Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

May 31, 1966 Davis and Water Conservation Hoard National Building Temple, Texas Opinion No. C-699 Re: Does a Soil and Water Con- servation District, as a govern- mental subdivision of the State of Texas with powers and re- strictions as set forth by Article 165a-4, V.C.S., have the authority to form a separate corporation, non-profit in nature, to own and operate a natural gas distribution Dear Sir: system? You have requested an opinion of this office concerning the following question: "Does a Soil and Water Conservation District, as a governmental subdivision of the State of Texas with powers and restrictions as set forth by Article 165a-4, V.C.S., have the authority to form a sepa- rate corporation, non-profit in nature, to own and operate a natural gas distribution system?" A "soil and water conservation district" (now so dasig- nated under Acts 1965, Page 370, Ch. 176) is governed by the provisions of Article 165a-4, V.C.S., such law being passed to carry out the mandate expressed in Article 16, Sec. 59, Constitution of the State of Texas. Article 165a-4 authorizes the creation of such districts and vests them with certain powers to carry out the purposes set forth in the statute. Such districts are political subdivisions of the State with authority to exercise certain rights, privileges and functions pertadning to conservation and reclamation. Attorney General's Opinion V-999. The districts authorized by Article 165a-4 are vested with the same powers and must operate within the same limitation as -3370- Mr. Harvey Davis, page 2 (C-699) other conservation districts authorized by the Legislature to carry out the mandate of Article 16, Sec. 59. Attorney General's Ooinion No. V-69. A soil conservation district may thus be*consldered to-perform limited rather than general functions. Lower Nueces River Water Supply District v. Cart- ~;;;3", 274 S.W.2d 199, (Tex.Civ.App., error ref., n.r.e. Speaking generally of the nature and extent of powers possessed by a conservation district similar to a soil con- servation district, the Supreme Court, in Tri-City Fresh Water Sunply District No. 2 of Harris County v. Mann, 1% Tex. 280, 142 S.W.2d 945 (1940), had the following to say: "The powers of such district are measured by the terms of statutes which authorized their creation, and they can exercise no authority that has not been clearly granted by the Legislature." (&phasl:s added) A close review of Article 164a-4 falls to yield any specific authorization allowing a soil conservation district to form a separate corporation to own and operate a natural gas distribution system. Failing such specific authorizntion, we therefore conclude that under the terms of Article 165a-4, a so11 conservation district may not create a separate, non- profit corporation to own and operate a natural gas distribu- tion system. SUMMARY Article 165a-4 does not authorize a soil and water conservation district to create a separate, non-profit corpora- tion for the purposes of owning and op- erating a natural gas distribution system. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR era1 of Texas Assistant Attor GCB,jr/vmo Mr. Harvey Davis, page 3 (c-699) APPROVED: OPINION CCMMITTEE W. V. Gsppert, Chairman Pat Bailey Roy Johnson Roger Tyler Wade Anderson APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GEZiERAL By: T. B. Wright -3372-