Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1977 )


Menu:
  • .   .
    TWEATTORNEYGENERAL
    OF TEXAS
    AUSTIN.   TEAS   78711
    The Honorable George Rodriguez, Jr.       Opinion No. H-935
    County Attorney
    El Paso County                            Re: Authority of
    Room 201, City-County Building            the El Paso City-
    El Paso, Texas 79901                      County Board of Health
    to promulgate regula-
    tions governing the
    sale of raw milk.
    Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
    You have asked several questions about the power of
    the El Paso City-County Board of Health. The Board supervises
    the City-County Health Unit organized under the authority of
    article 4436a-1, V.T.C.S., which permits the participants to
    combine their health functions into one operating unit.
    Attorney General Opinion M-683 (1970). The director of the
    City-County Health Unit is charged with the performance
    of all the duties of a citv health officer and a county
    health officer. V.T.C.S. art. 4436a-1; City --~_
    of El Paso v.
    Russell Glenn Distributing Co.,  
    237 S.W.2d 818
    (Tex. Crv.
    App. -- El Paso 1950, writ ref'd n.r.e.1; cf. V.T.C.S. art.
    4447a, S 4. No city health officer or county health officer
    can be appointed once the city-county health unit is established.
    V.T.C.S. art. 4436a-1, 9 4. A city-county board of health,
    which is appointed by the joint action of the commissioners
    court and the city council, has supervisory power over the
    public health of the county and is authorized to make rules
    and regulations, not in conflict with city ordinances or
    laws of the state, to promote the health of the county.
    V.T.C.S. art. 4436a-1, § 2. Article 4436a-1 delegates to
    the city-county health unit the health-related administrative
    duties of the participating city and county but does not
    delegate all of the city's and county's powers in the health
    ;;;;a, z;arV.T.C.S.      art. 4436a-+,,§ 2 with V.T.C.S. art.
    see Attorney General Oprnlon M-616 (1970).
    p. 3850
    .   II
    The Honorable George Rodriguez, Jr. - page 2 (H-935)
    Your first question asks what powers the City-County
    Board of Health has to pass regulations concerning the
    retail sale of raw milk. Article 4436a-1, V.T.C.S., the
    primary source of Board powers, provides in section 2:
    The Board shall make such rules and regulations
    for the proper conduct of its duties as it shall
    find necessary and expedient, and shall possess
    full supervisory powers over the public health of
    the county and over the functioning and personnel
    of the City-County Health Unit, and shall be
    authorized to make any and all such rules and
    regulations not in conflict with theordinances   of
    The El Paso City Council Board of Health "Governing Rules
    and Regulations -- Raw Milk for Retail Sale" contain numerous
    provisions designed to ensure that milk is produced under
    clean and sanitary conditions, from healthy animals. We
    believe they were adopted to promote and preserve the health
    of the county and therefore are valid exercises of the
    Board's rulemaking  authority. We are unaware of any city
    ordinance regulating the sale of raw milk with which the
    Board's regulations might conflict; moreover, the Board
    expressly provided that its regulations would not prevent
    incorporated entities within El Paso County from prohibiting
    the distribution of raw milk within their corporate limits.
    
    Id. art. VII.
    We note that a city may constitutionally
    enact and enforce an ordinance resuirins pasteurization of
    all milk sold within the city. City of-Weslaco v. Melton,
    308 S.W.Zd 18 (Tex. 1957).
    The El Paso regulations do not conflict with the
    applicable State law. Article 165-3, V.T.C.S., authorizes
    the State Health Officer to define grade "A" raw milk and to
    establish regulations for producing and handling it. Sec.
    2. Regulations adopted by a city, county, political subdivision,
    or health officer must conform with the regulations promulgated
    by the state health officer.  
    Id. Milk regulations
    issued
    by a city-county health unit me not conflict with article
    165-3 and resulations oromulaated thereunder.  See Citv of
    El Paso v. Russell Glenn ,Dis&ibuting Co., supra; Pre,scoFF v.
    -
    p. 3851
    I   .
    The Honorable George Rodriguez, Jr. - page 3 (H-935)
    City of Borger, 
    158 S.W.2d 578
    (Tex. Civ. App. --
    Amarimo   1942, writ ref'd). We find no conflict between the
    El Paso regulations and article 165-3. The state health
    officer has not issued regulations for the production of
    raw milk for retail sale, so there are no regulations with
    which the El Paso resolution might conflict.   In addition,
    the El Paso resolution does not establish grades for raw
    milk.   It outlines standards for production of retail raw
    milk but does not label it as grade "A" or any other grade.
    Article 165-3 deals exclusively with the processing and
    labeling of grade "A" milk, and the El Paso ordinance, which
    does not deal with grade "A" milk, cannot conflict with it.
    Article 165-3 does not forbid the sale of ungraded milk.
    City of Weslaco 5 
    Melton, supra
    . The City-County Board of
    Health may promulsate its milk requlations under the authority
    of article 4436a-i, section 2.    -
    Your next question asks whether the City-County Board
    of Health can require fees and licenses in connection with
    the sale of raw milk, and whether it can provide fines for
    non-compliance with its resolutions. Article 4436a-1 does
    not provide for the enforcement of regulations issued by the
    Board by fines, permit cancellation, or other sanction. An
    administrative agency may not impose penalties different
    from or additional to those provided by statute. Harrington
    v. Railroad Commission, 
    375 S.W.2d 892
    (Tex. 1964): 1 Am.
    Zir.2d. Administrative Law 9 127. Although the Leqislature
    may provide for fines for violations of regulations promulgated
    by an administrative agency, it has not done so with respect
    to regulations promulgated under article 4436a-1, section 2.
    Harvill v. State, 188 S.W.Zd 869 (Tex. Civ. App. --Austin
    1945, wrE ref'd); Tuttle v.
    -.- Wood, 
    35 S.W.2d 1061
    (Tex. Civ.
    App. -- San Antonio=      writ ref'd). Hence, the Board
    lacks authority under article 4436a-1 to suspend permits,
    impose fines or otherwise punish violations of its raw milk
    regulations.
    Although a city or county health officer can issue and
    revoke permits to use grade "A" labels under article 165-3,
    the Board did not choose to adopt a grade "A" ordinance
    so as to avail itself of those powers. Article 4436a-1 does
    not expressly give the Board power to issue licenses or exact
    license fees. Administrative bodies have only those powers
    expressly conferred on them by statute together with those
    necessarily implied from express powers and duties. Stauffer
    p. 3852
    The Honorable George   Rodriguez, Jr. - page 4 (H-935)
    v. San Antonio, 
    344 S.W.2d 158
    (Tex. 1961). The Board may
    ii%?&ue    reculations that reauire milk oroducers to hold
    permits or pay,permit fees. dompare State Board of
    Morticians'v. Cortez, 
    333 S.W.2d 839
    (Tex. 1960) s     Southwestern
    T,;Tia;.l$;F   z;;~d):74      S.W. 636 (Tex. Civ. App. --
    See Attorney General Oprnions H-
    669 (1975) and H-443 (1974).-
    You next ask what kind of public notice would be required
    prior to the adoption of such regulations.   Of course, the
    notice required by section 3A of the Texas Open Meetings
    Act, article 6252-17, V.T.C.S., must be posted before any
    meeting. Article 4436a-1, section 2 does not state that
    additional public notice is required for the promulgation of
    rules and regulations.   That article authorizes the Board to
    make rules and regulations for the proper conduct of its
    duties: if the Board has set out any'notice requirements for'
    issuing, public health regulations, it must follow them. See
    City of ;%&An;nio    v. Pope, 
    351 S.W.2d 269
    (Tex. Civ.    -
    APP.            d 1961, no writ). The due process clauses of
    the federal and state constitutions require that notice be
    given to interested parties before certain agency actions,
    such as permit revocation.   Francisco v. Board of Dental
    Examiners, 
    149 S.W.2d 619
    (Tex. Civ. AE. -- Auzin    1941,
    writ ref'd). The Board lacks authority to adopt the proposed
    rules dealing with permits, permit fees, or sanctions for
    non-compliance with its rules. We do not believe that its
    adoption of the remaining rules will affect individual
    rights to the extent that it must give additional notice of
    its intention to adopt them.
    Your next question asks whether the commissioners court
    must adopt or approve the regulations passed by the Board
    before they became effective. We find no requirement that
    the commissioners court adopt or approve the regulations
    passed by the Board before they become effective.
    You finally ask if the commissioners court has any
    power to pass resolutions in the health area. The powers of
    the commissioners court are limited to those conferred by
    the Texas Constitution or statutes. Anderson v. Wood, 
    152 S.W.2d 1084
    (Tex. 1941). The court does have certain powers
    in the area of health. See generally V.T.C.S. arts. 4418f,
    4427, 4434. Whether the-have power to enact any particular
    health resolution depends on the content and purpose of that
    resolution and its relation to a statutory power. Since you
    have submitted no resolution to us, we cannot give a more
    precise answer to your last question.
    p. 3853
    The Honorable George Rodriguez, Jr. - page 5 (H-935)
    SUMMARY
    The El Paso City-County Board of Health
    may promulgate regulations concerning the
    retail sale of ungraded raw milk. The
    Board must give the public notice required
    by its own rules of procedure.  It may not
    require licenses or license fees in
    connection with the sale of raw milk, nor
    may it provide fines for non-compliance with
    its resolutions.  The commissioners court
    does not have to approve the Board's rules
    in order for them to become effective.
    ,Very   truly yours,
    //      Attorney General of Texas
    APPROVED:
    C. ROBERT HEAm, Chairman
    Opinion Committee
    jwb
    p. 3854