Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1967 )


Menu:
  •                                        GENERAL
    Hon. Joe Reeweber ~'.              Opinion HO. ~-56
    County Attorney
    H+rrie County Courthouse           Re:   Whether the Commissioners
    Houston, Texas                           Court of Harrta County may
    require that plans and
    speclflcatlons of storm
    sewers of Fresh Water Sup-
    ply Districts be submitted
    to the County E@neer,
    for hi6 approval, prior
    to conefi~ctlon of such
    8ewer6 when the storm sewers
    are to.be locs``d,wl.th.in~
    the area1 ccipfineeof Barr16
    County,made;      ln '.~.ub~$~:aj.ons
    not within. cities;,.  ind...qy
    p+i@j*, pTopeyty not within
    clt,lea;,md whether T,exas
    watqr Rlght6 Conrmfssionhq6
    any,au$horlty t~i&xf?rdise,
    supervisory pates ti+Fr,mch
    d&~&,r%cteduring the, cpn-
    BtrQctlon and~maintenance
    Dear Mr. Remeber:<'                      Of .su'dh StOl’kll6eWer6.
    Your request 'ior an opinicinof this office present6 the fol-
    lowing questions:
    "1. WIðer or not themComm&a~ioners'Court can requipe
    that plane and specifications be eubmitted to'the
    County Engineer for his approval.,bythe Fresh Water
    Supply District p+pr,.to.$he actual construction and
    installation of storm sewerg, when said storm sewers
    are located within the area1 confines of Harris
    County roads?
    '2. Whether or not the Comiesloners Court can re-
    quire that plan6 and epecificat,ionsbe submitted to
    thenCounty Engineer for his approval by the Fresh
    Water Supply District prior to the actual construction
    and installation'of storm sewera,.when Said"etor6I
    sewers are located within the area1 confines o?
    - 256 -
    _l”.l   c_. _, -....- --..              ---
    -~
    Hon. Joe Resweber, page 2 (~-56)
    Of 6UbdiVi6iOn6, said       subdivisions being located out-
    side City lititS?
    “3. 'Whether or not the Commi,sgi.oners
    Court can
    require that plan6 and spacifiCat$ons be submitted
    to the County Engineer for:,his.,approval
    by the
    Fresh Water Suppry $$dtefct.pridr to the actual
    tj&istticEScii
    and installation of '&t&m sewers, when
    said storm sewers are built on privately owned lands,
    said land6 being located outside city limits?
    “4.  Does the Texas Water Rights Commission (formerly
    Board of Water Engineers) have any,authorlty to
    exercise any type Of SUperViSOry power over the fresh
    water 6Upply diStriCt6 prior t0 or during the con-
    struction and maintenance of storm sewers?"
    Theanswef to``yourquestions is dependent upon whether a Fresh
    Water Supply District is authorized to construct stcrm sewers;
    therefore, consideration shall first .be given to such determination..
    Article 7881,      Vernon's Civil Statutes, in part, provides:
    'There may be created within this State con-
    servation districts co be known a6 Fresh Water
    Supply District6 for the purpose of conserving,
    transporting and di6tributing fresh water from
    fakes, pOOl6, reservoirs, wells, springs, creeks,
    and rivers for domestic and commercial purposes,
    as contemplated b S tl         At11    lb  fth
    State Constitution.
    ' 'ec(``hii%6 &pElEed) '      e
    Article 7918,'Vernon's Civil Statutes, ln.part, provides:
    “All district6 Shall have full power and'author-
    5--,",t$lld, construct, complete, carry out,
    and in case of necessity add to and
    rebulld,~all work6 and Improvements within and
    without such district necessary to aCCompli6h
    any plan of conservation, transportation and
    ‘distributionof fresh water adopted for or on
    behalf of such district,
    sary and proper contracts-
    son6 and means necessary ioath,
    (EmpIiasisSupplieir,
    Section 1, Article 7930-4, Vernon's Civil Statute6 (as amended
    Acts, 66th Leg., 1957, ch. 232, Sec. 1, p. 484), provides as follows:
    - 257 -
    Eon. Joe Reeweber, page 3 (~-56)
    "All Fresh Water Supply Districts heretofore or
    hereafter created under the provisions of Chapter
    4 of Title 128, Revised Civil Statutes,of,Texaa,
    1925, as wended, in addition to the powers here-
    tofore granted, are hereby authorized to pur-
    cha6e,``Con6truCt,acquire, own, operate, repair,
    improve and extend sanitary sewer syetems for
    the collection, transportation, processing, di6-
    poeal and control of all domestic, industrial,
    and communal wastes provided no other public sanl-
    tary sewer 6yatem Is available for the area con-
    tained ln such Fresh Water Supply District, and
    the powera,herein provided are not.eXerc5.6edex-
    cept after a duly called election held In the same
    manner as other election6 of Such water district
    ae provided by law."
    Your letter does not indicate that "no other public sanitary
    sewer system is available for the area” nor does It show that an
    election as provided In Article 7930-b has been held; therefore,
    the applicability of said Article 7930-4, not being shown, we must
    look to Articles 7881~and 7918 for such authority. It is the opinion
    of this office that Fresh Water Supply Districts have authority,
    under Srticles  7881 and 7918 to cone,tructend maintain storm sewe,rs.
    for. the purpose of conserving fresh water, whether such storm sewers
    are.uqed ~tpd.ivertthe storm waters from.,thereser.volror other
    .water source so .a8 to avoid pollu.~jot~,-
    cont+m~atlon, eta*, or
    whether they are used to more efficiently route the storm water6 to
    the lake, reservoir   orother water source. This oplnlon is wrlt-
    ten.upon the presumptionthat the storm sewers mentioned in your
    letter are to be built for one or both 6uch purposes. However, were
    the fact situation such a6 to make.appllcable the provisions of
    Section 1 of Article   7930-4, then the purposes for which such storm
    sewers could be built would be increased so a6 to include the
    uco~ilectlon,transportation, processing, disposal and control of
    all domestic, industrial and communal wastes."
    I.
    It is the opinion of this office that the Commissioners Court
    may require that plans and specifications be submitted by the Fresh
    Water Supply DiStriCt to the County Engineer for his approval, prior
    to the actual construction and lnstallatlon of storm sewers, when
    said storm sewers are to be located within the area1 confines of
    Harris County roads.
    The Commlssioners Court is charged with the duty of exercising
    control over the road6 in the county and is authorized to make and
    enforce reasonable and necessary rules and orders for working said
    roads.
    - 258 -
    Ron. Joe Resweber, page 4 (~-56)
    Article 6741, Vernon's Civil Statutes, enacted In 1889,    provides
    ln part, as follows:
    "The commlssloners court may make and enforce
    all reaSOnab,leand necessary Nlee and order6
    for the worl&g and repairing of public roads,
    and to utilize the labor to be used and money
    expended thereon, not In conflict with the
    laws of this State. . .n
    Article 2351, Vernont6~Clvll Statutes, enacted in 1911, pro-
    vided,  In part; .as follows:
    "Each Comml66loner6 Court shall:
    11
    .   .   .
    “6. Exercise general control over all roads,
    hlghtiay6;ferrles &nd bridges In their counties."
    The Harris County Road Law, Acts 33rd Leg.,1913   Special Laws,
    ch.   17, p. 64, provides, In part, as follows:
    "Section 1. That, subject to the provisions
    of this Act, the commlssloners court of Harris
    County shall have control of all roads, bridges,
    drains, ditches, culvert6 and all works and
    constructions Incident to It6 roads, brldgee,
    and drainage, that have been heretofore laid
    out or COnStruCted, or that may hereafter be
    laid otitor COnStruCted by Harris County, or
    under Its direction.
    'Section 2. Subject to the provisions of
    this Act, the commlssloners court of Harris
    County shall have the power and right to adopt
    such rules and regulations for the proper
    construction and malnten&nce of Its roads,
    bridges and drainage as it may see proper,
    and shall have power from time to time to add
    to, alter, repeal or amend same;. . .n
    1,
    . . .
    "Section 33. The provisions of this Act are,
    and shall be, held and construed to be cumu-
    lative of all General Laws of this State, on
    the subject6 treated in this Act, when not in
    conflict therewith, but In case of such con-
    flict this Act Shall control as to Harris County.
    Ron. Joe Resweber, page 5 (~-56)
    "Section 9.    Any and all laws and parts of
    laws in conflict with any oi the provisions of
    this Act ShEd.1 be, and the same are hereby
    repealed."
    Fresh Water,Supply Districts have the right of way across
    county roads.. .,Artlcle7927, Vernon's Civil Statutes, enacted ln
    1919, provide6 as fOlbW6:
    "All districts are hereby.glven the right of
    way.'&%.%@ a'lipublic or dtinty roads, but
    r&stoke such .roads where crossed
    they~.~.shal&.
    to their previous condition for use, as near
    a6 may be."
    Article 7928, Vernon's Civil Statutes, also a part of the same
    Act,   provides:
    "Said districts are authorized and empowered
    to make all necessary levees, bridges, and
    other improvements across or under any rall-
    road embanlsmenta,tracks, or right.6of way,
    or public or private roads or the,rights of
    way ther,eof,or rivers orother public
    improvements of other districts, or other such.
    Improvements &nd the rights of way thereof,
    for.the purpose of securing the fresh water
    supply necessary for Said diStrlCt6."
    By Acts 50th Leg.,.1947,.ch. 205, p. 358, the Harris County
    Road Law was amended by the addition of a Section 7-A,  which em-
    powered ~the Commlss+o~ers Court of,Rarria County-to grapt,$,qany
    peraon;~firm or corpo~atlon en easement or right of way over, -~
    al&g or across any.public road in HIartii.8,
    Cw$y   ivldertheir jurls-
    diction, s.ncl,
    authorized the court to prescribe,such f+aaon@b&e con-
    ditions or restrictions'as it may find necessary pr desirable,
    including the charging of a reasonable compensation.
    In Count of Harris v. Tennessee Product6 Pipeline Company,
    332 S.W.=??+    781 (T   Cl A     lgb0       lt hl t    a case
    questioning td author::; o~'t``*Comm&&``a      Co&'   0
    ' require
    a pipe l$ne company, which also has an analogous statutory right
    of way across county road6 (Articles 6020, 6022 and 1497,~V.C.S.)
    to obtain a permit or franchise prior to crossing such road, the
    court stated:
    - 260 -
    Hon. Joe Resweber, page 6 (w-56)
    'It la a generai,ruie‘oi atetut~ory'conatructlon
    .tha$atatutes must be ao dqnstrued.,.a.s     .to,be
    reconciled if posalblc. The InEqtl'on of-the ,.
    _'.LaglsXat.ke'Ia o?,``~.impq``@nce.             .The Legls:
    :; .&at&e.d.oe.s,_not:..qpreas
    any IntantI.on.    to.repeal
    dr-iiodi$y.,.nor0e.sIt ma4 e agy mention of,.....
    Artlciee '&X?O, %,022.kid..
    .e*
    $ gT'el$jk In the-title
    or ~h~.,b~.lgi:~e.Am~dato~g, Act.. pe:muet,
    t~eye~o~e,,.~cpils~,``f.``ether.the-amen``nt     I.6so
    ge umwt   .to.Articlea 6.02?,,. 6022, ,an9 14% that
    .9u ~auch...~R!er&lment.
    cqn stand....tie    think :no &h
    '. &+ncy      eXlatW.The     atatutea are reconcll-
    In39;Tex.Jur..iPp..#X,. Se+.~75, statutee,
    It-ii steted: Mieiytheie' 16 no express re-
    p&i; the~presuii&lon 16 that~in enacting a new
    law the legislature Intended the old statute to
    remain In operation.'"
    I)
    . . .
    "The Amerknent provides for the authorizing and
    regulating of the granting of easements across
    or along roads by the CommIssionera Court, etc.
    The critical section of the Amendatory Act Is a
    new section known as '7-A.'   It provides In pert
    that the Coaa6lssloneraCourt of Harris County
    shall have the power to grant to any person,
    firm or corporation en easement or right of way
    over, along, or across anypublic road or high-
    way In Harris County and under the JurlsdIctlon
    of the CoaakIsaIonersCourt In IierrlsCounty,
    outside of the llmlts of any Incorporated city
    or town. Such section then-provIdes,certaln
    terms end COndi~ion6 under which such person,
    etc., she11 use or occ,upythe easement or,.rIght
    of way, end provides that the Coa6sl6aIonera~
    Court may prescribe such reasonable  conditions
    or ,restrIctlonaas It may find necessary or de-
    sirable. It also provides that no such easement
    or right of way shall be granted when it Im-
    pedes or seriously Interferes~wlth the use and
    occupancy of such public thoroughfare as such,
    nor shall it be granted without adequate provision
    for the protection end repair o? the road or
    thoroughfare by suitable bond." *
    II. . .
    - 261 -
    Hon. Joe Resweber, page 7 (M-56)
    “In Humble Pipe Line Co. v. State, Tex.Civ.App.,
    
    2 S.W.2d 1018
    , error ref., the court held that
    the right expressly granted by Article 1497 and
    rights which followed by necessary implication,
    could be taken away from a pipe line.corporation
    only by a special act of the Legislature denying
    such right. Surely the 1947 amendment does not
    constitute such special act as would be required
    to take away from pipe line companies the powers
    and rights conferred upon them by Articles 6020,
    ,,_., 6022 and 1497, V.A.C.S.; Nor does it purport to
    take away such powers and rights. It does not
    provide that no person, firm or corporation shall
    cross a county road without a grant or permit
    from the ,.Commissionars
    Court. It simply gives
    the Commissioners Court the power to grant eaae-
    merits. It does not give the County power to
    grant crossing rights to public utilities
    and common carriers as such, nor does it men-
    tion them or the statutes which give them such
    power, either in its title or body. It does
    confer upon the Commissloners Court the power to
    grant such rights to any person, firm, corpore-
    tion, which would include private corporation.s,
    and which would cover pr.ivatewater, gas, sewer
    and other priiratecorporations,,and which would
    cover private water, gas, sewer and qtf?erprivate
    lines of a local nature. It does not, however,
    confer upon the Commissioners Court ‘exclusive’
    power to grant such.,
    rights.
    “The County, as hereinbefore stated,,clearly
    has the.right and power to enforce reasonable
    regulations in connection with the construction
    and maintenance of pipe lines crossing its roads,
    but,it has no right to use its regulatory power
    in such manner as to deny pipe lines the right
    to cross under roads and highways under its con-
    trol. We are of the opinion that it has no
    right to demand pipe line companies such as
    appellee,.engaged in laying inter-county pipe
    lines, obtain from it a permit or frAnchiss
    before copstructing crossings under such roads.
    We find no inconsistency or repugnancy between
    Articlai 6020, 6022 and 1497, V.A.C.S., as they
    relate to pipeline companies such as appellees
    doing an inter-county busine,ss,and the afore-
    said Amendatory Act as it relates to persons and
    corporations both private and public conducting.
    local business witin the confines of the county.”
    - 262 -
    Hon. Joe Resweber, page 8 (~-56)
    As held in Tennessee Products Pipeline 
    Co., supra
    , the applicable
    -_-.-~-~
    statutes   ``~-~-be
    must  -~ construed
    .````..~
    ~, so as to be reconciled if possible. As
    a pipe line companyhas a right to cross a county road under Articles
    6020, 6022 and 1497, it follows that under Articles 7881 and 7918,
    Fresh Water Supply Districts have a right o.fway ac.rosscounty roads.
    It .ls the opinion of th.is.offlcethat the Commissioners Court-may
    neither.require such..dis,trI.ct.to.obtaln a permit or franchise, nor
    may lt,,raquira.  such.diqtrict to submit plans and spqclfi.cationsof
    limproposed crossings before such district has the.rl t ;;ds; zpss.
    However, under Articles 6741, 23513 and under Sections4
    the Harris County Road Law,.the CosznlaalonersCourt of Harris County
    is charged with the duty .pfgeneral control over all roads and they
    are authorized to make reasonable and necessaryrules and orders
    for working such roads and the maintenance thereof.
    Such statutes are either in hopeless conflict or they may be
    reconciled. This office is of the opinion that such statutes may be
    recopclled and that, in,part, quoting from the case ~of Tennessee~
    Products Pipeline Co., supr.a, .The County. ....clearly has the right
    and Dower to enforce reasonable reuulations in connection with the
    cons%&&t'iori~andmaintenance of" P&sh Water Supply District storm
    sewers "crossing Its roads,,,butlt.haa no right to use its regula-
    tory power In such,manner as to dany".Fre$h Water Supply Dlstrlcts
    "the right to croaa under roads and highways under its control."
    In holding that a water district could be required to bear the
    expense of lowering Its water lines crossing streets, taken into
    the llmlts of the Citv of San Antonio after the laying of the.lines,
    so as to conform to n'ew city Improvements, In the case of
    San Antonio v. Baxar Metropolitan Water District, 309 S.W.
    nex.Civ.App. 199, error ref.), the Court said:
    "The main purpose of roads and streets are for
    travel and transportation, and while public
    utllitiee may use such roada~.andstreets for the
    laying of their telegraph, telephone and water
    lines, and Sor other.purposes, such uaes are
    subservient to the'mai,nuses and purposes of
    such roads and streets';"
    A .like expression was contained in City of San Antonio v. united
    Gas Pipe Line Co., 
    388 S.W.2d 231
    (Tex.Clv.App. lgb5, error ref.,
    n.r.e.).
    In the case of State of Texas v. City of Austin, 160 Te%. 348,
    331 .S.W.26737, 741, (lgbO), the Court also expressed a like opinion
    In holding that:
    : 263 -
    .       .
    .
    Ron. Joe Resweber, page 9 (~-56)
    "As pointed.out in the Bexar Metropolitan
    Water Distric~tcase, the main purposes of
    roads and streets are for travel and trans-
    portation. While public utilities may use
    the same for laying their lines, such use is
    subject.to reasonable regulation by either
    the state, the county or the city, as the
    case may be. The utility may always be re-
    quired, in the valid~exercise of the police
    power by proper governmental authority, to
    remove or adjust Its lnstalletion to meet
    the needs of the public for travel and
    transportation."
    It is, therefore, the'opinion of this office that the Commis-
    sionera Court,may,require Fresh:~WaterSupply Districts tosubmit
    plans and specifications to the County Engineer for his approval
    prior  to the actual construction and installation of storm sewers,
    when said storm sewers'are located  within the area1 confines of
    Harris County roads, as it is a~valld exercise of the police power
    by the governmental agency charged with tha'~dutyof control over
    such roads. It is~::further thel'opinionof this office that such
    regulation may,not be'used by the Commissioners Court so as to de-
    feat the right oi?way,of~the.Fre8.hWater Supply District to,cross
    such roads;but that-such regulation and Its use will be,:governed
    by a standard oftnecesslty..andreasonableness, from an abuse of
    which any party would,‘of  course, have its redress in court.
    ft.is further the opinionof th1.soffice that, in ,view of the
    foregoing authorit,ies,had your letter of request.setout, facts
    indicating the applicability oi Section 1, oi Article 7930-4, as
    amended, the first question none the less would have been answered
    in a like manner and as above conditioned.
    .,,               II.
    It is the opinion of this office that your second question
    should be answered in the negative, Insofar as It relates.to storm
    sewers of Fresh Water Supply Districts to be located outside the
    area1 confines of Harris County roads.
    The brief accompanying your request +zggests,that &ticle
    23'72K, Vernon's Civil Statutes, grants to,.t,he
    Commissioners Court,
    the continuing power of regulation,of, or-control over, drainage
    in subdivisions after the authorization by.the Commissioners Court
    of the recordation of the subdivision plat.
    :-264 -
    Ron. Joe Resweber, page 10 (~-56)
    It is the oplnion’of this office, ,as expressed in Attorney
    General's OpinionC-66 (1963),+tthst,Artlcle2372 K mu& be con-
    sldered in pari -materiewith Article 6626, Vernon~s~Glvll Statutes,
    and that It constltutea a reglStrSti~n  statute setting out certain
    prerequisites $h_at ~w,be requlred,.beforea p&at is approved for
    recordatlon; thatthe Gommissionera.Court may not make require-
    ments not therein authorized; and that the itatute does not pur-
    ,port to grant any owers of regulation by the Commissioners Court
    after recordatlon ehat are different from, or in addition to, the
    powers they have over any other area ln the county. Commissioners
    court v. Frank Jester Development Co. 1% S.W.2d 1064, loq
    (Tex.clv.App. lgb0, error ref. n.r.e. .
    Article 67'i'l;Vernon~sCivil Statutes, and Section 14 of the
    Harris County Road Law, set      out.certaln powers ln the Commissioners
    Court in regard to drainage and the regulation thereof; but it 1s
    the oplnlon of thiS.OfflCe that such statutes also must be read ln
    conjunction with Articles   7881 and 7g18,grantlng   certain powers to
    Fresh Water Supply Districts.. If the Commissioners Uourt had the
    authority to require   its prior   approval of a Fresh Water Supply
    District storm sewer plans and specifications enerally, such would
    in effect nullify the provislcns of Articles 7 88 1 and 7918.
    Therefore, it 1s the opinion of this office that insofar as
    1ands~i.nsubdlvlsl~s,~outslde the area1 conflnes   of.county roads,
    are concerned, the .CommlssloneraCourt.18 without authority to
    require that a Fresh Water Supply District submit to the.County
    Rngineer its plans and specifications of proposed storm sewers for
    his approval prior to the construction thereof. Fresh Water Supply
    District storm sewers, to be placed within the area1 confines of
    county roads within subdivisions, would be governed by the same
    laws.as storm sewers within the area1 confines of :ounty roads
    not within subdivisions, and -the question as to the,prlor submission
    of such plans and speciflcatlons to the County Engineer for his
    approval.would be included within, and answered by, the answer to
    your first question.
    III.
    It is the opinion of this office    that your third question
    should be answered in the nega~lve,   for the same reasormas set out
    in.inswiw to your second question   insofar.68 such-answer applies to
    lands ln subdivlslons, but outside   the area1 confines of county roads
    IV.
    We are not author1ze.dto,..answer
    your'fourth question, as it
    appears that the subject matter,thereof does not cqpcern the Com-
    ,missionersCourt and you can only advise said Court on~matters
    concerning it's official duties.
    .   1,   .
    Hon. Joe Resweber, page 11 (n-56)
    SUMMARY
    A Fresh Water Supply District may construct storm sewers
    necessary to,a.coomplisha plan of conservation of .freeh
    water. The Harris County Commissioners~Court,may require
    that plans and spaciflcatio?isof such distrlctls storm
    sewers,.that..areto be located within the weal confines
    of ,Harris,County roadsj beg,
    submit.te,d.
    tomthe..
    County Rn-
    ginee,rprior to the construction thereof.;but .may.not
    require such plans and specifications to be,.submitted in
    situations where the storm sewers are to be located in
    subdivisiona, “outside city~limits and not within the
    area1 confines of c’ountyroads; and nay not require the
    submlselon of such plans when ~the ~stom $awera era to be
    built on private property located outside city limits.
    V#jJ tnily yours,
    Prepared by Harold 0. K.wedy
    Assistant Attorney General
    RGiC:bp
    APFaovKD:
    OPIRIOR COMMITlcEE
    Hawthorne Phillips,,Chai~rman
    W. V. Geppert, Co-chairman
    Roger Tyler
    Houghton Brownlee, Jr.
    pJ:kBg;;;
    STAFF LRGAL ASSISTANT
    A. J. CARURRI, JR.
    - 266 -
    t
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-56

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1967

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017