THE RNEY GENERAL
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison Opinion No. M- 1268
Executive Director
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Re: Authority of Parks
John H. Reagan Building and Wildlife Depart-
Austin, Texas 78701 ment to expend an
amount greater than
the sum specified
at Item 10B of its
current Appropriation
Bill for development
and expan&ion of park
facilities, using
funds appropriated
to the Department by
other items of the
Appropriation Bill.
Dear Mr. Garrison:
You have requested our opinion concerning the above
captioned matter and pose the following question:
'IIsthe Parks and Wildlife Department autho-
rized to expend an amount greater than the sum
specified at Item 10B of the current Appropriatione
Bill for development and expansion of park facilities
at one or all of the parks listed therein, using
funds appropriated to the Department by other
iteme of the Appropriation Bill?"
"Item lOB, page 111-106 of S.B. NO. 11,
ae amended by S.B. No. 7, Acts of the 62nd
Legislature, Regular Session, 1971 (Current
Appropriations Bill) reads as follows:
B. Development and expansion of Park
facilities for the convenience of the
public, including screended and group
shelters, camp and trailer sites, picnic
units, roads, water and electrical systems,
rest rooms, park headquarters, the clearing
of land, and for other facilities:
-6221-
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 2 (M-1268)
Lyndon Bainee Johnson
State Park 1,000,000
Balmorhea State Park
Longhorn Cavern State Park
166,500 u”:::
79,400
Goliad State Park
Mission Tejas State Park
1g, y; Kii:
> U.B.
Varner-Hogg Plantation
State Park 95,555 U.B.
(7) Stephen F. Austin
State Park 75,000 U.B.
(8) Lake Somerville State
Park 150,000 U.B.
(9) Washington-on-the-Bra205
State Park 17,000 U.B."
The unexpended balances remaining in Item 10B on August
31, 1972 have been reappropriated for the fiscal year begin-
ning September 1, 1972. (See 111-176-177 of S.B. No. 1,
Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Call&d Session, 1972).
In addition to the above specific reappropriation, we
aleo find the following specific appropriation to the Parke
and Wildlife Department for the fiscal year ending August
31, 1973, ae ehown at page 111-111, Senate Bill No. 1, Acts,
62nd Legislature, 3rd C.S., 1972:
"21. There ia hereby appropriated from the
Texas Park Fund, pureuant to Article 4
of House Bill 730, Acts of the Sixty-second
Legislature, Regular Session, 1972, for
all neceseary caste /PI%-$&rgQQ,QQQ-$ep
aefltl~6~~~el?-~Fpem-~he=H~gkway-Beaa~~meR~
eE-laAa-Be~Rde~-~y-6e~g~ee~-Ave~~e-~e~e~a~e
SfPee~S-lQtk-SfPeef-a~~-~~~h-S~~ee~-~~-~he
G~~y-e~-A~sf~R+-Teffa~~-~e~-~eve~0~me~~-e~
sai~-~aR~-ae-a-Sfate-ga~~e~-~a~k7 and
for the purpose of planning, ac&isition
and development of other State parks and
State historic cites. Such expenditures
include, but are not limited to, ealaries
and wages, professional services and feee,
travel, capital outlay, 4ncluding land
and improvements thereto, and all other
necessary costs and expenses whether by
contract or direct payments. $14,500,000"
-6222-
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 3 (M-1268)
(Brackets ours. Item of appropriation
shown in brackets was vetoed by the
Governor.)
The veto of the $1,500,000 item, however, does not
affect the remainder of the appropriation contained in
Item 21. Attorney General's Opinion M-1228(1972).
Your requeet states in part:
?tn order to provide the nature and extent
of facilltiee and improvement& required to meet
existing public demand, the Department is
prepared to expend a greater sum than the amount
specified by the Appropriations Bill at certain
of ,theparks listed in Item 10B. Any additional
expenditure above the sum appropriated at Item
10B would be taken from other appropriations made
to the Department. (See Item 20 and 22, page
III-log, S.B.No. 11 as amended by S.B. No. 7,
Acts of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Called Session,
1972. )
"The Comptroller's Office contends that the
Department is limited to a specific sum appropriated
for each park as listed in Item lOB, so that the
total expenditures for development projects in
these parks during the current biennium cannot
exceed the appropriated sum. Your attention
is directed to Section 26, page V-45, S.B.No. 11
as amended by S.B.No. 7, Acts of the 62nd Legis-
lature, Regular Session, 1971. This section has
been carried forward in the new Appropriations
Bill. (See Section 26, page V-44, S.B. No. 1,
Acta of the 62nd Legislature, Third-Called Session,
1972.)"
After much study and deliberation of the difficult
complex question presented, we have concluded that we must
answer it in the affirmative. It is well settled that rules
of construction applicable to statutes equally are deemed
to apply to appropriation bills. Attorney General Opinion
NO. M-1141(1972)1 81.COTOs. 1225-1226, States, Sec. 166.
-6223-
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 4 (M-1268)
Consequently,
II
. . . when it is necessary to construe an
act in order to determine its proper meaning, it
is settled that the Court should first endeavor
to ascertain the legislative intent from a general
view of the whole enactment, and the enactment
alone. The intent having been ascertained, the
court will then seek to construe the statute so
as to give effect to the purpose of the Legis-
lature, as to the whole and each material part
even though this may involve a departure
h&m-the strict letter of the law as written by
the Legislature. This is the fundamental
canon and the cardinal, primary, and paramount
rule of construction, which should always be
closely observed and to which all rules must
yield. . . .' 53 Tex.Jur.2d 180-185, Statutes,
Section 125.
Furthermore, not only must a bill be construed as a
whole, but all parts of it should be "harmonized" if
possible according to the legislative intent and the courts
,t
. . . will endeavor to reconcile the various
provisions of the act, insofar as they may appear
to be conflicting or inconsistent, to the end
that the enactment and every word, phrase, clause,
and sentence may have its proper effect.' 53 Tex.
Jur.2d 229-231, Statutes, Section 160.
Following the above rules of construction, we must
note that in current General Appropriations Act the Legislature
not only reappropriated Item lOB, but also made the additional
appropriation contained in Item 21 above quoted, and we must
harmonize the two separate appropriations so as to give legal
effect to both appropriations. Therefore it is our opinion
that Item mdoes not constitute an 0,veralllimitation on
the amount of money that may be spent for the projects
specified therein. Our opinion is that you may spend the
monies appropriated in Item 21 on any parks selected by
YOU, which may or may not include one or more or all of
those parks designated in Item 10B.
-6224-
Honorable Clayton T. Garrison, page 5 (M-1268)
The language in Item 21 appropriating $14,500,000 for
the development and acquisition "of other State parks and
State historic sites" evidently means other than the one
"bounded by Congress Avenue, Colorado Street and 11th
Stree in the City of Austin," that being the one designated
and immediately proceeding the language "other state parks."
The 'Iother"does not refer to those state parks set out in
Item lOB, which is a separate reappropriation for the fiscal
year beginning September 1, 1971.
While the general rule is that the function of an
appropriation is to authorize the expenditure of a certain sum
of money for a certain purpose and for no other purpose and
thus operates as a limitation on the amount of money that may
be expended for such purpose (Attorney General Opinion No.
O-4632(1942), this rule is not without exceptions. One such
exception is where a contrary legislative intent evidently
appears, as in this instance wherein the legislature by
appropriate language has made an additional appropriation
for the same purpose. Consequently, the first rule of
construction must yield to the paramount rule of construction,
legislative intent or purpose. 53 Tex.Jur.2d 185, Statutes,
See. 125.
-SUMMARY-
Item 10B of the appropriation to the Parks
and Wildlife Department contained in the General
Appropriations Act for the fiscal year ending
August 31, 1972 (p. 111-105-106, 3604-3605) and
reappropriated by the current General Appropriations
Act (~.III-176-177) for the development and ex-
pansion of certain park facilities, does not
constitute a limitation on the amount of money
that may be spent for said purposes and the
Parks and Wildlife Departmen,tis authorized
to spend other moneys appropriated for the
development and expansion of park facilities in
addition to said item of appropriation.
-6225-
Honorable Clayton T. Garrislon, page 6 (M-1268)
Prepared by Kerns Taylor
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. E. Allen, Acting Chairman
3. C. Davis
Jack Goodman
Jay Floyd
Max Hamilton
SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL
Staff Legal Assistant
ALFRED WALKER
Executive Assistant
NOLA WHITE
First Assistant
-6226-