Board of Water Engineers opinion lo. O-1392 

Aus tin, Texas 

Re: Whether or not certain study 

Attention of Mr. A. H. Dunlap to be made in connection with 

Red Bluff Water Power Control 

District constitutes "State 

business" directly concerning 

State Board of Water Engineers; 

and, whether or not it will bs 

necessary for the Board to obtain an opinion from the Attorney Gsneral approving each trip 

ma& outside of the State of 

Texas in connection with such 

Gentlemen: study. 

We have your letter of the fifth of September containing two 

questions to be answered by this department. 

The facts given for our consideration are as follows: 

"Through the agencies of the National Resources Committee, 

and the U. S. Geological Survey, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

t:.e Federal Reclamation Bureau, and the U. S. Army Corps, in cooperation with the States of Texas end New Mexico, a detailed and scientific 

study and report is under way covering the water resources of the Pecos 

River and tributaries from the source of said River in New Mexico to its 

mouth in Texas. 

"This study and report covers: 

(a) Salinity of water and sources of inflow of salt. 

(b) Water resources--quantity and quality. 

(c) Dosses of water and means of prevention. 

[di pe of water and protection of water supply. 

(g) Flood damage. 

ources, quantity and development of ground water. 

(g) The consumation of a Compact between the States of Texas 

and New Mexico for the division of the waters of the Pecce 

River. 

(h) Study of development ~of farm areas along the river valley 

by means of pumping water fromwells. 

(i) Rectification of sub-irrigation of town of Pecos City 
Board of Water Bngineers, pega 2 (O-1352) 

caused by escape of water from artesian wells. 

"The 46th Legislature enacted S. B. Bo. 49, appropriating the 

sum of $30,000.00 for the use of the Red Bluff Water Power Control 

District. These funds are being used, exclusively, for the purpose of 

paying Texas' part of the cost of making said study and report. However, 

it is contemplet@%that part, if not all, of the writer's traveling axpulses, and that of his assistant shall be paid from the appropriation 

made available to the Stats Board of Water Engineers. 

'The very nature of the work, requires that investigations be 

made in both Wew Mexico and Texas, requiring those engaged in the study 

to go back and forth between these two States. To require the writer and 

his assistant to obtain an opinion from your Department covering each 

trip into New Mexico would be very inconvenient and aausc considerable 

delay in completing the field work." 

In connection with the above fact6, you ask two questions: 

(1) whether or not traveling expenses incurred by a member, 

of the State Board of Water Engineers and an srsiatant outside of the 

boundariee of Texas in connection with a joint study and report on the 

Pecoa River and tributaries, is for State business directly concerning 

the State Board of Water Engineers; 

(2) "Whether said umber and his assistant will be reQuired 

to obtain an opinion from your Department covering each trip made outside of Texas in connection with said study, under the provisions of 

paragraph (c), of paragraph headed 'Traveling Expenses' of'section 2 

of S. B.No. 421" 

Your first question divides itself into two parts, first, 

as to whether the trip contemplated by you is "state business" and 

second, whether it "directly concerns the State Board of Water Engineers." 

In our opinion, the business proposed to be transacted by your 

member and an assistant as outlined in your letter, is such business as 

would naturally arise out of the performance of the public duties recognized by the Constitution of Texas, Article 59, Sec. (a), which provides 

that the control, storing, preservation and distribution of the State's 

storm and flood waters and the waters of its rivers and streams, for 

irrigation, power and all other useful purposes, are public rights and 

duties, and which authorizes the Legislature to pass such laws as are 

appropriate thereto. See, also, Article 7466, R. C. S. of Texas, 1925. 

We find further support for the above conclusion in Senate Bill 

49, Acts Regular Session of the 46th Legislature, Sec. 4, which makes an 

appropriation to the particular project which you propose to work on, 

%&I&L~, the Red Bluff Water Power Control District. 
Board of Water Engineers, page 3 (O-1392) 

It is our further opinion that the business proposed to be 

attended to by your member and assistant "directly concerns the State 

Board of Water Engineers" because the ~business" has to do with exercising the authority and carrying out the duties, imposed upon said 

body by law. Articles 7472c, 7472d and 7537a, R. C. S. of Texas, 1925; 

Sec. 4, Senate Bill 49, Acts Regular Session, 46th Legislature, supra. 

As we construe your second question, what you irspt to know is 

whether, If on the present trip proposed to be made by your member and 

assistant, it is necessary for them to cross the State line more than 

once before returning to Austin, you will have to obtain the approval 

of the Attorney General prior to each particular crossing, in order to 

satisfy the statutory requirement quoted hereunder. 

To answer this question, it is necessary to construe Section 

2 (cl, "Traveling Expenses", Senate Bill 427, Acts of the Regular Session, 

46th Legislature, which we~quote in part: 

"(c) No traveling expenses shall be incurred by any employee 

of any of the departments, or other agencies of theSovernment, outside of the boundaries of the State of Texas, except for State business 

directly concerning his own department or agency and no such expenses 

shall be paid from State appropriations or out of any local or auxiliary 

funds by the State Comptroller to an employee of any agency of the Government, until and unless a written statement, signed by the Attorney Seneral, advising thet the purpose of the proposed trip, in his opinion, is 

for said State business purposes; which written opinion shell have been 

filed in advance with the State Comptroller, and sigued duplicate thereof 

with the disbursing officer of such respective agency of the Government." 

There are several possible interpretations of the above provision as applied to your statment of facts. Did the Legislature intend 

that a separate letter of approval be obtained from the Attorney General 

each time the State line is crossed by a State employee traveling on 

State expenses, where, as in your case, in making a survey,.it may be 

necessary to cross back and forth several times; or, did it only intend 

that such a letter be obtained each time an employee left Austin on a 

trip and that "trip" be construed to mean each round trip journey from 

Austin; or, did it intend that one letter filed with the State Comptroller be sufficient for an indefinite number of crossings, so long 

as the purposes of the crossings come within the purpose of the partioular trip. 

In our opinion, the latter interpretation is the proper one. 

To arrive at the legislature's intent, as is necessary in every case of 

construction, we must look not to the one word "tripw, but to the whole 

bill. In this instance, we need only look to the portion quoted. Evidently, all the'Legisl.ature intended was that no trip be made out of the 

State unless its purpose be determined in advance by the ~A&orney General, 
Roard of Water Engineers, page 4 (O-1392) 

to constitute "State busfness". The Legi+atore did not say In so many 

words that s sepa;ate approval should be obtained for each individual 

trip and, In our opinion, to give it that construction, under the facts 

stated by you, would place a burden on the State Comptroller, the 

Attorney Seneral and the department affected, not contemplated by the 

Legislature. 

The Legislature vested no disaretion in the Attorney General 

or the Comptroller as to how many tripe a department could make, and 

properly so. Neither of these two officers would have authority to 

pass on the propriety or advisability of your making a trip so long ss 

you had the money in your appropriation end the purpose of the trip wss 

the transaction of State business. Then, once having obtained the opinion of the Attorney Seneral that the purpose of a proposed trip was 

for "State business purposes" and filed it with the Comptroller, it would 

be requiring useless, repetitious work of all dephtiments concerned to 

submit the same identical question with regard to each Individual 

crossing made during the course of a particular trip, as the answers 

would of necessity, be identioalwith the one already in the Comptroller's 

files. In other words, It Is the 'purpose' of the proposed trip which 

the Attorney Seneralmust approve, and not Its propriety or advisability, 

and once the Attorney General has determined that said purpose is for 

"State business purposes", it is not necessary, .in our opinion, to again 

seek his opinion approving each crossing of tha State l&Won that trip. 

In answer to your second question, It is our opinion that this 

letter of approval Is sufficient authority for crossing the State line, 

at State expense, as many firms as the ,study requires on this particular 

trip, for the purposes herednst-sted, and concerning the Red Bluff Water 

Power Control District. 

This opinion covers only the question of the necessity of obtaining the Attorney Seneral's approval of each crossing of the State 

line made during the course of the proposed "trip? described in your 

letter. We are not passing on the question of the necessity of obtaining 

the approval of the Attorney General for subsequent "trips" from Austin, 

for the same purpose and in connection with the same project. 

Trusting that this satisfactorily answers your inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORkEY OENERAL OF TEXAS 

JN:E?&zbr 

AETmED SEP 11, 1939 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

A!iTORNSY SRRRRALOPTEUS 

By James Noel /s/ 

James Roe1 

Assistant