Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

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 -