Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. I
NEY GENE=
AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711
April 4, 1974
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison Opinion No. H- 271
Executive Director
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Re: Restrictions on
John H. Reagan Building appropriation to Parks and
Austin, Texas 78701 Wildlife Department for
grants to cities and counties
for ‘,beach cleaning and main-
Dear Mr. Garrison: tenance
You have asked:
“Is the Parks and Wildlife Department
limited by the provisions of the current appro-
priations bill and the appropriations bill for
FY 74 and FY 75 to a maximum payment of
$50,000 for any single grant subject to equal
matching by cities or counties for maintenance
and clearing of Public beaches and to $200,000
total state expenditure? ”
Item 20 of the appropriation for the Parks and Wildlife Department
(Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 659, p. 1786, at 2007) provides:
“20. For payment to cities and 1974 1975
counties for maintenance and
cleaning of Public beaches
NTE$50,000 for any single
grant, subject to equal match-
ing and contingent upon there
being no admission fees
charged for entry onto such
public beaches 200,000 200,000”
pa 1267
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 2 (H-271)
Article 5415d-1, $ 7, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, provides in
part:
“Sec. 7. (a) From the appropriation available
therefor, the Parks and Wildlife Department shall
from time to time pay to each county or city which
has its application approved under Section 3 of this
Act, an amount hereinafter referred to as the ‘state
share, ’ . . . .
“(c) No county or city shall receive as its ‘state
share’ a sum greater than two-thirds of the amount
such county or city expends for the purpose of clean-
ing and maintaining public beaches within its jurisdic-
tion during the state fiscal year for which reimburse-
ment is sought. The Department shall allocate the
‘state share’ to eligible counties and cities, taking
into account the frequency with which public beaches
within the jurisdiction of such counties and cities are
used. ”
It is clear that an auoronriation
. . . bill may not be a vehicle for amend-
ing or enacting general law. Texas Constitution, Article 3, $35; Moore
V. Sheppard, 192 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1946). The type of incidental provisions
or riders which may be included in an appropriations bill was ably and
exhaustively discussed in Attorney General Opinions V-1253 and V-1254
(1951). Attorney General Opinion V-1254 states at page 8 that:
“With special regard to what incidental provisions
may be included within a general appropriation bill, our
Texas courts have not stated a general rule. However,
from statements as to what may not be included and from
numerous opinions of the Attorney General, we believe the
rule may be stated generally as follows: In addition to
appropriating money and stipulating the amount, manner,
and purpose of the various items of expenditure, a general
appropriation bill may contain any provisions or riders
p. 1268
. -
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 3 (H-2’71)
which detail, limit, or restrict the use of the funds
or otherwise insure that the money is spent for the
required activity for which it is therein appropriated,
if the provisions or riders are necessarily connected
with and incidental to the appropriati,on and use of ~the
funds, and provided they do not conflict with general
legislation. ”
The $200,000 limit on state expenditures for beach cleaning grants
and the $50,000 maximum payment to any single grantee-are clearly
permissible limits of the amount of ‘expenditures. The requirement that
grants be allocated on a fifty-fifty matching basis does not conflict with
the statutory mandate that “no county or city shall receive as its ‘state
share’ a sum greater than two-thirds of the amount such county or city
expends for the purpose of cleaning and maintaining public beaches. . . . ”
The restriction contained in the Appropriations Act clearly is consistent
with this language of article 5415d-1, 5 7(c), and is merely a means of
detailing or limiting the use of funds.
Therefore, your first question is answered in the affirmative.
Your second question was premised on a negative response to your first
question, and it is unnecessary to consider it.
SUMMARY
The restrictions expressed in the appropriation
to the Parks and Wildlife Department for grants to
counties and cities for beach cleaning and maintenance
are not invalidated by Article 5415d-1, Vernon’s Texas
Civil Statutes.
Very truly yours,
n
Attorney General of Texas
pe 1269
The Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 4 (H-271)
ED:
h
v--T\/- q
LAR .’ YOR , %irst ssistant
%A
DAVID M. KENDALL,
Opinion Committee
Chai man
p. 1270