. 1 154 Tex. 15 2-W . . 2d 586 (1954)
Tfth dltlt ti In puisuance to Iti express and implied *
power:, d&&z t”A ?$ F!ter lines, install outlets for dispensing
water and other necessary appurtenances, to be located within the
area1 confines of the county,roads, the Commissioners Court may
require that the plans and specifications relative thereto, be
submitted to the County Engineer prior to the construction thereof.
Attorney General’s Opinion No, ~-56 (1967), mailed to you on April
lo, 1967.
- 345 -
Hon. Joe ReSWeber, Page 3 (M-76)
SUMMARY
Water control and Improvement districts and
fresh water supply districts do not have the au-
thority to acquire and maintain fire-fighting
facilities and equipment and thus the question as
to the extent of the authority of the Harris County
Commissioners Court to regulate such districts as
regards the construction and location of such
facilities and equipment Is not reached. The
laying of water lines and necessary appurtenances,
in carrying out Its express and implied powers,
within the area1 confine8 of county roads 18 con-
trolled by Attorney General's Opinion M-56 (1967).
truly yoursI
Prepared by Lewis E. Berry, Jk.
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman
W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman
Roger Tyler
Houghton Brownlee, Jr.
Pat Bailey
Milton Richardson
STAFF LEGALASSISTANT
A. J. Carubbl, Jr.
- 346 -