TRxc A~~RN’EY GEXERAL
OF TEXAS
AUSTIN. TSXAS 78711
JOHN L BILL
*TIy)m CI-a
August 1, 1977
Honorable Ron Bird, Chairman Opinion No. H-1032
Committee on Regions, Compacts
and Districts ke: Authority of a city
P. 0. Box 2910 to promulgate run-off
Austin, Texas 78769 regulations for development
over the recharge zone of
the Edwards Aquifer.
Dear Representative Bird:
You have requested our opinion regarding the authority
of the City of San Antonio to promulgate run-off regulations
for that portion of the re-charge zone of the Edwards Aquifer
which lies within the city limits and within the city's extra-
territorial jurisdiction. The Edwards Aquifer has been statu-
torily defined as
that portion of an arcuate belt of porous,
waterbearing limestones composed of the
Comanche Peak, Edwards, and Georgetown
formations trending from west'to east to
northeast through Kinney, Uvalde, Medina,
Bexar, Kendall, Comal, and Hays counties,
respectively and as defined in the most
recent order of the board adopting rules
for the protection of the quality of the
potable underground water in those counties.
Water: Code 9 21.098(a).
We note that the City of San Antonio has enacted Ordinance
No. 48106 (June 9, 1977) which prohibits issuance of building
permits, approval of zoning changes, approval of plats and con-
struction and installation of all sewer, water, gas or electric
service extensions or connections over the recharge zone until
December 31. 1978. That ordinance is beins challenged in the
federal courts. Encino Park Venture v. City of San-Antonio,
(Civil Action No. SA-77-CA-174). This office does not issue
opinions on matters pending before the courts. Accordingly, we
have examined the pleadings in that. case to determine whether
we are precluded from issuing an opinion on your inquiry. The
ordinance provides for a moratorium on new construction which
p. 4258
Honorable Ron Bird, Chairman - Page 2 (H-1032)
presents different issues than your question involving run-off
regulations. Additionally, the ordinance is attacked on fede-
ral constitutional grounds rather than on the statutory issues
raised by your request. Thus, we believe the specific question
you pose is not raised by the pleadings in Encino Park Venture.
Section 21.357(a) of the Water Code authorizes any city
to "establish a water pollution control and abatement program
for the city." The statute further provides:
The water pollution control and abate-
ment program of a city shall encompass
the entire city and may include areas
within its extraterritorial jurisdiction
which in the judgment of the city should
be included to enable the city to achieve
the objectives of the city for the area
within its territorial jurisdiction. The
city shall include in the program the
services and functions which, in the
judgment of the city or as may be rea-
sonably required by the [Water Quality]
board, will provide effective water
pollution control and abatement for the
city. . . .
Water Code S 21.357(b). In Attorney General Opinion B-304
(1974) we held that whatever authority is necessary for a
city "to perform the actions permitted or required under S
21.357 is necessarily implied" therefrom. Id. at 3. It is
our opinion, therefore, that the City of Safintonio is
authorized to enact measures to control water pollution,
including the promulgation of run-off regulations, in that
portion of the re-charge zone of the Edwards Aquifer which
lies within the city limits and within the city's extrater-
ritorial jurisdiction.
SUMMARY
The City of San Antonio is authorized to
promulgate run-off regulations for that
portion of the re-charge zone of the
Edwards Aquifer which lies within its
city limits and within its extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
P. 4259
Honorable Ron Bird, Chairman - Page 3 (H-1032)
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
APPROVED:
=u
DAVID -