Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1958 )


Menu:
  • .:      -
    Honorable Durwood Manford       Opinion No. WW-399
    Board of Water Engineers
    1410 Lavaca Street              Re: Authority of Reagan County
    Austin, Texas                       Water Supply District to
    exercise power of eminent
    domain,, to furnish water to
    residents of City of Big
    Dear Mr.   Manford:                 Lake, and related questions
    you request our opinion with respect to the following three
    questions pertaining to the Reagan County Water Supply Dis-
    trict:
    "1 . Does the district have the authority
    to exercise the power of eminent domain
    for the acquisition of land situated within
    the boundaries of the district and needed
    by it in furtherance of the purposes for
    which the district was created?
    ” 2 I If the answer to Question 1 is 'Yes",
    then may the district exercise such authority
    within the district for the acquisition of
    water rights?
    ‘I3 ,, Big Lake is the county sea,t of Reagan
    County 9 1t ia repor,ted ,that all but 27
    resident landowners of Reagan County reside
    within the area of Big Lake city limits,
    Does the district have the legal right to
    use the proceeds derived from the sale of
    bonds authorized by Section 5 of Article
    8280-181 for the purpose of furnishing the
    City of Big Lake and its residents with
    water?"
    Honorable Durwood Manford, page 2 (WW-399)
    You also state that:
    "The Board finds that the questions in-
    volved do not only affect this district
    but other districts in the State and do
    affect the orderly development of the
    water program of Texas, . . .I*
    This District was specially created by Acts 54th Leg., 1955,
    Ch. 504, p. 1259, codified as Article 8280-181, V.C.S., Sec-
    tions 2 and 9 thereof being as follows:
    "Sec. 2. The District shall have and
    exercise, and is hereby vested with all
    of the rights, powers, privileges and
    duties conferred and imposed by the
    general laws of this State now in force
    or hereafter enacted, applicable to
    water control and improvement districts
    created under authority of Section 59,
    Article 16, of the Constitution, but to
    the extent that the provisions of any such
    general laws may be in conflict,or incon-
    sistent with the provisions of this Act,
    the provisions of this Act shall prevail.
    All such General laws are hereby incor-
    porated by reference with the same effect
    as if incorporated in full in this Act.
    Provided, that the District shall not be
    empowered to exercise the power of eminent
    domain outside the boundaries of the Dis-
    trict, wcept for the condemnation of ease-
    ments and right of ways for ditches or
    pipelines for the transportation of water."
    “Sec. 9.  In the event it becomes necessary
    in the exercise of the powers conferred by
    this Act that any railroad line or right of
    way should be relocated, the cost of such
    Honorable Durwood Manford,' page .3 (WW-399)
    relocation and any actual and reasonable
    damage ,incurred in changing and adjusting
    the lines and grades of such railroad
    shall be paid by the District."
    As the questions asked are of's hypothetical nature and are
    general in scopes, the answers must be correspondingly gen-
    eral. Specific fact situations may arise in which the
    general rules will not be wholly applicable.
    The portions of Article 8280-181 quoted above are plain as
    to the adoption for this District of the general law appli-
    cable to water control and'improvement districts, and the
    authorities setting out the purposes of the~creation and the
    powers of such districts, including their power of eminent
    domain, are reviewed, in part, in Lower 'Nueces River Water
    Supply District v. Cartwright, 
    274 S.W.2d 199
    (Civ.App. 1954,
    error ref. n.r.e.) at page 206, as followsr
    "The general laws of the State applicable
    to water control and improvement districts
    . . . are designated as Articles 7880-l to
    7880-153, inclusive, of Vernon's Ann. Tex.
    Stats.   The basic Act was passed by the
    39th Legislature, Acts 1925, p. 86, ch. 25,
    and numerous amendments thereto have been
    adopted.
    "Among the purposes for which such districts
    may be organized is that specifically stated
    in Subdivision (a) of Section 59 of Article
    16, Constitution of Texas, namely, 'the con-
    trol, storing, preservation and distribution
    of its (the State's) Storm and flood waters,
    the waters of its rivers and streams, for
    irrigation, power and all. other useful pur-
    poses, * * *.' Article 7880-3. To these
    distr$cts,:arei:idefegated'such functions,
    powers, authority, rights and duties as may
    permit the accomplishments of the purposes
    for which such districts may be created, in-
    cluding the investigation, and in case a plan
    Honorable Durwood Manford, page 4. (WV+gg),
    for improvements is adopted, ,thsn,the con-
    struction, maintenance, and aperation of all
    necessary improvements,, plants, works and
    facilities, the acquisition of water rights
    and all other properties, lands, tenements,
    easements, and all other rights helpful to
    the purpose of the organization of the dis-
    trict, subject only to the restrictions im-
    posed by the Constitution of the State of
    Texas or that of the United States: * * *.I
    Article 7880-7.
    "A water control and improvement district
    is further empowered 'to construct all plants,
    works, and improvements necessary to the pur-
    pose for which it is organized and incident
    thereto. * * * (They) may construct all works
    and improvements necessary for the prevention
    of floods, the irrigation of land in such dis-
    tricts, for drainage of lands and construction
    of levees to protect same from overflow, to
    alter land elevations where correction is need-
    ed, and to supply water for municipal uses,
    domestic uses, power and commercial purposes,
    and all other beneficial uses or controls.‘
    Article 7880-48."
    **     *
    "Articles 7880-125 and 7880-126 relate to the
    property of a water control and improvement
    district and its powers of eminent domain.
    Among other means, such districts are authori-
    zed to acquire under the power of eminent do-
    main, 'all lands, materials, borrow and waste
    grounds, easements, rights of way and every-
    thing deemed necessary, incident or helpful
    for the purpose of accomplishing any one or
    more of the objects authorized for water con-
    trol and improvement districts, which shall
    be held to mean the accomplishment of said
    objects.by any practicable mechanical means:
    * * e-1      A detailed procedure is likewise
    Honorable Durwood Manford. page 5 (WW-399)
    provided for the taking of lands 'either
    within or without the District,' under the
    power of eminent domain."
    A specific example of a type of property which a water control
    and improvement district may condemn is given in the case of
    Chicago, R.I. & RY. Co. v. Tarrant County W.C. & I.D. No. 1,
    
    73 S.W.2d 147
    , certified questions answered, 
    123 Tex. 432
    ,
    
    73 S.W.2d 55
    : certiorari denied 
    55 S. Ct. 921
    , 
    295 U.S. 762
    (19341, where certain trackage belonging to the defendant rail-
    road was condemned, the Court saying, at page 56:
    "The appellee is a water control and im-
    provement district, a governmental agency,
    body oorporate and politic, organized
    under the Constitution and laws of this
    state, and is entitled to condemn the
    property in controversy.   The statutes
    relative to the organization of the dis-
    trict, its purposes and operations, are
    elaborate ones, designed to accomplish
    the objects specified in the conservation
    amendment to the Constitution (Section
    59a of Article 16, Constitution of Texas),
    compliance with which is here admitted."
    (Matter in parentheses added)
    An exception to the general rule arises in the case of property
    of a municipal corporation or governmental subdivision' already
    devoted to public use. Ordinarily, the power of eminent domain
    extends only to the taking of private property, and does not
    authorize the taking of the property of the state, or of the
    subordinate municipalities through whose agency the state
    government is administered, by the exercise of the right of
    eminent domain, unless expressly authorized by statute. ll.Mc-
    Quillin on Municipal Corporations (1950) 414, Sections 32.73
    and 32.74.
    Exercise by such Districts of the power of eminent domain for
    some purposes is additionally authorized in Article 7472b, V.C.S.,
    but is limited in Article 7504, V.C.S.
    Honorable Durwood Manford;~page   6' (WW-299)
    The authority of~the District to condemuwater   rights, in-
    quired about in your second question, would depend upon the
    specific facts in each case, such as the purpose ~for which
    the water will be used under the condemned water rights,
    the purpose for which waters are presently being used under
    the water rights, land the legal characteristics of the pre-
    sent owner or claimant to the water rights. For instance,
    a District could not condemn a city's water rights under
    which it supplies water for domestic purposes in order to
    provide water for irrigation, but a District could ordi-
    narily condemn irrigation rights in order to provide water
    for domestic purposes.
    As a general rule, but subject to exceptions which may result
    from varying factual situations, your first and second ques-
    tions should be answered in the affirmative.
    As to your third question, the legal right of the District to
    use proceeds derived from sale of bonds authorized by Section
    5 of Article 8280-181 for the ultimate purpose of furnishing
    the City of Big Lake and its residents with water would depend
    upon the purpose of issuance of the ~bonds as stated in the
    voted proposition and throughout the proceedings relative to
    issuance of the bonds.
    Bonds may be issued only for a purpose specifically authorized
    by law and the proceeds of the sale thereof must be devoted
    exclusively to such purpose. Beaumont v. Matthew Cartwright
    Land, etc., Co., 
    224 S.W. 589
    (Civ.App. 1920, error ,refused);
    Simpson v. City of Nacogdoches, 
    152 S.W. 858
    (Civ.App. 1912,,
    error dismissed); Keel v. Pulte, '
    10 S.W.2d 694
    , reversing
    
    297 S.W. 241
    (Comm.App. 1928).
    There is no statutory authorization for the issuance of bonds
    by the District for the purpose of furnishing the City of Big
    Lake with water.
    However, it is clear that such a district may ordinarily issue
    its bonds in conformity with the procedure authorized by law,
    and pursuant to the water conservation purposes set out in
    Section 59(a) of Article XVI, Constitution of Texas, for the
    purpose of constructing a waterworks system (Article 7880-48,
    Honorable Durwood Manford, page 7 (WW-399)
    as amended) and from such system it may "award use of
    waters of the District" for domestic and municipal use
    (Article 7880-4a, as amended) and may charge for water
    furnished (Article 7880-106).
    We do not here pass upon the authority of the District and
    the City to enter into a long-term contract relative to the
    use of waters of the District, as the question is not pre-
    sented.
    SUMMARY
    As a general rule, but subject to excep-
    tions resulting from varying fact situa-
    tions, a water control and improvement
    district may exercise the power of eminent
    domain for the acquisition of land and
    water rights situated within the district.
    Such a district may ordinarily issue its
    bonds for the purpose of construction of
    a waterworks system, and may then award
    use of its waters for domestic and muni-
    cipal use and may charge therefor.
    Yours very truly,
    WILL WILSON
    Attorney General of Texas
    Howard W. Mays
    APPROVED:                                 Assistant
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    George P. Blackburn, Chairman
    Wallace Finfrock
    Morgan Nesbitt
    Richard Stone
    REVIEWEU FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    By: W. V. GEPPERT